Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011) 1131e1139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Social Science & Medicine

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed

Why healthy eating is bad for young peoples health: Identity, belonging and food
Martine Stead a, *, Laura McDermott a, Anne Marie MacKintosh a, Ashley Adamson b
a b

Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling and The Open University Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK Newcastle University, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Available online 24 February 2011 Keywords: North east England Nutrition Healthy eating Adolescents School food Food brands Identity Belonging UK Qualitative research

a b s t r a c t
Research into young people and healthy eating has focussed on identifying the barriers to healthy eating and on developing interventions to address them. However, it has tended to neglect the emotional, social and symbolic aspects of food for young people, and the roles food might play in adolescence. This paper explores these issues, reporting ndings from a qualitative study which explored the meanings and values young people attached to food choices, particularly in school and peer contexts. As part of a larger study into young peoples relationships with food brands, 12 focus groups were conducted with young people aged 13e15 in the North East of England. The focus groups found that young people used food choices to help construct a desired image, as a means of judging others, and to signal their conformity with acceptable friendship and peer norms. Importantly, the ndings suggested that the social and symbolic meanings associated with healthy eating conicted with processes and values which are of crucial importance in adolescence, such as self-image and tting in with the peer group. In other words, it was emotionally and socially risky to be seen to be interested in healthy eating. Interventions need not only to make healthy eating easier and more available, but also to address young peoples emotional needs for identity and belonging. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background Introduction Research into why young people do not eat as healthily as desired has identied a number of barriers such as their physical environment, which contains multiple cues promoting the consumption of energy dense foods (Kahn & Wansink, 2004; Painter, Wansink, & Hieggelki, 2002; Tuomisto, Tuomisto, Hetherington, & Lappalainen, 1998; Yancey et al., 2009); the superseding nature of factors inherent in foods (i.e. taste, smell, appearance) to instigate consumption in young people (Stevenson, Doherty, Barnett, Muldoon, & Trew, 2007); inconsistencies between large portion size, satiation and subsequent energy intake compensation (Ello-Martin, Ledikwe, & Rolls, 2005; Rolls, 2003; Wansink & Chandon, 2006); and control seeking behaviours during adolescence which may lead to unhealthy diet choices as a reaction to parental controlling inuence (Hill, 2002). The majority of studies in a recent systematic review (Hanson & Chen, 2007) suggested that low socio-economic status adolescents have poorer diets than their higher socio-economic status peers, regardless of age, gender, measures of SES or ethnicity.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 (0) 1786 467387; fax: 44 (0) 1786 466449. E-mail address: martine.stead@stir.ac.uk (M. Stead). 0277-9536/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.12.029

A recent systematic review of young peoples own perceptions of the barriers identied a wide range of factors, including the easy availability of unhealthy food, limited access to healthy alternatives, and a preference for the taste of fast food (Shepherd et al., 2006). The same review notes that another barrier is young peoples tendency to associate unhealthy food with desirable concepts such as friendship, pleasure and relaxation (Shepherd et al., 2006); however, generally research tends to focus on the functional and rational barriers to healthy eating, and to neglect foods more emotional and symbolic dimensions. Food can be seen as a sociocultural product with a meaning and importance far beyond its nutritional or caloric content (Sylow & Holm, 2009). Fischler (1988) comments that the way any given human group eats helps it assert its diversity, hierarchy and organisation, and at the same time, both its oneness and the otherness of whoever eats differently (p. 275). In many cultures and groups, the reasons for choosing or rejecting particular foods are bound up with concerns over identity, image, social belonging and status (eg Fox & Ward, 2008; Tivadar & Luthar, 2005). For young people in particular, such concerns are of paramount importance. Adolescence is a period of uncertainty and transition in which young people move through role confusion to an achievement of personal identity (Hill, 2001). At the same time as striving for their own identity, young people seek to belong and not stand out from the peer group (Wills, 2005). Peer group relations assume increasing

1132

M. Stead et al. / Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011) 1131e1139

importance in adolescence (Pombeni, Kirchler, & Palmonari, 1990) and can buffer young people from feelings of anxiety and alienation in a period of rapid change (Newman, Lohman, & Newman, 2007). Equally, deviation from peer group norms can lead to ridicule and bullying (eg Wooten, 2006). Consequently, adolescents strive to be accepted by others and to avoid ostracisation by tting in with peer group expectations (eg Hendry & Reid, 2000). It is important not to deviate too far from acceptable norms or to appear too different from the peer groups values, as there are critical social consequences for young people who make wrong choices e too much individuality and difference can result in stigma or exclusion (Valentine, 2000). Consumer behaviour literature suggests that one means of coping with these challenges is through consumption: the acquisition and consumption of material goods become, in adolescence, strategies for expressing identity and acquiring prestige among ones peers (Belk, 1988). How these concerns about image and social status manifest themselves in consumption behaviours such as buying branded goods or adopting particular styles of fashion has been explored in various marketing and consumer studies (eg Chaplin & John, 2005; Hogg, Bruce, & Hill, 1998; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004). It has also been explored in literature on substance use, where studies have examined, for example, the meanings and values associated with particular tobacco and alcohol brands among young people (eg Gordon, Moodie, Eadie & Hastings, 2010; Grant, Hassan, Hastings, MacKintosh, & Eadie, 2008; Hastings, Ryan, Teer, & MacKintosh, 1994) and how behaviours around smoking, drinking and drug use are connected with concerns about image and peer group dynamics (eg Amos, Gray, & Currie, 1997; MacFadyen, Amos, Hastings, & Parkes, 2003). However, it has received less attention in the literature on young people and food. This study set out to build on this research, and to deepen understanding of how such concerns might come into play in young peoples food choices. The importance of consumption in adolescence Consumer behaviour research suggests that products have qualities which go beyond their functional attributes e they have the ability to carry and communicate cultural meanings (Wattanasuwan, 2005). People use products as a means of cultivating and projecting desired identities (eg Belk, 1988). Consumer goods can be used as a form of symbolic self-completion, whereby the symbolic meanings associated with the product, and particularly the brand, transfer, through ownership and visible use, to the individual wearing or using it (Elliott & Leonard, 2004; Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998). The act of purchasing and consuming different products can be understood as part of a persons selfpresentation strategy e the desired self he or she presents or performs to others in social settings (Goffman, 1959). Just as the symbolic meanings of goods can be used as an outward expression of the sort of person one wishes to present to others, similarly, people draw inferences about others based on the products they consume and judge them accordingly (Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982, 1984). For adolescents, the consumption of products serves two important functions e it helps them to create and present a desired identity, and it helps them to t in with a desired peer group. Young people are highly conscious of how others in their social group might interpret the meanings of particular products and brands, and may choose or reject items according to the perceived values and opinions of others who matter to them (Piacentini & Mailer, 2004). Just as certain products and brands are positively selected because they are perceived to be congruent with a consumers desired identity, others are avoided because they evoke negative stereotypes which may associate the consumer with an undesired identity, group or trend (eg Hogg & Banister, 2001). Such processes rely on all parties having

a shared understanding of the meaning of particular consumption behaviours, products and brands (eg Elliot, 1994). Sending out the right messages about ones image and attaining peer approval is particularly important where products are visibly or conspicuously consumed e worn or used in social settings (Bachmann, John, & Rao, 1993). Consumer behaviour studies have tended to concentrate on visible and high involvement products, such as clothing and mobile phones (eg Hogg et al., 1998; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004; Wilska, 2003). Less attention has been paid in consumer behaviour research to food and drink, perhaps because they tend to be regarded as lower visibility, lower involvement products (eg Kuenzel & Musters, 2007). However, some research into young peoples food preferences has suggested that the image and prestige associated with particular food and drink products may be seen as important in terms of projecting the right identity to ones peers. For example, in a qualitative interview study with 7e14-year old English schoolchildren, Roper and La Niece (2009) found that they perceived the likes of Cadburys, Walkers and KitKat as expensive and proper brands which would be cool and acceptable to their peers. There is also research to suggest that choosing and eating food serve as shared consumer activities through which young people can express afnity to preferred peer groups. For example, Wills (2005) describes how a group of 16e24 year old young people adopted particular food consumption habits after leaving school as a way of tting in with new social groups and cultures. Similarly, Sylow and Holm (2009) observed teenagers in a sports centre cafeteria choosing similar foods to one another and sharing those foods, in order to express friendship and identity. Another example of this phenomenon is demonstrated by young people from minority ethnic backgrounds choosing to eat western foods when with their peers in order to t in (eg Ludvigsen & Sharma, 2004; Lv & Brown, 2010). The study reported here sought to explore these themes further. As part of a larger study, funded by the UK Department of Health, into the role of branding in young peoples food choices in general, we conducted qualitative research to explore how young people use and interpret food and drink products, focusing in particular on one social context e the school packed lunch e where concerns about image and peer opinion might be particularly salient. The study was approved by the University of Stirling Research Ethics Committee and conducted under strict adherence to the University code of ethics for research. Methods For this element of the wider study we conducted qualitative focus groups with young people in English school years 9, 10 and 11 (age 13e16). We chose this age group rstly because it falls within Johns (1999) reective stage of consumer development, when young peoples understanding of consumer brands becomes fairly advanced and they begin to express strong brand preferences (John, 1999). Secondly, we wanted to explore how young people use brands within the context of independent purchasing. By the time they reach their early teenage years, young people are likely to buy food for themselves both during the school day and while socializing with friends at the weekend. Thirdly, young people of this age are likely to have a relatively good understanding of the healthfulness of different foods. This allowed us to explore any tension between brand inuence and knowledge about what is acceptable/ not acceptable to eat. The focus groups were conducted in Spring 2007, and the wider study ran from 2007e2008. As this was a previously little-researched area, the approach was largely inductive, although an initial conceptual framework for the work was provided by the research questions and also by key concepts and theories in the branding literature; for example, the

M. Stead et al. / Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011) 1131e1139

1133

notion that desirable attributes associated with brands might transfer to their owners (Chaplin & John, 2005), and that people make inferences about others based on the products they consume (Belk et al., 1984). An initial focus group discussion guide was developed based on this conceptual framework, and was reviewed and adapted as the research progressed, to reect emerging priorities and themes. The order of introducing key themes was varied across the groups, such that some began with a general discussion of food before moving to an exploration of branding, some began with a discussion of branding in different contexts before moving on to food, and others began with exploring young peoples lifestyles and leisure activities before moving to the two themes of food and brand consumption. This variation in the order in which themes were introduced, done in order to approach the issue of food branding from different angles, did not appear to affect the ndings across the groups. We were aware that it is difcult to ask people directly about the inuences on their food choices, and also of the particular nebulousness of branding as a concept. Direct questioning would be unlikely to elicit the symbolic meanings and emotions associated with particular foods and food brands. This suggested to us a need to approach the key themes indirectly and creatively rather than through conventional questioning. Drawing on techniques used in previous consumer behaviour research to explore young peoples involvement with products and brands (eg Hogg et al., 1998; Piacentini & Tinson, 2003; Tinson, 2009), we developed a variety of questioning techniques, including card sort exercises to explore the relative importance of different inuences on food choices. A key

technique was lunchbox personication, in which we asked young people to select typical food and drink products for a particular type of persons lunchbox, or to describe the sort of person who might have a particular selection of products in their lunchbox (see Fig. 1). Up to 45% of UK secondary schoolchildren bring a lunchbox or packed lunch to school at least some of the time (Gregory, Lowe, Bates, & et al, 2000), and this activity was therefore one with which respondents would have been able to identify. The focus group discussions lasted around one and a quarter hours each and were conducted in informal venues such as community centres and hotels. Each group was moderated by one of the authors. The discussions were recorded using a digital audio recorder, and transcribed in full for analysis. Sample and recruitment The sample was comprised of young people from three communities in the North East of England. The North East of England was chosen because it is considered representative of the UK as a whole in terms of levels of social afuence and disadvantage (Ofce of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003). The focus groups were stratied by three variables e school year group, gender and social class e to increase homogeneity in the groups and so that any differences between groups could be more easily explored in the analysis (see Fig. 2). We were particularly interested in the possible inuence of social class on response because the consumer behaviour literature suggests that greater importance may be attached to having socially desirable brands by young people from lower income groups

Lunchbox personification This activity was designed to explore the symbolic and emotional associations that young people make with particular food product categories and brands. They were invited to assemble ingredients for hypothetical lunchboxes from a range of food items which the moderator took in to the group discussions. The items included both premium brands such as Coca Cola, Walkers, Cadburys, Muller and Volvic water, and supermarket economy brands such as Asda Smart Price, and included both healthier and less healthy items (fruit, water, sugary drinks, crisps, confectionery). Respondents were asked to imagine that each lunchbox contained a sandwich, and then to choose from the rest of the products an appropriate lunchbox selection for the following kinds of people: A Trendy Person An Untrendy Person A Popular Person An Unpopular Person A Geeky Person A Healthy Person An Unhealthy Person Someone with a lot of money Someone who doesnt have a lot of money A celebrity (such as David Beckham, Jade Goody, Kate Moss)

They were also asked to assemble a lunchbox which their parents would approve of, which their friends would approve of, and which they themselves would like.

Fig. 1. Lunchbox personication technique used in focus groups.

1134

M. Stead et al. / Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011) 1131e1139

Findings We focus here on three key themes which emerged from the data. Firstly, despite initially differentiating food from goods more obviously associated with image and social status, young people did attach meanings to and judge others on the basis of their food choices. Secondly, these meanings and judgements encouraged and supported the use of some brands and stigmatised others (and by extension, those who used them). Thirdly, on the basis of these meanings and judgements, the selection of healthy choices was socially risky. Each of these themes is now illustrated more fully. i) Food choices carry meanings and judgements In our focus groups, young people spoke animatedly about the importance of having the right brand of consumer goods such as clothes and mobile phones. Having an inferior or unrecognised brand could damage image and standing in the peer group, exposing the wearer to a continuum of disparagement from getting the mick/mickey taken (being teased) through to bullying and marginalisation (in the quotes below, Rebel Active is a brand name used by the clothing retailer Primark, and nardy and raggy are derogatory terms used in the North of England to signify something or someone who is cheap): Oh, yes, like D-, we take the mick out of him because he thought he had a really good phone that played monophonic ring tones.(Boy, Year 9, C2DE) Like, Rebel Active, its a nardy make. Its just this make no one ever wears. Someone would come and put a bag over your head if you wore it. Because its raggy, cheap, nasty.(Boys, Year 10, C2DE) If you dont get jeans with a make [i.e. a brand] you get called a tramp and stuff.(Girl, Year 9, C2DE) When asked whether the same considerations came into play with regard to their food choices, the focus group participants initially tended to argue that, because food products did not form part of ones visual identity, the same concerns did not apply. You wear the jeans. Yes, because you wear the jeans! You want to look good. No one takes notice of what food you eat.(Girls, Year 11, ABC1) At a rational level, young people derided the notion that anyones image or social position could be either bolstered or harmed by the foods which they consumed. They asserted that friends had little inuence on the food they chose, either positively (in the sense of wanting to buy the same things) or negatively (in the sense of not wanting to buy something which would attract disapproval). However, as the exchange below shows, peer inuence did appear to operate indirectly, in that young people were nonetheless sensitive to the possibility of being mocked by their peers on the basis of unusual or unacceptable food choices: They [friends] just wouldnt care at all [about what you ate]. Yes. They wouldnt care at all. Theyd care about it if you pulled out a Smart Price [low price no frills range associated with the British supermarket chain Asda] or Aldi [discount supermarket chain] or something. Aldi beans. Moderator: They would care about that? Yes, theyd laugh at you if you had that. Theyd laugh at the banana too.(Boys, Year 11, C2DE) Even food choices and consumption behaviours which did not seem particularly odd or extreme could arouse anxiety over what

Fig. 2. Focus group sample breakdown.

(Croghan, Grifn, Hunter, & Phoenix, 2006; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004). There are also known gender and social class differences in attitudes and behaviour in relation to healthy eating (Farhat, Iannotti, & Simons-Morton, 2010; Van Lenthe et al., 2009). Social class was identied on the basis of social grade of the occupation of head of household, using standard market research society denitions (MRS, 2006), and young people were classied as either social class ABC1 (equivalent to middle class) or social class C2DE (equivalent to working class). Each focus group comprised between six and eight respondents (total sample n 80). Respondents were recruited door-to-door by self-employed market research consultants using a short recruitment questionnaire to ensure that each individual met the appropriate sample criteria. We deliberately avoided recruiting respondents from schools which were participating in a questionnaire survey being conducted as part of the wider study, to avoid sensitising either group to the other element of the study, but did recruit, as far as possible, from schools within the same neighbourhoods as the survey schools. Information on the characteristics of schools participating in the wider study is reported elsewhere (Stead, MacKintosh, McDermott, Anker, & Adamson, 2009). Informed parental opt-in consent was sought for all respondents, and full information was provided outlining the study and what was required of the participant. Respondents were offered a CD or book token for taking part. Analysis The transcripts were coded and analysed using grounded theory techniques in which the themes emerge from the participants perspectives. Conceptual maps were drawn up of key relationships, such as the relationship between brands and experiences and perceptions of healthy eating. Two of the authors independently read and coded the transcripts, following which key themes and concepts were agreed through discussion and further re-reading of the transcripts. Verbatim extracts from the group conversations are used in the paper to illustrate the ndings. It was not possible in the transcription process to differentiate each individual respondent, therefore we do not use the convention of labelling speakers Respondent 1, Respondent 2 and so on when reproducing extracts of conversations.

M. Stead et al. / Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011) 1131e1139

1135

friends might think. In one group of girls, for example, the notion that someone might bring a pot of yoghurt from home to school provoked laughter. The signicance of the exchange below is the way in which it reveals the existence of a strong and shared consensus among the group regarding what was acceptable. You wouldnt have a yoghurt I dont think because then youd have to have a spoon! Yes. That is not cool. Moderator: Spoons are not cool? Not. Moderator: Really? (All laughing) Moderator: What do you mean? You look stupid getting a big metal spoon out of your bag. Its just not good. Moderator: I have a yoghurt at work everyday, what must everyone think! (All laughing) Its an embarrassment to get a spoon out!(Girls, Year 11, ABC1) ii) Approved versus stigmatised brands Young people in our groups did, then, attach values and meanings to the food choices made by their peers. As with clothing and mobile phones, certain brands were approved and socially acceptable, while others were seen as detrimental to ones image and social position. This was illustrated in the lunchbox game, where young people of both genders, both social class groupings and all years tended to associate mainstream brand products with the positive concept of popularity. The implication was that buying and consuming such products was consistent with a positive self-concept and a well-regarded social position. For example, one group of social class ABC1 boys, when asked to select what a trendy person e someone who keeps up with the latest trends e might put in their lunchbox, immediately picked out mainstream brand products e Cadburys Dairy Milk chocolate, Walkers potato crisps (known as Lays outside the UK), Dairylea cheese strings, Coca Cola. These products would be chosen by a trendy person, they argued, because the names were big and because such a person would want to have the best products and for other people to know where [theyre] shopping (Boys, Year 9, ABC1). Similar associations were made by a group of social class C2DE girls, who also made a link between being popular and choosing high fat foods and drinks: Moderator: What about a popular person? The Coca Cola and the Pepsi. Yes. All the fat foods basically. Crisps.(Girls, Year 9, C2DE) Bringing mainstream premium brand food products into school was not only good for ones image, but was seen to act as a safeguard against attracting unwanted attention and disapproval. This desire to conform was felt to be particularly acute for young people whose social status was insecure. So, paradoxically, one group of Year 9 social class ABC1 girls chose a very similar selection of mainstream brand products e Cadburys chocolate, Twirl confectionery, a can of Pepsi and Dairylea cheese strings e for an unpopular persons lunchbox. This was not because they associated such brands with unpopularity, but because they felt that the unpopular person would both indulge in comfort eating to cheer themselves up, and, importantly, would seek to blend in through their consumption behaviour with the rest of their (more popular) peers. The implication from both sets of comments above was that mainstream brand products reected and signalled a secure social position in the peer group. In contrast, inferior or generic brands, such as a retailers own brand, were associated with negative concepts such as unpopularity and being a nerd e an uncool person not in the mainstream. As this group of social class C2DE boys explained:

Moderator: What would an unpopular person have? Probably have all the nerdy stuff. Probably have that. Moderator: What do you mean by nerdy stuff? Asdas [British supermarket chain] chocolate and Asdas yoghurt and Asdas crisps.(Boys, Year 9, C2DE) Even more damaging to ones image and social standing were brands associated with poverty and low social status, such as discount supermarkets. While mainstream supermarket brands were mocked as nerdy and not cool, discount brands elicited a harsher and more cruel response, as this exchange by a group of social class ABC1 boys illustrates: Moderator: If I came into school with a Netto [European discount supermarket chain] lunch, like crisps and a Netto drink, would anyone make a comment about it? Yes. Yes, probably. They sing a little song and. Moderator: Say that again? N-ET-T-O, Netto is the place to go. [parodying an advertising jingle] N-E-T-T-O, Netto is the place to go. Shop all day, shop all night, ll your basket full of. Shop all day, shop all night, ll your basket with Netto. .S-H-I-T. [all laughing](Boys, Year 9, ABC1) Behind these sorts of comments appeared to lie a more fundamental anxiety, not so much about the perceived cheapness and quality of the products sold by low budget supermarkets, but about the threat to ones own image of looking poor and cheap: in their own words, nardy, cheap raggy or like a tramp. You dont go to Netto. Its a cheap and nasty shop. Its raggy, you can get a can of beans for about three pence or something. And then when you open it the beans are supposed to be orange but theyre green. My Nana goes there, my Nanas raggy. Its a brand for raggy old people, yes.(Boys, Year 10, C2DE) This anxiety seemed to be particularly keenly felt by young people of lower social class, perhaps because it was of greater importance to them to distance themselves from a perceived poor identity. This group of social class C2DE girls described the likely reaction from their peers to bringing a lunch containing products from the discount supermarket chain Aldi to school: They probably wouldnt say anything to you but the look. But theyd give you dirty looks and talk about you to your friends. Theyll look at you, look and then whisper. Like oh my God, what shes got! Moderator: What would they be saying to each other then behind my back? Theyd be sniggering and giggling and stuff. Theyd be like, oh my God. She must be poor or something. Not exactly poor but not a lot of money.(Girls, Year 9, C2DE) Interestingly, some young people claimed that they themselves would be immune from any disapproval or ridicule if they had the wrong brands because they were solid and popular e their social standing could not be damaged. One group of girls suggested that someone who was just normal and not a geek or a charver [derogatory term in the North of England for a white working class youth] could be seen with own brand or low budget food products without necessarily being teased or judged (Girls, Year 9, ABC1). It seemed that only resilient young people, such as those who were popular, and, conversely, young people who were already so marginalised that nothing they did could improve their standing in the peer group e could afford to make food choices which marked them out as different.

1136

M. Stead et al. / Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011) 1131e1139

iii) The social risks of healthy eating The third theme of interest in our ndings was the idea that, for many young people, being seen to be interested in healthy eating potentially exposed them to social risk. To understand why healthy eating could be associated with jeopardising ones image and status in the peer group, we must rst of all understand the meanings associated with and values placed on healthy eating for the young people in our focus groups. For one particular group of respondents e a group of social class C2DE boys who played sport e healthy eating had some positive connotations because it was seen as consistent with and able potentially to enhance their sporting ability: Moderator: What are the benets from eating healthily? Keep t. You can do more stuff.(Boys, Year 9, C2DE) For these boys, for whom sport was part of their self-image and status in the school, controlling their weight through physical activity and diet was an important way to carry on looking good and being t enough to participate. For others in our groups, however, healthy eating did not seem to be valued as important and did not form part of their image or identity. Many, particularly lower social class girls, described how they loved junk food and everything thats bad for you. Even where concerns about body image and weight were expressed, particularly among girls, these tended to manifest themselves in unhealthy eating patterns such as skipping meals and snacking on junk food. Although most of the groups shared a perception that being obese was undesirable, the undesirability often rested primarily in the perceived damage to ones image and status rather than any health consequences e ie. if you were fat, you were teased. In nearly all groups, discussion of obesity led quickly to the identication of particular children in the school who were fat, and generated humorous and disparaging comments. Moderator: So its important to you to eat healthily so you dont get fat? Yes. Moderator: Any other reasons? People will take the mickey out of you. Yes. Moderator: Do they? Yes, if youre fat in school they call you fatty and stuff like that. (Girls, Year 9, C2DE) Despite the perceived social risks of being obese, it was equally risky to strive too hard to be thin: You dont want to be fat, but you dont want to be geek skinny (Girls, Year 9, ABC1). In a culture where junk food was the norm, striving to be geek skinny marked one out as odd and trying too hard. There was an implication that such behaviour was not normal, and a slightly deant embracing of an unhealthy but proud identity. Nobody cares about their weight in Darlington.(Girls, Year 11, C2DE) These contradictory positions on healthy eating were particularly illuminated by the lunchbox game. When selecting products for different types of people, young people sometimes associated healthy eating with desirable characteristics such as trendiness and popularity, and sometimes with their opposites. The association between healthy eating and trendiness was explained by one group by a perceived social norm tending towards healthier eating: Its getting more healthy, because now, its the in thing to be healthy. (Boys, Year 11, ABC1). Others perceived quite the reverse: a social trend of rising obesity and fast food consumption, against which healthy eating was freakish and atypical.

Its not so normal to have a healthy lunch. I think Britain is getting more big, if you know what I mean e fat.(Girls, Year 9, C2DE) Reecting these different views, one group of social class boys lled a trendy persons lunchbox with largely healthy items e apples, water, fruit (Boys, Year 9, C2DE) e because they perceived that such a person would be interested in looking good, dressing well and tting into skinny jeans. Interestingly, however, two other groups which selected bottled water, Yakult (a Japanese brand of pro-biotic yoghurt drink) and fruit for the trendy persons lunchbox also included a pack of Walkers crisps and a bottle of Coke, reecting a perception that the trendy person would also want premium brand snack products. In contrast, this group of social class ABC1 boys unanimously lled a lunchbox for a non-trendy person with healthier products: Moderator: What would a non-trendy person have in their lunchbox? Yakult. [all laughing] An apple. Highland water.(Boys, Year 9, ABC1) The clear implication here, as evidenced in the shared laughter, was that an overt interest in healthy eating was associated with being untrendy: with people who did not have a cool identity and were in some way laughable. In the following exchanges, healthy eating was associated with nerds and geeks e young people who drew the wrong sort of attention to themselves or were distanced from the mainstream of acceptance by virtue of being too clever or esoteric in their interests. [Selecting products for an unpopular persons lunchbox] Nerdy stuff Have all the healthy stuff, like theres these kids up at the table with new plates for the vegetables. The Star Wars fans Moderator: The what? Like the Star Wars fans.(Boys, Year 9, C2DE) [Selecting products for a geeky persons lunchbox] Think of all the healthy stuff. Everything healthy. Water, banana, yoghurt, cheese strings. Moderator: Why would a geeky person pick a healthy lunch? Because they would want you to think they were smart and that. They know everything, so they would know what was healthy for them.(Girls, Year 9, ABC1) The following extracts from one group discussion illustrate particularly well how healthy eating was associated with exclusion from the popular mainstream. When asked to select a lunchbox for an unhealthy person and an unpopular person, this group of social class C2DE girls automatically gave to the unhealthy person many of the high fat, salt and sugar products which they themselves liked: Coca Cola, Pepsi, Walkers crisps, and Cadburys chocolate, alongside Asda chocolate bars. When then asked to select a lunchbox for an unpopular person, they selected almost the reverse of the products they had selected for an unhealthy person. Although these girls struggled to explain why they had associated unpopularity with the healthy products, the implication was that healthy eating was a nonmainstream, slightly freakish activity associated with people with a poor image and low social status. Moderator: What does unpopular mean? Not very popular. Youre not known well. In school. Because if youre popular everyone knows you. Moderator: Has liking got something to do with it? Yes. [all agree] A lot of friends as well. Moderator: So an unpopular person is someone that doesnt have a lot of friends and not well liked? What would you pick out for lunch for our unpopular person?

M. Stead et al. / Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011) 1131e1139

1137

I would say healthy foods. I dont know why but Id say healthy foods, such as the water, the banana and the yoghurt. The yoghurt. The raisins. The raisins and the cheese strings. Moderator: Why would you say that? Most unpopular [people] normally eat healthier. Moderator: Do they? I dont know. [laughing]. Moderator: Why would they? I dont know. They just tend to eat healthier. Moderator: Its less normal to have a healthy lunch? Yes. Yes. (Girls, Year 9, C2DE) Discussion This qualitative study, part of a larger study into young peoples engagement with food brands, sought to uncover the social and symbolic meanings associated with particular food products and brands during a critical stage of young peoples social and psychological development. For adolescents, consumption choices can be used to support the image they choose to project and to express afnity with particular social or peer groups. Our study explored how concerns about image and belonging interact with and inform decisions about food consumption. Our research was conducted within one area of the UK, the North East of England, and in this respect ndings may not be generalisable to young people in other parts of the UK or other countries. Previous work investigating the diets of young people in the North East has shown that although some regional differences exist, food intake is broadly similar to that found in national surveys (Fletcher et al., 2004). Furthermore, other studies conducted with geographically and culturally diverse groups of young people, support our ndings with regard to the value attached by young people to having popular mainstream food brands (eg Roper & La Niece, 2009) and the importance of making food choices which help one t in with the peer group (eg Chapman & Maclean, 1993; Wills, 2005). With regard to our choice of focus groups, it is possible that a different qualitative method, such as individual interviews, would have yielded different responses, in that young people may have displayed less allegiance to group norms in their responses (for example, in the absence of others joining in, they may have been less disparaging of particular brands or of fat people). However, because we were interested in how group norms shape perceptions of food brands and healthy eating, we deliberately chose this method. Hyde, Howlett, Brady, and Drennan (2005) suggest that focus groups can be highly revealing in attempting to understand the normative rules embedded in the culture from which participants are drawn (p. 2588). Instances of focus group participants presenting a particular image to others or ridiculing those who step out of line can illustrate vividly the very phenomena they are intended to explore. Ridicule was a recurring feature in the groups, being both evoked repeatedly as the fate of young people who make unacceptable food choices and also shown in action, such as when mocking those who shop at the discount chain Netto. Wooten (2006) notes how ridicule is a powerful force in adolescents consumption behaviour, in that the practice of ridicule both reects and affects adolescents perceptions of belongingness, the content of ridicule conveys information about the consumption norms and values of peer groups, and the experience of ridicule inuences the acquisition, use, and disposition of possessions (p. 195).

In the groups we asked young people to imagine hypothetical lunchboxes for different types of people because we felt that this indirect, projective form of questioning would be more likely to uncover the meanings and values associated with different types and brands of food than more direct questioning. Inevitably the lunchbox technique focused attention on the school context, where peer opinion is likely to be particularly salient. It is possible that in food choice contexts where eating is less public, such as the home, having brands or products that communicate a desirable image may be less important than values such as familiarity and comfort (eg Dammler, Barlovic, & Clausnitzer, 2005). A potential weakness in our lunchbox method was that the labels we used to describe their hypothetical owners e trendy, popular, geeky and so on e are not necessarily xed constructs with shared meanings across all the groups of young people. A more appropriate approach may have been to elicit each groups own terms for the constructs we wished to explore, rather than selecting them in advance. Previous youth consumer research has tended to focus on products and behaviours where the potential to enhance or jeopardise ones image and status within the group is more immediately apparent, such as clothing and music choices (eg Hogg et al., 1998; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004; Wilska, 2003). In contrast, food is a more ephemeral, lower involvement product category, where one might expect concerns about image and social inuence to be less salient (Kuenzel & Musters, 2007); as our focus group respondents put it, you wear the jeans, you dont wear the food. Nevertheless, our study suggests that similar concerns and processes do come into play with food. Although it is a less obvious marker of identity and social status than ones brand of jeans or choice of music, our research suggests that food is used by young people to inform and support their identity and the ways they relate to and judge others. The importance of projecting the right sort of image was reected in our study in preferences for mainstream products and brands. Young peoples responses suggested that they were aware at some level that when they were seen consuming products and brands such as Walkers crisps, Pepsi, Coca Cola and Cadburys chocolate, the desirable attributes associated with these brands transferred to themselves e coolness, popularity, trendiness, and so on. These associations were not necessarily expressed directly, but could be inferred indirectly from how young people assembled hypothetical lunchboxes for a cool person, a popular person and so on. Similar associations between mainstream popular food brands and desirable attributes such as quality and popularity have been found in other research. For example, Duff (1999) suggests that when choosing soft drinks, teenagers rely on big brands that cannot be faulted by the peer group, and select them as much for their image as for their content. Similarly, Roper and La Niece (2009) found that adolescents preferred proper brands over supermarket brands in their school lunchbox because they were cool, popular and other people would like them. The same study noted that young people were guided by trend-setters among their peers as to which products they should be seen consuming. It is notable that the most popular food and drink brands tend to be for products high in fat, salt and sugar. For example, when the research was conducted in 2007-8, the top food and non-alcoholic drink brands in the UK Superbrands index (an annual league table of brand strength) were Coca Cola (2nd place) and Cadbury (10th place), the others in the top 50 being Kelloggs, Heinz, Pepsi and McDonalds. Just as it was socially risky to be seen with own brands and budget brands because of their low status associations, so it was risky to be seen to be interested in healthy eating. Choosing to eat healthily was for many young people associated with a geeky, nerdy, untrendy image which could attract teasing and marginalisation.

1138

M. Stead et al. / Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011) 1131e1139

The idea that healthy eating marks one out as different or is not for people like us has been supported in other research. Chapman and Macleans (1993) qualitative research with Canadian teenage girls found that while they regarded eating junk food as ordinary teenage behaviour, healthy eating was associated with being with ones parents, being at home and weirdness e not the norm. A qualitative study comparing 7-, 11- and 14-year old UK schoolchildrens lunchbox food brand preferences found that, for the 14-year olds, tting in and not standing out in the choices one made were of paramount importance: Peer pressure was so strong among the 14-year olds and the unwritten rules about acceptable and unacceptable products so rigid that children are getting bullied in this secondary school for consuming the wrong things. [One respondent] conrmed it was better to buy certain products which were considered acceptable and cool rather than risk standing out and being bullied (Roper & La Niece, 2009, pp. 91e92). A study into the barriers to healthy eating among adults in a disadvantaged community (south Wales) found that cost and lack of information were not the main issues (ONeill, Rebane, & Lester, 2004). Rather, the explanation seemed in part to be cultural: healthy eating was not seen as something done by people round here but by other people. This was reected in the attributes associated with healthy people, which included that they were sad, miserable, moody, gym freaks and veggies. Although healthy people were also perceived to live longer, look better and have more energy, the implication was that, in the views of study participants, they attained these at the cost of being less normal, having less fun and being less popular (ONeill et al., 2004). This is powerfully echoed in our study, particularly among the lower social class girls who claimed not to know anyone who strove to be thin and healthy: Nobody cares about their weight in Darlington. The south Wales study suggests that unless this cultural non-ownership of healthy eating is addressed, dietary improvement will not be achieved in disadvantaged communities even if the resource and informational barriers are addressed (ONeill et al., 2004, p. 227). Similarly, in a study of primary and secondary schoolchildrens attitudes towards food in school (Ludvigsen & Sharma, 2004), participants of all ages found it hard to imagine the sort of young person who would deliberately choose a healthy lunch. They felt it had to be someone much richer, cleverer (a goodyegoody), posher and sportier than themselves e an idealised person who only exists in adverts and lms where everyone is rich, active and healthy. In contrast, they had no problem imagining and describing the sort of young person who would choose a junk food lunch, because this sort of young person was widely known to them. The Ludvigsen and Sharma (2004) study also found that bringing non-standard food items into school, such as economy brands or ethnic minority foods, risked ridicule among the young people, and noted that practically all the packed lunches of the white children in the study were identical. Although young people in Ludvigsen and Sharmas (2004) study denied that they were inuenced by their friends in relation to their food choices, they could give examples of other children in the school being laughed at or bullied because of what they ate: [some] stressed that children will not get bullied simply because of what they eat, but said that if they are already targets of bullying, unusual food might make them more vulnerable to ridicule (Ludvigsen & Sharma, 2004, p. 35). These insights deepen our understanding of the barriers to healthy eating for young people. It is not simply that healthy eating fails to appeal to many young people, or is difcult for them; it is that engaging in healthy eating symbolises something undesirable to them and exposes them to uncomfortable social risk. This insight reects a wider truth about health behaviours. Peoples decisions to engage in health-damaging behaviours rather than healthy behaviours seem irrational to public health experts. However, choosing to

behave in ways which will bolster rather than harm ones image and place in the peer group could be seen as a profoundly rational response, if the risks of having an impaired self-image or standing out from the group are acute. In a study of the importance of peer group acceptance and the strategies young people use to achieve it, Warrington and Younger (2010) note that negotiating a position within the mainstream, acceptable youth culture takes sensitivity and considerable skill (p. 9). Newman et al. (2007) suggest that people are healthier and happier when they experience a feeling of belonging, and nd that such a sense is positively associated with stronger mental health in adolescents. In this sense, we could argue that it is actually good for young peoples health e in the sense of their social and emotional well-being e to make food choices which make them feel good about themselves and help them make strong social bonds with others. The problem for public health is that these are often unhealthy choices. The challenge, then, is to develop intervention solutions which recognise the enormous complexities of young peoples everyday lives e which meet their emotional as well as their nutritional needs.

References
Amos, A., Gray, D., & Currie, C. (1997). Healthy or druggy? Self-image, ideal image and smoking behaviour among young people. Social Science & Medicine, 45, 847e858. Bachmann, G. R., John, D. R., & Rao, A. R. (1993). Childrens susceptibility to peer group purchase inuence: an exploratory investigation. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 463e468. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139e168. Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 4e17. Belk, R. W., Mayer, R. N., & Driscoll, A. (1984). Childrens recognition of consumption symbolism in childrens products. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 386e396. Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2005). The development of self-brand connections in children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 119e129. Chapman, G., & Maclean, H. (1993). Junk food and healthy food: meanings of food in adolescent womens culture. Journal of Nutrition Education, 25(3), 108e113. Croghan, R., Grifn, C., Hunter, J., & Phoenix, A. (2006). Style failure: consumption, identity and social exclusion. Journal of Youth Studies, 9(4), 463e478. Dammler, A., Barlovic, I., & Clausnitzer, C. (2005). What are brands for? Young Consumers, 6(2), 11e16. Duff, R. (1999). Childrens drinks e what children really think. Nutrition and Food Science, 99(3), 136e139. Elliot, R. (1994). Exploring the symbolic meaning of brands. British Journal of Management, 5, 13e19. Elliott, R., & Leonard, C. (2004). Peer pressure and poverty: exploring fashion brands and consumption symbolism among children of the British poor. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(4), 347e359. Elliott, R., & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as resources for the symbolic construction of identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 131e144. Ello-Martin, J. A., Ledikwe, J. H., & Rolls, B. J. (2005). The inuence of food portion size and energy density on energy intake: implications for weight management. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82(1), 236Se241S. Farhat, T., Iannotti, R. J., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2010). Overweight, obesity, youth, and health-risk behaviors. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38, 258e267. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VHT-4YDSNYK-2/2/ cebba173ca455d977aef4684957de330. Fischler, C. (1988). Food, self and identity. Social Science Information, 27(2), 275e292. Fletcher, E. S., Rugg-Gunn, A. J., Matthews, J. N. S., Hackett, A., Moynihan, P. J., Mathers, J. C., et al. (2004). Changes over 20 years in macronutrient intake and body mass index in 11- to 12-year old adolescents living in Northumberland. British Journal of Nutrition, 92, 321e333. Fox, N. J., & Ward, K. J. (2008). You are what you eat? Vegetarianism, health and identity. Social Science & Medicine, 66(12), 2585e2595. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Books. Gordon, R., Moodie, C., Eadie, D., & Hastings, G. B. (2010). Critical social marketing e the impact of alcohol marketing on youth drinking: qualitative ndings. International Journal of Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15, 265e275. Grant, I. C., Hassan, L., Hastings, G., MacKintosh, A. M., & Eadie, D. (2008). The inuence of branding on adolescent smoking behaviour: exploring the mediating role of image and attitudes. International Journal of Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(3), 275e285. Gregory, J., Lowe, S., Bates, C. J., et al. (2000). National diet and nutrition survey (NDNS): Young people aged 4 to 18 years.

M. Stead et al. / Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011) 1131e1139 Hanson, M. D., & Chen, E. (2007). Socioeconomic status and health behaviors in adolescence: a review of the literature. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30(3), 263e285. Hastings, G. B., Ryan, H., Teer, P., & MacKintosh, A. M. (1994). Cigarette advertising and childrens smoking: why reg was withdrawn. British Medical Journal, 309, 933e937. Hendry, L. B., & Reid, M. (2000). Social relationships and health: the meaning of social connectedness and how it relates to health concerns for rural Scottish adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 705e719. Hill, A. J. (2001). Nutrition and behaviour group symposium on evolving attitudes to food and nutrition: developmental issues in attitudes to food and diet. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61, 259e266. Hill, A. J. (2002). Developmental issues in attitudes to food and diet. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61(02), 259e266. Hogg, M. K., & Banister, E. N. (2001). Dislikes, distastes and the undesired self: conceptualising and exploring the role of the undesired end state in consumer experience. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(1), 73e104. Hogg, M. K., Bruce, M., & Hill, A. J. (1998). Fashion brand preferences among consumers. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 26(8), 293e300. Hyde, A., Howlett, E., Brady, D., & Drennan, J. (2005). The focus group method: insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents. Social Science & Medicine, 61(12), 2588e2599. John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at twenty-ve years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 183e213. Kahn, B. E., & Wansink, B. (2004). The inuence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 519e533. Kuenzel, J., & Musters, P. (2007). Social interaction and low involvement products. Journal of Business Research, 60, 876e883. Ludvigsen, A., & Sharma, N. (2004). Burger boy and sporty girl: Children and young peoples attitudes towards food in school. Ilford: Barnardos. Lv, N., & Brown, J. L. (2010). Chinese American family food systems: impact of western inuences. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 42(2), 106e114. MacFadyen, L., Amos, A., Hastings, G., & Parkes, E. (2003). They look like my kind of people e perceptions of smoking images in youth magazines. Social Science & Medicine, 56(3), 491e499. MRS. (2006). Occupation groupings: A job dictionary (6th ed.). The Market Research Society. http://www.mrs.org.uk/publications/downloads/occgroups6.pdf. Newman, B. M., Lohman, B. J., & Newman, P. R. (2007). Peer group membership and a sense of belonging: their relationship to adolescent behaviour problems. Adolescence, 42(166), 241e263. Ofce of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2003). The English indices of deprivation 2004 (revised). London: HMSO. ONeill, M., Rebane, D., & Lester, C. (2004). Barriers to healthier eating in a disadvantaged community. Health Education Journal, 63(3), 220e228. Painter, J. E., Wansink, B., & Hieggelki, J. (2002). How visibility and convenience inuence candy consumption. Appetite, 38(3), 237e238. Piacentini, M. G., & Mailer, G. (2004). Symbolic consumption in teenagers clothing choices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour Theory & Practice, 3(3), 251e262. Piacentini, M., & Tinson, J. (June 2003). Understanding social inuences on childrens food choices. Dublin: European Association of Consumer Research Special Session on Children as Consumers.

1139

Pombeni, M. L., Kirchler, E., & Palmonari, A. (1990). Identication with peers as a strategy to muddle through the troubles of the adolescent years. Journal of Adolescence, 13(4), 351e369. Rolls, B. J. (2003). The supersizing of America: portion size and the obesity epidemic. Nutrition Today, 38(2), 42e53. Roper, S., & La Niece, C. (2009). The importance of brands in the lunch-box choices of low income British schoolchildren. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8, 84e99. Shepherd, J., Harden, A., Rees, R., Brunton, G., Garcia, J., Oliver, S., et al. (2006). Young people and healthy eating: a systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators. Health Education Research Theory and Practice, 21(2), 239e257. Stead, M., MacKintosh, A. M., McDermott, L., Anker, T., & Adamson, A. (2009). How do young people engage with food branding? Public health research consortium project nal report 12th may 2009. http://www.york.ac.uk/phrc/projects_1. htm#b206. Stevenson, C., Doherty, G., Barnett, J., Muldoon, O., & Trew, K. (2007). Adolescents views of food and eating: identifying barriers to healthy eating. Journal of Adolescence, 30(3), 417e434. Sylow, M., & Holm, L. (2009). Building groups and independence. The role of food in the lives of young people in Danish sports centres. Childhood, 16(2), 213e228. Tinson, J. (2009). Conducting research with children & adolescents: Design, methods and empirical Cases. Oxford: Goodfellow. Tivadar, B., & Luthar, B. (2005). Food, ethics and aesthetics. Appetite, 44, 215e233. Tuomisto, T., Tuomisto, M. T., Hetherington, M., & Lappalainen, R. (1998). Reasons for initiation and cessation of eating in obese men and women and the affective consequences of eating in everyday situations. Appetite, 30(2), 211e222. Valentine, G. (2000). Exploring children and young peoples narratives of identity. Geoforum, 31(2), 257e267. Van Lenthe, F., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Klepp, K.-I., Lien, N., Moore, L., Faggiano, F., et al. (2009). Preventing socioeconomic inequalities in health behaviour in adolescents in Europe: background, design and methods of project TEENAGE. BMC Public Health, 9, 125. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/125. Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006). Meal size, not body size, explains errors in estimating the calorie content of meals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(5), 326e332. Warrington, M., & Younger, M. (2010). Life is a tightrope: reections on peer group inclusion and exclusion amongst adolescent girls and boys. Gender and Education, 1e16. Wattanasuwan, K. (2005). The self and symbolic consumption. Journal of American Academy of Business, 6(1), 179e184. Wills, W. J. (2005). Food and eating practices during the transition from secondary school to new social contexts. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(1), 97e110. Wilska, T. (2003). Mobile phone use as part of young peoples consumption styles. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(4), 441e463. Wooten, D. B. (2006). From labelling possessions to possessing labels: ridicule and socialization among adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 188e198. Yancey, A. K., Cole, B. L., Brown, R., Williams, J. D., Hillier, A., Kline, R. S., et al. (2009). A cross-sectional prevalence study of ethnically targeted and general audience outdoor obesity-related advertising. Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 155e184.