Sex and income level can be determinants for meat attachment behavior among Turkish university students

Eif Gunalan; Ayhan Parmaksiz; Hayrettin Mutlu

doi:10.51745/najfnr.8.18.217-228

Sex and income level can be determinants for meat attachment behavior among Turkish university students

PDF (Full text)

Nutrition Education and Dietetics Infant, Child, and Adolescent Nutrition

DOI https://doi.org/10.51745/najfnr.8.18.217-228

Issue Vol. 8 No. 18 (2024): July - December, 2024

Submitted 2024-07-05

Accepted 2024-12-08

Published 2024-12-08

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Background: The Meat Attachment Questionnaire (MAQ) is a scale to measure the positive bond in meat consumption.

Aims: This study aimed to validate and assess reliability of the Turkish version of the MAQ and to explore its relationship with various factors, including sociodemographic characteristics, meat consumption habits, and subscales of the Green Eating Survey (GES).

Subjects and Methods: The study was carried out with 214 university students. Participants completed the MAQ, the Food Frequency Questionnaire, and the GES. Statistical analyses including item analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient test - retest reliability, one-way ANOVA, Welch ANOVA, t-test, Pearson’s correlation, and post hoc tests (Tukey’s HSD and Games-Howell), were performed using SPSS (version 26). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with the lavaan (version 0.6 – 13) and semPlot (version 1.1.6) R packages.

Results: All factor loadings were statistically significant, and high fit indices were obtained for the model tested in the second-order CFA model. (χ²/df = 151,93/101 = 1.50; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.08; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.97). Significant differences were found in several MAQ subscale scores: hedonism, entitlement, dependence, and global scores were higher among men (p < 0.05). The entitlement score was significantly higher in the “income < expenses “group compared to the “income = expenses “group (p < 0.05). Participants with higher red meat and poultry consumption exhibited significantly higher hedonism, dependence, and global MAQ scores (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: The Turkish version of the MAQ can be accepted as a reliable and valid scale for use among university students. While factors such as sex, income level, and meat consumption appear to influence MAQ scores, body mass index and green eating behaviors do not have a direct effect.

Keywords

Green eating meat reliability sustainability validity

Eif Gunalan

İstanbul Health and Technology University, Faculty of Health Science, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics. İstanbul. İstanbul Health and Technology University, Institute of Graduate Education, İstanbul
Ayhan Parmaksiz

İstanbul Health and Technology University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Bioistatistics. İstanbul
Hayrettin Mutlu

İstanbul Health and Technology University, Faculty of Health Science, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics. Sütlüce, Imrahor Cd. No: 82, 34275 Beyoğlu İstanbul

How to Cite

Gunalan, E., Parmaksiz, A., & Mutlu, H. (2024). Sex and income level can be determinants for meat attachment behavior among Turkish university students. The North African Journal of Food and Nutrition Research, 8(18), 217-228. https://doi.org/10.51745/najfnr.8.18.217-228

More Citation Formats

Download Citation

Akyüz, H. E. (2018). Yapı Geçerliliği İçin Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi: Uygulamalı Bir Çalışma. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.414490

Austgulen, M. H., Skuland, S. E., Schjøll, A., & Alfnes, F. (2018). Consumer readiness to reduce meat consumption for the purpose of environmental sustainability: Insights from Norway. Sustainability, 10(9), 3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093058

Austgulen, M. H. (2014). Environmentally sustainable meat consumption: An analysis of the Norwegian public debate. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-013-9246-9

Bakır, B. O., Cebioğlu, İ. K., Günalan, E., & Bilgin, G. D. (2021). The association of fat preference with eating behavior and sex: Turkish version of the Fat Preference Questionnaire©. Food Science & Nutrition, 9(5), 2754–2761. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2237

Battaglia-Richi, E., Baumer, B., Conrad, B., Darioli, R., Schmid, A., & Keller, U. (2015). Health Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies. International journal for vitamin and nutrition research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Vitamin- und Ernahrungsforschung. Journal International de Vitaminologie et de Nutrition, 85(1-2), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1024/0300-9831/a000224

Biesalski, H. K. (2005). Meat as a component of a healthy diet-are there any risks or benefits if meat is avoided in the diet? Meat Science, 70(3), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.07.017

Boada, L. D., Henríquez-Hernández, L. A., & Luzardo, O. P. (2016). The impact of red and processed meat consumption on cancer and other health outcomes: Epidemiological evidences. Food and Chemical Toxicology: An international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 92, 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.04.008

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lonner & J. Berry (Eds.), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research (pp. 137–164). Sage.

Cambaz, M. (2021). Çevreye Duyarlı Beslenme Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirliği, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

Clonan, A., Wilson, P., Swift, J. A., Leibovici, D. G., & Holdsworth, M. (2015). Red and processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviours and attitudes: impacts for human health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Public Health Nutrition, 18(13), 2446–2456. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980015000567

Cui, X., Wang, B., Wu, Y., Xie, L., Xun, P., Tang, Q., Cai, W., & Shen, X. (2019). Vegetarians have a lower fasting insulin level and higher insulin sensitivity than matched omnivores: A cross-sectional study. Nutrition, Metabolism, and Cardiovascular Diseases: NMCD, 29 (5), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2019.01.012

Daniel, C. R., Cross, A. J., Koebnick, C., & Sinha, R. (2011). Trends in meat consumption in the USA. Public health nutrition, 14(4), 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980010002077

Dernóczy, A., & Keller, V. (2017). A hússal szembeni attitűd a MAQ-skála alapján= Attitude towards meat based on MAQ scale, Élelmiszer, Táplálkozás és Marketing, 13(2), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.33567/etm.2289

Dowsett, E., Semmler, C., Bray, H., Ankeny, R. A., & Chur-Hansen, A. (2018). Neutralising the meat paradox: Cognitive dissonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite, 123, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.005

Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science (New York, N.Y.), 361(6399), eaam5324. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324

Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2015). Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite, 95, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.024

Gündüzoğlu, N. Ç., Fadıloğlu, Ç., & Yılmaz, C. (2014). Obezlere özgü yaşam kalitesi ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenirliğinin incelenmesi, Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 15, 63-68. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.39822

Hallström, E., Röös, E., & Börjesson, P. (2014). Sustainable meat consumption: A quantitative analysis of nutritional intake, greenhouse gas emissions and land use from a Swedish perspective. Food Policy, 47, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.04.002

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Jallinoja, P., Niva, M., & Latvala, T. (2016). Future of sustainable eating? Examining the potential for expanding bean eating in a meat-eating culture. Futures, 83, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.03.006

Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

Lacroix, K., & Gifford, R. (2020). Targeting interventions to distinct meat-eating groups reduces meat consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 86(103997), 103997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103997

Lentz, G., Connelly, S., Mirosa, M., & Jowett, T. (2018). Gauging attitudes and behaviours: Meat consumption and potential reduction. Appetite, 127, 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.015

Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F., & Campbell, J. (2016). Eating like there's no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite, 96, 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.011

Mann N. J. (2018). A brief history of meat in the human diet and current health implications. Meat science, 144, 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.008

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

Meier, J., Andor, M. A., Doebbe, F. C., Haddaway, N. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2022). Review: Do green defaults reduce meat consumption? Food Policy, 110(102298), 102298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102298

Milfont, T. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Empathic and social dominance orientations help explain gender differences in environmentalism: A one-year Bayesian mediation analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.044

Önal, H. Y., Yüksel, A., Parmaksız, A., & Alpat, İ. (2022). Meat Consumption and Sustainability in Turkey. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 25, 1423–1433. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.992371 [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Publisher]

Pekcan, A. G. (2019). Sürdürülebilir beslenme ve beslenme örüntüsü: bitkisel kaynaklı beslenme. Beslenme ve Diyet Dergisi, 47, 1–10.

Reynolds, C. J., Buckley, J. D., Weinstein, P., & Boland, J. (2014). Are the dietary guidelines for meat, fat, fruit and vegetable consumption appropriate for environmental sustainability? A review of the literature. Nutrients, 6(6), 2251–2265. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu6062251

Rosenfeld, D. L. (2020). Gender differences in vegetarian identity: How men and women construe meatless dieting. Food Quality and Preference, 81(103859), 103859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103859

Rosenfeld, D. L., & Tomiyama, A. J. (2021). Gender differences in meat consumption and openness to vegetarianism. Appetite, 166(105475), 105475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105475

Sanchez-Sabate, R., & Sabaté, J. (2019). Consumer attitudes towards environmental concerns of meat consumption: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(7), 1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071220

Sans, P., & Combris, P. (2015). World meat consumption patterns: An overview of the last fifty years (1961–2011). Meat Science, 109, 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.012

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784

Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57(3), 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010

Tonstad, S., Stewart, K., Oda, K., Batech, M., Herring, R. P., & Fraser, G. E. (2013). Vegetarian diets and incidence of diabetes in the Adventist Health Study-2. Nutrition, Metabolism, and Cardiovascular Diseases: NMCD, 23(4), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2011.07.004

Türkiye Nutrition Guideline. (2022). Türkiye Nutrition Guide (TUBER) [Türkiye Beslenme Rehberi (TUBER)]. Retrieved from https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/saglikli-beslenen-ve-hareketli-hayat-db/Dokumanlar/Rehberler/Turkiye_Beslenen_Rehber_TUBER_2022_min.pdf.

Üçtuğ, F. G., Günaydin, D., Hünkar, B., & Öngelen, C. (2021). Carbon footprints of omnivorous, vegetarian, and vegan diets based on traditional Turkish cuisine. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.027

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002

Weller, K. E., Greene, G. W., Redding, C. A., Paiva, A. L., Lofgren, I., Nash, J. T., & Kobayashi, H. (2014). Development and validation of green eating behaviors, stage of change, decisional balance, and self-efficacy scales in college students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(5), 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.01.002

Xiao, C., & Mccright, A. M. (2015). Gender Differences in Environmental Concern: Revisiting the Institutional Trust Hypothesis in the USA. Environment and Behavior, 47(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513491571

More

Sex and income level can be determinants for meat attachment behavior among Turkish university students

Keywords

How to Cite

Similar Articles

Downloads 333

Views 871

Country (Top 10)

Make a Submission

Journal Issue

Keywords

Browse by Category

Information

Highly Accessed

Published by

Useful Links

Connect

Contact Us