Cited by 116Nutrition, Health and Food BehaviorConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingBehavioral Health and Interventions

Regulatory focus and food choice motives. Prevention orientation associated with mood, convenience, and familiarity

Pula, Kacy, Parks, Craig D., Ross, Carolyn F.·2014·Appetite

Abstract

The authors tested the robustness of the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) with a U.S. sample and examined the relationship between individual differences in regulatory focus and everyday food choice motives. Although a popular measure in cross-culture research, the FCQ has seen limited use with U.S. samples, and its psychometric properties have not been tested in this population. American participants (n = 408) completed the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire and a measure of food choice motives. The data did not support the nine-factor FCQ structure. An ad hoc revised measure of food choice motives showed complete measurement invariance (loadings, intercepts, and residuals) across regulatory focus. Regarding everyday food choices, participants with a prevention focus placed greater importance on mood, convenience, and familiarity than participants with a promotion focus. There were no significant differences regarding the importance of health, environmental protection, impression management, natural content, price, and sensory appeal. Several food choice motives were positively correlated. Compared with the promotion-focused participants, the prevention-focused participants more strongly associated the importance of sensory appeal with the importance of natural content and the importance of price.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.015

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pula, K., Parks, C. D., & Ross, C. F.
Affiliations
Washington State University (US)
Corresponding author
Pula, Kacy
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
78
Pages
15-22
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002832267
Cited by
116
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4
FWCI
9.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
regulatory focus, prevention focus, promotion focus, food choice motives, Food Choice Questionnaire, measurement invariance, psychometric properties, mood, convenience, food familiarity, sensory appeal, price, impression management, health motivation
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Aged, Attitude, Choice Behavior, Diet, Feeding Behavior, Female, Food Preferences, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Health Behavior, Recognition, Psychology, Young Adult, Fast Foods

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review