R E S E A R C H A RT I C L E
...............................................................................................
Adolescents’ Perspectives and Food Choice Behaviors in Terms of the
Environmental Impacts of Food Production Practices: Application of a
Psychosocial Model
M A D E L I N E M O N AC O B I S S O N N E T T E A N D I S O B E L R. C O N T E N TO
Program in Nutrition, Department of Health and Behavior Studies, Teachers College,
Columbia University, New York, NY 10027
ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to investigate
adolescents’ perspectives about the environmental impacts of
food production practices and whether these perspectives are
related to their food choice. Food choice was operationalized
as consumption and purchase of organic foods and locally
grown foods.A survey questionnaire was administered to a con-
venience sample of adolescents and analyzed for descriptive
information and relationships among variables. Subjects were
651 ethnically diverse, urban and suburban high school senior
students in a major metropolitan area.Variables of an Expanded
Theory of Planned Behavior were measured including beliefs,
attitudes, perceived social influences, motivation to comply, per-
ceived behavioral control, self-identity, perceived responsibility,
behavioral intention, and behavior. Descriptive statistics, Pear-
son correlation coefficients, and stepwise multiple regression
analyses were used. Surveyed adolescents did not have strong or
consistent beliefs or attitudes about the environmental impact
of food production practices. Cognitive-motivational processes
were at work, however, since their perspectives were signifi-
cantly correlated with behavioral intentions and food choice
behaviors. Behavioral intention was best accounted for by atti-
tudes and perceived social influences (and perceived responsi-
bility for organic food), and behavior was best accounted for by
behavioral intentions, beliefs, and perceived social influences
(and self-identity for local food). There is a need to make
salient to adolescents the environmental impact of food pro-
duction practices through both cognitive and experiential
approaches.
(JNE 33:72–82, 2001)
INTRODUCTION
Over the years, our food system has been transformed from
a simple system to one of increasing complexity. Improved
...................................................
Address for correspondence: Madeline Monaco Bissonnette, Ed.D., Program in
Nutrition, Department of Health and Behavior Studies, Teachers College, Colum-
bia University, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027; Tel: (973) 385-5647;
Fax: (973) 385-5430; E-mail: madeline.bissonnette@psizer.com
©2001 SOCIETY FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION
72
processing methods have enabled the food supply to be
safely extended beyond harvest time, and the transportation
network has moved more food from production sites to far-
distant markets. However, some scientists have voiced a con-
cern that the vast changes in our food system are also nega-
tively affecting the health of the planet.1–3 In addition,
although there is some debate on the issues, some scientists
have stated that the current food system is not sustainable
indefinitely into the future4 and that additional efforts are
needed to stem or reverse the ecologic impacts. Some pro-
ponents of sustainability argue that not only are major
changes needed in the food system itself, but citizens also
need to alter their food choices to make them more ecolog-
ically conscious in order to encourage a sustainable food
supply.1,4
Adolescents are at a life stage where they are forming their
personal identity and developing a personal system of beliefs,
morals, and values.5 In recent years, there has been a shift
from the traditional paradigm in which adolescents were
viewed as turbulent, defiant, moody, immortal, and risk-rid-
den to a view of adolescence as a time of great opportuni-
ties, “with attention to the preventing of problems and to
engaging youth in the constructive solution of problems.”6
Perhaps, then, adolescents can be engaged in developing solu-
tions to the problems of the current and future food system.
Adolescents are not only the next generation of adults
with consumer power, but they currently also have consider-
able spending power.A survey of 71,863 high school seniors
found that more than 75% of boys and girls did paid work.7
Another study found that 46% of employed girls and 41% of
employed boys bought food with the money they earned.8
Teens also influence food choices in their households.9,10
Indeed, adolescents have been cited as spending as much as
4 billion dollars per year on foods and snacks for themselves
and as receiving an additional 19 billion from their families
to spend for family shopping.10 What do they know about the
system that brings them their food? What do they think
about how food system practices have changed over the years
or how they impact the environment? Do adolescents’ food
choice behaviors reflect their opinions on the subject?
Journal of Nutrition Education Volume 33 Number 2
Although the food system includes food production, food
processing, transportation, distribution, and marketing prac-
tices, the research reported here focused more narrowly on
one component of the food system: food production. This
research investigated adolescents’ perspectives about the envi-
ronmental impact of food production practices and whether
these perspectives are related to food choice.
To date, teen food behavior has been studied in relation
to anticipated consequences of food choice on personal
health or on features such as taste, convenience, and personal
meaning.11–15 None of these studies investigated whether per-
ceptions of environmental consequences are a potential influ-
encing factor on adolescents’ food choices. Yet, there is an
increasing body of literature that suggests that this is an
important issue. Some argue that long-term sustainability is
solvable within current practices.16 Others have argued that
issues surrounding the environmental impacts of food choice
are serious,4 and that behaviors need to change now if long-
term sustainability is to be achieved.1 Adolescents, as they
enter into adulthood, should be aware of the issues so that
they may make informed food choices and also help con-
tribute to solutions for the complexity of problems facing the
current and future food production system.
Several approaches can be taken to investigate adolescent
beliefs and practices in this area, both qualitative and quan-
titative.14,15,17 Using theory for research in the area of dietary
behavior has been consistently advocated.18–20 Among the
theories used in the area of food, an expanded version of
Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)21,22 includes fac-
tors that seemed appropriate for the current investigation.
According to the TPB, behavior is determined by an indi-
vidual’s intention to perform the behavior. Behavioral inten-
tion is, in turn, related to a set of variables, namely, attitudes
about the behavior, subjective norms or social pressures to
perform the behavior, and perceived control over perform-
ing the behavior.Attitudes are, in turn, the product of beliefs
about the outcome of the behavior and the individual’s eval-
uation of the outcome. Subjective norms are defined as a
product of an individual’s beliefs about the social pressure to
perform a behavior and the person’s motivation to comply
with these pressures. The Expanded TPB (ETPB)23–25 adds
two other variables as predictive of behavioral intention: how
one perceives oneself (perceived self-identity) and how one
perceives one’s obligation toward a behavior (perceived moral
or ethical obligation, personal responsibility).
For this study, it was decided that beliefs and practices in
relation to the sustainability of food production practices
would be investigated. What constitutes sustainable food
production practices is the subject of considerable debate, and
a wide range of practices are proposed as “sustainable.”1,4,16 To
provide focus to this study, sustainable food production
practices were operationalized as organic food production
practices and foods grown locally for three reasons: (1) these
two concepts, or “domains,” take into account issues such as
the impacts of food production practices on energy use,
March • April 2001 73
pollution, and biodiversity; (2) organic food production
practices and consumption of foods grown locally are
believed by some to be more environmentally friendly than
many current, more conventional food production prac-
tices1,4; and (3) “organic” and “local” can be identified by
shoppers. The behaviors in these two domains were opera-
tionalized as consumption and purchase of organic foods and
locally grown foods, respectively. The purpose of this study
was twofold: to describe adolescents’ views and behaviors in
relation to foods produced organically or locally and to
examine the relationship between adolescents’ views and
behaviors in these two domains. It was hypothesized that the
social psychological variables in the ETPB would signifi-
cantly predict behavioral intentions and food choice behaviors
in both the organic and local domains.
METHODS
Study population and design. The study used a cross-
sectional survey design. The study sample consisted of 669
seniors from a convenience sample of six urban and seven sub-
urban high schools in the greater New York City metropoli-
tan area, chosen to provide a wide range of socioeconomic lev-
els and diverse ethnic groups. The survey questionnaire was
administered in person by one of the researchers to intact
classes purposely selected to include a variety of subject areas:
government, English, religion, physical education, and voca-
tional classes.The questionnaire took 25 to 40 minutes to com-
plete. Of the 669 surveys collected, 18 surveys were not used
because they were less than 50% completed, resulting in a 97%
completion rate.The final sample consisted of 320 males and
327 females. There were 197 urban high school seniors and
454 suburban seniors. Ethnic composition was 65.9% Cau-
casian, 11.1% Hispanic, 8.4% African American, 4.0% Asian
American, and 10.6% other (Native American, etc.).
Instrument and variables measured. Survey questions
were derived from pilot interviews with 14 male and female
adolescents from city and suburban settings, published
literature on the environmental impacts of food production
practices,1,4 studies on determinants of behaviors in adoles-
cents related to general environmental issues,26 and studies by
Sparks and Shepherd,23 Sparks et al.,24 and Raats et al.25 that
had used an ETPB to investigate the food choices of adults.
Scales containing multiple items were developed to
measure each of the following psychosocial variables: beliefs,
attitudes, perceived social influences, motivation to comply,
perceived behavioral control, perceived self-identity,
perceived responsibility, behavioral intentions, and behavior
in each of the two major domains: organic food purchases
(hereafter referred to as the “organic domain”) and purchases
of food grown locally (hereafter referred to as the “local
domain”). Key terms as defined in the questionnaire are
shown in Table 1.
74 Bissonnette and Contento/ADOLESCENTS’ PERSPECTIVES AND FOOD CHOICE BEHAVIORS
Table 1. Definition of terms used in the survey questionnaire.
Food production: Anything related to how food is grown (farming
methods, etc.)
Organic: Foods grown in soil enriched with natural fertilizer and
without the use of man-made chemicals to control insects, diseases,
and weeds
Food grown nearby: Food grown at a farm in New York, New Jersey,
or Connecticut
Farmers’ market: A place where several farmers come to sell their
vegetables, fruits, and other products
Free range: Animals that have been allowed to roam instead of
being raised in cages, pens, or confined areas
Pesticides: Man-made chemicals used to control insects
Herbicides: Man-made chemicals used to control weeds
Food grown in the usual way: Food grown on large farms using
man-made chemicals to fertilize the soil and to control insects,
diseases, and weeds
The following are examples of survey items contained in
the organic domain of the questionnaire. Parallel questions
were asked in the local domain:
• Behavior (six items about consumption and purchase):“In
the past 2 months I have bought (or have asked the food
shopper in my home to buy) organic foods” and “Have
you ever eaten organic food?”
• Behavioral intention (two to four items):“During the next
month, I will (or will ask the food shopper in my home)
to buy foods labeled ‘organic.’”
• Beliefs (seven to eight items): “Most farming practices
today require the use of pesticides or herbicides” and
“Organic foods are more expensive.”
• Attitudes (seven to eight items):“It is important to me that
food is grown organically.”
• Perceived social influence (five to seven items):“My best
friend thinks that there is nothing wrong with using pes-
ticides or herbicides when growing food.”
• Perceived behavioral control (two to four items): “I have
very little choice over whether or not the food I eat is
organically grown.”
• Perceived responsibility (two to three items):“I feel that I
have a responsibility to buy organic foods to improve the
health of the environment.”
General information was also collected about partici-
pants’ gender, age, parents’ level of education, ethnicity, intent
to attend college, food shopping and cooking practices,
sources of information about nutrition and the environment,
types of foods eaten, and the importance of taste and health
in their food choices.
The survey instrument was evaluated for breadth of
coverage of the subject area and absence of bias by a panel
of 10 nutrition professionals and 5 key professionals with
nationally recognized expertise in food systems.To ascertain
understanding of the questions, the survey was piloted by
administering it and then discussing it with two groups, for
a total of 45 high school senior students similar to the sur-
vey respondents. Comments were then used to revise the
survey questions.
The survey’s internal reliability was investigated using
coefficient (Cronbach’s) alpha. All scales indicated good to
excellent reliability, generally .6 to .8. A few scales had reli-
abilities of .5.Test–retest reliability was assessed by adminis-
tering the survey to a group of 32 students on two different
dates 1 week apart. The test–retest correlations indicated
good to excellent reliability (.6–.8) for all scales within the
organic and local domains, with a few exceptions.The scales
that showed lower reliability were beliefs and social influence
of friends in the local domain (.4–.5). Perceived behavioral
control in both organic and local domains showed poor
test–retest reliability (.3 and .2, respectively) and was thus
dropped from further analyses. For each of the individual
items, item mean to scale total mean correlations were
calculated. Only items with correlations greater than .8 are
reported. Item means were used to describe adolescents’ per-
ceptions and behaviors, whereas scale means were used to
examine the relationships between perceptions and food
choice behaviors.
Data analysis. Most of the survey questions were scored
on a 4-point Likert-type scale; some questions involving
beliefs included a “don’t know” response option to reduce
frustration of the adolescents who did not know about the
topic. Thus, these questions had five response choices, with
“don’t know” scored as the middle option. Still other ques-
tions had response options of “yes” or “no” and were scored
from 0 to 1.
Descriptive statistics, namely, percentages of participants
responding in each response category, were used to provide
a description of adolescents’ food choice behaviors and
related psychosocial perspectives. For this description, data on
individual items were analyzed in relation to the environ-
mental impacts of food production practices. To determine
the relationship between each of the psychosocial variables
and food choice intentions or current behavior, Pearson cor-
relation coefficients were calculated using the means of the
respective scales. Stepwise regression analyses were also per-
formed to reveal, in order of predominance, the social psy-
chological variables that significantly explained part of the
variance in behavioral intentions and behaviors, as postulated
in the ETPB, in both the organic and local domains.
Student’s t-tests were used to examine the role of gender,
area of residence (urban and suburban), and ethnicity (col-
lapsed into Caucasian and non-Caucasian) in the students’
responses to the survey. One-way analysis of variance
Journal of Nutrition Education Volume 33 Number 2
(ANOVA) was used to examine the relationship between
parents’ level of education and the students’ responses to the
survey. The Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD)
procedure was employed to make stricter the determination
of significant differences among the various education levels
for each scale because there were no a priori hypotheses. Data
were analyzed using SPSS.27
RESULTS
Descriptive information about adolescents’ psy-
chosocial perspectives about food production practices.
Key individual items are used here to describe adolescents’
perceptions and behaviors while psychosocial scale means
will be used to examine the relationships between percep-
tions and behaviors.
General. About 60% of the adolescents said that they
shopped for themselves daily, weekly, or monthly, and about
46% shopped for their family. About 83% said that they
“cooked food at home.” Ninety-one percent reported eating
vegetables and 95% said that they ate fruits. Of the variety of
information sources listed, the source used most often for
information about food was parents (43%) and about the
environment was television (44%).
Beliefs. Most teens (69.4%) understood that conven-
tional farming practices require the use of pesticides or her-
bicides.About half of the participants (51.3%) agreed that con-
ventional farming practices are harmful to the environment
and will need to change (51.3%).About three-quarters of the
respondents agreed that organic foods are better for the envi-
ronment (73.7%) and better for their personal health (74.8%).
Organic foods were considered more expensive (55.8%) but
better in taste (45.4%). However, for each of these statements,
about one-third of participants checked the “don’t know”
response.
Many respondents believed that current farming practices
use a lot of fossil fuels (gasoline, oil) and generate pollution
when food is transported to us from faraway places (61.5% and
50.5%, respectively). Most respondents either disagreed
(48.3%) or did not know (27.5%) if foods grown nearby were
more expensive than foods grown far away. Questions about
the taste of foods grown locally and their impacts on the
environment and on personal health resulted in some 30% to
40% of teens replying that they did not know, and most of the
remainder split between disagree somewhat and agree
somewhat.
Attitudes. In terms of attitudes of respondents toward
organic food production practices, many teens (63.5%) were
worried that pesticides might leak into the drinking water
supply or that the way in which animals are raised for food
damages the environment (54.8%), and many (58.8%)
indicated that it was important that foods be grown without
pesticides and herbicides. At the same time, most teens
(71.8%) reported feeling that it was not important to them
personally that food is grown organically. However, the
March • April 2001 75
majority of respondents also indicated that more organic
foods should be available (69.1%) and labeled as such (79.5%)
in stores.
Adolescents were asked how worried they were that local
farms are going out of business, that foods that come from
far away use a lot of energy (gasoline, oil) to be transported
to us, and that small farms are disappearing because most food
is grown on larger, faraway farms.The responses appeared to
be fairly normally distributed, with the bulk of the replies
split between either the “probably not worried” or “probably
worried” category (over two-thirds of total responses). An
overwhelming 80% said that it was not important to them
personally that food is grown nearby. At the same time,
however, the majority of respondents (66.2%) felt that people
should have more locally grown foods available to them.
Most teens rated taste (93%) as very important to them,
and, indeed, taste (87.8%) and ability to eat their favorite
foods all year (69.5%) were more important than how or
where food is grown. Most teens also rated cost of food
(78.7%), its safety (93.9%), healthfulness (83.9%), and appear-
ance (75.3%) as important to them.
Social influences of friends and parents. Social influence
was operationalized as whether the teens’ best friend or par-
ents thought or talked about organic or locally grown foods.
Only 10% to 22% of teens said that their best friends defi-
nitely or probably talk about organic foods, harm of current
farming practices’ to the environment, and use of pesticides
or herbicides in growing food. Parents were more likely than
friends to talk about these topics according to the teens, with
combined definitely and probably responses ranging from
27% to 46%.
Similarly, very few teens (10% to 15%) responded that
their best friend definitely or probably talks about food from
a farmers’ market, having more local foods available, energy
used to transport food, or pollution generated from food
transportation. The teens reported that their parents talk
about the topics about twice as much as friends but still very
little (20% to 31%), except that 43% talk about food from
farmers’ markets. However, about 55% of teens disagreed that
friends and parents think that they should eat the same pro-
duce all year no matter where the foods come from.
Perceived responsibility. Over half (61%) of the respon-
dents did not feel a responsibility to buy organic foods or to
help change food production practices (51.4%) in order to
improve the health of the environment. Likewise, teens were
sharply divided, with slightly more strongly or somewhat
disagreeing (58.7%) than strongly or somewhat agreeing
(41.3%) that they should buy more locally grown foods in
order to improve the health of the environment.
Self-identity. Almost two-thirds of the respondents indi-
cated that they were environmentally concerned (57.6%) or
health conscious (60.9%).
Behavioral intention. Most respondents said that in the
next month, they would not try to eat or buy (or ask the
shopper in the family to buy) foods labeled “organically
grown” (76.4%) or ask the local grocer if produce in the store
76 Bissonnette and Contento/ADOLESCENTS’ PERSPECTIVES AND FOOD CHOICE BEHAVIORS
was grown using pesticides or herbicides (85.9%). However,
in terms of local foods, most teens (78.6%) reported that they
would try to learn as much as possible about where food
comes from, and about one-third (36.6%) said that they
would try to buy food from a farmers’ market or farm stand.
About half of the respondents said that they would buy fresh
fruits and vegetables grown nearby rather than from far
away, if given a choice.
Behavior. More than two-thirds (69.6%) of the respon-
dents said that they had eaten organic food before; 64.1% said
that organic foods were available in their area of residence,
but 60.1% reported that in the previous 2 months, they had
not bought or asked the food shopper in their home to buy
organic foods. In terms of local foods, most respondents
(72.2%) said that in the places where they or their family
generally buy food, information about the geographic origin
of the food is not provided. Most teens (71%) had eaten food
from a nearby farm stand or farmers’ market before. Slightly
more than half of the teens (56.2%) knew where there was
a farmers’ market but in the past 2 months had almost never
bought or asked the food shopper in their home to buy foods
that were grown nearby (66.4%) or from a farmers’ market
(59.9%). In terms of other criteria, teens had bought or asked
the shopper in their family to buy foods that taste good no
matter where they were grown (68.9%) or that were health-
ful for them (59.2%).
Relationships between psychosocial variables and
food choice behaviors with respect to organic food
production practices and foods grown locally. In ana-
lyzing the relationships between psychosocial variables and
behavioral intention or behavior, only scale means were
used, not individual item scores.
Figure 1. Zero-order correlations among psychosocial variables in the organic domain using an Expanded Theory of Planned Behavior.
Percent of variance (R2) accounted for by each variable independently in the outcome variables (behavioral intention and behavior) is reported
in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Figures 1 and 2 show the relationships between psy-
chosocial variables and behavioral intention or behavior as
put forth in the ETPB—Figure 1 for the organic domain and
Figure 2 for the local domain. Zero-order correlation coef-
ficients and percent of variance (R2) in the outcome variables
(behavioral intention and behavior) accounted for by each
psychosocial variable are displayed.The figures show that in
both domains, all relationships exhibit reasonably good cor-
relations (.3 to .45). In the organic domain, the variables that
explained the most variation in behavioral intention are
attitudes and perceived responsibility (20.3% and 13.0%,
respectively). Behavioral intention, in turn, accounted for
7.3% of the variance in behavior in the organic domain. In
the local domain, the variables that explained the most vari-
ance in behavioral intention are attitudes, perceived social
influence of parents, and perceived responsibility (19.4%,
16.8%, and 15.2%, respectively). Behavioral intention, in
turn, accounted for 12.3% of the variance in behavior in the
local domain.
Results of stepwise multiple regression analyses to exam-
ine the amount of variance in behavioral intentions or
behavior that was accounted for by each of the psychosocial
variables in the ETPB for both the organic and local domains
are shown in Table 2. In the organic domain, it can be seen
that the combination of attitudes, perceived social influences
of friends, and perceived responsibility accounted for 23.5%
of the variance in behavioral intention in the organic
domain, with attitudes contributing the largest share (20.7%).
Table 2 also shows that of all of the psychosocial variables in
the organic domain, beliefs appear to account for the largest
percentage of the variance in behavior (9.6%), followed by
behavioral intention and perceived social influences of
parents, for a total of 17.3%.
Journal of Nutrition Education Volume 33 Number 2 March • April 2001 77

Figure 2. Zero-order correlations among psychosocial variables in the local domain using an Expanded Theory of Planned Behavior.
Percent of variance (R2) accounted for by each variable independently in the outcome variables (behavioral intention and behavior) is reported
in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

For the local domain, the combination of attitudes, per-
ceived social influences of parents, motivation to comply, per-
ceived social influences of friends, and self-identity as health-
conscious and environmentally concerned individuals
accounted for 30.9% of the variance in behavioral intention.
Attitudes once again explained the bulk (20.3%) of the total
variation in the variables.The stepwise regression for the local
domain using behavior as the outcome variable showed that
behavioral intention accounted for the largest proportion of
variance in behavior (12.1%), followed by perceived social
influences of parents and self-identity, for a total of 21.9%.
Psychosocial variables and behavior analyzed by
gender, parents’ level of education, residence in an
urban or suburban area, and ethnicity.
Gender. In the organic domain, girls scored significantly
higher than boys on behavioral intention (2.04 vs. 1.85 on a
4-point scale), beliefs (2.87 vs. 2.75), attitudes (2.89 vs. 2.56),
perceived social influences of friends (2.16 vs. 2.00), and per-
ceived responsibility (2.42 vs. 2.16; Student’s t-test, p < .001
for all), as well as influence of parents (2. 44 vs. 2.31; p < .01).
In the local domain, girls scored significantly higher than
boys on behavioral intentions (2.31 vs. 2.10), attitudes (2.73

Table 2. R2 values for stepwise multiple regression analyses of the relationship between psychosocial variables and behavioral intention and
behavior in the organic food production practices and the foods grown locally domains

Organic Domain Local Domain

Behavioral Cumulative Behavior Cumulative Behavioral Cumulative Behavior Cumulative

Intention R2 R2 Intention R2 R2

Attitudes .207 Beliefs .096 Attitudes .203 Behavioral intention .121

Perceived social .226 Behavioral intention .151 Perceived social .266 Perceived social .207
influences—friends influences—parents influences—parents

Perceived .235 Perceived social Motivation to comply .286 Perceived self-identity .219
responsibility influences—parents .173

Perceived social .301

influences—friends

Perceived self-identity .309

p < .001 for all R2 values.

78 Bissonnette and Contento/ADOLESCENTS’ PERSPECTIVES AND FOOD CHOICE BEHAVIORS
vs. 2.53; p < .001 for both), and perceived responsibility (2.42
vs. 2.21, p < .01).These differences in mean scores between
males and females were generally less than 10%. Girls also
scored higher than boys (2.82 vs. 2.47 on a 4-point scale; p
< .001) on self-identity as health-conscious and environ-
mentally concerned individuals.
Parents’ level of education. Results from a one-way
ANOVA showed that those respondents whose parents had
completed graduate school, compared to those who had
completed high school or college, were more likely to enact
the behavior of consuming or buying (or asking the food
shopper in their family to buy) both organic and local foods.
For the organic domain, the mean scores were 0.53 versus
0.42 (mean difference of 21%; p < .001), and for the local
domain, the measures were 0.44 versus 0.35 (mean difference
of 20%; p < .01), both on a 0 (no) to 1 (yes) scale.These teens
also scored higher in self-identity as both health- and envi-
ronmentally conscious individuals. There were no other
differences in either domain by parents’ level of education.
Residence in an urban or suburban area. Participants’
area of residence was estimated by the location of the school
attended, either urban or suburban. Independent t-tests indi-
cated that there were several statistically significant differences
between urban and suburban respondents, but the mean
scores showed that there were only a few variables that
showed differences of 10% or higher: suburban teens were
more likely to purchase organic (18% difference in mean
scores; p < .001) and local foods (12% difference in mean
scores; p < .01), whereas urban teens were more likely to
report that their best friends think or talk about local foods
(12% difference in mean scores; p < .001).
Ethnicity. There were some statistically significant dif-
ferences among ethnic groups, but only behavior in the local
domain showed a mean score difference of 10% or higher:
Caucasian teens were 10% more likely (p < .05) than non-
Caucasian teens to consume or purchase local foods.
DISCUSSION
The study reported here is the first to investigate the per-
spectives of adolescents about the environmental impacts of
how or where food is grown and the association of these per-
spectives with their food choice behaviors, using psychoso-
cial theory, in particular an ETPB.The fact that half or more
of these adolescents shop for food for themselves or for their
families, and that about four-fifths cook at home, suggests
that they, like other adolescent samples,7–9,28 have consider-
able opportunity to make or influence food consumption
choices and purchase decisions.The extent to which the food
choices that they make are related to environmental impact
considerations was a major subject of this theory-based study.
In terms of perspectives, the adolescents in this sample did
not have strongly held beliefs or attitudes about foods that
were grown locally or organically, as was evidenced by the
large number of responses that were in the “probably yes” and
“probably no” categories (and “don’t know” where available).
However, adolescents were generally quite positive about
organic foods, believing that they were better for personal
health, that they were more expensive but tasted better, and
that the way in which they were produced was better for the
environment. The majority believed that organic foods
should be available and labeled as such in stores even though
only about half were somewhat worried about current food
production practices and about two-thirds did not feel that
it was important to them personally that foods were grown
organically.
The adolescents were less knowledgeable about the issue
of locally grown foods. Although about half assented to the
belief that transporting foods from far away increased use of
fossil fuel and created more pollution and that it was impor-
tant to keep farms in the local region, they were uncertain
whether small, local farms were going out of business or dis-
appearing from their local region and whether they should
be worried about such issues. But, again, two-thirds felt that
locally grown foods should be available to them, even though
a majority felt that it was not important to them personally
that food is grown nearby.
Taken together, these findings suggest that many teens
subscribed to the idea in the abstract of the importance of
organic and locally grown foods and were clear that these
foods should be available, even though how or where these
foods were grown was not important to them personally.
Thus, more teens responded in the familiar role of consumer,
expressing the right of access to organically and locally
grown foods, than in the role of citizen concerned about how
or where food is grown.This is corroborated by the finding
that about 60% identified themselves as health conscious or
as environmentally conscious—an abstract or ideal—but
about half also said that it was not their responsibility per-
sonally to purchase organic or local foods in order to improve
the health of the environment indirectly through increased
demand. Not surprisingly, a majority of adolescents stated
that they did not, and did not intend to, consume or purchase
(or request the shopper in their family to purchase) organic
or locally grown foods. These results appear to support the
view that although older adolescents experiment to find their
own values, they have a limited ability to see into the future
and to be concerned about it.29
The results of the analyses of relationships between ado-
lescents’ perspectives and their reported food choice inten-
tions and food choice behaviors, however, suggest that
although many of the adolescents were not knowledgeable
about the facts or were uncertain in their attitudes, the
degree to which they held particular views or had concerns
was correlated with their intentions or behaviors.These data
can be interpreted in light of the research on adolescence in
general and adolescent food choice in particular.
Adolescence is the period of development of increased
abstract and logical reasoning ability30,31 and social cognition
or conceptualizations and reasoning about their social world.32
Thus, adolescents are able to think about the possible, includ-
Journal of Nutrition Education Volume 33 Number 2
ing the ideal about themselves, others, and the world.33 The
importance of peers increases, but family influences also
remain important.34 In the area of food choice, studies have
shown that older children and adolescents, compared to
younger children, are increasingly able to align their food
choices with cognitive-motivational factors such as
anticipated or desired outcomes.What parents serve remains
highly correlated with what adolescents eat,28,35,36 and taste
and convenience remain primary motivations.17,35 Personal
meanings of eating behavior are also important.13 However,
adolescents become more able to link cause and effect and
to perceive the consequences of their actions. For example,
adolescents who were health conscious chose diets that were
more nutritious than those who were hedonistic.35 Those
who wished to be thinner appeared willing to attenuate the
importance of taste and convenience because of the cogni-
tive-motivational force of the desire to eat less fattening
foods.37
From the results of the present study, it appears that in the
domain of perspectives about how and where food is pro-
duced, cognitive-motivational factors such as beliefs and
cognitive reasoning processes about anticipated consequences
are significant, though moderate, correlates of food choice as
well.These cognitive-motivational variables—attitudes, social
influence, and so forth—are not as strongly correlated with
behavioral intention or behavior, with zero-order correla-
tions of .3 to .45 compared with those around .5 to .7 for
taste and .5 to .6 for convenience found in other studies.33
Of course, taste and convenience are acknowledged as the
most powerful motivators of food choice at any age.38 In this
study, too, taste was rated very important to almost all teens,
and they bought food based on this criterion. The consis-
tency between the rating of health as important (80%) and
purchase of healthful food (59%) was less strong, as found in
other studies.35 Indeed, taste and health as criteria were
deliberately included in this survey as a validity check. If the
results for the teens in this sample on these two criteria seem
valid compared to the results from other studies, then one’s
confidence is increased that the results on food choice cri-
teria based on views about food production practices are also
likely to be valid.The results suggest that this confidence is
justified: teens in this study appear to be acting on their rea-
soning processes and motivations about where and how
foods are grown to the extent that they understand and are
concerned about the issues.
More specifically, in this study based on the ETPB, the
stepwise multiple regression analyses showed that 24% of the
variance in intention to consume or purchase organic foods
was explained by the combination of attitudes, perceived
social influences of friends, and perceived responsibility, and
that 31% of the variance in intentions to consume or
purchase foods grown locally were accounted for by the
combination of attitudes, perceived social influences of par-
ents and friends, motivation to comply with these influences,
and self-identity, with attitudes being the leading contribu-
tor in both domains. In these multiple regression analyses,
March • April 2001 79
beliefs or attitudes were the leading contributors of predic-
tion of behavioral intentions or behaviors. Attitudes are also
correlated with beliefs. In practical terms, this means that in
addition to their beliefs in the abstract, when adolescents feel
that it is important to them personally that food is grown
organically or locally or when they are worried about the
effects of specific food production practices, they are more
likely to say that they intend to act, that is, when an affective
component is present and cognitive.
Although the percentages of variance explained may seem
low, they are, in fact, similar to those found in other studies
that have used the ETPB. For example, a study of adoles-
cents39 found that a combination of attitudes, subjective
norms, perceived behavioral control, and self-identity
accounted for 22% to 29% of the total variance in intentions
to consume fruit, French fries, chocolate, and sweets using
general criteria such as taste and health.A study with adults24
found that the combination of attitudes, subjective norms,
perceived behavioral control, and self-identify as a “green
consumer” accounted for (or predicted) 27% of the variance
in intentions to consume organic vegetables the next week,
with zero-order correlations in the range of .26 to .38.These
studies did not ask for reports about behaviors. Thus, it can
be concluded that the variables of the ETPB, taken together,
are as good at explaining the role of beliefs and concerns
about food production practices in adolescent food choice as
they are at accounting for the role of other criteria such as
taste or health in adolescent food choice and environmental
concern in organic food consumption in adults.
Indeed, the percentages of variance that explained behav-
ioral intentions in this study in both domains (23% to 30%)
are similar, surprisingly so given the topic, to those obtained
over a wide range of studies using a variety of psychosocial
models, not just the TPB.20,24–26,28,40 Staffleu et al.,40 in a
review of some 30 studies, noted that higher variances were
explained only when integrated models incorporating many
variables were used, when behavioral intentions were the
outcome, or when the behavior was very specific, such as
drinking low-fat milk or eating beef. Here, variances
explained reached 50%.
The variances explained in terms of behavior (17% to
22%) in this study are on the low end of the range but still
within the range compared to studies with adults, again indi-
cating the importance of both reasoning and cognitive-
motivational factors.Although psychosocial variables provide
lower prediction of behavior than of behavioral intent in
adults,38 this finding in this study probably reflects the fact
that adolescents are still to some degree dependent on their
families in terms of food choice.
This interpretation seems to be supported by the stepwise
multiple regressions where the influence of friends was
significantly related to behavioral intentions but not to actual
reported behavior, whereas the influence of parents was sig-
nificantly related to reported behavior in both organic and
local domains. This suggests that although personal factors
such as beliefs and attitudes and influence of friends are
80 Bissonnette and Contento/ADOLESCENTS’ PERSPECTIVES AND FOOD CHOICE BEHAVIORS
important, some parental support is required to turn intentions
into action; parents are still most likely to purchase the food
for the household and determine what is served.35 In addition,
parents are the primary source of information about food for
most teens in the study.The influence of parents is probably
also reflected in the finding that adolescents whose parents
had more education were more likely to rate themselves as
health and environmentally conscious and to consume or more
likely to buy (or request the food shopper in their family to
buy) both organic and local foods. It may be that families
with more education are also more affluent and can afford to
buy local and organic foods, which sometimes are more
expensive. The fact that suburban teens are more likely to
consume or buy organic and local foods and Caucasian teens
are more likely to consume or buy local foods probably also
reflects family factors: suburban teens are more likely to come
from more educated families and Caucasian families.
Gender differences found in this study corroborate results
of gender analyses conducted in studies of adolescents’ per-
ceptions of environmental risk41 and health-conscious food
choice.39 In those studies, females perceived more environ-
mental risks and reported more health-conscious behaviors
than males.
It is unfortunate that the perceived behavioral control
scale in this study had low test–retest reliability and its inter-
nal consistency was only moderate (.5), since it is a major, and
distinguishing, variable in the TPB. Despite that, it did explain
significant (p < .001), though small, amounts of unique vari-
ance in the multiple regression analyses: 1% and 4% of
behavior in the organic and local domains, respectively (data
not presented). Again, this suggests that having some
perception of control is related to reported behavior in these
teens. It may well be that its unreliability derived from the
way in which the variable was constructed. Sparks et al.42
have pointed out that the variable reflects both inner control
factors (and is thus like self-efficacy) and external perceived
difficulty factors (and is thus like perceived barriers) and that
researchers have not carefully and consistently conceptualized
the variable, which may not be one scale. A re-examination
of the wording of the questions used in this study shows that
both of these attributes were included in the questions,
possibly contributing to the unreliability of the scale.
In an extensive review of mediating variables in dietary
studies, Baranowski et al.20 also found that in most studies of
fat intake or fruit and vegetable intake based on psychoso-
cial models, rarely did conventional variables such as health,
convenience, and taste explain more than about 30% of vari-
ance in behaviors.The authors called for the investigation of
other potentially salient variables.The ETPB was selected for
use in this study because it includes additional variables that
were thought to be potentially salient to the consideration of
food production practices in food choice.
The zero-order correlations of these additional vari-
ables—perceived responsibility for changing current food
production practices and of self-identity as health- and envi-
ronmentally conscious individuals—with behavioral inten-
tion in both the organic and local domains were significant
and almost as strong as for attitudes and social influence. In
the multiple regression analyses, these variables explained
very little additional unique variance (about 1% each), but
these additions were statistically significant.The finding that
perceived responsibility explained additional variance in
behavioral intention in the organic domain suggests that ado-
lescents understood that organic food production is an alter-
native system and that they saw, at least to a small degree, that
the intention to eat or buy organic foods contributes to
changing the current food system. On the other hand, eat-
ing and buying locally produced foods was not seen as
expressing a responsibility to change the system but was seen
as reflecting the adolescents’ self-identify as a health- and
environmentally conscious consumer.
The inclusion of perceived responsibility and self-identity
variables in the study reported here increased the variance
explained over the traditional variables of the theories of
reasoned action or of planned behavior, even though only
modestly. The results confirmed the study hypothesis that
ETPB variables would significantly predict behavioral inten-
tion and behavior in relation to food production practices.
In this regard, the findings are somewhat similar to those of
a meta-analysis of 128 studies in all age groups of responsi-
ble environmental behaviors not related to food.23 This study
also found that attitudes and perceived responsibility were
significantly related to behavior, along with locus of control,
knowledge of issues, knowledge of action strategies, and
behavioral intention or verbal commitment.
There are several limitations to the study. One is that the
sample was a convenience sample. Every effort was made to
select schools that represented a wide range of economic back-
grounds and urban and suburban neighborhoods and different
ethnic groups. However, the final sample contained fewer
urban schools than had been expected because of the many
unscheduled year-end school activities that interfered with data
collection. Future research should use a more systematic sam-
pling procedure. Likewise, high school seniors from the greater
New York City area may not be typical of those in the rest of
the country.The results are also bounded by the subject mat-
ter covered by the survey instrument and may not be com-
pletely representative of all of the views about food produc-
tion methods held by the adolescents in the study. Finally, food
consumption and purchase behaviors are based on self-report.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
The survey could be extended to other populations in dif-
ferent parts of the country to see how general these results
are. Perhaps an adapted version of the survey could also be
applied to the study of adolescents’ perspectives about other
components of the food system that also have an impact on
the environment, sometimes negatively, such as food pro-
cessing and packaging.
Journal of Nutrition Education Volume 33 Number 2
Although qualitative methods can often provide rich
descriptions, the pilot for this study found that on this par-
ticular topic, teens did not engage in deep discussions. Hence,
it was decided to conduct a quantitative survey. It may be
productive, however, to use the results of this study as the
basis of a qualitative study in which students could be asked
to comment on and amplify findings from this study.
Implications for practice arise from the two key findings
of this study: (1) these adolescents were not knowledgeable
about many of the specific issues involving the environmen-
tal impacts of food production practices and were uncertain
in their attitudes and (2) at the same time, the beliefs and atti-
tudes or feelings that they did have about these issues were
correlated with their food choice intentions and food
choices, at least to a moderate degree, in the midst of these
uncertainties. Food and nutrition educators can pursue two
strategies: provide adolescents with (1) a more conceptual
understanding of the issues and (2) greater opportunity to
examine psychosocial or affective factors such as their atti-
tudes, self-identity, and sense of responsibility in terms of
these issues.
In terms of the increased conceptual understandings, it is
encouraging that the majority of these adolescents expressed
interest in learning more about local and organic foods.The
issues are quite complicated, however. There is serious dis-
agreement among various groups of government and busi-
ness personnel, activists, and food and nutrition educators
about how to address the issue of the sustainability of food
production practices. Some are strongly opposed to promot-
ing organic and local farming,43 whereas others are strongly
in favor.1–4 Others believe that organic and local farming
should be just one approach to sustainable food production.
It is not likely that a common, public policy will be formu-
lated in the near future that will embrace and encourage edu-
cation about food production issues in the classroom. Yet
today’s adolescents will be tomorrow’s adults, needing to be
prepared to make personal decisions and to participate in
public debate about controversial issues regarding food pro-
duction practices, such as the use of biotechnology, to pro-
duce genetically modified food. In the absence of a common
ground, adolescents need to be provided with appropriate
information about alternative and conventional farming
practices and opportunities to carefully examine both sides
of the controversies and debates about food production
issues. They need to be provided with opportunities to
develop critical thinking skills.
This study has also shown that abstract understanding of
the issues is important but not enough. The conventional
food system, based on conventional food production
practices, is the overwhelming system, if not the only one,
adolescents (and most American adults) ever experience.
(Organic farms constitute 1% of all farms.44) They do not, on
a day-to-day basis, have the opportunity to experience any
other food system so as to form a truly informed opinion and
to develop appropriate attitudes.The issues have to become
March • April 2001 81
personally important to teens for them to act.Their attitudes,
values, self-identities, and sense of personal responsibilty
need to be explored. Experiential types of learning may be
useful in heightening awareness of the issues and making
them more personal. Consequently, where possible, adoles-
cents should be provided with field trips to farmers’ markets
both to experience locally grown foods and to meet farm-
ers. They should also be provided with field visits to both
organic and conventional farms to observe how foods are
grown in these two systems and to talk with farmers, or
farmers can be invited to visit their classrooms if field trips
are not possible. Adolescents could be introduced to
community-supported agriculture (CSA) and urban gar-
dens, where possible. Given the important role of parents in
adolescent food choices, both strategies should be accompa-
nied by involvement of parents, for example, through take-
home materials to stimulate discussion and debate about the
issues at home or through participation of parents in the field
trips or in CSA. Such a combined cognitive and experiential
approach, accompanied with parent involvement, will likely
be the only way in which to foster true inquiry and to
provide teens with the needed information, critical thinking
skills, and affective experiences with local and organic foods
so that they can make truly informed choices as citizens and
become engaged in developing solutions to the problems of
the current and future food system.
REFERENCES
1. Gussow JD, Clancy K. Dietary guidelines for sustainability. J Nutr Educ
1986;18:1–4.
2. Gussow JD. Dietary guidelines for sustainability: twelve years later. J
Nutr Educ 1999;31:194–200.
3. Clancy K. Reclaiming the social and environmental roots of nutrition
education. J Nutr Educ 1999;31:190–3.
4. Pimentel D, Pimentel M, eds. Food, energy and society. Rev. Ed.
Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1996.
5. Cobb NJ.Adolescence: continuity, change and diversity. Mountain View,
CA: Mayfield, 1992.
6. Lageman EC, ed. Adolescence in the 1990’s: risk and opportunity.
Teachers College Record 1993;94:453–629.
7. Bachman JG, Shulenberg J. How part-time work intensity relates to
drug use, problem behavior, time use, and satisfaction among high
school seniors: are these consequences or merely correlates? Dev
Psychol 1993;29:220–35.
8. Mortimer JT, Dennehy K, Lee C. Work experiences and other influ-
ences on adolescents’ occupational values: evidence from a prospective
study. Report for the National Center for Research on Vocational
Education. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1991.
9. Franklin A.Adolescent food choice, criteria rules and decision making
processes. Unpublished dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia
University, New York, 1996.
10. McNeal JU. Kids as consumers, a handbook of marketing to children.
New York: Lexington Books, 1992.
82 Bissonnette and Contento/ADOLESCENTS’ PERSPECTIVES AND FOOD CHOICE BEHAVIORS
11. Contento IR, Michela JL. Nutrition and food choice behavior among
children and adolescents. In: Goreczny, Herson, eds. Handbook of pedi-
atric and adolescent health psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
1998:249–73.
12. Story M, Resnick MD.Adolescents’ views on food and nutrition. J Nutr
Educ 1986;18:188–92.
13. Spruijt-Metz D. Personal incentives as determinants of adolescent
health behavior. Health Educ Res, 1995;10:355–64.
14. Chapman G, MacLean H.“Junk food” and “healthy food”: meanings of
food in adolescent women’s culture. J Nutr Educ 1993;25:108–13.
15. Neumark-Sztainer D, Story M, Perry C, Cassey MA. Factors influenc-
ing food choices of adolescents: findings from focus-group discussion
with adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc 1999;99:929–34, 937.
16. Avery D. Saving nature’s legacy through better farming. Issues in
Science and Technology 1997;(Fall):59–64.
17. Shepherd R, Dennison CM. Influences on adolescent food choice. Proc
Nutr Soc 1996;55:345–57.
18. Contento IR.The effectiveness of nutrition education and implications
for nutrition education policy, programs, and research: a review of
research. J Nutr Educ 1995;27:277–422.
19. Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Nutrition education: a model for effective-
ness, a synthesis of research. J Nutr Educ 1985;17(Suppl):S1–44.
20. Baranowski T, Cullen KW, Baranowski J. Psychosocial correlates of
dietary intake: advancing dietary intervention. Annu Rev Nutr 1999;
19:17–40.
21. Ajzen I.Attitudes,personality and behavior.Chicago:Dorsey Press,1988.
22. Ajzen I.The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decision
Processes 1991;50:179–211.
23. Sparks P, Shepherd R. Self-identity and the theory of planned behav-
ior: assessing the role of identification with “green consumerism.” Soc
Psychol Q 1992;55:388–99.
24. Sparks P, Shepherd R, Frewer LJ. Assessing and structuring attitudes
toward the use of gene technology in food production: the role of
perceived ethical obligation. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 1995;163:
267–85.
25. Raats MM, Shepherd R, Sparks P. Including moral dimensions of
choice within the structure of the theory of planned behavior. J Appl
Soc Psychol 1995;25:484–94.
26. Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN. Analysis and synthesis of
research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J
Environ Educ 1987;18:1–8.
27. Norusis MJ. SPSS/PC+ version 4.0 for the IBM PC/XT/AT and PS/2.
Chicago: SPSS, 1990.
28. Fuenekes G. Food, fat, family and friends: studies on the impact of the
social environment on dietary intake. Doctoral dissertation,Wageningen
Agricultural University,Wageningen, Netherlands, 1996.
29. Myers B. Raising responsible teenagers. London: Jessica Kingsley, 1993.
30. Piaget J. Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Hum
Dev 1972;15:1–12.
31. Flavell JH. Cognitive development: past, present, and future. Dev
Psychol 1992;28:998–1005.
32. Lapsley DK. Continuity and discontinuity in adolescent social cogni-
tive development. In: Montemayor R, Adams G, Gulotta T, eds. From
childhood to adolescence: a transitional period? Newbury Park, CA:
Sage, 1990:183–204.
33. Santrock JW. Adolescence. 8th Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
34. Allen JP, Hauser ST, Bell KL, O’Connor TG. Longitudinal assessment
of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as pre-
dictors of adolescent ego development and self-esteem. Child Dev
1994;65:179–94.
35. Contento IR, Michela JL, Goldberg CJ. Food choice among adoles-
cents: population segmentation by motivations. J Nutr Educ
1988;20:289–98.
36. De Bourdeauhuij I. Family food rules and healthy eating in adolescents.
J Health Psychol 1997;2:45–56.
37. Contento IR, Michela JL,Williams, SS. Adolescent food choice crite-
ria: role of weight and dieting status. Appetite 1995;25:51–76.
38. Glanz K, Basil M, Maibach E, Goldberg J, Snyder D. Why Americans
eat what they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight con-
trol concerns as influences on food consumption. J Am Diet Assoc
1998;98:1118–26.
39. Dennison CM, Shepherd R.Adolescent food choice: an application of
the Theory of Planned Behavior. J Hum Nutr Diet 1995;8:9–23.
40. Staffleu A, de Graaf C, van Stavern WA, Schroots JJF. A review of
selected studies assessing social-psychological determinants of fat and
cholesterol intake. Food Qual Pref 1991–2;3:183–200.
41. Richard DE, Peterson SJ. Perception of environmental risk related to
gender, community socioeconomic setting, age and locus of control. J
Environ Educ 1986;30:11–9.
42. Sparks P, Guthrie CA, Shepherd R. The dimensional structure of the
perceived behavioral control construct. J Appl Soc Psychol 1997;
27:418–38.
43. Avery, D. The hidden dangers in organic food. American Outlook
1998;(Fall):19–22.
44. Organic Farming Research Foundation. About organic. http://www.
ofrf.org/about_organic/index.html. Accessed June 8, 2000.