| Abstract: |
pg 183 \bUse\b refers to whether and how much of particular food a person or group consumes. \bPreference\b assumes a situation of choice and refers to whihc of two or more foods is chosen \bLiking\b ususally measured with verbal scales, refers to an affective response to foods and is one determinant or preference pg 184 Anticipated consequences may be social, such as expected changes in social status as a consequence of eating a food. Ideational factors predominate in many food rejectsion, but are less common in acceptances. pg 185 Different items would fall into the various categories in different cultures. First, some motivations for acceptance or rejection may have been overloed. Second, the taxonomy is not a classfication of foods, but rahter motivations. Third, many foods are accepted or rejected for combination of reason and hences are not pure illustrations of the categories we have carved out. pg 188 The simplest explanation for increased liking with exposure is that exposure allows fear of a new food to dissipate
one learns that the food is safe. The difficulty in establishing food preferences in animals, in contrast to the many strong likes for foods in humans, suggests that some importnat factors operate only in humans. Sociocultural influences are the obvious candidate and it operates on two levels. First, social pressures (custom, the behavior of elders, the foods made available to the child) essentially force exposure, and as we have seen, exposure fosters liking. Second, the perception that a food is valued by respected other (e.g., parents) may itself be a mechanism for the establishment of liking. pg 192 Angyal (1941) suggests that disgust is fundamentally a fear of oral incorporation of an offensive substance. pg 195 The determinants of individual differences in food choice can be categorized as biological, cultural, or individual (psychological).
|
