Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 121, November 2014, Pages 85-90
Social Science & Medicine

Food as people: Teenagers' perspectives on food personalities and implications for healthy eating

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.044Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Explores the symbolic and social meaning of food for teenagers.

  • Uses qualitative methods to explore a topic overlooked by public health initiatives.

  • Builds on the idea of brand personality to study teen views on “food personalities”.

  • Reveals remarkable consensus in teenager perspectives on unbranded foods.

  • Problematizes the social status assumption of teenagers' consumption choices.

Abstract

In light of its influence on food preferences, purchase requests and consumption patterns, food marketing—particularly for unhealthy foods—has been increasingly recognized as a problem that affects the health of young people. This has prompted both a scrutiny of the nutritional quality of food products and various interventions to promote healthy eating. Frequently overlooked by the public health community, however, is the symbolic and social meaning of food for teenagers. Food has nutritive value, but it has symbolic value as well—and this qualitative study explores the meaning of non-branded foods for teenagers. Inspired by the construct of brand personality, we conduct focus groups with 12–14 year olds in to probe their perspectives on the “food personalities” of unbranded/commodity products and categories of food. Despite the lack of targeted marketing/promotional campaigns for the foods discussed, the focus groups found a remarkable consensus regarding the characteristics and qualities of foods for young people. Teenagers stigmatize particular foods (such as broccoli) and valorize others (such as junk food), although their discussions equally reveal the need to consider questions beyond that of social positioning/social status. We suggest that public health initiatives need to focus greater attention on the symbolic aspects of food, since a focus on nutritional qualities does not unveil the other significant factors that may make foods appealing, or distasteful, to young people.

Introduction

In the past decade, food marketing has been increasingly recognized as a problem that affects the health of young people worldwide (World Health Organization (WHO), 2010, World Health Organization (WHO), 2013, Hawkes and Lobstein, 2011, Raine et al., 2013, Garde et al., 2012). The World Health Organization, for instance, has released a series of recommendations that seek to counter the “powerful marketing techniques” that promote foods high in sugar, fat and/or sodium to children (World Health Organization (WHO), 2010, World Health Organization (WHO), 2012, World Health Organization (WHO), 2013). Such recommendations emerge from evidence that suggests that young children are cognitively unable to recognize or guard against the persuasive intent of marketing (Kunkel et al., 2004), and that unhealthy food marketing influences children's preferences, purchase requests, and consumption patterns (Kunkel et al., 2004, Cairns et al., 2009, Cairns et al., 2013, Harris et al., 2014, Hastings et al., 2007, McGinnis et al., 2006, Persson et al., 2012, World Health Organization (WHO), 2010, World Health Organization (WHO), 2013). While rising rates of youth overweight/obesity has prompted intense scrutiny of the nutritional qualities of food aimed at young people (Hastings et al., 2007, McGinnis et al., 2006, Potvin Kent et al., 2011, Elliott, 2012a, Elliott, 2012b, Elliott, 2008), no less significant is the relationship between food and the social and cultural aspects that might promote more positive dietary in youth (Backett-Milburn et al., 2010). Simply put, food has nutritional properties, but is also embedded in a “social matrix of meaning” which can influence consumption (Schor and Ford, 2007, p. 16). Food has symbolic value, functions as a sociocultural product (Levi-Strauss, 1962, Douglas, 1966, Douglas, 1975, Coveney, 2014) and can prove central to discourses about identity—in general, and also for young people.

A growing body of literature has taken up the question of the social meaning of food for young people. Research has revealed how children identify food “for themselves” and “for others” (Elliott, 2011, Roos, 2002, James, 1998, James et al., 2009), and how particular foodstuffs (including food brands) can serve an image and social “status” function. For instance, Willis et al.'s (2009) study of British middle class teenagers reveals the importance of “belonging” and of negotiating with the peer group when making food consumption choices. Similarly, Martine Stead et al. (2011) explore how preoccupations with social status factor in British teenagers' food choices and attitudes toward foods. For the teenagers interviewed, consuming mainstream brand products “signaled a secure social position in the peer group” whereas consuming supermarket and no-name brands was regarded as “uncool” and “nerdy” (Stead et al., 2011, p. 1135). As such, a popular person would drink Coca Cola or Pepsi and not unbranded soda (2011, p. 1135). Roper and La Niece (2009) also found that British children (aged 7–14) evaluated food products in light of what might be popular with peers. Branded products, such as Coke, Evian, Walkers, KitKat, and Coke, were seen as “cool” and able to make their consumer more popular among peers.

Viewing branded products as cool and as capable of communicating social status has long been recognized in the field of marketing, where strategists deliberately strive to create “brand personalities” for their products. As a construct, brand personality refers to “the set of human personality traits that are both applicable to and relevant for brands” (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003, p. 151) or more simply “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 150). Brand personality is presumed to give the brand a meaning (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003, p. 143) and is viewed as invaluable in creating brand equity (Geuens et al., 2009, p. 97). Key to the brand personality construct is the notion of traits—the types of terms used to describe the personality. Traits are stable and recurrent (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003). Moreover, brand identity (and brand personality) should be understood from the “sender side” perspective, the desired personality being constructed (Geuens et al., 2009). To illustrate, Aaker explains that “Absolut vodka personified tends to be described as a cool, hip, contemporary 25-year old, whereas Stoli's personified tends to be described as an intellectual, conservative, older man” (1997, p. 347). Alternatively, when it comes to the personality traits associated with cola, Coke is regarded as “cool, all-American and real”, Pepsi is seen as “young, exciting, and hip”, and Dr. Pepper, “nonconforming, unique and fun” (1997, p. 348).

The assumption is that consumers frequently infuse brands with human personality traits, which serve a symbolic function (Aaker, 1997). Even though the brand personality concept has been assessed and refined (Geuens et al., 2009, Austin et al., 2003, Beldona and Wysong, 2007, Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003, Johar et al., 2005), from a marketing perspective one key message is that the personality traits come to be associated with a brand due its product endorsers (Aaker, 1997, p. 348). That is, brand personality emerges out of very deliberate messaging and advertising/promotion. However, creating a brand personality is also a dynamic process—and one not wholly controlled by the marketer. People bring in their personal, subjective meanings as well (Johar et al., 2005, p. 468).

In light of this, our study set out to connect questions pertaining to the symbolic meaning of food for teenagers with the concept of non-branded “personality” (i.e., those existing outside of brands). Specifically, we were interested in how teenagers perceived commodity products and categories of foods that weren't brands and did not have sizable marketing budgets designed to create particular associations. Did teenagers attribute consistent characteristics to non-branded foods, and what might be the significance of this? While much of the public health/public policy literature is focused on how to choose for persons (i.e., limiting the marketing of poorly nutritious foods to young people), we were interested in how young people understand food as persons. Specifically we asked teenagers about food personalities (e.g., if broccoli was a person, what kind of person would broccoli be?). To reiterate, commodity products and categories of food do not generally have advertising and promotional campaigns seeking to communicate particular attributes. Our study aimed to explore teenagers' perceptions of these foods.

Section snippets

Methods

Focus groups were used to elicit teenagers' perspectives on food and food personalities. Focus group methodology is increasingly being recognized for its effectiveness in research related to health and nutrition (Feldman et al., 2014, Jones, 2010, Labiner-Wolfe and Lando, 2007), as well as for its ability to gain insight into young people's attitudes (Peterson-Sweeney, 2005, Heary and Hennessy, 2002). Focus groups were also selected since they are often used by industry to gauge consumer

Findings

Two key findings emerged from the data analysis. First, despite the fact that commodity products, unprocessed foods and broader categories of food rarely have targeted promotional campaigns seeking to communicate specific attributes (as is the case with brands), young people did attach meanings to these foods—meanings and evaluations that were remarkably consistent. Secondly, these meanings worked to stigmatize particular foods and valorize others, showing (in keeping with other research) that

Discussion

This qualitative study sought to explore young people's perspectives on the symbolic meaning of foods and, in particular, whether teenagers identified distinct “personalities” in foods/food categories even without ongoing targeted branding/promotion to establish these traits. For the 30 teenagers asked, this most certainly was the case, with a strong group consensus on the attributes of various unprocessed/commodity foods and food categories. Certain aspects dominated for the foods discussed:

References (59)

  • S. Beldona et al.

    Putting the “brand” back into store brands: an exploratory examination of store brands and brand personality

    J. Prod. Brand Manag.

    (2007)
  • P. Bourdieu

    Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste

    (1984)
  • H. Brembeck et al.

    Exploring children's foodscapes

    Child. Geogr.

    (2013)
  • G. Cairns et al.

    The Extent, Nature and Effects of Food Promotion to Children: a Review of the Evidence to December 2008

    (2009)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

    Parent Information: Teens

    (2014)
  • J. Coveney

    Food

    (2014)
  • B.F. Crabtree et al.

    Doing Qualitative Research

    (1999)
  • M. Douglas

    Purity and Danger: an Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo

    (1966)
  • M. Douglas

    Implicit Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology

    (1975 [1999])
  • C. Elliott

    Assessing fun foods: nutritional content and analysis of supermarket foods targeted at children

    Obes. Rev.

    (2008)
  • C. Elliott

    “It's junk food and chicken nuggets”: children's perspectives on “kids' food” and the question of food classification

    J. Consum. Behav.

    (2011)
  • C. Elliott

    Marketing foods to children: are we asking the right questions?

    Child. Obes.

    (2012)
  • C. Elliott

    Packaging fun: analysing supermarket food messages targeted at children

    Can. J. Commun.

    (2012)
  • C. Elliott

    Packaging health: examining “better-for-you” foods targeted at children

    Can. Public Policy

    (2012)
  • C. Feldman et al.

    Menu psychology to encourage healthy menu selections at a New Jersey University

    J. Culin. Sci. Technol.

    (2014)
  • A. Garde et al.

    A Framework for Implementing the Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-alcoholic Beverages to Children

    (2012)
  • T.L. Greenbaum

    The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus Group Research

    (1988)
  • J.L. Harris et al.

    Older But Still Vulnerable: All Children Need Protection from Unhealthy Food Marketing

    (2014)
  • M. Harrison et al.

    Meanings that youth associate with healthy and unhealthy food

    Can. J. Diet. Pract. Res.

    (2009)
  • Cited by (28)

    • I tweet, they follow, you eat: Number of followers as nudge on social media to eat more healthily

      2021, Social Science and Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      In many groups and cultures, social factors drive food choices, not only relative to what to eat or how much to eat (Binder et al., 2019; Cruwys et al., 2015; Fox and Ward, 2008; Herman, 2015) but also as an influence on perceptions of tastiness (Bellisle et al., 2004; Binder et al., 2019; Poor et al., 2013). One of the explanatory reasons why healthy eating is not widely adopted may be that healthy food still holds a rather negative social value compared to that of unhealthy food (Elliott, 2014). For instance, whereas broccoli is perceived as unpopular and boring and eggs as nerdy (Elliott, 2014), items of junk food such as soft drinks, candy bars or cakes are associated with “cool” (Elliott, 2014; Schor and Ford, 2007), “popular” (Elliott, 2014; Roberts and Pettigrew, 2013) and “fun” (Elliott, 2014).

    • The effect of gender, age and product type on the origin induced food product experience among young consumers in Finland

      2018, Appetite
      Citation Excerpt :

      Food preferences are very dynamic during early ages and they can be significantly different among elementary, middle, and high schools (3rd-12th grades) (Caine-Bish & Scheule, 2009). Teenagers are more conscious of their peers and, for example, healthy diet can be seen as socially risky (Elliott, 2014). When moving to their own household, the ability to make individual choices has a tendency to increase unhealthy eating (Demory-Luce et al., 2004; Lien, Lytle, & Klepp, 2001).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text