A Framework for Aligning REAL Food Public Policy with Consumers’ Multiple Eating Motivations

Abstract

A Multiple Eating Motivations Perspective and the Connection to Consumer and Societal Well-Being

Multiple motivations drive consumers when obtaining and eating food,¹ including taste, healthiness, fullness, price, convenience, waste avoidance, and social and cultural norms (Chandon, Haws, and Liu 2022; Glanz et al. 1998; Liu et al. 2015; Renner et al. 2012; Sproesser et al. 2018). The relative strength of these motivations can vary across consumers chronically (e.g., restrained eaters may prioritize weight management; Liu and Haws 2020) and situationally (e.g., consumers may prioritize fullness right before lunchtime). In addition, a global perspective is important: The relative prioritization of different eating motivations may vary across countries given different food-relevant challenges across regions. For example, in regions with extreme food scarcity due to droughts or war, consumers’ primary motivations are likely very different from those in regions where nonnutritious food is abundant (and often cheap and convenient, as in food deserts). Addressing these various consumer eating motivations is key to overall consumer well-being (Block et al. 2011) as well as to societal well-being (Scott and Vallen 2019).

Importantly, the ability to address these motivational drivers can be shaped by public policies, both general policies (e.g., child tax subsidies) and food-specific policies. In this commentary, we focus on food-specific public policies (“food policies” hereinafter). We argue that food policies ought to consider the array of different consumer eating motivations, including both (1) how policies may affect perceptions of the ability of different food options to address various motivations and (2) the relative importance of different motivations. Notably, these motivations may vary over time and across situations (e.g., eating in vs. outside the home), individuals, groups, and countries. Ultimately, eating motivations are critical determinants of both consumer support of different policies and the policies’ effectiveness at promoting consumer and societal well-being (Scott and Vallen 2019).

The REAL Food Policy Framework

Many food policies have been implemented or proposed around the world. Adopting a global perspective, Table 1 proposes the “REAL” framework, involving a nonexhaustive sample of food policy types organized as restrictions (R), economic levers (E), accessibility (A), or labeling (L), along with our initial conjectures on how each policy may affect the actual or perceived ability of different food options to address various consumer eating motivations.

Table 1.

The REAL Food Policy Framework and the Relationship with Consumer Eating Motivations.

	Food Policy^a	Description	Conjectures on the Relationship with Consumer Eating Motivations^b
	Food Policy^a	Description	Taste	Health	Price	Convenience	Need and Hunger
R	Restrictions Bans or limits on specific ingredients	Not allowing specific ingredients (e.g., trans fats) or specifying category-specific reductions in specific ingredients (e.g., saturated fat, salt, sugar levels)	May alter actual or perceived taste of the food, possibly in either direction	Generally intended to make food healthier, but could be perceived as creating new health trade-offs (e.g., increasing artificial sweeteners to compensate for lower sugar levels)	Could affect the price to consumers for various foods, most likely leading to price increases	May remove previously favored food versions from the marketplace, reducing perceived convenience	Could alter fullness or perceptions of fullness; may increase portion size needed for same fullness
	Restrictions Bans on food marketing to children	Not allowing marketing (e.g., advertisements, incentives such as toys) to children for foods that do not meet nutrition standards	Unlikely to affect taste perceptions other than perhaps enhancing taste appeal of restricted foods	Could make less healthy foods less salient to children, improving overall healthiness of diet	Could reduce marketing expenditures on unhealthy foods and lead to price reductions	Less effect on convenience motivations, assuming foods are still available to the same extent	Unlikely to affect hunger motivations
	Restrictions Portion size limits	Not allowing foods that do not meet certain nutrition standards to be sold in portion sizes that exceed a specified limit	Unlikely to affect taste perceptions other than perhaps enhancing taste appeal for foods with portion size limits	Could change how healthy or unhealthy portion sizes still available are perceived to be	Could reduce the perceived financial value of portion sizes still available	May remove previously favored product sizes from the marketplace, reducing perceived convenience	May reduce the ability to satisfy hunger with a single portion
E	Economic lever Free or lower-priced foods, irrespective of healthiness	Providing foods for free or lower prices (often nonperishable foods) to combat hunger (due to poverty, inflation, war, climate, etc.)	Depending on consumer intuitions, prices may affect perceptions of taste	Depends on healthiness of provided foods and how they compare to alternatives otherwise available to consumers; nonperishable foods may be less healthy than perishable foods	May make a wider range of foods more affordable to consumers	May make a wider range of foods more convenient for consumers	Makes it less expensive to satisfy hunger especially for those with restricted resources
	Economic lever Higher-priced unhealthy foods	Charging more for foods with specific ingredients (e.g., added sugar, saturated fats, salt), such as via taxes	Depending on consumer intuitions, prices may affect perceptions of taste	May deter consumers from purchasing unhealthy foods or reduce portion sizes	Higher prices for unhealthy foods decrease ability to address financial motivations through choosing unhealthy foods	May make a smaller set of food products more convenient for consumers	May make it more expensive to satisfy hunger
	Economic lever Free or lower-priced healthy foods	Charging less for healthy foods (e.g., fruits and vegetables), such as via free foods, subsidies, vouchers such as SNAP, etc.	Depending on consumer intuitions, prices may affect perceptions of taste	Positive effect on healthiness through increased affordability	Lower prices for healthy foods increase ability to address financial motivations through choosing healthy foods	Increases access to healthier foods; challenge may be in determining what food qualifies for free or lower prices	May make it less expensive to satisfy hunger
A	Accessibility Increasing physical accessibility of foods, irrespective of healthiness	Making foods physically accessible and convenient to access (e.g., delivering food boxes, establishing more food distribution locations)	No clear impact on taste perceptions	No clear impact on health perceptions or ability to address health motivations	Greater accessibility may come at a financial cost or lead to a more price-segmented marketplace through different access options	Increases the convenience of all food types	Increases ability to satisfy hunger
	Accessibility Decreasing physical accessibility of unhealthy foods	Making unhealthy foods less accessible (e.g., restricting unhealthy foods from being served in schools)	May enhance or decrease taste perceptions of remaining food options	Should lead to decreased consumption of unhealthy foods	May lead to increased overall cost of food	Reduces the convenience of unhealthy foods	May decrease ability to satisfy hunger, depending on consumption of remaining food options
	Accessibility Increasing physical accessibility of healthy foods	Making healthy foods more physically accessible and convenient to access (e.g., decreasing food deserts, providing increased accessibility to fresh fruits and vegetables in schools)	May enhance or decrease taste perceptions of remaining food options	Should lead to increased consumption of healthy foods	May lead to increased overall cost of food	Increases the convenience of healthy foods	May increase ability to satisfy hunger
L	Labeling Menu labeling	Providing calorie information for food items on menus	Depending on consumer intuitions, information may affect perceptions of taste	Provides information directly relevant to health motivation	Could affect perceptions of caloric “value” per unit of money	Easy access to information may affect online orders, especially made in advance. Once in restaurant, may be less likely to affect food decisions.	Depending on consumer intuitions, may lead to inferences about the potential to satisfy hunger
L	Labeling Front-of-package labeling	Providing labels on packaged food products to indicate nutrition information or guidance (e.g., traffic light labels)	Depending on consumer intuitions, labels may affect perceptions of taste	Provides information directly relevant to health motivation	Could affect perceptions of caloric “value” per unit of money	Information may be perceived as an added convenience, especially when choosing foods for consumers with specific health-related needs	Depending on consumer intuitions, may lead to inferences about the potential to satisfy hunger

We direct readers to a comprehensive summary of public policy from a global perspective: the NOURISHING framework presented by the World Cancer Research Fund International (https://www.wcrf.org/policy/policy-databases/nourishing-framework/). This resource includes a vast database of public policy around the world categorized by policies affecting the food environment, food system, and behavior change communication. In Table 1, we focus on a critical subset of these policies through the introduction of the REAL (restrictions, economic levers, accessibility, and labeling) food policy framework.

For illustrative purposes in Table 1, we selected five eating motivations that we felt may be especially relevant to policy makers around the world. However, we encourage policy makers to take a broad view of a variety of different eating motivations that extend beyond these five motivations. For instance, Renner et al. (2012) identified 15 eating motivations (i.e., liking, habits, need and hunger, health, convenience, pleasure, traditional eating, natural concerns, sociability, price, visual appeal, weight control, affect regulation, social norms, and social image). Additionally, these are our initial conjectures on how each policy relates to each motivation. We encourage future research to examine these initial conjectures (see Future Research Question 2).

Actionable Insights for Food Policies to Improve Consumer and Societal Well-Being

Insight 1: Identify Which Consumer Eating Motivations Matter Most to Constituents

Policy makers ought to identify which eating motivations matter most to their constituents to focus limited resources on policies most likely to enhance well-being. Clearly, this must be balanced with societal goals as well, but starting with an understanding of consumer motivations is crucial. Moreover, recognizing the specific setting affected (e.g., home, school, hospitals, restaurants) is crucial, as these settings are legislated differently, and consumers’ motivations—and their willingness to accept different food policies—may also vary across settings.

Insight 2: Understand How Different Food Policies Relate to Consumer Eating Motivations

After identifying the eating motivations that matter to consumers, policy makers should leverage the REAL framework to understand how different food policies affect consumers’ perceptions of their ability to address different eating motivations. In some cases, consumers may be able to pair REAL food policies with additional marketing campaigns that affect consumers’ prioritization of different eating motivations or that combat potentially problematic consumer lay theories about the conflict between eating motivations. For example, policy makers deciding to implement a labeling policy might pair this with a campaign that highlights the importance of various health-related needs and with a campaign that seeks to assure consumers that healthy options are simultaneously less expensive (combatting the intuition that healthy food is more expensive; Haws, Reczek, and Sample 2017) and more tasty (combating the intuition that healthy food does not taste good; Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer 2006).

Insight 3: Implement Food Policies Equitably over Time

There will likely be variation across constituents regarding beliefs about the most important eating motivations for policy makers to address. We encourage careful consideration of how food policies intersect with both various motivations and potential differences in these motivations across consumer segments, including socioeconomic and other demographic characteristics. Additionally, policy makers ought to recognize that consumers’ eating motivations may change over time (e.g., issues of access to enough food in a neighborhood could become issues of access to enough healthy food at affordable prices).

Future Research Questions at the Intersection of Food and Public Policy

Question 1: Which Motivations Should Policy Makers, Marketers, and Consumers Address?

We encourage future research examining which consumer eating motivations are viewed as the most appropriate for each stakeholder to address—policy makers, marketers, or consumers. Indeed, some motivations might be viewed as more appropriate for consumers to address themselves (e.g., concerns about one's social image when eating). Relatedly, in some cases, consumers may prefer policy makers or marketers to address these motivations, viewing them as beyond the ability of individual consumers to address (e.g., eliminating food deserts).

Question 2: What Are Consumers' Perceptions of Relationships Between Food Policies and Eating Motivations?

Table 1 contains our conjectures on consumers’ perceptions of how each food policy relates to each consumer eating motivation. However, we encourage future research to test these conjectures. Moreover, important details of how each food policy is structured are likely to shape each policy's perceived relationship with the various eating motivations. For instance, how healthier food is made less expensive to consumers (e.g., via a discount to all consumers vs. via a voucher given only to lower-income consumers) may shape support for the policy as well as perceptions of how the policy relates to eating motivations.

Question 3: How Do Eating Motivations Shape Acceptance and Effectiveness of Food Policies?

We encourage future research that examines consumers’ acceptance of different food policies and the effectiveness of different food policies based on consumers’ eating motivations. For example, among consumers who prioritize need and hunger motivations, which food policies garner high levels of support? Are food policies that target other motivations (e.g., menu labeling to target health motivations) simply ignored by such consumers at best or viewed as costly nuisances that shift resources from addressing their motivation to satiate hunger?

Question 4: How Can Food Policies Affect Both Individual Consumer Well-Being and Societal Well-Being?

In line with a 2019 Journal of Public Policy & Marketing special issue on Food and Well-Being, we encourage a broader consideration of food well-being that includes not just individual consumer well-being (e.g., each individual consumer's ability to address their important eating motivations) but also societal well-being (Scott and Vallen 2019). For instance, future research could examine how different food policies might affect food waste and other environmental sustainability concerns, even if they benefit individual consumer well-being (e.g., free fruit and vegetables in schools may improve individual children's health, but the relationship to food waste is unclear). Future research might also identify potential win-wins in food policy that can align individual consumer well-being with societal well-being. For instance, a recent effort is the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which provides legal protections guiding the donation of foods by organizations, an issue at the intersection between hunger and food waste avoidance motivations (the latter of which has environmental implications). As another possibility, front-of-package food labels might reserve the “best” label (e.g., a green color on a traffic light label) for food that meets both nutrition standards and environmental standards.

Conclusion

In closing, we encourage researchers, marketers, and public policy makers to consider consumers’ multiple eating motivations and the effect their actions may have on consumers’ perceptions of how any given food decisions relate to these motivations. From a public policy perspective, we suggest that the intersection of the REAL framework with key eating motivations can provide tremendous opportunities to create win-win solutions addressing both individual and societal well-being.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kelly Martin and Maura Scott for their helpful feedback on this commentary. The authors also thank Lan Nguyen Chaplin, Priya Raghubir, and Keith Wilcox for co-chairing the Association for Consumer Research conference at which a panel discussion of this commentary was held.

Joint Editors in Chief

Kelly D. Martin and Maura L. Scott

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Peggy J. Liu

Notes

References

Block

Lauren G.

Grier

Sonya A.

Childers

Terry L.

Davis

Brennan

Ebert

Jane E.J.

Kumanyika

Shiriki

, et al. (2011), “From Nutrients to Nurturance: A Conceptual Introduction to Food Well-Being,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30 (1), 5–13.

Chandon

Pierre

Haws

Kelly L.

Liu

Peggy J.

(2022), “Paths to Healthier Eating: Perceptions and Interventions for Success,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 7 (4), 383–92.

Glanz

Karen

Basil

Michael

Maibach

Edward

Goldberg

Jeanne

Snyder

Dan

(1998), “Why Americans Eat What They Do: Taste, Nutrition, Cost, Convenience, and Weight Control Concerns as Influences on Food Consumption,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98 (10), 1118–26.

Haws

Kelly L.

Reczek

Rebecca Walker

Sample

Kevin L.

(2017), “Healthy Diets Make Empty Wallets: The Healthy = Expensive Intuition,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (6), 992–1007.

Liu

Peggy J.

Haws

Kelly L.

(2020), “Cutting Calories: The Preference for Lower Caloric Density Versus Smaller Quantities Among Restrained and Unrestrained Eaters,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (5), 948–65.

Liu

Peggy J.

Haws

Kelly L.

Lamberton

Cait

Campbell

Troy H.

Fitzsimons

Gavan J.

(2015), “Vice-Virtue Bundles,” Management Science, 61 (1), 204–28.

Raghunathan

Rajagopal

Naylor

Rebecca Walker

Hoyer

Wayne D.

(2006), “The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 170–84.

Renner

Britta

Sproesser

Gudrun

Strohbach

Stefanie

Schupp

Harald T.

(2012), “Why We Eat What We Eat. The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS),” Appetite, 59 (1), 117–28.

Scott

Maura L.

Vallen

Beth

(2019), “Expanding the Lens of Food Well-Being: An Examination of Contemporary Marketing, Policy, and Practice with an Eye on the Future,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38 (2), 127–35.

10.

Sproesser

Gudrun

Ruby

Matthew B.

Arbit

Naomi

Rozin

Paul

Schupp

Harald T.

Renner

Britta

(2018), “The Eating Motivation Survey: Results from the USA, India and Germany,” Public Health Nutrition, 21 (3), 515–25.