Food Neophobia, Familiarity with French Cuisine, Body Mass, and Restaurant Food Choices in a Sample of Polish Women
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Ethical Statement
- -
- Women;
- -
- Caucasian;
- -
- Polish ethnicity;
- -
- Age of 18–40 years; and
- -
- Provided informed consent to participate.
- -
- Pregnancy;
- -
- Breastfeeding;
- -
- Any diet-related disease;
- -
- Any food allergy or intolerance;
- -
- Following any other diet (e.g., vegetarian/vegan diet, low-calorie diet, etc.);
- -
- Alcohol abstinence; and
- -
- Any missing data within the food neophobia scale (FNS) questionnaire, familiarity with French cuisine, body weight and height, or model French restaurant menu questions.
2.2. Food Choice Questionnaire
2.3. Studied Variables
- -
- Low level of food neophobia: the first tercile of the FNS score (score of 10–24) (n = 68);
- -
- Average level of food neophobia: the second tercile of the FNS score (score of 25–35) (n = 68);
- -
- High level of food neophobia: the third tercile of the FNS score (score of 36–64) (n = 67).
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Food Neophobia Results
3.2. Influence of Food Neophobia on French Menu Choices
3.3. Influence of Familiarity with French Cuisine on French Menu Choices
3.4. Influence of Body Mass on French Menu Choices
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kivela, J. Restaurant marketing: Selection and segmentation in Hong Kong. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. 1997, 9, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chua, B.L.; Karim, S.; Lee, S.; Han, H. Customer Restaurant Choice: An Empirical Analysis of Restaurant Types and Eating-out Occasions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kimberley, P.; Remaud, H. Factors influencing consumer menu-item selection in a restaurant context. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 8, 103887. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (accessed on 14 February 2022).
- Głąbska, D.; Skolmowska, D.; Guzek, D. Food Preferences and Food Choice Determinants in a Polish Adolescents’ COVID-19 Experience (PLACE-19) Study. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, T.H.; Chiang, L.L.; Ma, C.C.; Chang, C.H. Impact of a Banning Indoor Dining Policy on Restaurant Avoidance Behavior during the COVID-19 Outbreak. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brewer, P.; Sebby, A.G. The effect of online restaurant menus on consumers’ purchase intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guiné, R.P.F.; Bartkiene, E.; Szűcs, V.; Tarcea, M.; Ljubičić, M.; Černelič-Bizjak, M.; Isoldi, K.; El-Kenawy, A.; Ferreira, V.; Straumite, E.; et al. Study about Food Choice Determinants According to Six Types of Conditioning Motivations in a Sample of 11,960 Participants. Foods 2020, 9, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, Y.; Moon, H.C. What Drives Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Happiness in Fast-Food Restaurants in China? Perceived Price, Service Quality, Food Quality, Physical Environment Quality, and the Moderating Role of Gender. Foods 2020, 9, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bell, R.; Meiselman, H.L.; Pierson, B.J.; Reeve, W.G. Effects of adding an Italian theme to a restaurant on the perceived ethnicity, acceptability, and selection of foods. Appetite 1994, 22, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mascarello, G.; Pinto, A.; Rizzoli, V.; Tiozzo, B.; Crovato, S.; Ravarotto, L. Ethnic Food Consumption in Italy: The Role of Food Neophobia and Openness to Different Cultures. Foods 2020, 9, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pliner, P.; Hobden, K. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite 1992, 19, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dovey, T.M.; Staples, P.A.; Gibson, E.L.; Halford, J.C. Food neophobia and ’picky/fussy’ eating in children: A review. Appetite 2008, 50, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Costa, A.; Silva, C.; Oliveira, A. Food neophobia and its association with food preferences and dietary intake of adults. Nutr. Diet. 2020, 77, 542–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Rasmussen, M.A.; Prescott, J. Relationships between food neophobia and food intake and preferences: Findings from a sample of New Zealand adults. Appetite 2017, 116, 410–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guzek, D.; Pęska, J.; Głąbska, D. Role of Food Neophobia and Allergen Content in Food Choices for a Polish Cohort of Young Women. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Guzek, D.; Nguyen, D.; Głąbska, D. Food Neophobia and Consumer Choices within Vietnamese Menu in a Polish Cohort Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arvola, A.; Lähteenmäki, L.; Tuorila, H. Predicting the intent to purchase unfamiliar and familiar cheeses: The effects of attitudes, expected liking and food neophobia. Appetite 1999, 32, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, Y.; Pliner, P. Human food choices: An examination of the factors underlying acceptance/rejection of novel and familiar animal and nonanimal foods. Appetite 2005, 45, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, N.C.; An, R.; Lee, S.Y.; Donovan, S.M. Correlates of picky eating and food neophobia in young children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr. Rev. 2017, 75, 516–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Knaapila, A.; Sandell, M.; Vaarno, J.; Hoppu, U.; Puolimatka, T.; Kaljonen, A.; Lagström, H. Food neophobia associates with lower dietary quality and higher BMI in Finnish adults. Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2161–2171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duerksen, S.C.; Elder, J.P.; Arredondo, E.M.; Ayala, G.X.; Slymen, D.J.; Campbell, N.R.; Baquero, B. Family restaurant choices are associated with child and adult overweight status in Mexican-American families. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2007, 107, 849–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mohammadbeigi, A.; Asgarian, A.; Moshir, E.; Heidari, H.; Afrashteh, S.; Khazaei, S.; Ansari, H. Fast food consumption and overweight/obesity prevalence in students and its association with general and abdominal obesity. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 2018, 59, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demographic Yearbook 2021. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/rocznik-demograficzny-2021,3,15.html (accessed on 28 March 2022).
- Bessiere, J.; Tibere, L. Traditional food and tourism: French tourist experience and food heritage in rural spaces. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 3420–3425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rozin, P.; Kabnick, K.; Pete, E.; Fischler, C.; Shields, C. The ecology of eating: Smaller portion sizes in France Than in the United States help explain the French paradox. Psychol. Sci. 2003, 14, 450–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Głuchowski, A.; Rasińska, E.; Czarniecka-Skubina, E. The Catering Services Market in Poland on the Example of Warsaw. Handel Wew. 2017, 4, 118–133. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Waluga, M.; Jonderko, K.; Buschhaus, M. Pragmatically on the sense of taste—A short treatise based on culinary art. Prz. Gastroenterol. 2013, 8, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Çınar, Ç.; Karinen, A.K.; Tybur, J.M. The multidimensional nature of food neophobia. Appetite 2021, 1, 105177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuorila, H.; Mustonen, S. Reluctant trying of an unfamiliar food induces negative affection for the food. Appetite 2010, 54, 418–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization (WHO). Body Mass Index—BMI. Available online: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/a-healthy-lifestyle/body-mass-index-bmi (accessed on 14 February 2022).
- DeVellis, R.F. Scale Development; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Mazzolani, B.C.; Smaira, F.I.; Esteves, G.P.; Santo André, H.C.; Amarante, M.C.; Castanho, D.; Campos, K.; Benatti, F.B.; Pinto, A.J.; Roschel, H.; et al. Influence of Body Mass Index on Eating Habits and Food Choice Determinants Among Brazilian Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Nutr. 2021, 12, 664240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutiérrez-Pliego, L.E.; Camarillo-Romero Edel, S.; Montenegro-Morales, L.P.; Garduño-García Jde, J. Dietary patterns associated with body mass index (BMI) and lifestyle in Mexican adolescents. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Skolmowska, D.; Głąbska, D.; Guzek, D. Body Mass and Emotional Eating: Emotional Eater Questionnaire (EEQ) in the Polish Adolescents’ COVID-19 Experience (PLACE-19) Study. Nutrients 2022, 14, 828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thike, T.Z.; Saw, Y.M.; Lin, H.; Chit, K.; Tun, A.B.; Htet, H.; Cho, S.M.; Khine, A.T.; Saw, T.N.; Kariya, T.; et al. Association between body mass index and ready-to-eat food consumption among sedentary staff in Nay Pyi Taw union territory, Myanmar. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fraser, L.K.; Edwards, K.L.; Cade, J.E.; Clarke, G.P. Fast food, other food choices and body mass index in teenagers in the United Kingdom (ALSPAC): A structural equation modelling approach. Int. J. Obes. 2011, 35, 1325–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Albar, S.A.; Alwan, N.A.; Evans, C.E.; Cade, J.E. Is there an association between food portion size and BMI among British adolescents? Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 112, 841–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pineda, E.; Brunner, E.J.; Llewellyn, C.H.; Mindell, J.S. The retail food environment and its association with body mass index in Mexico. Int. J. Obes. 2021, 45, 1215–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ręgwelski, M.; Lange, E.; Głąbska, D.; Guzek, D. Analysis of the Influence of Age, BMI, and WHtR on Body Mass Acceptance, Attitudes, and Motivation towards Body Mass Reduction in Overweight and Obese Caucasian Women. Nutrients 2019, 11, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Saffari, M.; Pakpour, A.H.; Mohammadi-Zeidi, I.; Samadi, M.; Chen, H. Long-term effect of motivational interviewing on dietary intake and weight loss in Iranian obese/overweight women. Health Promot. Perspect. 2014, 4, 206–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guzek, D.; Głąbska, D.; Mellová, B.; Zadka, K.; Żywczyk, K.; Gutkowska, K. Influence of Food Neophobia Level on Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Its Association with Urban Area of Residence and Physical Activity in a Nationwide Case-Control Study of Polish Adolescents. Nutrients 2018, 10, 897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hazley, D.; McCarthy, S.N.; Stack, M.; Walton, J.; McNulty, B.A.; Flynn, A.; Kearney, J.M. Food neophobia and its relationship with dietary variety and quality in Irish adults: Findings from a national cross-sectional study. Appetite 2022, 1, 105859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santisi, G.; Magnano, P.; Scuderi, V.E. Food Neophobia and Food Disgust: The Mediating Role of Perceived Vulnerability to Disease. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henchion, M.; McCarthy, M.; O’Callaghan, J. Transforming Beef By-products into Valuable Ingredients: Which Spell/Recipe to Use? Front. Nutr. 2016, 30, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Chheang, S.L.; Prescott, J. Variations in the Strength of Association between Food Neophobia and Food and Beverage Acceptability: A Data-Driven Exploratory Study of an Arousal Hypothesis. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Knaapila, A.; Silventoinen, K.; Broms, U.; Rose, R.J.; Perola, M.; Kaprio, J.; Tuorila, H.M. Food Neophobia in Young Adults: Genetic Architecture and Relation to Personality, Pleasantness and Use Frequency of Foods, and Body Mass Index—A Twin Study. Behav. Genet. 2011, 41, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruel, T.R. Operationalizing Dietary Diversity: A Review of Measurement Issues and Research Priorities. J. Nutr. 2003, 133, 3911–3926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rak, M. Kulinarne kulturemy—Podhalańskie, polskie, słowiańskie: Zarys problematyki. In Polskie Kulinaria: Aspekty Historycznojęzykowe, Regionalne i Kulturowe, 1st ed.; Przybylska, R., Ochmann, D., Eds.; Libron—Filip Lohner: Kraków, Poland, 2021; pp. 159–173. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
Meal | Name of the Dish | Simple Description of the Dish Presented within the Menu | Components of Neophobic Potential for Polish Consumers | Animal-Based Components |
---|---|---|---|---|
Starter | Quiche Lorraine | Tart with bacon | - | Bacon |
Salade de betteraves | Beetroot salad | - | - | |
Moules à la marinière | Mussels in white wine | Mussels | Mussels | |
Champignons farcis à la provencale | Vegetable-stuffed champignon mushrooms | Champignon mushrooms | - | |
Soup | Consommé | Meat and vegetable broth | - | Meat |
Soupe à l’oignon | Onion soup with toast | - | - | |
Bouillabaisse | Fish soup | Fish | Fish | |
Soupe aux fèves | Broad bean soup | Broad bean soup | - | |
Main course | Boeuf Bourguignon | Burgundy-style beef stew | - | Beef |
Ratatouille | Vegetable stew | - | - | |
Cuisses de grenouille | Frog legs | Frog | Frog | |
Duxelles | Mushroom stew | Mushroom | - | |
Dessert | Crème brûlée | Cream and egg-based vanilla pudding | - | Cream and eggs |
Salade de fruits de saison | Seasonal fruit salad | - | - | |
Champagne Sabayon | Champagne-based egg custard | Custard with champagne | Eggs | |
Gelée de vin blanc aux fruits rouges | White wine jelly with red fruits | White wine jelly | - |
Characteristics | Values | |
---|---|---|
Age (years) | Mean ± SD | 24.6 ± 3.5 |
Median (25th–75th) | 24.0 * (23.0–25.0) | |
Body mass (assesssed based on BMI) | Underweight | 20 (9.9%) |
Normal | 145 (71.4%) | |
Overweight/obese | 38 (18.7%) | |
Residence | Village | 39 (19.2%) |
Towns and cities of <500,000 residents | 90 (44.3%) | |
Cities of >500,000 residents | 74 (36.5%) | |
Declared diet quality | Very bad or bad | 11 (5.4%) |
Average | 111 (54.7%) | |
Good or very good | 79 (38.9%) | |
No answer | 2 (1.0%) | |
Declared health status | Very bad or bad | 8 (4.1%) |
Average | 56 (28.7%) | |
Good or very good | 131 (67.2%) | |
Declared economic status | Very bad or bad | 8 (4.5%) |
Average | 63 (35.6%) | |
Good or very good | 105 (59.3%) | |
No answer | 1 (0.6%) |
FNS Score | Total (n = 203) | Food Neophobia Level ** | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Low (n = 68) | Average (n = 68) | High (n = 67) | ||
Mean ± SD | 30.6 ± 10.4 | 19.3 ± 3.5 | 30.2 ± 3.0 | 42.6 ± 5.5 |
95% CI | 29.2–32.1 | 18.5–20.2 | 29.5–30.9 | 41.3–44.0 |
Median | 31.0 * | 19.5 * | 31.0 * | 41.0 * |
Range | 10–64 | 10–24 | 25–35 | 36–64 |
25th–75th | 22–39 | 17.5–22 | 28–33 | 39–46 |
Meal | Dish | Total (n = 203) | Food Neophobia Level *—n (%) | p-Value ** | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low (n = 68) | Average (n = 68) | High (n = 67) | ||||
Starters | Quiche Lorraine | 42 (20.7%) | 11 (16.2%) | 16 (23.5%) | 15 (22.4%) | <0.0001 |
Salade de betteraves | 19 (9.4%) | 6 (8.8%) | 4 (5.9%) | 9 (13.4%) | ||
Moules à la marinière | 54 (26.6%) | 31 (45.6%) | 19 (27.9%) | 4 (6.0%) | ||
Champignons farcis à la provencale | 88 (43.3%) | 20 (29.4%) | 29 (42.6%) | 39 (58.2%) | ||
Soup | Consommé | 56 (27.6%) | 7 (10.3%) | 14 (20.6%) | 35 (52.2%) | <0.0001 |
Soupe à l’oignon | 96 (47.3%) | 33 (48.5%) | 39 (57.4%) | 24 (35.8%) | ||
Bouillabaisse | 25 (12.3%) | 15 (22.1%) | 7 (10.3%) | 3 (4.5%) | ||
Soupe aux fèves | 26 (12.8%) | 13 (19.1%) | 8 (11.8%) | 5 (7.5%) | ||
Main course | Boeuf Bourguignon | 61 (30.0%) | 27 (39.7%) | 20 (29.4%) | 14 (20.9%) | <0.0001 |
Ratatouille | 66 (32.5%) | 11 (16.2%) | 23 (33.8%) | 32 (47.8%) | ||
Cuisses de grenouille | 30 (14.8%) | 19 (27.9%) | 9 (13.2%) | 2 (3.0%) | ||
Duxelles | 46 (22.7%) | 11 (16.2%) | 16 (23.5%) | 19 (28.4%) | ||
Dessert | Crème brûlée | 73 (36.0%) | 21 (30.9%) | 29 (42.6%) | 23 (34.3%) | 0.0139 |
Salade de fruits de saison | 44 (21.7%) | 11 (16.2%) | 10 (14.7%) | 23 (34.3%) | ||
Champagne Sabayon | 51 (25.1%) | 18 (26.5%) | 17 (25.0%) | 16 (23.9%) | ||
Gelée de vin blanc aux fruits rouges | 35 (17.2%) | 18 (26.5%) | 12 (17.6%) | 5 (7.5%) |
Meal | Dish | Mean FNS | Median (Min–Max) | p-Value ** |
---|---|---|---|---|
Starters | Quiche Lorraine | 31.3 ± 9.9 | 31.5 (15–51) a | <0.0001 |
Salade de betteraves | 34.3 ± 11.9 | 33.0 (15–56) a | ||
Moules à la marinière | 24.1 ± 7.9 | 23.5 (10–48) b | ||
Champignons farcis à la provencale | 33.6 ± 10.1 | 34 (14–64) a | ||
Soup | Consommé | 37.1 ± 9.5 | 38.5 (18–64) a | <0.0001 |
Soupe à l’oignon | 29.3 ± 9.8 | 28 (11–59) b | ||
Bouillabaisse | 25.1 ± 9.4 | 22.5 (10–48) b | ||
Soupe aux fèves | 27.4 ± 9.2 | 26 (10–45) b | ||
Main course | Boeuf Bourguignon | 28.2 ± 9.1 | 27 * (12–49) ab | <0.0001 |
Ratatouille | 35.3 ± 10.0 | 34 (17–64) c | ||
Cuisses de grenouille | 22.7 ± 8.9 | 21 (10–45) b | ||
Duxelles | 32.4 ± 9.8 | 32.5 (15–59) ac | ||
Dessert | Crème brûlée | 30.8 ± 8.7 | 31 (12–50) ab | <0.0001 |
Salade de fruits de saison | 36.2 ± 12.1 | 36 (16–64) b | ||
Champagne Sabayon | 29.3 ± 9.6 | 29 (10–48) a | ||
Gelée de vin blanc aux fruits rouges | 25.4 ± 9.4 | 24 (10–49) a |
Meal | Dish | Food Neophobia Level *—n (%) | p-Value ** | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low (n = 67) | Average (n = 68) | High (n = 68) | |||
Starters | Animal-based components | 42 (61.8%) | 35 (51.5%) | 19 (28.4%) | 0.0004 |
Non-animal-based components | 26 (38.2%) | 33 (48.5%) | 48 (71.6%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 17 (25.0%) | 20 (29.4%) | 24 (35.8%) | 0.3867 | |
With neophobic components | 51 (75.0%) | 48 (70.6%) | 43 (64.2%) | ||
Soup | Animal-based components | 22 (32.4%) | 21 (30.9%) | 38 (56.7%) | 0.0027 |
Non-animal-based components | 46 (67.6%) | 47 (69.1%) | 29 (43.3%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 40 (58.8%) | 53 (77.9%) | 59 (88.1%) | 0.0004 | |
With neophobic components | 28 (41.2%) | 15 (22.1%) | 8 (11.9%) | ||
Main course | Animal-based components | 46 (67.6%) | 29 (42.6%) | 16 (23.9%) | <0.0001 |
Non-animal-based components | 22 (32.4%) | 39 (57.4%) | 51 (76.1%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 38 (55.9%) | 43 (63.2%) | 46 (68.7%) | 0.3056 | |
With neophobic components | 30 (44.1%) | 25 (36.8%) | 21 (31.3%) | ||
Dessert | Animal-based components | 39 (57.4%) | 46 (67.6%) | 39 (58.2%) | 0.3940 |
Non-animal-based components | 29 (42.6%) | 22 (32.4%) | 28 (41.8%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 32 (47.1%) | 39 (57.4%) | 46 (68.7%) | 0.0397 | |
With neophobic components | 36 (52.9%) | 29 (42.6%) | 21 (31.3%) |
Meal | Dish | Mean FNS | Median (Min–Max) | p-Value ** |
---|---|---|---|---|
Starters | Animal-based components | 27.2 ± 9.3 | 29 (20–51) | <0.0001 |
Non-animal-based components | 33.7 ± 10.4 | 34 (14–64) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 32.3 ± 10.3 | 32 (15–54) | 0.1499 | |
With neophobic components | 30 ± 10.4 | 29.5 * (10–64) | ||
Soup | Animal-based components | 33.4 ± 10.9 | 34 (10–64) | <0.0001 |
Non-animal-based components | 28.9 ± 9.7 | 28 * (10–59) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 32.1 ± 10.4 | 32 (11–64) | 0.0004 | |
With neophobic components | 26.3 ± 9.2 | 23 (10–48) | ||
Main course | Animal-based components | 26.4 ± 9.3 | 24 (10–49) | <0.0001 |
Non-animal-based components | 34.2 ± 10.0 | 33.5 * (15–64) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 31.9 ± 10.2 | 31 * (12–64) | 0.0267 | |
With neophobic components | 28.6 ± 10.5 | 28.5 (10–59) | ||
Dessert | Animal-based components | 30.2 ± 9.1 | 30 (10–50) | 0.7528 |
Non-animal-based components | 31.4 ± 12.2 | 31 * (10–64) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 32.8 ± 10.4 | 32 * (12–64) | 0.0010 | |
With neophobic components | 27.7 ± 9.7 | 27 * (10–49) |
Meal | Dish | Familiarity with French Cuisine | p-Value * | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Familiar (n = 33) | Unfamiliar (n = 170) | |||
Starters | Quiche Lorraine | 9 (27.3%) | 33 (19.4%) | 0.2364 |
Salade de betteraves | 2 (6.1%) | 17 (10.0%) | ||
Moules à la marinière | 12 (36.4%) | 42 (24.7%) | ||
Champignons farcis à la provencale | 10 (30.3%) | 78 (45.9%) | ||
Soup | Consommé | 3 (9.1%) | 53 (31.2%) | 0.0454 |
Soupe à l’oignon | 22 (66.7%) | 74 (43.5%) | ||
Bouillabaisse | 4 (12.1%) | 21 (12.4%) | ||
Soupe aux fèves | 4 (12.1%) | 22 (12.9%) | ||
Main course | Boeuf Bourguignon | 10 (30.3%) | 51 (30.0%) | 0.0022 |
Ratatouille | 7 (21.2%) | 53 (31.2%) | ||
Cuisses de grenouille | 13 (39.4%) | 23 (13.5%) | ||
Duxelles | 3 (9.1%) | 43 (25.3%) | ||
Dessert | Crème brûlée | 14 (42.4%) | 59 (34.7%) | 0.2874 |
Salade de fruits de saison | 3 (9.1%) | 41 (24.1%) | ||
Champagne Sabayon | 9 (27.3%) | 42 (24.7%) | ||
Gelée de vin blanc aux fruits rouges | 7 (21.2%) | 28 (16.5%) |
Meal | Dish | Familiarity with French Cuisine | p-Value * | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Familiar (n = 33) | Unfamiliar (n = 170) | |||
Starters | Animal-based components | 21 (63.6%) | 75 (44.1%) | 0.0399 |
Non-animal-based components | 12 (36.4%) | 95 (55.9%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 11 (33.3%) | 50 (29.4%) | 0.6531 | |
With neophobic components | 22 (66.7%) | 120 (70.6%) | ||
Soup | Animal-based components | 7 (21.2%) | 74 (43.5%) | 0.0166 |
Non-animal-based components | 26 (78.8%) | 96 (56.5%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 25 (75.8%) | 127 (74.7%) | 0.8993 | |
With neophobic components | 8 (24.2%) | 43 (25.3%) | ||
Main course | Animal-based components | 23 (69.7%) | 74 (43.5%) | 0.0059 |
Non-animal-based components | 10 (30.3%) | 96 (56.5%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 17 (51.5%) | 104 (61.2%) | 0.3007 | |
With neophobic components | 16 (48.5%) | 66 (38.8%) | ||
Dessert | Animal-based components | 23 (69.7%) | 101 (59.4%) | 0.2674 |
Non-animal-based components | 10 (30.3%) | 69 (40.6%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 17 (51.5%) | 100 (58.8%) | 0.4367 | |
With neophobic components | 16 (48.5%) | 70 (41.2%) |
Meal | Dish | Body Mass (Assessed Based on BMI) * | p-Value ** | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Underweight (n = 20) | Underweight (n = 20) | Underweight (n = 20) | |||
Starters | Quiche Lorraine | 6 (30%) | 29 (20%) | 7 (18.4%) | 0.6430 |
Salade de betteraves | 2 (10%) | 15 (10.3%) | 2 (5.3%) | ||
Moules à la marinière | 3 (15%) | 42 (29%) | 9 (23.7%) | ||
Champignons farcis à la provencale | 9 (45%) | 59 (40.7%) | 20 (52.6%) | ||
Soup | Consommé | 5 (25%) | 43 (29.7%) | 8 (21.1%) | 0.4361 |
Soupe à l'oignon | 11 (55%) | 68 (46.9%) | 17 (44.7%) | ||
Bouillabaisse | 1 (5%) | 17 (11.7%) | 7 (18.4%) | ||
Soupe aux fèves | 3 (15%) | 17 (11.7%) | 6 (15.8%) | ||
Main course | Boeuf Bourguignon | 7 (35%) | 42 (29%) | 12 (31.6%) | 0.2900 |
Ratatouille | 4 (20%) | 50 (34.5%) | 12 (31.6%) | ||
Cuisses de grenouille | 1 (5%) | 25 (17.2%) | 4 (10.5%) | ||
Duxelles | 8 (40%) | 28 (19.3%) | 10 (26.3%) | ||
Dessert | Crème brûlée | 8 (40%) | 51 (35.2%) | 14 (36.8%) | 0.8855 |
Salade de fruits de saison | 3 (15%) | 31 (21.4%) | 10 (26.3%) | ||
Champagne Sabayon | 4 (20%) | 39 (26.9%) | 8 (21.1%) | ||
Gelée de vin blanc aux fruits rouges | 5 (25%) | 24 (16.6%) | 6 (15.8%) |
Meal | Dish | Body Mass (Assessed Based on BMI) * | p-Value ** | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Underweight (n = 20) | Normal (n = 145) | Overweight/Obese (n = 38) | |||
Starters | Animal-based components | 9 (45.0%) | 71 (49.0%) | 16 (42.1%) | 0.7353 |
Non-animal-based components | 11 (55.0%) | 74 (51.0%) | 22 (57.9%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 8 (40.0%) | 44 (30.3%) | 9 (23.7%) | 0.4315 | |
With neophobic components | 12 (60.0%) | 101 (69.7%) | 29 (76.3%) | ||
Soup | Animal-based components | 6 (30.0%) | 60 (41.4%) | 15 (39.5%) | 0.6210 |
Non-animal-based components | 14 (70.0%) | 85 (58.6%) | 23 (60.5%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 16 (80.0%) | 111 (76.6%) | 25 (65.8%) | 0.3391 | |
With neophobic components | 4 (20.0%) | 34 (23.4%) | 13 (34.2%) | ||
Main course | Animal-based components | 8 (40.0%) | 67 (46.2%) | 16 (42.1%) | 0.8130 |
Non-animal-based components | 12 (60.0%) | 78 (53.8%) | 22 (57.9%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 11 (55.0%) | 92 (63.4%) | 24 (63.2%) | 0.7622 | |
With neophobic components | 9 (45.0%) | 53 (36.6%) | 14 (36.8%) | ||
Dessert | Animal-based components | 12 (60.0%) | 90 (62.1%) | 22 (57.9%) | 0.8910 |
Non-animal-based components | 8 (40.0%) | 55 (37.9%) | 16 (42.1%) | ||
With non-neophobic components | 11 (55.0%) | 82 (56.6%) | 24 (63.2%) | 0.7404 | |
With neophobic components | 9 (45.0%) | 63 (43.4%) | 14 (36.8%) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guzek, D.; Głąbska, D. Food Neophobia, Familiarity with French Cuisine, Body Mass, and Restaurant Food Choices in a Sample of Polish Women. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1502. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071502
Guzek D, Głąbska D. Food Neophobia, Familiarity with French Cuisine, Body Mass, and Restaurant Food Choices in a Sample of Polish Women. Nutrients. 2022; 14(7):1502. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071502
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuzek, Dominika, and Dominika Głąbska. 2022. "Food Neophobia, Familiarity with French Cuisine, Body Mass, and Restaurant Food Choices in a Sample of Polish Women" Nutrients 14, no. 7: 1502. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071502
APA StyleGuzek, D., & Głąbska, D. (2022). Food Neophobia, Familiarity with French Cuisine, Body Mass, and Restaurant Food Choices in a Sample of Polish Women. Nutrients, 14(7), 1502. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071502