When justifications are mistaken for motivations: COVID-related dietary changes at the food-health decision-making nexus

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Agriculture and Human Values Pub Date : 2023-08-14 DOI:10.1007/s10460-023-10491-x
Michael Carolan
{"title":"When justifications are mistaken for motivations: COVID-related dietary changes at the food-health decision-making nexus","authors":"Michael Carolan","doi":"10.1007/s10460-023-10491-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper draws from data collected from 500+ surveys, distributed twice from the same respondents (2020 and 2021), and forty-five face-to-face interviews (2022). The location studied is a metropolitan county in Colorado (USA). The research examined the discourses and practices having to do with organic and natural food consumption—note, too, the data were collected at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings upend conventional understandings of, and frameworks used to explain, consumer behavior. What are often presented as motivations in prior studies are shown, instead, to be justifications; rationalizations after-the-fact. The paper troubles decision-making frameworks that cast motivations, attitudes, and intentions as “antecedents” to consumer behavior. Rather, the findings point to the significance of social networks, and in particular network diversity, for understanding and explaining the sayings (discourses) and doings (practices) of “individual” consumers. Discourses linked to health are also shown to be salient variables, though when situated within social networks those discourses are shown to have politics. Particular attention is devoted to explaining dietary shifts among those who reported the largest increases in the consumption of organic and natural foods between 2020 and 2021/22. The paper concludes discussing what the data mean from the standpoint of envisioning just and inclusive food system futures and agrifood policy that delivers on those ends.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"41 1","pages":"313 - 330"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture and Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-023-10491-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper draws from data collected from 500+ surveys, distributed twice from the same respondents (2020 and 2021), and forty-five face-to-face interviews (2022). The location studied is a metropolitan county in Colorado (USA). The research examined the discourses and practices having to do with organic and natural food consumption—note, too, the data were collected at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings upend conventional understandings of, and frameworks used to explain, consumer behavior. What are often presented as motivations in prior studies are shown, instead, to be justifications; rationalizations after-the-fact. The paper troubles decision-making frameworks that cast motivations, attitudes, and intentions as “antecedents” to consumer behavior. Rather, the findings point to the significance of social networks, and in particular network diversity, for understanding and explaining the sayings (discourses) and doings (practices) of “individual” consumers. Discourses linked to health are also shown to be salient variables, though when situated within social networks those discourses are shown to have politics. Particular attention is devoted to explaining dietary shifts among those who reported the largest increases in the consumption of organic and natural foods between 2020 and 2021/22. The paper concludes discussing what the data mean from the standpoint of envisioning just and inclusive food system futures and agrifood policy that delivers on those ends.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当理由被误认为动机时:食品健康决策关系中与新冠肺炎相关的饮食变化
本文的数据来源于 500 多份调查问卷(2020 年和 2021 年两次向同一受访者发放)和 45 次面对面访谈(2022 年)。研究地点是美国科罗拉多州的一个大都市县。研究考察了与有机和天然食品消费有关的论述和实践--请注意,这些数据也是在 COVID-19 大流行的高峰期收集的。研究结果颠覆了对消费者行为的传统理解和解释框架。在以往的研究中,消费者的消费动机通常被认为是正当理由,是事后的合理化。本文对那些将动机、态度和意图视为消费者行为 "前因 "的决策框架提出了质疑。相反,研究结果指出,社会网络,尤其是网络多样性,对于理解和解释 "个体 "消费者的言论(话语)和行为(实践)具有重要意义。与健康相关的论述也被证明是突出的变量,尽管这些论述在社会网络中具有政治性。本文特别关注了那些报告在 2020 年至 2021/22 年间有机食品和天然食品消费量增幅最大的消费者的饮食变化。最后,本文讨论了这些数据对于展望公正、包容的食品系统未来以及实现这些目标的农业食品政策的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Agriculture and Human Values
Agriculture and Human Values 农林科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
97
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Agriculture and Human Values is the journal of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society. The Journal, like the Society, is dedicated to an open and free discussion of the values that shape and the structures that underlie current and alternative visions of food and agricultural systems. To this end the Journal publishes interdisciplinary research that critically examines the values, relationships, conflicts and contradictions within contemporary agricultural and food systems and that addresses the impact of agricultural and food related institutions, policies, and practices on human populations, the environment, democratic governance, and social equity.
期刊最新文献
Books received Books received Correction: Exploring diverse food system actor perspectives on gene editing: a systematic review of socio-cultural factors influencing acceptability Transforming the food system in ‘unprotected space’: the case of diverse grain networks in England Equity and resilience in local urban food systems: a case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1