Limits...
Why don't poor men eat fruit? Socioeconomic differences in motivations for fruit consumption.

Pechey R, Monsivais P, Ng YL, Marteau TM - Appetite (2014)

Bottom Line: In explicit liking analyses, no differences were found by SES.For perceptions of fruit, no SES-based differences were found in healthiness whilst significant interactions (but not main effects) were found (for income and education) for expected satiety and value for money.Neither liking nor perceptions of fruit were found to mediate the relationship between SES and frequency of fruit consumption.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Implicit attitudes (IAT score) by (a) income group and gender and (b) education group and gender (adjusted means, with 95% CIs; for observed score range −1.6 to 2.5).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4262578&req=5

f0020: Implicit attitudes (IAT score) by (a) income group and gender and (b) education group and gender (adjusted means, with 95% CIs; for observed score range −1.6 to 2.5).

Mentions: Those in the highest income group (£40,000 + pa) had average implicit liking scores for fruit that were 0.49 units (95% CI 0.04–0.94) higher than those in the lowest income group (Up to £15,500 pa) (mean implicit liking score 0.58, s.d. 0.63), i.e. those in the highest income group had higher implicit liking for fruit compared to those in the lowest income group. Whilst for the income analyses, SES and gender interactions did not reach significance, these interactions were significant for education (with a main effect of education such that those with A/AS levels or Degrees or higher had significantly higher implicit liking for fruit than those with GCSEs at grades D–G (coefficients of 0.72 and 0.57, with 95% CIS of 0.29–1.15 and 0.18–0.96, respectively); a main effect of gender with females having an average score 0.68 units higher than males (95% CI 0.21–1.16); and significant interaction effects for those with A/AS levels by gender (coefficient: −0.92, 95% CI: −1.54 to −0.31) and those with Degrees or higher by gender (coefficient: −0.60, 95% CI: −1.14 to −0.06)). Figure 3 suggests that whilst for females, education did not influence implicit liking for fruit, for males, lower levels of education may be associated with less liking for fruit.


Why don't poor men eat fruit? Socioeconomic differences in motivations for fruit consumption.

Pechey R, Monsivais P, Ng YL, Marteau TM - Appetite (2014)

Implicit attitudes (IAT score) by (a) income group and gender and (b) education group and gender (adjusted means, with 95% CIs; for observed score range −1.6 to 2.5).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4262578&req=5

f0020: Implicit attitudes (IAT score) by (a) income group and gender and (b) education group and gender (adjusted means, with 95% CIs; for observed score range −1.6 to 2.5).
Mentions: Those in the highest income group (£40,000 + pa) had average implicit liking scores for fruit that were 0.49 units (95% CI 0.04–0.94) higher than those in the lowest income group (Up to £15,500 pa) (mean implicit liking score 0.58, s.d. 0.63), i.e. those in the highest income group had higher implicit liking for fruit compared to those in the lowest income group. Whilst for the income analyses, SES and gender interactions did not reach significance, these interactions were significant for education (with a main effect of education such that those with A/AS levels or Degrees or higher had significantly higher implicit liking for fruit than those with GCSEs at grades D–G (coefficients of 0.72 and 0.57, with 95% CIS of 0.29–1.15 and 0.18–0.96, respectively); a main effect of gender with females having an average score 0.68 units higher than males (95% CI 0.21–1.16); and significant interaction effects for those with A/AS levels by gender (coefficient: −0.92, 95% CI: −1.54 to −0.31) and those with Degrees or higher by gender (coefficient: −0.60, 95% CI: −1.14 to −0.06)). Figure 3 suggests that whilst for females, education did not influence implicit liking for fruit, for males, lower levels of education may be associated with less liking for fruit.

Bottom Line: In explicit liking analyses, no differences were found by SES.For perceptions of fruit, no SES-based differences were found in healthiness whilst significant interactions (but not main effects) were found (for income and education) for expected satiety and value for money.Neither liking nor perceptions of fruit were found to mediate the relationship between SES and frequency of fruit consumption.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus