INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the Him along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. Universfo/ Microfilms International 300 N ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW. LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8001808 R a u s c h e r t , M a r jo r ie E l l e n APPROPRIATENESS RATINGS OF FOOD AS REPORTED BY PARTICIPANTS IN THE EXPANDED FOOD AND NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAM AND BY FACULTY IN THE SCHOOL OF HOME ECONOMICS, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY The Ohio State University PH.D, 1979 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row. London WC1R 4EJ, England APPROPRIATENESS RATINGS OF FOOD AS REPORTED BY PARTICIPANTS IN THE EXPANDED POOD AND NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAM AND BY FACULTY IN THE SCHOOL OF HO MS ECONOMICS, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marjorie Ellen Rauschert, B.S., M.S. ***** The Ohio State University 1979 Reading Committees Approved By Rachel M. Hubbard Anita McCormick Adviser Department of Human J . Robert Warmbrod Nutrition and Food Management ACKNOWIEDGIENTS It is a pleasure to acknowledge the persons who provided guidance and support in the completion of this study. I wish to thank the members of my reading committee! Rachel Hubbard, Anita McCormick, and Robert Warmbrod. I extend my sincere gratitude to Rachel Hubbard, my adviser, who provided advice and encouragement throughout this study. I appreciate the comments, suggestions, and assistance provided by Anita McCormick and Robert Warmbrod. I would also like to acknowledge the staff of the Cooperative Extension Service, Franklin County, Ohio, for assistance in the collection of data. I would further like to express my gratitude to the faculty members in the School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University and to the program homemakers in the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, Franklin County, Ohio, whose cooperation made this study possible. ii VITA September 26, 19*f6........B o m - Port Angeles, Washington 1 9 6 ? ......................B.S., The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 1968-1970 ................Home Economist, Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, United States Department of Agriculture, Hyattsvllle, Maryland 1970-1972 ................ Teaching Assistant, Department of Home Economics, The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 1972 ......................M.S., The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 1972-197*+................Instructor, Clatsop Community College, Astoria, Oregon 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 7 6 ................Instructor, Department of Home Economics, West Virginia State College, Institute, West Virginia 1978-1979 ................Assistant Professor, Department of Home Economics, Montclair State College, Upper Montclair, New Jersey PUBLICATIONS "Food Use in Farm and Urban Households in 1955 an'1 1965•" Family Economics Review, September, 1968. "Diets of Men, Women, and Children in the United States." Nutrition Program News, September-October, 1969* iii TABUS OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLDEGEPENTS........................................... ii VITA ........................................... * ............ill LIST OF TABIES............................................. vi Chapte rs 1. INTRODUCTION....................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ....................................... 3 1.2 Implications................... 4 1.3 Limitations............................... , 5 1.4 Definitions of T e r m s ........................... 7 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................. 10 2.1 Conditions of Food U s e ......................... 10 2.2 Meanings Associated with Foods . ............. 12 2.3 Preference Related to Conditions of U s e ........ 14 2.4 Appropriateness of Food-Use Combinations ........ 18 2.5 Familiarity Related to Appropriateness and Meaning..................................... 27 2.6 Other Factors Related to Food Behavior 27 2.7 Food Consumption Behavior of EFNEP Participants. 28 2.8 Summary ....................................... 31 3. METHODOLOGY ............. 33 3.1 Instrumentation............................... 33 3*2 Sample................... 36 3.3 Data Collection and Analysis................... 37 4. raisuLTs............................................. 42 4.1 Characteristics of Respondents........... 44 4.2 Familiarity Ratings for Specific Food Items .. 4.3 Ratings of Food-Use Appropriateness............ 52 4.4 Use Factors, Weighted Appropriateness Ratings, and Percentage S c o r e s ....................... 63 4.5 Use of Fruits and Vegetables and Dairy Products by EFNEP Homemakers................... 79 4.6 Comparison of EFUEP and Faculty F a c t o r s ........ 82 4.7 Comparison to Literature ................ 84 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................. 89 iv Appendices A. Questionnaire for collection of data on character­ istics of respondents and familiarity with specific food items ......... * . 96 B. Food-by-item matrix for collection of ratings of food-use appropriateness for 2k food items for 12 conditions of u s e ............ '..................100 C. Approval for research involving human subjects ........ 103 D. Familiarity ratings for 2k food i t e m s .................. 105 E. Appropriateness ratings for 2k food items on 12 conditions of u s e ...................................109 F. Weighted appropriateness ratings and percentage scores for 2k foods on five use f a c t o r s ....................122 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................ 125 v LIST OF TABIES Table Page 1. Factor loadings of semantic differential scale p a i r s ............................................ 16 2. Food-use factors and factor-defining foods, in order of factor loadings, identified from analysis of appropriateness ratings in four studies ........... 19 3- Association of eating time, eating occasion, and people type with fl a v o r ........................... 26 6. Characteristics of faculty members in the School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, of EFNEP homemakers in Franklin County, Ohio, and of faculty members and EFNEP homemakers combined.......................................... 65 3* Characteristics of EFNEP homemakers enrolled in Franklin County, Ohio, for the six-month period ending March 31 1 19?8, and of EFNEP homemakers participating in this study . ..... 66 6. Yearly family income of faculty members in the School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and of EFNEP homemakers in Franklin County, Ohio ................ ..... $0 7. Ratings of food-use appropriateness for selected food items for the use "as a part of the main meal of the day" by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio .... 55 8. Ratings of food-use appropriateness for selected food Items for the use "for breakfast" by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and by EFNEP home­ makers, Franklin County, O h i o ........ 5& 9. Ratings of food-use appropriateness for selected food items for the use "as a snack" by faculty members, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, and by EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, O h i o ............... 61 vi 10. Use factors with rotated factor loadings, communa- llties, and proportion of variance for faculty members, School of Home Economics, Hie Ohio State University, and for EFNEP homemakers, Franklin County, Ohio .................................... 66 1 1 . The percentage scores for 24 food items on Factor Number One and the number and percentage of "yes" responses for the three factor-defining uses for Factor Number One, derived from ratings by faculty members,