Social Science & Medicine 121 (2014) 85e90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Social Science & Medicine

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

Food as people: Teenagers' perspectives on food personalities and

implications for healthy eating
Charlene Elliott
Department of Communication and Culture, Faculty of Arts, University of Calgary, 2500 University Avenue NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 27 June 2014
Received in revised form
20 September 2014
Accepted 24 September 2014
Available online 28 September 2014

In light of its inuence on food preferences, purchase requests and consumption patterns, food marketingdparticularly for unhealthy foodsdhas been increasingly recognized as a problem that affects the
health of young people. This has prompted both a scrutiny of the nutritional quality of food products and
various interventions to promote healthy eating. Frequently overlooked by the public health community,
however, is the symbolic and social meaning of food for teenagers. Food has nutritive value, but it has
symbolic value as welldand this qualitative study explores the meaning of non-branded foods for
teenagers. Inspired by the construct of brand personality, we conduct focus groups with 12e14 year olds
in to probe their perspectives on the food personalities of unbranded/commodity products and categories of food. Despite the lack of targeted marketing/promotional campaigns for the foods discussed, the
focus groups found a remarkable consensus regarding the characteristics and qualities of foods for young
people. Teenagers stigmatize particular foods (such as broccoli) and valorize others (such as junk food),
although their discussions equally reveal the need to consider questions beyond that of social positioning/social status. We suggest that public health initiatives need to focus greater attention on the
symbolic aspects of food, since a focus on nutritional qualities does not unveil the other signicant
factors that may make foods appealing, or distasteful, to young people.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Healthy eating
Food symbolism
Food marketing
Branding
Youth

1. Introduction
In the past decade, food marketing has been increasingly
recognized as a problem that affects the health of young people
worldwide (WHO, 2010, 2013; Hawkes and Lobstein, 2011; Raine
et al., 2013; Garde et al., 2012). The World Health Organization,
for instance, has released a series of recommendations that seek to
counter the powerful marketing techniques that promote foods
high in sugar, fat and/or sodium to children (WHO, 2010, 2012,
2013). Such recommendations emerge from evidence that suggests that young children are cognitively unable to recognize or
guard against the persuasive intent of marketing (Kunkel et al.,
2004), and that unhealthy food marketing inuences children's
preferences, purchase requests, and consumption patterns (Kunkel
et al., 2004; Cairns et al., 2009, 2013; Harris et al., 2014; Hastings
et al., 2007; McGinnis et al., 2006; Persson et al., 2012; WHO,
2010, 2013). While rising rates of youth overweight/obesity has
prompted intense scrutiny of the nutritional qualities of food aimed

E-mail address: charlene.elliott@ucalgary.ca.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.044
0277-9536/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

at young people (Hastings et al., 2007; McGinnis et al., 2006;

Potvin, Kent & Wanless, 2011; Elliott, 2012a, 2012b, 2008), no less
signicant is the relationship between food and the social and
cultural aspects that might promote more positive dietary in youth
(Backett-Milburn et al., 2010). Simply put, food has nutritional
properties, but is also embedded in a social matrix of meaning
which can inuence consumption (Schor and Ford, 2007, p. 16).
Food has symbolic value, functions as a sociocultural product (LeviStrauss, 1962; Douglas, 1966, 1975; Coveney, 2014) and can prove
central to discourses about identitydin general, and also for young
people.
A growing body of literature has taken up the question of the
social meaning of food for young people. Research has revealed
how children identify food for themselves and for others
(Elliott, 2011; Roos, 2002; James, 1998; James et al., 2009), and how
particular foodstuffs (including food brands) can serve an image
and social status function. For instance, Willis et al.'s (2009) study
of British middle class teenagers reveals the importance of
belonging and of negotiating with the peer group when making
food consumption choices. Similarly, Martine Stead et al. (2011)
explore how preoccupations with social status factor in British
teenagers' food choices and attitudes toward foods. For the

86

C. Elliott / Social Science & Medicine 121 (2014) 85e90

teenagers interviewed, consuming mainstream brand products

signaled a secure social position in the peer group whereas
consuming supermarket and no-name brands was regarded as
uncool and nerdy (Stead et al., 2011, p. 1135). As such, a popular
person would drink Coca Cola or Pepsi and not unbranded soda
(2011, p. 1135). Roper and La Niece (2009) also found that British
children (aged 7e14) evaluated food products in light of what
might be popular with peers. Branded products, such as Coke,
Evian, Walkers, KitKat, and Coke, were seen as cool and able to
make their consumer more popular among peers.
Viewing branded products as cool and as capable of communicating social status has long been recognized in the eld of marketing, where strategists deliberately strive to create brand
personalities for their products. As a construct, brand personality
refers to the set of human personality traits that are both applicable
to and relevant for brands (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003, p. 151) or
more simply the set of human characteristics associated with a
brand (Aaker, 1997, p. 150). Brand personality is presumed to give
the brand a meaning (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003, p. 143) and is
viewed as invaluable in creating brand equity (Geuens et al., 2009,
p. 97). Key to the brand personality construct is the notion of
traitsdthe types of terms used to describe the personality. Traits
are stable and recurrent (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003). Moreover,
brand identity (and brand personality) should be understood from
the sender side perspective, the desired personality being constructed (Geuens et al., 2009). To illustrate, Aaker explains that
Absolut vodka personied tends to be described as a cool, hip,
contemporary 25-year old, whereas Stoli's personied tends to be
described as an intellectual, conservative, older man (1997, p. 347).
Alternatively, when it comes to the personality traits associated
with cola, Coke is regarded as cool, all-American and real, Pepsi is
seen as young, exciting, and hip, and Dr. Pepper, nonconforming,
unique and fun (1997, p. 348).
The assumption is that consumers frequently infuse brands with
human personality traits, which serve a symbolic function (Aaker,
1997). Even though the brand personality concept has been
assessed and rened (Geuens et al., 2009; Austin et al., 2003;
Beldona and Wysong, 2007; Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003; Johar
et al., 2005), from a marketing perspective one key message is
that the personality traits come to be associated with a brand due
its product endorsers (Aaker, 1997, p. 348). That is, brand personality emerges out of very deliberate messaging and advertising/
promotion. However, creating a brand personality is also a dynamic
processdand one not wholly controlled by the marketer. People
bring in their personal, subjective meanings as well (Johar et al.,
2005, p. 468).
In light of this, our study set out to connect questions pertaining
to the symbolic meaning of food for teenagers with the concept of
non-branded personality (i.e., those existing outside of brands).
Specically, we were interested in how teenagers perceived commodity products and categories of foods that weren't brands and
did not have sizable marketing budgets designed to create particular associations. Did teenagers attribute consistent characteristics
to non-branded foods, and what might be the signicance of this?
While much of the public health/public policy literature is focused
on how to choose for persons (i.e., limiting the marketing of poorly
nutritious foods to young people), we were interested in how
young people understand food as persons. Specically we asked
teenagers about food personalities (e.g., if broccoli was a person,
what kind of person would broccoli be?). To reiterate, commodity
products and categories of food do not generally have advertising
and promotional campaigns seeking to communicate particular
attributes. Our study aimed to explore teenagers' perceptions of
these foods.

2. Methods
Focus groups were used to elicit teenagers' perspectives on food
and food personalities. Focus group methodology is increasingly
being recognized for its effectiveness in research related to health
and nutrition (Feldman et al., 2014; Jones, 2010; Labiner-Wolfe and
Lando, 2007), as well as for its ability to gain insight into young
people's attitudes (Peterson-Sweeney, 2005; Heary and Hennessy,
2002). Focus groups were also selected since they are often used
by industry to gauge consumer attitudes and perceptions
(Michman and Mazze, 1998, p. 184; Schade, 2007; Lindstrom and
Seybold, 2003) and have specically been used to explore brand
personality (Geuens et al., 2009; Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003, p.
143)dwhich was the inspiration for probing youth ideas pertaining
to food as people. Finally, this method allowed us to unveil how
group norms shape perspectives about food: focus groups are
premised on the fact that people draw on a shared fund of experiences (Lindlof and Taylor, 2011, p.183). As such, they are ideal for
identifying the norms or attitudes of a particular community,
such as teenagers (Hennink, 2011, p. 140).
Five focus groups (n 6) totaling 30 students (18 female, 12
male) were held at a Junior High School in in the spring of 2013.
Focus groups were segmented by grade and gender, as is recommended in research with young people (Heary and Hennessy,
2002; Greenbaum, 1988; Vaughn et al., 1996). This allows for
group homogeneity (Hennink, 2011, p. 150), and creates a context
where participants are more likely to be at ease (e.g., adolescent
participants may be uncomfortable/shy or distracted by members
of the opposite sex). Segmentation has the additional benet of
allowing researchers to determine whether issues cluster according
to different types of participants. Given this, three teenage girls
groups were held (grades 7, 8 and 9) and two teenage boys groups
(grades 7 and 8), corresponding to an age range of 12e14 years. As
per leading market research companies and health agencies,
teenagers were dened as spanning ages 12 to 19 (Mediamark
Research Institute, 2003; CDC, 2014).
After receiving ethics approval from both the Research Ethics
Board and the participating school, a letter detailing the aims of the
study was distributed to students for both student and parental
consent. A trained moderator, following a semi-structured moderator's guide, led the discussion. As this was part of a broader
research study, the rst section of the focus group consisted of
open-ended questions related to foods and packaged foods, followed by discussion inquiring into how the participants evaluated
the health qualities of packaged foods (i.e., what did they look for
on packages). Participants also engaged in selection and sorting
exercises of packaged foods (placing them into categories of healthy
and less healthy) as a strategy for facilitating discussions around
what they selected and why, and the kinds of packaging facts and
symbolic appeals that inuenced their decisions. Finally, the
questions moved to the topic of food as peopledwhich is
explored in this article. The moderator opened the conversation by
saying: It is interesting to consider different food and think about
the kinds of ideas they bring to mind. Let's say broccoli was a
person at a party. What kind of person would broccoli be? This
same line of questioning was raised for various foods and categories
of food, including milk, eggs, meat, junk food and organic food.
Participants' responses were videotaped and transcribed
verbatim; eld notes were also recorded by the researchers during
and after each session. One benet of videotaping is that researchers could refer back to the tapes during data analysis in order
to ensure that the interaction between participants was fully
captured, as well as clarifying the meaning of the participant's responses. Following grounded theory, the lead researcher and a
research assistant created a provisional list of codes from the data

C. Elliott / Social Science & Medicine 121 (2014) 85e90

(open coding), rened into salient themes and examined. Iterative

comparison and inductive coding techniques were used (Strauss
and Corbin, 1998; Crabtree and Miller, 1999; Lindlof and Taylor,
2011). Constant comparison throughout codingdcontinually
analyzing data throughout the data collection and theory buildingdassisted in dening each category's properties more precisely (Lindlof and Taylor, 2011, p. 251). As a whole, this analytic
strategy intends to unveil the participants' perspectives on food
and food packaging and, for this article in particular, on the teenagers' views of the personality attributes of different unprocessed
foods and food categories. Such knowledge can benet the public
health community by revealing the social meaning and status of
certain foods for teenagers, and by signaling where these foods t
in the broader food environment. This knowledge is key to the task
of encouraging healthy eating among teenagers, since people rarely
make food choices based on nutritional quality alone.
3. Findings
Two key ndings emerged from the data analysis. First, despite
the fact that commodity products, unprocessed foods and broader
categories of food rarely have targeted promotional campaigns
seeking to communicate specic attributes (as is the case with
brands), young people did attach meanings to these
foodsdmeanings and evaluations that were remarkably consistent.
Secondly, these meanings worked to stigmatize particular foods
and valorize others, showing (in keeping with other research) that
healthy choices can be viewed as socially risky (Stead et al.,
2011, p. 1134) and unhealthy choices as transgressive yet desirable (Elliott, 2011; Chapman and Maclean, 1993; James, 1998). As a
consequence, certain foods/food categoriesdbased on their personality and sometimes in light of their popularitydwere
considered more appealing than others. The following analysis rst
details the food personalities of individual foods and food
categories.

87

pants that are too short (9G) or who tries to be the class president but doesn't win because it's really a popularity contest (9G).
Broccoli's dress, style and overall character were discussed
within a framework of its social position. The teenagers recognized
broccoli as earnest and sincere (i.e., the kind of person who runs for
class president) while simultaneously articulating the need to
distance oneself from him for reasons of status and popularity.
3.1.2. Eggs
Eggs, like broccoli, were viewed as sincere. However, teenagers'
discussions were far more focused on yoking the egg's physical
attributes to its perceived personality. An egg's personality was
seen as fragile (8B) and emotional (likely to break under pressure) (8G, 8B)dthe kind of person where you'd say something and
he'll break down in tears (8B). While some viewed eggs as nerdy
(9G), a kinder social assessment was rendered for eggs compared to
broccoli. Rather than being viewed as a loner, eggs were described
as having some friends but not a lot (8B). Eggs would hang out
with others of his kind (8B). No one mentioned eggs aspiring to a
higher status or dressing in an uncool fashion; the egg personality
simply accepted its place in the social hierarchy. Perhaps this lack of
social aspiration is why eggs were not framed as annoying or as
trying too hard.
3.1.3. Milk
Milk was the one commodity product that evoked a divided
response. Girls viewed milk as attractive and athletic, as did the
grade 7 boys. Milk would be a healthy and athletic person (7B),
the football player who is both cool and the hottie (9G). Grade
8 boys, however, engaged in an animateddand less positiveddiscussion over the attributes of milk, and one that did not
come to a consensus:
R1 Milk would be annoying.
R2 Milk would be the guy who has like, three friends.
R3 Like the true friends though.

3.1. Unprocessed and commodity products

Teenagers enthusiastically discussed food personalities in the
focus groups, painting the image of a personality as a package that
embraces dress, age, gender and popularity, as well as character
and attitudinal traits. For the unprocessed and commodity products, such as broccoli, eggs and milk, an overarching theme was that
of sincerity. Sincerity, however, did not necessarily translate into a
sense of social popularity or social desirability.
3.1.1. Broccoli
Across all groups, broccoli was viewed as rather shy, unpopular
and boring. Considered a bit of a loner or on the fringe of the social
group broccoli is the kind of person who tries hard but is rejected
due to geekiness and lack of style. The grade 8 boys (8B) focus group
had an animated discussion on this:
R1 Broccoli would be that annoying friend that everybody keeps
hanging out with, but you're not mean enough to say Go Away to.
R2 [If broccoli was a person at a party] he'd just be all alone
drinking punch in a corner.
R4 He'd be the guy who's wearing the stupid Hawaiian shirt.
Similar themes came out in the other focus groups, which saw
broccoli as shy (grade 7 girls, 7G), boring (grade 8 girls, 8G) or
dull (grade 9 girls, 9G)dand the one standing in the corner in a
social gathering (7G). Broccoli is the kind of person who wears

R4 Three good friends.

R6 I think he'd have a lot of friends. He'd be that guy who hangs out
with all the druggies but doesn't do the drugs.
R1 He's a poser drug dealer.
All of the teenagers who discussed milk identied it as male,
although two divergent themes emerged: milk as athletic, popular
and attractive, and milk as annoying and a bit of a poser. It was
unclear in the discussion whether hanging out with the druggies
was viewed as milk's attempt to be cool or as signaling a bad
apple (and therefore someone to be avoided). The term poser
suggests the former. However, the overarching perspective on milk
was positive. Even the notion that milk would have three friends,
but that they would be true friends suggests authenticity and
quality; the fact that he might hang out with the druggies but not
do drugs suggests posing but also a purityda resistance to engage
in illegal behavior or behavior that might negatively affect the mind
and body.
3.2. Categories of food and classications of food
Unlike the theme of sincerity that characterized unprocessed and
commodity products, teenagers did not articulate a single overarching theme for the categories and classications of food discussed. Dominant themes did emerge for the specic food
categories of meat, junk food and organic food, however.

88

C. Elliott / Social Science & Medicine 121 (2014) 85e90

Compared to the discussion of unprocessed and commodity products,

conversations around meat, junk food and organic pivoted more
strongly on physical and sensory attributes. Age and appearance (as
well as keeping up appearances) also took center stage.

3.2.1. Meat
Meat was the single food/topic that generated the sharpest
difference in terms of gender perspectives. Although both the girls
and boys focus groups all identied meat as male, with the general
consensus was that meat was older (an adult male, with most
young people identifying him as either older, middle-aged or
old), the similarities ended there. While the boys felt that meat
would be outgoing, popular, physically impressive and attractive to
females, the girls' groups regarded meat as beefydand not in a
good way. They saw meat as fat, as well as boring and smelling
bad.
Specic quotations from the groups make this gender divide
clear. Grade 7 boys explained that meat would be outgoing,
because people like meat and muscular with all those muscles
popping out. Meat would be with cheerleaders and/or surrounded by girls. Grade 8 boys echoed this, identifying meat as
buff, cool, a jock and one of those guys you like to hang
around with. Two boys specically referenced meat as a musclebound wrestlerdlike the Rock (referring to the American actor
and professional wrestler Dwayne Johnson).
The girls, as mentioned, found meat to be signicantly less
impressive. They consistently identied meat as old and fat, and
some saw him as a couch potato. Unlike the boys who viewed
meat as muscular and outgoing, the grade 7 girls discussed how
meat would socially isolate itself. He would be like the fat, bald
old man sitting at the bar who only talks to his friends and nobody else. As such, a stark contrast emerged in the sense of
physical attractiveness attributed by the boys compared to the girls
(i.e., attractive versus unattractive). Key, too, is the fact that meat
was the only food item discussed that evoked a smell component.
The Grade 9 girls focus group argued that meat would be the
person who always smells bad. However, Grade 7 boys saw it
differently: meat would use Axe body spray and be surrounded by
girls. (Note: Unilever-owned Axe body spray for men is advertised
as a product that makes men irresistible to women.)

3.2.2. Junk food

Young people often associate junk food with fun (Elliott, 2011)
and fun activities such as movies, parties and spending time with
friends (Harrison and Jackson, 2009). This played out in the focus
groups: the dominant trait associated with junk food appeared to
be excitement. None of the other foods discusseddbroccoli, milk,
eggs, meatdwere framed as exciting. This classication was not
entirely positive, however, since the theme of articiality (i.e., a fake
or phony) also factored strongly, revealing a tension between
positive and negative poles.
Both genders identied junk food as a party person, a hyper
personality (8G), who would be funny and fun to hang around
with (8B). While many respondents observed that junk food
would be young and would have many friends, there was also a
strong sense of superciality observed by several people. This
emerged in terms of surface appearancesdboth social and
physical.
R1 [Junk food would] always take you [to] fun places (8B)
R4 I think that junk food would have a lot of friends because
everybody likes junk food in real life. Organic would have some
friends, not a lot. Not everybody likes organic.

R2 Yeh. Junk food would be that guy who's got a lot of friends but
they're not real friends. Those fake friends [who say], Hey, I like
you. (8B)
R3 [in a mocking tone, impersonating junk food], I like you,
Aiden. I like you so much, Aiden. I love you.
In the girls' groups, the superciality of junk food emerged in a
social and physical fashiondas the person who part[ies] all the
time (7G) and puts on tons and tons of makeup. One female
respondent explained that all that makeup would be like the
articial coloring found in junk food (7G). As such, junk food's
social popularity and fun is undermined by its articiality. A minor
theme, too, was that junk food was not athletic (a few indicated it
would be fat or look like a slob).
3.2.3. Organic food
Overall, organic food was associated with positive characteristics. The majority of the teenagers identied organics as shy, female
and a person of quality: the kind of person who blossoms once you
get to know her. Organics was positioned as a female, since females tend to put a little more thought into what they eat (B7). It
was also seen as natural looking, with long hair, natural
clothing, and dressed like a hippy. Reference to a hippy
emerged in all focus groups. Teenagers also identied organics as
young, or with a youthful appearance due to a healthy lifestyle:
They'd be young. (7B)
They'd look young. They could be old, but they look young because
they are healthy. (7B)
Organic is 37 but they look 20. (7B)
Just as junk food stood apart with its dominant trait of
exciting, and meat represented the only food evoking a smell
component and universally classied as both male and old or
older, organic food was the only food in which the notion of a
social conscience was articulated. Although the reference to hippies
in the focus groups pivoted primarily on appearance (long hair, long
skirts, natural clothing or cotton clothing and never with dyed
hair), politically motivated movements were certainly assisted by
hippies (e.g., organic farming, the back to the land movement of the
1960s, alternative energy, etc.)dregardless of whether the respondents intended this. However, a grade 7 girl specically
observed that organics wouldn't wear any clothes made out of real
fur, [and] they wouldn't have anything that kills animals.
4. Discussion
This qualitative study sought to explore young people's perspectives on the symbolic meaning of foods and, in particular,
whether teenagers identied distinct personalities in foods/food
categories even without ongoing targeted branding/promotion to
establish these traits. For the 30 teenagers asked, this most
certainly was the case, with a strong group consensus on the attributes of various unprocessed/commodity foods and food categories. Certain aspects dominated for the foods discussed: broccoli,
eggs and milk were discussed, in part, in light of social aspiration
and/or popularity. Broccoli was pilloried for trying too hard to be
part of the cool group; eggs were considered to be a fragile in
terms of personality but non-threatening to the social hierarchy
(i.e., non-aspirational and therefore not judged harshly); milk was
seen as popular by some and having either a few good friends by
others (i.e., authentic). Milk's physicality also came into play as part

C. Elliott / Social Science & Medicine 121 (2014) 85e90

of the personality discussion for some teenagersdthe healthy,

hottie athlete. For the food categories, popularity and physicality
equally resonated: meat as popular (for boys) and anti-social (for
girls), athletic and alluring (for boys) and fat and unattractive (for
girls), and universally described as male and older with a sensory
(smell) component. Junk food was the fun, popular personalitydbut also fake and shallow. With organic food, far less
emphasis was on popularity or friendship whereas appearance
factored stronglydappearance in terms of youthful looking and
also with respect to dress/style.
In light of previous research on how teenagers' consider social
status when it comes to making food choices, it is fascinating to see
how teenagers apply a social status to foods themselves. Teenagers
may use foods to t in with the peer group, or as a means of
elevating their own status, or judging the status of others (Stead
et al., 2011; Roper and La Niece, 2009; Willis et al., 2009). In this,
food becomes a powerful means of communicating one's identity.
Yet teenagers also readily translate these communicative aspects to
the food itself, personifying food as an identitydnerdy broccoli,
cool milk, popular (but fake) junk fooddand placing that food
within a social hierarchy. Recurring in this discussion is the
network of friendships (or the web of relations around friendship)
for the foods considered. This preoccupation with the quality of
friendshipdsurface versus depth, a few true friends versus many
fake friendsdprofoundly reorients the social hierarchy discussion.
While at rst blush the emphasis on excitement, fun and would
seem to put junk food at the top of the social hierarchy, teenagers
also stress junk food's superciality. This suggests that teens might
place more value on a less popular position amongst their peers if
also paired with more desirable qualities. In this respect, previous
research that focuses solely on how food/food brands communicate
social status for young people might be missing an important
question (i.e., what else beyond social status is important for
teenagers?).
Given the lack of targeted marketing campaigns around such
foods, the consistency of these personality evaluations by teenagers
is remarkable. It further raises the question of how teenagers have
come to this consensus in the rst place. Previous research has
documented that young people do categorize foods (and not just
branded food products), use foods to create socially constructed
distinctions (Ludvigsen and Scott, 2009), and have clear perspectives on their characteristics (James, 1998; Elliott, 2011). Presumably the consensus among teenagers when it comes to food
personalities stems, in part, from interplay with broader cultural
attitudes. Philosopher Rick Dolphijn suggests that a foodscape
consists of processes where elements relate to each other and
generate relations and affects (Brembeck et al., 2013, p. 76), which
situates food within part of a wider network of relationships and
structures. As such, the food personalities articulated can be
informed by a variety of inuences. First, brand personality responses may be linked to the product performance, with people
arguing that energy drinks are energetic (Azoulay and Kapferer,
2003). A similar process of connecting performance with personality emerges with the suggestion that the personality of eggs is
fragile, that milk is cool and that organics is healthy and
natural. Second, seminal work on the sociology of taste documents a gender divide between women and men when it comes to
vegetables and meat: meat is seen as hearty, sustenance food for
men, whereas lighter fare (such as sh and vegetables) is reserved
for women and children (Bourdieu, 1984: 188). Related to this,
research with 225 Canadian children (ages 6e12) documents that
young people classify meat as adult food (Elliott, 2011). Given
this, the teenagers' unanimous identication of meat as male and
older is borne out by other studies, as is the positive endorsement of
meat by the teenage boys (and the less enthusiastic response by

89

girls). Moreover, weight concerns factor strongly in adolescent girls'

food choices (Macht and Simons, 2000): this might explain why the
girls xated on the fat aspects of meat (i.e., meat is a fat old man),
whereas the boys did not mention fat at all.
The third cultural inuence that might inform the teenagers'
views on food personalities is reected in literature which suggests showing an interest in healthy eating is socially risky for
many young people (Stead et al., 2011; Ludvigsen and Scott, 2009),
while making unhealthy food choices (such as junk food or fast
food) fosters peer acceptance (Harrison and Jackson, 2009;
Chapman and Maclean, 1993). One notable exception is for boys
playing sports, in which healthy eating is not stigmatized (Stead
et al., 2011). In fact, a qualitative research study with Canadian
teenagers found that boys described healthy food almost exclusively in terms of being a key factor in physical activity and tness
(Harrison and Jackson, 2009, p. 9). Given this, the social risk
associated with healthy food might explain why foods like broccoli
and eggs were classied as nerdy or described as having few
friends; the acceptability of healthy eating for boys linked with
sports might explain why milk received such favorable reviews by
those who identied milk as a football player or athlete, and meat
as a jock or a wrestlerdall male entities.
These insights creatively expand our understanding of the social
meaning of food for young people. Strategies designed to encourage
healthy eating in adolescents often focus on policies at the meso- or
macro-level rather than on personal perspectives and attitudesdthat is, where food ts the social matrix of meaning (Schor and
Ford, 2007, p. 16). The concept of brand personality draws attention to the unique characteristics associated with brands, and the
ways that personality traits work to infuse objects with meaning for
consumers. Building on this concept to ask teenagers what they
think about food personalities reveals the social constructiondand
social statusdof these foods in a fashion that could not be uncovered by simply asking them what a cool person would eat.
Reconguring the food as a person allows for greater depth of
discussion, unveiling considerations pertaining to quality of social
relationships, social status, gender, age and a range of personality
traits. Exploring how food is used to project desired identities is
interesting (see Stead et al., 2011). Yet the question of how foods are
given literal identities by young peopledthe issue of how food
presents itselfdsuggests that young people bring more nuance to
the currently held assumption that, for them, unhealthy choices are
the most desirable ones (Stead et al., 2011). Exploring food as
people also prompts us to consider how broader cultural attitudes
toward food need to be embraced by public health initiatives. Focus
on the nutritional qualities of broccoli does not address the social
stigma associated with broccoli as unpopular, a geek or a loner.
And, given the consensus and consistency of views among the
teenagers interviewed, such perspectives need to be considered in
any initiative designed to improve the eating of young people.
Teenager perspectives on food personalities raise some important considerations for public health and for policy. In light of the
ndings, some individuals might suggest that public health authorities should employ marketers' techniques to craft winsome
personalities for healthier foods. This is one option, and similar
recommendations have been made in a WHO technical paper on
food marketing to children, which argued that NGOs and governments should use social marketing to encourage healthy
eating and that industry should be encouraged to put its efforts
behind healthy options. A challenge with these recommendations,
however, is that they might be unrealistic and/or distorted. NGOs
and governments do not have substantial budgets to promote
broccoli, meat (etc.), and they cannot compete with the promotional budgets of Big Food. It also remains unclear whether topdown marketing techniques to make broccoli cool will be

90

C. Elliott / Social Science & Medicine 121 (2014) 85e90

effective (research is needed on how teenagers came to this

consensus about unprocessed/unbranded foods in the rst place).
Furthermore, industry-led efforts to promote healthy options to
young people have often been more about marketing than nutrition. The food industry has promoted highly processed products
such as Froot Loops cereal, Lucky Charms cereal, Kool-Aid Jammers
and Dunkaroos cookies as healthier-for-you foods to children
(Elliott, 2012, 2012b). We would suggest that such healthier processed products sit in a different category than unprocessed fare.
Stated differently, the food industry might argue that effort has
been placed behind healthy options. For these reasons, along with
teenagers' nuanced perceptions on unbranded food personalities,
further research on the social and symbolic meanings of food for
young people is necessary.

References
Aaker, J., 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 34 (3), 347e356.
Austin, J.R., Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A.S., 2003. A re-examination of the generalizability
of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework. J. Strateg. Mark. 11 (2),
77e92.
Azoulay, A., Kapferer, J.N., 2003. Do brand personality scales really measure brand
personality? Brand Manag. 11, 143e155.
Backett-Milburn, K.C., Wills, W.J., Roberts, M., Lawton, J., 2010. Food, eating and
taste: parents' perspectives on the making of the middle class teenager. Soc. Sci.
Med. 71, 1316e1323.
Beldona, S., Wysong, S., 2007. Putting the brand back into store brands: an
exploratory examination of store brands and brand personality. J. Prod. Brand
Manag. 16 (4), 226e235.
Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge, London and New York.
Brembeck, H., Johansson, B., Bergstrom, K., et al., 2013. Exploring children's foodscapes. Child. Geogr. 11 (1), 74e88.
Cairns, G., Angus, K., Hastings, G., 2009. The Extent, Nature and Effects of Food
Promotion to Children: a Review of the Evidence to December 2008. World
Health Organization, Geneva.
Cairns, G., Angus, K., Hastings, G., Caraher, M., 2013. Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of food marketing to children. A
retrospective summary. Appetite 62, 209e215.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2014. Parent Information: Teens.
Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/parents/teens/.
Chapman, G., Maclean, H., 1993. Junk food and healthy food: meanings of food in
adolescent women's culture. J. Nutr. Educ. 25 (3), 108e113.
Coveney, J., 2014. Food. Routledge, New York.
Crabtree, B.F., Miller, W.L., 1999. Doing Qualitative Research, second ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Douglas, M., 1966. Purity and Danger: an Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and
Taboo. Routledge, London.
Douglas, M., 1975 [1999]. Implicit Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology.
Routledge, London.
Elliott, C., 2008. Assessing fun foods: nutritional content and analysis of supermarket foods targeted at children. Obes. Rev. 9, 368e377.
Elliott, C., 2011. It's junk food and chicken nuggets: children's perspectives on
kids' food and the question of food classication. J. Consum. Behav. 10 (3),
133e140.
Elliott, C., 2012. Marketing foods to children: are we asking the right questions?
Child. Obes. 8 (3), 202e205.
Elliott, C., 2012a. Packaging fun: analysing supermarket food messages targeted at
children. Can. J. Commun. 37 (2), 303e318.
Elliott, C., 2012b. Packaging health: examining better-for-you foods targeted at
children. Can. Public Policy 38 (2), 265e281.
Feldman, C., Su, H., Mahadevan, M., Brusca, J., Hartwell, H., 2014. Menu psychology
to encourage healthy menu selections at a New Jersey University. J. Culin. Sci.
Technol. 12 (1), 1e21.
Garde, A., Lobstein, T., Armstrong, T., Irwin, R., Randby, S., Sacks, G., Xuereb, G., 2012.
A Framework for Implementing the Set of Recommendations on the Marketing
of Foods and Non-alcoholic Beverages to Children. Retrieved from: http://www.
who.int/dietphysicalactivity/MarketingFramework2012.pdf.
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., De Wulf, K., 2009. A new measure of brand personality. Int.
J. Res. Mark. 26, 97e107.
Greenbaum, T.L., 1988. The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus Group Research.
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Harris, J.L., Heard, A., Schwartz, M., 2014. Older But Still Vulnerable: All Children
Need Protection from Unhealthy Food Marketing. Yale Rudd Center for Food
Policy & Obesity. Rudd Brief. Retrieved from: http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/
resources/upload/docs/what/reports/Protecting_Older_Children_3.14.pdf.
Harrison, M., Jackson, L.A., 2009. Meanings that youth associate with healthy and
unhealthy food. Can. J. Diet. Pract. Res. 70 (1), 6e12.

Hastings, G., McDermott, L., Angus, K., Stead, M., Thomson, S., 2007. The Extent,
Nature and Effects of Food Promotion to Children: a Review of the Evidence.
World Health Organization, Geneva.
Hawkes, C., Lobstein, T., 2011. Regulating the commercial promotion of food to
children: a survey of actions worldwide. Int. J. Pediatr. Obes. 6 (2), 83e94.
Heary, C.M., Hennessy, E., 2002. The use of focus group interviews in pediatric
health care research. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 27 (1), 47e57.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., Bailey, A., 2011. Qualitative Research Methods. Sage, London.
James, A., 1998. Confections, concoctions, and conceptions. In: Jenkins, H. (Ed.), The
Children's Culture Reader. The New York UP, New York, pp. 394e403.
James, A., Kjorholt, A.T., Tingstad, V., 2009. Children, Food and Identity in Everyday
Life. Palgrave Macmillian, New York.
Johar, G.V., Sengupta, J., Aaker, J.L., 2005. Two roads to updating brand personality
impressions: trait versus evaluative inferencing. J. Mark. Res. 42, 458e469.
Jones, C., 2010. Encouraging healthy eating at restaurants: themes uncovered
through focus group research. Serv. Mark. Q. 31, 334e347.
Kunkel, D., Wilcox, B., Cantor, J., Palmer, E., Linn, S., Dowrick, P., 2004. Report of the
APA Taskforce on Advertising and Children. American Psychological Association,
Washington. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/
advertising-children.pdf.
Labiner-Wolfe, J., Lando, A., 2007. Helping consumers make more healthful food
choices: consumer views on modifying food labels and providing point-ofpurchase nutrition information at quick-service restaurants. J. Nutr. Educ.
Behav. 39 (3), 157e163.
Levi-Strauss, C., 1962 [1966]. The Savage Mind. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Lindlof, T.R., Taylor, B.C., 2011. Qualitative Communication Research Methods, third
ed. Sage, London.
Lindstrom, M., Seybold, P., 2003. Brandchild. Kogan Page.
Ludvigsen, A., Scott, S., 2009. Real kids don't eat quiche: what food means to
children. Food Cult. Soc. 12 (4), 418e436.
Macht, M., Simons, G., 2000. Emotions and eating in everyday life. Appetite 35,
65e71.
McGinnis, J.M., Gootman, J.A., Kraak, V.I., 2006. Food Marketing to Children and
Youth: Threat or Opportunity? Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of
Children and Youth, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C.
Mediamark Research Institute, 2003. Teen Market Prole. Magazine Publishers of
America, New York. Retrieved from: http://www.evsd90.wednet.edu/evhs/
teachers/benny/teenprole04.pdf.
Michman, R., Mazze, E., 1998. Food Industry Wars: Marketing Triumphs & Blunders.
Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
Persson, M., Soroko, R., Musicus, A., Lobstein, T., 2012. A Junk-free Childhood 24012:
the 2012 Report of the StanMark Project on Standards for Marketing Food and
Beverages to Children in Europe. International Association for the Study of
Obesity, London. Retrieved from: http://www.Iaso.Org/site_media/uploads/A_
Junkfree_Childhood_2012.
Peterson-Sweeney, K., 2005. The use of focus groups in pediatric and adolescent
research. J. Pediatr. Health Care 19 (2), 104e110.
Potvin Kent, M., Dubois, L., Wanless, A., 2011. Self-regulation by industry of food
marketing is having little impact during children's preferred television. Int. J.
Pediatr. Obes. 6 (5e6), 401e408.
Raine, K.D., Lobstein, T., Landon, J., Kent, M.P., Pellerin, S., Cauleld, T., Spence, J.C.,
2013. Restricting marketing to children: consensus on policy interventions to
address obesity. J. Public Health Policy 34 (2), 239e253.
Roos, G., 2002. Our bodies are made of pizzadfood and embodiment among children in Kentucky. Ecol. Food Nutr. 41 (1), 1e19.
Roper, S., La Niece, C., 2009. The importance of brands in the lunch box choices of
low-income British school children. J. Consum. Behav. 8 (2e3), 84e99.
Schade, J., 2007. Marketing to Kids: the ABC's of Conducting Research with Children
and Teens. JRS Consulting. Retrieved from: http://www.jrsconsulting.net/
freearticles_3.html.
Schor, J., Ford, M., 2007. From tastes great to cool: children's food marketing and the
rise of the symbolic. J. Law Med. Ethics 35 (1), 10e21.
Stead, M., McDermott, L., Mackintosh, A.M., Adamson, A., 2011. Why healthy eating
is bad for young people's health: Identity, belonging and food. Soc. Sci. Med. 72,
1131e1139.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, second ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., Sinagub, J.M., 1996. Focus Group Interviews in Education
and Psychology. Sage.
Willis, W., Backett-Milburn, K., Lawton, J., Roberts, M., 2009. Consuming fast food:
the perceptions and practices of middle-class young teenagers. In: James, A.,
Kjorholt, A.T., Tinsgstad, V. (Eds.), Children, Food and Identity in Everyday Life.
Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
World Health Organization (WHO), 2010. Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-alcoholic Beverages to Children. Retrieved from:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500210_eng.pdf/.
World Health Organization (WHO), 2012. A Framework for Implementing the Set of
Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-alcoholic Beverages to
Children.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/
MarketingFramework2012.pdf.
World Health Organization (WHO), 2013. Marketing of Foods High in Fat, Salt and
Sugar to Children: Update 2012e2013. Retrieved from: http://wwweuro.who.
int/data/assets/pdf_le/0019/191125/e96859.pdf.