Literature list YSS Advanced Consumer Studies
Table of contents
Literature list YSS Advanced Consumer Studies.....................................................................................1
Lecture 1 – Food and health; communication perspective.................................................................2
Vainio et al. (2018) – How effective are messages and their characteristics in changing
behavioral intentions to substitute plant-based foods for red meat? The mediating role of prior
beliefs.............................................................................................................................................2
Huovila & Saikkonen (2016) – Establishing credibility, constructing understanding: The epistemic
struggle over healthy eating in the Finnish dietetic blogosphere...................................................4
Lecture 2 – Food and health; Sociological perspective.......................................................................5
Raghoebar et al. (2019) – Served portion size affect later food intake through social
consumption norms........................................................................................................................5
Poelman et al. (2018) – Relations between the residential fast-food environment and the
individual risk of cardiovascular diseases in the Netherlands.........................................................6
Lecture 3 – Food and health; Economic perspective..........................................................................7
Pozolotina & Olsen (2019) – Consideration of immediate and future consequences, perceived
change in the future self, and health behavior...............................................................................7
Milfont et al. (2017) – Does promotion orientation help explain why future-oriented people
exercise and eat healthy?...............................................................................................................7
Lecture 4 – Food and Health; User perspective..................................................................................8
Bongoni et al. (2015) – Evaluation of research methods to study domestic food preparation.......9
Bongoni et al. (2014) – Consumer behavior towards vegetables: a study on domestic processing
of broccoli and carrots by Dutch households.................................................................................9
Lecture 5 – Inequality: Communication perspective........................................................................10
Bloomfield (2014) – Shame campaigns and environmental justice: corporate shaming as activist
strategy.........................................................................................................................................10
Kwak et al. (2017) – When brand anthropomorphism alters perceptions of justice: The
moderating role of self-construal.................................................................................................10
Lecture 6 – Inequality: Sociological perspective...............................................................................11
Arcaya et al. (2015) – Inequalities in health: definitions, concepts and theories..........................11
Caldwell & Sayer (2019) – Evolutionary considerations on social status, eating behavior and
obesity..........................................................................................................................................13
Lecture 7 – Inequality: Economic perspective..................................................................................14
De Schutter et al. (2017) – Environmental Inequality in Europe (chapter 1-3).............................15
Lejeune et al. (2016) – Housing quality as environmental inequality: the case of Wallonia,
Belgium.........................................................................................................................................16
, Meng et al. (2016) – Globalization and pollution: tele-connecting local primary PM2.5 emissions
to global consumption..................................................................................................................17
Lecture 8 – Inequality: User perspective..........................................................................................18
Burton et al. (2017) – Food skills confidence and household gatekeepers’ dietary practices.......18
Daniels et al. (2012) – More than preparing a meal? Concerning meanings of home cooking.....19
Vidgen & Gallegos (2014) – Defining food literacy and its components.......................................20
Lecture 9 - Consumer studies: Communication perspective.............................................................21
Giesler & Veresiu (2014) – Creating the Responsible Consumer: Moralistic Governance Regimes
and Consumer Subjectivity...........................................................................................................21
Fischer et al. (2021) – Sustainable consumption communication.................................................23
Lecture 10 – Consumer studies : Sociological perspective................................................................25
Griskevicius et al., (2010) – Going green to be seen: Status, reputation and conspicuous
consumption.................................................................................................................................25
Chan & Zlatevska (2019) – Jerkies, tacos, and burgers; subjective socioeconomic status and meat
preference....................................................................................................................................26
Lecture 11 – Consumer studies : Economic perspective...................................................................26
Dye (2008) – Health and urban living...........................................................................................26
Corburn (2017) – Urban place and health equity: Critical issues and practices............................27
Lecture 12 – Consumer studies : User perspective...........................................................................28
Kendall et al. (2016) – Behind the kitchen door: A novel mixed method approach for exploring
the food provisioning practices of the older consumer................................................................28
Brunner et al. (2010) – Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption............................29
Damen et al. (2019) – What influences mothers’ snack choices for their children aged 2-7?......29
Lecture 1 – Food and health; communication perspective
Vainio et al. (2018) – How effective are messages and their characteristics
in changing behavioral intentions to substitute plant-based foods for red
meat? The mediating role of prior beliefs
RQ: How effective are messages and their characteristics in changing behavioral intentions to
substitute plant-based foods for red meat?
This study analyses the effectiveness of two messaging factors: message framing and the refutation
of misinformation (to persuade respondents to lower red meat consumption and increase the
consumption of plant-based alternatives).
- Messages had a small but desired effect, strongly moderated by prior beliefs in the case of
meat sceptics. This was not the case for meat believers.
- Strongly moderated by prior beliefs about the health and climate impacts of red meat
consumption (for meat sceptics, not for meat believers)
- The combination of message frames and refutation of misinformation were not found to be
more effective strategies than the provision of information through single-framed, one-sided
messages.
2
,Possible prior beliefs: In western food cultures, many consumers believe that red meat is a healthy
and even necessary part of a diet. Moreover, most individuals living in Western countries are still not
aware of the negative impacts of red meat consumption on the climate. Consumers may also have
both positive and negative beliefs about red meat at the same time.
In the interplay between prior beliefs and new understanding, two communication strategies are
relevant:
- Framing: Activates information that is already part of individual’s knowledge or belief
structure
- Refuting misinformation (also: inoculation): before presenting correct information, in order
to help individuals to relate their prior beliefs to new information.
Individuals tend to have positive beliefs about their own diet and negative beliefs about deviating
diets. They try to avoid cognitive dissonance resulting from a difference between information, beliefs
and behavior by using strategies to maintain coherence (e.g. the confirmation bias). I.e. individuals
avoid information that conflicts with their beliefs.
Framing
A frame refers to words, images, phrases and presentation styles; In the context of food choices,
framing in communication would mean focusing on certain effects of food choices that are relevant
to consumers' understandings. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make
them more salient in a communicating text (to promote a particular problem definition, causal
interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation). Most individuals are more
familiar with health issues than climate issues, therefore it might be less challenging to frame the
health issues of red meat consumption. Different people may find different frames appealing.
Refutation of misinformation
Helps to process conceptual inconsistencies and facilitates the acceptance of correct information.
This inoculation is used as a forewarning that information presented may challenge beliefs, with
direct rebuttal of that information. Messages undermining misinformation have been found more
effective than non-refutational messages.
Method: Online survey, adults, Finnish.
Five messages were created:
1. Focused on health
2. Focused on climate
3. Focused on health and climate
4. Focused on health, with inoculation
5. Focused on climate, with inoculation
Results:
- Reading any message has a positive effect on intention
- Only meat sceptics’ intentions were impacted by messages, but not meat believers
- Message combined with refutation of misinformation (M4, M5) are not superior to message
alone (M1, M2) or a combination of the two (M3)
- A combined message (M3) is not superior to single messages (M1, M2)
What can be learned for communication strategies to change eating practices?
2
, Huovila & Saikkonen (2016) – Establishing credibility, constructing
understanding: The epistemic struggle over healthy eating in the Finnish
dietetic blogosphere
About how highly popular nutrition counselling bloggers construct dietetic credibility and
understanding. Nutrition counselling bloggers rhetorically constructed a more particularistic and
individualistic understanding of healthy eating in their argumentation in critical opposition to the
universalistic and population-based understanding. We argue that arguing over healthy eating in the
public domain is fundamentally an epistemic struggle, in which different forms of knowledge and
ways of knowing are valued, and dilemmas related to healthy eating are deliberated.
In this article, popular Finnish nutrition counselling bloggers are compared with experts contributing
to the blog of the National Institute for Health and Welfare (NIHW) is constructing dietetic credibility
and understanding. Our aim is specifically to investigate what kind of rhetorical strategies are
utilized, and what kind of rhetorical resources are drawn upon, by the PNC-bloggers in their aim to
establish credibility for a more individualistic and particularistic understanding of healthy eating vs.
the population-based, universalistic dietetic understanding that informs official dietary guidance.
RQ: What rhetorical strategies and resources are used in creating dietetic credibility and constructing
understandings of healthy eating?
Dietetic credibility
Credibility has to be gained. Whatever passes as credible, is culturally contingent.
Actors try to create credible commonsense understandings of what ‘healthy eating’ is. Actors utilize
rhetoric strategies and resources to establish credibility for the understanding they are promoting.
Arguments need to be understood in their context and in relation to counter-arguments.
Method: Map claims, examine expressions and rhetorics, identify resources of the blogs.
Results: Three rhetorical strategies of PNC bloggers:
- Personal experience
Assigning epistemic value to personal experience
Positioning as altruistic peer / ‘humble servant’
Personal narratives of commitment and change
- Indicating cultural struggle
Emancipatory narrative of ‘freedom fighter’ – to think of oneself
Appeals to ‘common sense’: lived experience vs. abstract expertise
- Redefining authority
Appropriation of ‘experts’ and ‘objects’ as tools for pluralistic, individualized approaches
(quantified self)
Understanding of healthy eating was determined through personal experiences of eating and the
body. Construct relationship with the audience and convey empathy for mundane challenges relating
healthy eating. In the rhetorical strategy of indicating cultural struggle, understanding of healthy
eating was constructed through accounts of cultural forces and power. The rhetorical strategy of
redefining authority was based on subverting the authorities and doctrines that have been
represented as sources of infallible dietetic knowledge.
2
Table of contents
Literature list YSS Advanced Consumer Studies.....................................................................................1
Lecture 1 – Food and health; communication perspective.................................................................2
Vainio et al. (2018) – How effective are messages and their characteristics in changing
behavioral intentions to substitute plant-based foods for red meat? The mediating role of prior
beliefs.............................................................................................................................................2
Huovila & Saikkonen (2016) – Establishing credibility, constructing understanding: The epistemic
struggle over healthy eating in the Finnish dietetic blogosphere...................................................4
Lecture 2 – Food and health; Sociological perspective.......................................................................5
Raghoebar et al. (2019) – Served portion size affect later food intake through social
consumption norms........................................................................................................................5
Poelman et al. (2018) – Relations between the residential fast-food environment and the
individual risk of cardiovascular diseases in the Netherlands.........................................................6
Lecture 3 – Food and health; Economic perspective..........................................................................7
Pozolotina & Olsen (2019) – Consideration of immediate and future consequences, perceived
change in the future self, and health behavior...............................................................................7
Milfont et al. (2017) – Does promotion orientation help explain why future-oriented people
exercise and eat healthy?...............................................................................................................7
Lecture 4 – Food and Health; User perspective..................................................................................8
Bongoni et al. (2015) – Evaluation of research methods to study domestic food preparation.......9
Bongoni et al. (2014) – Consumer behavior towards vegetables: a study on domestic processing
of broccoli and carrots by Dutch households.................................................................................9
Lecture 5 – Inequality: Communication perspective........................................................................10
Bloomfield (2014) – Shame campaigns and environmental justice: corporate shaming as activist
strategy.........................................................................................................................................10
Kwak et al. (2017) – When brand anthropomorphism alters perceptions of justice: The
moderating role of self-construal.................................................................................................10
Lecture 6 – Inequality: Sociological perspective...............................................................................11
Arcaya et al. (2015) – Inequalities in health: definitions, concepts and theories..........................11
Caldwell & Sayer (2019) – Evolutionary considerations on social status, eating behavior and
obesity..........................................................................................................................................13
Lecture 7 – Inequality: Economic perspective..................................................................................14
De Schutter et al. (2017) – Environmental Inequality in Europe (chapter 1-3).............................15
Lejeune et al. (2016) – Housing quality as environmental inequality: the case of Wallonia,
Belgium.........................................................................................................................................16
, Meng et al. (2016) – Globalization and pollution: tele-connecting local primary PM2.5 emissions
to global consumption..................................................................................................................17
Lecture 8 – Inequality: User perspective..........................................................................................18
Burton et al. (2017) – Food skills confidence and household gatekeepers’ dietary practices.......18
Daniels et al. (2012) – More than preparing a meal? Concerning meanings of home cooking.....19
Vidgen & Gallegos (2014) – Defining food literacy and its components.......................................20
Lecture 9 - Consumer studies: Communication perspective.............................................................21
Giesler & Veresiu (2014) – Creating the Responsible Consumer: Moralistic Governance Regimes
and Consumer Subjectivity...........................................................................................................21
Fischer et al. (2021) – Sustainable consumption communication.................................................23
Lecture 10 – Consumer studies : Sociological perspective................................................................25
Griskevicius et al., (2010) – Going green to be seen: Status, reputation and conspicuous
consumption.................................................................................................................................25
Chan & Zlatevska (2019) – Jerkies, tacos, and burgers; subjective socioeconomic status and meat
preference....................................................................................................................................26
Lecture 11 – Consumer studies : Economic perspective...................................................................26
Dye (2008) – Health and urban living...........................................................................................26
Corburn (2017) – Urban place and health equity: Critical issues and practices............................27
Lecture 12 – Consumer studies : User perspective...........................................................................28
Kendall et al. (2016) – Behind the kitchen door: A novel mixed method approach for exploring
the food provisioning practices of the older consumer................................................................28
Brunner et al. (2010) – Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption............................29
Damen et al. (2019) – What influences mothers’ snack choices for their children aged 2-7?......29
Lecture 1 – Food and health; communication perspective
Vainio et al. (2018) – How effective are messages and their characteristics
in changing behavioral intentions to substitute plant-based foods for red
meat? The mediating role of prior beliefs
RQ: How effective are messages and their characteristics in changing behavioral intentions to
substitute plant-based foods for red meat?
This study analyses the effectiveness of two messaging factors: message framing and the refutation
of misinformation (to persuade respondents to lower red meat consumption and increase the
consumption of plant-based alternatives).
- Messages had a small but desired effect, strongly moderated by prior beliefs in the case of
meat sceptics. This was not the case for meat believers.
- Strongly moderated by prior beliefs about the health and climate impacts of red meat
consumption (for meat sceptics, not for meat believers)
- The combination of message frames and refutation of misinformation were not found to be
more effective strategies than the provision of information through single-framed, one-sided
messages.
2
,Possible prior beliefs: In western food cultures, many consumers believe that red meat is a healthy
and even necessary part of a diet. Moreover, most individuals living in Western countries are still not
aware of the negative impacts of red meat consumption on the climate. Consumers may also have
both positive and negative beliefs about red meat at the same time.
In the interplay between prior beliefs and new understanding, two communication strategies are
relevant:
- Framing: Activates information that is already part of individual’s knowledge or belief
structure
- Refuting misinformation (also: inoculation): before presenting correct information, in order
to help individuals to relate their prior beliefs to new information.
Individuals tend to have positive beliefs about their own diet and negative beliefs about deviating
diets. They try to avoid cognitive dissonance resulting from a difference between information, beliefs
and behavior by using strategies to maintain coherence (e.g. the confirmation bias). I.e. individuals
avoid information that conflicts with their beliefs.
Framing
A frame refers to words, images, phrases and presentation styles; In the context of food choices,
framing in communication would mean focusing on certain effects of food choices that are relevant
to consumers' understandings. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make
them more salient in a communicating text (to promote a particular problem definition, causal
interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation). Most individuals are more
familiar with health issues than climate issues, therefore it might be less challenging to frame the
health issues of red meat consumption. Different people may find different frames appealing.
Refutation of misinformation
Helps to process conceptual inconsistencies and facilitates the acceptance of correct information.
This inoculation is used as a forewarning that information presented may challenge beliefs, with
direct rebuttal of that information. Messages undermining misinformation have been found more
effective than non-refutational messages.
Method: Online survey, adults, Finnish.
Five messages were created:
1. Focused on health
2. Focused on climate
3. Focused on health and climate
4. Focused on health, with inoculation
5. Focused on climate, with inoculation
Results:
- Reading any message has a positive effect on intention
- Only meat sceptics’ intentions were impacted by messages, but not meat believers
- Message combined with refutation of misinformation (M4, M5) are not superior to message
alone (M1, M2) or a combination of the two (M3)
- A combined message (M3) is not superior to single messages (M1, M2)
What can be learned for communication strategies to change eating practices?
2
, Huovila & Saikkonen (2016) – Establishing credibility, constructing
understanding: The epistemic struggle over healthy eating in the Finnish
dietetic blogosphere
About how highly popular nutrition counselling bloggers construct dietetic credibility and
understanding. Nutrition counselling bloggers rhetorically constructed a more particularistic and
individualistic understanding of healthy eating in their argumentation in critical opposition to the
universalistic and population-based understanding. We argue that arguing over healthy eating in the
public domain is fundamentally an epistemic struggle, in which different forms of knowledge and
ways of knowing are valued, and dilemmas related to healthy eating are deliberated.
In this article, popular Finnish nutrition counselling bloggers are compared with experts contributing
to the blog of the National Institute for Health and Welfare (NIHW) is constructing dietetic credibility
and understanding. Our aim is specifically to investigate what kind of rhetorical strategies are
utilized, and what kind of rhetorical resources are drawn upon, by the PNC-bloggers in their aim to
establish credibility for a more individualistic and particularistic understanding of healthy eating vs.
the population-based, universalistic dietetic understanding that informs official dietary guidance.
RQ: What rhetorical strategies and resources are used in creating dietetic credibility and constructing
understandings of healthy eating?
Dietetic credibility
Credibility has to be gained. Whatever passes as credible, is culturally contingent.
Actors try to create credible commonsense understandings of what ‘healthy eating’ is. Actors utilize
rhetoric strategies and resources to establish credibility for the understanding they are promoting.
Arguments need to be understood in their context and in relation to counter-arguments.
Method: Map claims, examine expressions and rhetorics, identify resources of the blogs.
Results: Three rhetorical strategies of PNC bloggers:
- Personal experience
Assigning epistemic value to personal experience
Positioning as altruistic peer / ‘humble servant’
Personal narratives of commitment and change
- Indicating cultural struggle
Emancipatory narrative of ‘freedom fighter’ – to think of oneself
Appeals to ‘common sense’: lived experience vs. abstract expertise
- Redefining authority
Appropriation of ‘experts’ and ‘objects’ as tools for pluralistic, individualized approaches
(quantified self)
Understanding of healthy eating was determined through personal experiences of eating and the
body. Construct relationship with the audience and convey empathy for mundane challenges relating
healthy eating. In the rhetorical strategy of indicating cultural struggle, understanding of healthy
eating was constructed through accounts of cultural forces and power. The rhetorical strategy of
redefining authority was based on subverting the authorities and doctrines that have been
represented as sources of infallible dietetic knowledge.
2
