Abstract
Much of the research on food environments suggests that problematic access to healthy food restricts its consumption, contributing to adverse outcomes such as obesity, stroke, and heart disease. In addition to these direct relationships, we propose indirect relationships involving the Communication Mediation Model (CMM). Using nationally representative survey data from 1435 adults in the United States, we explore the multipronged role that perceived food environments play in shaping communication, attitudes, and reflective food consumption, considering communicative contexts. Results indicate a negative correlation between the perception of a difficult food environment and reflective consumption, supporting prior research. Most importantly, the food environment is also negatively correlated with news media use, discussion, and attitudes about healthy eating within the CMM. Our findings suggest that indirect communication effects of the food environment on reflective consumption compound the detrimental role of its direct effects.
Highlights
Our study examines the relationships between various elements of our daily communicative contexts and reflective food consumption using the Communication Mediation Model (CMM; McLeod et al 1996) on nationally-representative survey data from the United States
This study focuses on the food environment together with the communicative contexts considered in the CMM, the news media environment, the interpersonal networks of discussion, and the social media environment
Given the importance of the perceived food environment on healthy food consumption, we propose that the perception of a difficult food environment will be negatively correlated to reflective food consumption (H1)
Summary
Part of the problem is the heterogeneity in defining and measuring food environments, which can be analyzed from community nutrition (e.g., neighborhood stores), organizational nutrition (e.g., what schools offer), consumer nutrition (e.g., what stores contain), and perceived nutrition (self-reported) perspectives (see Glanz et al 2005). Compounding these conceptual and methodological issues, Caspi and colleagues found differences according to how those food environments were dimensioned in terms of availability, accessibility, affordability, acceptability, and accommodation (Caspi et al 2012)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
