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

Ratings of (a) perceived satiety and (b) perceived value for money, by income group and gender (adjusted means, with 95% CIs; possible score range −3 to 3).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4262578&req=5

f0025: Ratings of (a) perceived satiety and (b) perceived value for money, by income group and gender (adjusted means, with 95% CIs; possible score range −3 to 3).

Mentions: There were no socioeconomic differences by income in perceived healthiness of fruit (see Supplementary Table S2 for summary statistics; Supplementary Table S3 for correlations between implicit and explicit ratings and perceived attributes). However, there were significant interactions for perceived satiety and value for money, such that, if social patterning was evident, ratings by women tended to decrease with increasing income, whilst for men, ratings tended to increase with increasing income (Fig. 4).


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

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

Ratings of (a) perceived satiety and (b) perceived value for money, by income group and gender (adjusted means, with 95% CIs; possible score range −3 to 3).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f0025: Ratings of (a) perceived satiety and (b) perceived value for money, by income group and gender (adjusted means, with 95% CIs; possible score range −3 to 3).
Mentions: There were no socioeconomic differences by income in perceived healthiness of fruit (see Supplementary Table S2 for summary statistics; Supplementary Table S3 for correlations between implicit and explicit ratings and perceived attributes). However, there were significant interactions for perceived satiety and value for money, such that, if social patterning was evident, ratings by women tended to decrease with increasing income, whilst for men, ratings tended to increase with increasing income (Fig. 4).

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