Next Article in Journal
Optimization of the Cryoprotectants for Direct Vat Set Starters in Sichuan Paocai Using Response Surface Methodology
Next Article in Special Issue
Surveillance of Chemical Foodborne Disease Outbreaks in Zhejiang Province, China, 2011–2023
Previous Article in Journal
The Probiotication of a Lychee Beverage with Saccharomyces boulardii: An Alternative to Dairy-Based Probiotic Products
Previous Article in Special Issue
Breastfeeding Practices and Food Consumption of Socially Vulnerable Children
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/foods14020158
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Associations of Sociodemographic Characteristics with Food Choice Motives’ Importance Among Mexican Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

by
Miguel Amaury Salas-García
1,2,3,
María Fernanda Bernal-Orozco
1,2,3,4,*,
Andrés Díaz-López
5,6,7,8,
Alejandra Betancourt-Núñez
1,2,3,4,9,
Pablo Alejandro Nava-Amante
1,2,3 and
Barbara Vizmanos
1,2,3,4,9,10,*
1
Departamento de Clínicas de la Reproducción Humana, Crecimiento y Desarrollo Infantil, División de Disciplinas Clínicas, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud (CUCS), Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG), Guadalajara 44340, Mexico
2
Laboratorio de Evaluación del Estado Nutricio, Departamento de Clínicas de la Reproducción Humana, Crecimiento y Desarrollo Infantil, División de Disciplinas Clínicas, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud (CUCS), Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG), Guadalajara 44340, Mexico
3
Instituto de Nutrigenética y Nutrigenómica Traslacional, Departamento de Biología Molecular y Genómica, División de Disciplinas Básicas, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud (CUCS), Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG), Guadalajara 44340, Mexico
4
Departamento de Salud Pública, División de Disciplinas Para el Desarrollo, Promoción y Preservación de la Salud, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud (CUCS), Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG), Guadalajara 44340, Mexico
5
Serra Hunter Fellow, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), 43204 Reus, Spain
6
Nutrition and Mental Health Research Group (NUTRISAM), Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), 43204 Reus, Spain
7
Institut d’Investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili (IISPV), 43204 Reus, Spain
8
CIBERobn Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition, Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII), 28029 Madrid, Spain
9
Centro de Investigación Educativa y Bienestar Universitario, Departamento de Disciplinas Filosófico, Metodológicas e Instrumentales, División de Disciplinas Básicas, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud (CUCS), Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG), Guadalajara 44340, Mexico
10
Centro de Investigación de Endocrinología y Nutrición Clínica, Universidad de Valladolid, 47005 Valladolid, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2025, 14(2), 158; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14020158
Submission received: 30 November 2024 / Revised: 27 December 2024 / Accepted: 31 December 2024 / Published: 7 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Choice, Nutrition, and Public Health: 2nd Edition)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Several studies have explored food choice motives (FCMs), but their association with sociodemographic characteristics remains under-researched. This study aimed to examine the cross-sectional associations between sociodemographic factors and FCMs in a sample of Mexican adults. Sociodemographic data and eight FCMs’ importance (health and natural content, mood, convenience, sensory appeal, price, food identity, image, and environmental concern) measured with a 75-item Updated Food Choice Questionnaire were studied in 786 participants (70% women, mean age: 24.7 years). The adjusted estimates from multivariable linear regressions are reported. Higher relative importance of convenience, price, and image management (all, p < 0.05) were associated with men. Older participants (≥41 years) showed greater concern for environmental and wildlife awareness (EWA) (p = 0.04). Higher education was associated with higher appreciation of health and natural content and EWA (both, p < 0.05), and less of sensory appeal and mood (both, p < 0.05). Individuals in a relationship placed less importance on sensory appeal compared to singles (p = 0.008). Middle–low socioeconomic status was linked to higher importance of food identity (p = 0.039), while food insecurity was associated with higher concern for price and food identity (both, p < 0.05). Our findings highlight the influence of sociodemographic factors on FCMs that might act as barriers or drivers for adopting healthy diets.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Food choice motives encompass a range of factors that influence individuals’ decisions regarding the selection and consumption of food [1]. These motives can include practical considerations such as convenience and cost, as well as more personal factors like health consciousness and sensory appeal [2]. Understanding these motives is essential for designing targeted interventions in public health nutrition, marketing strategies, and policy-making [3].
Sociodemographic factors such as sex, age, income, education level, marital status, among others, significantly shape individuals’ food choices [4]. However, these are often overlooked in research [5]. As an example, sex-related differences in this process have been documented, where women tend to consume more fruits and vegetables compared to men, as well as pay more attention to ethical considerations and engage with more frequency in dietary restrictions [6]. Similarly, age-related distinctions in food choice motives have also been identified. In this sense, older adults often prioritize health-related motives, while younger individuals may emphasize convenience and taste [5].
Since food choices partly determine dietary habits, a primary determinant of health status [7], it is crucial to explore how these motives are influenced by personal characteristics. This understanding is necessary for effectively monitoring contemporary food consumption and directing health actions for specific segments of the population [8]. While differences between sociodemographic groups and diet have been extensively studied, research examining sociodemographic factors and food choice motives remains scarce [5,8,9,10,11,12]. Existing studies indicate that, compared to men, women attach greater importance to health-related aspects and weight control [6,13,14,15]. Older individuals, in contrast to younger ones, place more value on motives related to long-term benefits, such as health, natural content, and environmental aspects [6,13,15]. Moreover, a lower socioeconomic status seems to be related to prioritizing price over health [13,14,16,17].
However, much of this research has been conducted in developed countries, with only a few studies from Brazil [18] and Uruguay [19] addressing the link between food choice motives and sociodemographic factors in Latin America. Both of them have primarily focused on how food choice motives vary according to socioeconomic status. In Mexico, a country where diet-related diseases are highly prevalent [20], the situation is even more complex. Limited research has explored food choices within this vulnerable population, often focusing on specific aspects such as identifying consumer segments [21], organic food consumption [22], and traditional food preferences [23]. Nonetheless, to our knowledge, data on sociodemographic differences in food choice motives in this country are non-existent.
Furthermore, most of studies regarding food choices have analyzed the absolute importance given to the specific motives [24,25,26,27,28,29]. A limitation of this approach is that it considers a broad range of potentially relevant motives, without addressing the need for individuals to prioritize them [30]. Consequently, it has been proposed that, in addition to evaluating the absolute importance, the relative importance (obtained by dividing the score given to each specific motive by the average of all the food choice motives) should also be taken into account [8]. This could better reflect the complex structure of motives involved in food choices. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the association between sociodemographic characteristics and the relative importance towards diverse food choice motives in Mexican adults.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design, Ethical Approval, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included Mexican adults recruited by convenience sampling through two different research projects. Both projects were conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the Research, Research Ethics and Biosafety Committees from the University Center for Health Sciences (or CUCS for its initials in Spanish—Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud) from the University of Guadalajara (Universidad de Guadalajara), in Mexico. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects.
The first project explores the association between food insecurity and cardiometabolic health among university students and workers in the University of Guadalajara (approval advice code CI-02323, obtained on 18 February 2022). Students and workers 18 years of age or older from CUCS were invited to participate face-to-face at the university. We excluded pregnant or lactating women, and participants taking specific drugs such as corticosteroids, anabolic steroids, or antiretrovirals, that could alter cardiometabolic parameters. The second project describes the construct validation process of the Updated Food Choice Questionnaire (U-FCQ) (approval advice code CI-04023, obtained on 13 May 2023), the tool that measures food choice motives’ importance in this study. For that study, individuals from different states of Mexico were invited to participate through a poster that was distributed on social media. Participants were required to be 18 years of age or older, and to have access to a computer or electronic device to fill out online forms. Both samples are described with more detail elsewhere [31].

2.2. Measurements of Predictors

Participants from both projects completed an online self-administered questionnaire that collected sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, educational level, and employment, socioeconomic, marital, food security, and housing status).
Age was categorized into 3 groups (18–29, 30–40, and 41 and over), according to Konttinen et al. [8], while the marital status of participants was defined as single (including divorced or widowed) or in a relationship (married or common law). The housing status was defined as house owner, tenant, or borrower. For the categorization of educational level, participants indicated their last academic degree obtained, and were classified as basic level (elementary, middle school, high school) or higher level (bachelor’s degree, graduate degree, or medical specialty).
To determine the socioeconomic status, we used the AMAI’s tool (for its acronym in Spanish: Asociación Mexicana de Agencias de Inteligencia de Mercado y Opinión), validated for the Mexican population [32]. This tool considers the educational level of the head of household, and the number of rooms in the household, complete bathrooms, people ≥ 14 years of age living in the household, cars, as well as access to the internet. According to the obtained score, 7 socioeconomic levels are defined, using letters: A/B (highest), C+, C, C−, D+, D, and E (lowest). For the current analysis, these levels were then grouped into two categories: high (A/B and C+) and middle or low socioeconomic status (all the other categories).
To assess the participants’ food security status, they were asked to answer the validated Latin American and Caribbean Scale for Food Security [33] (ELCSA, for its acronym in Spanish). This tool consists of 8 items or up to 15 items (if there are individuals under 18 years of age in the household). Through dichotomous questions (yes or no), it assesses if the participant, whether due to lack of money or other resources, has experienced worries about running out of food, not eating or eating less, not following a healthy diet, eating a diet with poor variety, etc. According to the number of obtained affirmations, a score is calculated and the participants are classified into one of the following categories, with different cut-off points in households without or with children under 18 years of age: food security (0 points), mild food insecurity (1–3 or 1–5 points, respectively), moderate food insecurity (4–6 or 6–10 points, respectively), or severe food insecurity (7–8 or 11–15 points, respectively).

2.3. Measurement of Outcomes

Finally, food choice motives were evaluated through the U-FCQ, a questionnaire adapted and validated for its use in the Mexican population [31]. Briefly, this tool, which was also completed online, consists of 75 items that assess the importance given to different food choice motives, using a 4-choice Likert-type scale (1 = not at all important to 4 = very important).
These motives are grouped into 8 dimensions or major motives: (1) health and natural content (27 items), which refers to the importance given to the effect of food and its components on the organism; (2) environmental and wildlife awareness (12 items), addressing the importance given to the effect of food production and transportation on the environment, and ethical treatment of animals; (3) convenience (6 items), covering aspects related to the time and ease of food preparation and consumption; (4) price (5 items), which includes economic aspects of food; (5) sensory appeal (6 items), regarding hedonic elements of eating, such as taste, smell, texture, and appearance of food; (6) mood (5 items), including aspects related to the effects of food selection on the emotional state; (7) image management (8 items), related to the importance given to the image projected to other people in relation to the food chosen, and the affinity for known foods; and (8) food identity (6 items), related to the use of food as a means for social interaction and the importance of food reflecting the individual’s culture.
In its original version, this tool allows the calculation of the absolute importance’s mean of each dimension, ranging from 1 to 4, where a higher score represents greater importance [13]. The mean is calculated from the mean of all the items considered in a specific dimension.
When assessing food choice motives, it is crucial to consider the factors that individuals consider as relevant [3]. Often, these motives are in conflict—for instance, prioritizing price over health—requiring individuals to make trade-offs [34]. Therefore, it has been suggested that, beyond evaluating absolute importance, examining relative importance of food choice motives provides additional insight. This approach divides the score of a specific motive by the mean score of all motives, offering a clearer understanding of how priorities are balanced [14]. In our study, to assess the relative importance of the U-FCQ dimensions, we employed the methodology proposed by Konttinen et al. [8]. This method consists in dividing, for each participant, the absolute mean (1 to 4) of each dimension by the mean of the 75 items of the tool. Dimensions with scores > 1 indicate that they are more important than all the assessed food choice motive items on average [8].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the population. Age is presented as mean (standard deviation), while the categorical variables are presented as frequency (percentage). A t-test for independent samples and one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post-hoc correction were used to compare quantitative variables between 2 or ≥3 groups, as appropriate, whereas qualitative variables were compared using the Chi-squared test.
Multivariable linear regression models were performed to evaluate the independent contributions of selected sociodemographic factors (predictor variables), accounting for their simultaneous inclusion in the model, for each food choice motive’ relative importance (outcome variables) analyzed separately. Two types of coding for age were employed: when age was a control variable, continuous coding was used (years), and when age was a predictor, categorical coding was used (age groups) to enable detection of nonlinear associations [8]. The following sociodemographic characteristics were selected based on the previous literature: sex (female (ref.) male), age (18–29 (ref.), 30–40, 18–29, ≥41 years), educational level (basic (ref.), higher), marital status (single/divorced/widowed (ref.), in a relationship), employment status (unemployed (ref.), employed), socioeconomic status (middle or low, high (ref.)), housing status (tenant, owner (ref.), borrower), and food security status (food security (ref.), mild food insecurity, moderate food insecurity, severe food insecurity). Multicollinearity was assessed by inspecting the tolerance (1/VIF) values and variance inflation factors (VIFs) for this multivariable model. All tolerance values were above 0.7 and all VIFs were below 2.0, which suggests there were no concerns over multicollinearity [35]. The Ramsey regression error specification (RESET) test was used to detect omitted variables and incorrect form in the linear regression model (null hypothesis > 0.05) [36]. Estimates were presented as coefficient (β) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
All statistical analyses were performed using STATA® software, version 15.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Participants’ Characteristics

For the current analysis, all participants who had data regarding food choice motives were included. The total study sample therefore comprised 786 subjects (512 from the first project and 274 from the second one). The majority of the respondents were women (70.0%), and the most frequent age group was 18–29 years, with a mean age of 24.7 (8.5) years. Most of the participants were single (81.4%), had a basic educational level (68.1%), and were owners of their households (59.7%). Additionally, 51.3% of the participants experienced some degree of food insecurity. Compared to women, a higher proportion of men were employed (56.8 vs. 43.9, p = 0.002) and had a higher SES (48.3% vs. 38.6%, p = 0.012). Complete information on the characteristics of the respondents is presented in Table 1.

3.2. Food Choice Dimensions’ Relative Importance

For the entire sample, the highest food motives’ relative importance was placed on sensory appeal, convenience, mood, health and natural content, and price, whereas the lowest was for food identity, environmental and wildlife awareness, and image management (Table 2).

3.3. Associations Between Sociodemographic Characteristics and Relative Food Choice Motives’ Importance

Table 3 and Table 4 present the independent associations between sociodemographic factors (predictor variables) and each relative food choice motive (outcome variables) analyzed separately. Specifically, Table 3 includes the models for health and natural content, environmental and wildlife awareness, convenience, and price dimensions, while Table 4 covers sensory appeal, mood, image management, and food identity.
In the multivariable linear regression models, men were associated with placing lower importance on health and nutritional content (p = 0.023) and environmental and wildlife awareness (p < 0.001) compared to women. Conversely, men attached higher importance to convenience (p = 0.008), price (p < 0.001), and image management (p = 0.004). On the other hand, participants aged ≥41 showed greater concern for environmental and wildlife awareness, while those aged 30–40 placed higher importance on image management than the younger group (18–29 years) (Table 3).
In terms of education, a higher level was associated with a greater importance of health and natural content (p = 0.011) and awareness of the environment and wildlife (p = 0.044) (Table 3). On the contrary, it was associated with lower importance of sensory appeal (p = 0.035) and mood (p = 0.030) compared to basic educational level (Table 4).
For marital status, those with a partner gave lower importance to sensory appeal (p = 0.008) and higher to food identity (p = 0.017) than singles. Similarly, employed participants attached lower importance to sensory appeal (p = 0.002) and higher importance to food identity (p = 0.001) (Table 4).
Lower–middle socioeconomic status was associated with a higher importance of food identity (p = 0.039) compared to the high socioeconomic status group. Renters prioritized convenience (p = 0.031) but gave less importance to image management (p = 0.031) than owners. Lastly, mild food insecurity was associated with greater importance of price (p = 0.013), while the moderate category was linked to greater importance of price (p = 0.08) and food identity (p = 0.009), when compared to food security groups (Table 4).

4. Discussion

This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the differences in food choice motives’ importance across various sociodemographic characteristics in Mexican adults. Sex, age, educational level, and marital status emerged as the main factors showing association with certain food choice motives’ dimensions.
Regarding sex differences, men placed less importance on environmental and wildlife awareness, and more value on price, convenience, and image management in comparison to women. This pattern aligns with existing studies carried out in adults from Switzerland [9] and Saudi Arabia [11] that suggest sex differences in food behavior. The previous literature has shown that women are generally more environmentally conscious and more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors [38,39]. This may be explained by several reasons. On the one hand, environmental care is generally seen as “feminine,” which may make women more likely to identify with these values [40]. On the other hand, women often assume responsibility for food shopping and food preparation in the household [41]. This role may increase their concern about how food is produced, as well as the impact of its consumption on the environment. In addition, women are more likely to be exposed to media and literature that highlights environmental issues and animal rights [40]. This increased exposure may shape their attitudes and influence their prioritization in this area. Furthermore, gender norms associating masculinity with certain types of food—such as red meat and fast food—may further reinforce these patterns [40,42].
Regarding men’s higher appreciation for price and convenience, this could be reflective of traditional gender roles and societal expectations as providers [43,44]. Despite the social changes experienced in Mexico in recent years, as a result of the increasing integration of women into the workforce, men have been described as the ones who make most of the important decisions about family expenses [45]. Therefore, this can explain the prioritization of cost and convenience aspects due to work-related time constraints [46]. The fact that men gave greater importance to image management may be due to a variety of circumstances. In many societies, including Mexico, men are encouraged to project strength, success, and independence [47], which can influence their food choices. For example, men may select food that aligns with a socially constructed image of masculinity, such as protein-heavy meals or food marketed as enhancing physical performance or fitness [48]. Additionally, food marketing often targets men with messaging that connects food choices to attributes such as power, confidence, or attractiveness [49]. This type of signaling reinforces the notion that food can be a tool for projecting a desirable image [48]. Finally, there is still the stigma attached to foods perceived as “feminine” (e.g., salads or low-calorie meals), which may deter men from choosing these options [50]. Instead, they may opt for foods that project a more socially acceptable image, even if those foods do not align with other priorities like health or sustainability.
Participants with greater age (≥41 years) showed higher importance on environmental and wildlife awareness in comparison with the 18–29 category. Our results differ from the previous literature which reports that younger people often are more environmentally educated and concerned than older people [38,51]. This observed trend can be interpreted trough several lenses. First, our findings may reflect generational differences in values and life experiences. For example, individuals in the older age group may have been exposed to environmental issues for a longer period, and their awareness of the long-term consequences of environmental degradation could be more acute [38]. This heightened awareness could be due to their greater exposure to environmental movements, conservation efforts, and public discourse on sustainability over the decades, which may have shaped their attitudes towards environmental responsibility. Additionally, older adults may have more financial stability, which allows them to make food choices that align with their environmental values, even if these options are more expensive or less convenient.
In contrast, younger age groups, particularly those in the 18–29 category, may prioritize factors such as convenience or price due to different life circumstances, such as lower income or busier lifestyles [52]. On the other hand, the literature shows that, as individuals age, they tend to make food choices oriented by long-term effects, such as their overall health and sustainability [8,15], whereas younger individuals are more prone to make food choices motivated by immediate effects like sensory appeal, mood, price, and convenience [8]. This pattern of food choice motives can be explained by social differences between adults between 18 and 29 years of age and those who are older. For example, in Mexico, from age 30 onwards, it is more common to be married, have children, exhibit risk factors for chronic diseases, or have family members with these conditions, all of which can lead to greater health consciousness [6,45,53].
Higher educational level was linked to a greater value of health and natural content and environmental and wildlife awareness, as well as with lower appreciation for sensory appeal and mood. The emphasis on health and natural content among highly educated individuals can be attributed to increased awareness and knowledge about the benefits of healthy eating and the potential risks associated with processed foods [54]. Education often equips individuals with the ability to critically evaluate nutritional information and understand the long-term health implications of their dietary choices [55]. This is consistent with previous research indicating that higher educational attainment is associated with healthier dietary habits [56,57], and with the willingness to pay for healthier food options [58]. Thus, the lower appreciation for sensory appeal and mood among the more educated may reflect that these individuals are more willing to invest in higher-quality, health-oriented products, even if they come at a higher cost or may not always meet their sensory expectations [58].
In terms of marital status, its association with eating behavior and nutritional status has been previously described [46]. For example, married individuals have higher rates of vegetable and fruit consumption, as well as a lower risk of diet-related diseases [10,12,53]. However, our study did not find significant results between marital status and the importance given to motives related to health and natural content, which reflects the degree of concern for the consumption of foods that promote a beneficial effect on the organism. This could be partly due to the young age of most of the participants (on average 24 years; 80% are in the age category 18–29 years), and, as previously mentioned, young people tend to prioritize other aspects when making food choices [5]. On the other hand, we found that participants in a relationship (married or cohabiting) gave less importance to sensory attractiveness than single people. This is in line with the findings in the study by Eng and colleagues who reported that widowed or divorced individuals decreased their consumption of vegetables and increased their consumption of fried foods away from home, which may be perceived as more palatable [59]. One possible explanation for this finding is that individuals in relationships might prioritize other factors, such as compatibility, shared goals, and emotional support, over sensory attributes [44]. Moreover, the act of eating together and engaging in conversation can be more important than the specific taste, smell, or textures of foods [60].
Specifically, we observed that individuals from lower–middle socioeconomic status placed significantly more emphasis on food identity compared to those in the higher socioeconomic group. This outcome may suggest that for individuals with more limited economic resources, food identity serves as a crucial element of self-expression and cultural connection, possibly due to less accessibility of diverse culinary options or greater reliance on familiar and culturally resonant foods [23]. The alignment of food choices with personal or group identity might thus serve as a compensatory mechanism, providing a sense of belonging and self-worth [61,62]. In addition, the greater importance of food identity in this group may be due to the reliability on foods that are more economically sensitive, such as those included in the basic food basket, which are considered traditional [52].
Furthermore, this study highlights the critical role of food insecurity in determining food choice motives. Individuals experiencing mild food insecurity were more likely to prioritize price, which is consistent with the existing literature indicating that economic constraints strongly influence food choice in this sociodemographic group [63], particularly in Mexican households [64]. Interestingly, moderate food insecurity was associated not only with a greater emphasis on price, but also on food identity. This dual focus may indicate that as food insecurity becomes more severe, individuals may seek to maintain a connection to their food identity even as financial constraints become more pronounced [23]. The prioritization of food identity in this context could represent an attempt to preserve cultural and personal food-related practices despite the challenges posed by limited resources, as well as the selection of food perceived as more economically accessible [23,52].
The present study has several strengths. To the best of our knowledge, this is the earliest study to fully focus on the association between food choice motives and sociodemographic characteristics among Mexican participants. In our country, a study by Serrano-Cruz and colleagues addressed certain aspects of food choices [23]. However, they only used five out of the thirty-six items of the original FCQ [13]. Additionally, its aim was to determine the association between sociodemographic factors and the specific consumption of traditional foods. In contrast, our research considered a broader spectrum of food choice motives. On the other hand, to assess food choices, we used a questionnaire specifically adapted and validated for the Mexican population by our research group [31]. This tool, in contrast to other versions of the FCQ, includes more items that allow for a more in-depth evaluation of this process. Finally, our study analyzed the relative importance of food choice motives. Using this methodology allowed us to compare the importance given to the U-FCQ dimensions with each other. For instance, while some individuals may find several motives relevant, relative importance reveals which motive carries more weight in their decision-making. Moreover, absolute importance often results in multiple motives being rated as “very important”, making it difficult to discern clear priorities [65]. Relative importance normalizes these scores, enabling more meaningful and realistic understanding of food choice dynamics [8,14].
Despite the above, some limitations should be considered. For instance, our sample included a higher proportion of women than men. This can be attributed to a number of factors. Women generally exhibit greater interest in health-related issues, potentially due to traditional roles as caregivers and responsibilities as household managers [41]. Additionally, it has been suggested that women are more likely to participate in surveys and research due to higher levels of altruism and greater interest in contributing to science [66]. These factors should be considered when interpreting the study findings and planning future research to ensure a more balanced representation of sexes.
On the other hand, most of our participants (80%) were in the category of 18 to 29 years of age, with an underrepresentation of those over 40 years of age. This may have been due to the fact that recruitment was conducted within a university context and trough social media, which tend to have greater reach and engagement among younger adults. It is possible that this demographic imbalance may have influenced the generalizability of our findings. For example, food choice priorities may vary across life stages and could be shaped by factors such as health concerns, economic stability, and cultural norms, all of which are more pronounced in older age groups [5,67]. Thus, we recommend that future studies ensure a more balanced age distribution to explore food choice behaviors more comprehensively among all age groups.
Moreover, it is important to emphasize that more than half of the participants come from a project carried out among university students in the health area [68]. In this sense, it is possible that due to the nature of their undergraduate studies, the importance of food choice motives has shifted towards health-related aspects and overshadowed others such as the environment and wildlife awareness. Recognizing the latter is important to accurately interpret these results.
Other statistical methods, such as principal component analysis or cluster analysis, could provide deeper insight into the structure of food choice motives and could help disentangle the underlying relationships between these factors. However, the current study was focused on examining specific associations. Subsequent studies could follow a more exploratory approach. Furthermore, several other factors undoubtedly influence the food choice process, some of which, due to the nature of this tool, we were unable to explore. These factors include food availability, exposure to food advertising, peer influence, and biological determinants. Future research may benefit from employing complementary methodologies to better assess these elements and explore their potential influence and interactions on food choice motives.
The results obtained from this study are intended to serve as a resource for decision-makers. Recognizing the sociodemographic differences in food choice motives provides an opportunity to design interventions that address specific needs and preferences while promoting healthier and more sustainable diets. For instance, interventions can capitalize on the observed sex differences in food choice motives to create culturally relevant health messages. Men, in particular, may respond well to initiatives that help them make healthier food choices that align with price, convenience, and positive image management. Strategies such as subsidies for fruits, vegetables, and nutritious foods, along with the promotion of simple, cost-effect recipes, could support healthier eating habits. For younger populations, interventions should connect healthy and environmentally friendly food choices to current trends, such as plant-based diets and fitness culture, while showcasing these choices as modern, innovative, and aligned with popular culture. Rather than focusing on long-term health or environmental outcomes (which might feel abstract to them), strategies could emphasize immediate benefits, such as improved energy, better skin, enhanced athletic performance, or even cost savings. In particular, sociodemographic groups experiencing food insecurity could benefit from recommendations promoting the consumption of affordable, healthy traditional foods, which consider the economic constraints faced by individuals.

5. Conclusions

Our findings confirm that, in a Mexican context, sex, age, educational level, marital status, employment activity, socioeconomic level, and household food insecurity are significant determinants of food choices. These factors can either act as barriers or facilitators for adopting healthy dietary habits. This study underscores the importance of considering sociodemographic characteristics when designing nutrition interventions. By recognizing and addressing the needs and priorities specific to each group, policymakers and health promoters can enhance the effectiveness of strategies aimed at fostering healthier, more sustainable diets for all segments of the population.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L. and B.V.; methodology, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L. and B.V.; software, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L. and B.V.; formal analysis, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L. and B.V.; investigation, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L. and B.V.; resources, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L., A.B.-N. and B.V.; data curation, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L. and B.V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L. and B.V.; writing—review and editing, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.B.-N., P.A.N.-A., A.D.-L. and B.V.; visualization, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L. and B.V.; supervision, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L. and B.V.; project administration, M.A.S.-G., M.F.B.-O., A.D.-L. and B.V.; funding acquisition, M.F.B.-O., A.B.-N. and B.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded in part by a scholarship awarded by the Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencias y Tecnologías (CONAHCYT) for M.A.S.-G. (863882) and P.A.N.-A. (1035497), who receive a doctoral scholarship. The researchers M.F.B.-O. (176919), B.V. (22064), A.B.-N. (484393) were granted by the Sistema Nacional de Investigadoras e Investigadores (SNII). Moreover, we also want to thank the Programa para el Desarrollo Profesional Docente (PRODEP) from the Secretaría de Educación Pública for the resources that allowed the development of the macroproject from which the present study is partially derived (A.B.-N)—grant number: UDG-PTC-1511.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This cross-sectional study included Mexican adults recruited by convenience sampling through two different research projects. Both projects were conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the Research, Research Ethics and Biosafety Committees from the University Center for Health Sciences (or CUCS for its initials in Spanish—Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud) from the University of Guadalajara (Universidad de Guadalajara), in Mexico. Approval codes: CI-02323 and CI-04023.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Karla Araceli Solórzano-Castanedo, Melissa Karina Navarro-Flores, José Gerardo Mora-Almanza, Paola Lizbeth Pérez-Malta, Beatriz Vázquez-Herrera, Nancy Yamile Márquez-Mayorga, David Vázquez-Candelario, Jonathan Ulises Martínez-Escobar, Valeria Estefanía Buenrostro-Velasco, Lizeth Estefanía Vargas-Díaz, Francisco Trujillo-Sánchez, and Rosalina García-Adame who provided valuable support for the development of this project. Additionally, we extend our gratitude to the participants of this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or the decisions to publish the results.

References

  1. Dahal, M.; Basnet, A.; Khanal, S.; Baral, K.; Dhakal, S. Gender Difference in Food Choice and Eating Practice and Their Association with Health among Students of Kathmandu, Nepal. J. Obes. 2022, 2022, 2340809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wongprawmas, R.; Mora, C.; Pellegrini, N.; Guiné, R.P.F.; Carini, E.; Sogari, G.; Vittadini, E. Food Choice Determinants and Perceptions of a Healthy Diet among Italian Consumers. Foods 2021, 10, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Szalonka, K.; Stańczyk, E.; Gardocka-Jałowiec, A.; Waniowski, P.; Niemczyk, A.; Gródek-Szostak, Z. Food Choices and Their Impact on Health and Environment. Energies 2021, 14, 5460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schwingshackl, L.; Ruzanska, U.; Anton, V.; Wallroth, R.; Ohla, K.; Knüppel, S.; Schulze, M.B.; Pischon, T.; Deutschbein, J.; Schenk, L.; et al. The NutriAct Family Study: A Web-Based Prospective Study on the Epidemiological, Psychological and Sociological Basis of Food Choice. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ogundijo, D.A.; Tas, A.A.; Onarinde, B.A. Age, an Important Sociodemographic Determinant of Factors Influencing Consumers’ Food Choices and Purchasing Habits: An English University Setting. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 858593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Schliemann, D.; Woodside, J.V.; Geaney, F.; Cardwell, C.; McKinley, M.C.; Perry, I. Do Socio-Demographic and Anthropometric Characteristics Predict Food Choice Motives in an Irish Working Population? Br. J. Nutr. 2019, 122, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Chen, P.J.; Antonelli, M. Conceptual Models of Food Choice: Influential Factors Related to Foods, Individual Differences, and Society. Foods 2020, 9, 1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Konttinen, H.; Halmesvaara, O.; Fogelholm, M.; Saarijärvi, H.; Nevalainen, J.; Erkkola, M. Sociodemographic Differences in Motives for Food Selection: Results from the LoCard Cross-Sectional Survey. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2021, 18, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Frehner, A.; Zanten, H.H.E.V.; Schader, C.; De Boer, I.J.M.; Pestoni, G.; Rohrmann, S.; Muller, A. How Food Choices Link Sociodemographic and Lifestyle Factors with Sustainability Impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 300, 126896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Romeiro, A.C.T.; Curioni, C.C.; Bezerra, F.F.; Faerstein, E. Sociodemographic Determinants of Food Consumption Pattern: Pró-Saúde Study. Rev. Bras. Epidemiol. 2020, 23, e200090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Alhothali, G.T.; Almoraie, N.M.; Shatwan, I.M.; Aljefree, N.M. Sociodemographic Characteristics and Dietary Choices as Determinants of Climate Change Understanding and Concern in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Farrell, P.; Negin, J.; Awoke, M.; Thow, A.M.; Taua, M.; Faumuina, T.; Mihrshahi, S.; Vizintin, P.; Richards, J. Associations between Sociodemographic and Behaviour Factors, and Dietary Risk Factors for Overweight and Obesity, in Samoan Women. Appetite 2019, 134, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Steptoe, A.; Pollard, T.M.; Wardle, J. Development of a Measure of the Motives Underlying the Selection of Food: The Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite 1995, 25, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Konttinen, H.; Sarlio-Lähteenkorva, S.; Silventoinen, K.; Männistö, S.; Haukkala, A. Socio-Economic Disparities in the Consumption of Vegetables, Fruit and Energy-Dense Foods: The Role of Motive Priorities. Public Health Nutr. 2013, 16, 873–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Renner, B.; Sproesser, G.; Strohbach, S.; Schupp, H.T. Why We Eat What We Eat. The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). Appetite 2012, 59, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Pechey, R.; Monsivais, P.; Ng, Y.L.; Marteau, T.M. Why Don’t Poor Men Eat Fruit? Socioeconomic Differences in Motivations for Fruit Consumption. Appetite 2015, 84, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hupkens, C.; Knibbe, R.; Drop, M. Social Class Differences in Food Consumption: The Explanatory Value of Permissiveness and Health and Cost Considerations. Eur. J. Public Health 2000, 10, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moraes, J.M.M.; Moraes, C.H.d.C.; de Souza, A.A.L.; Alvarenga, M.d.S. Food Choice Motives among Two Disparate Socioeconomic Groups in Brazil. Appetite 2020, 155, 104790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ares, G.; Machín, L.; Girona, A.; Curutchet, M.R.; Giménez, A. Uma Comparação Dos Motivos Subjacentes Às Escolhas Alimentares e Das Barreiras Contra a Alimentação Saudável Entre Consumidores de Renda Baixa e Média No Uruguai. Cad. Saude Publica 2017, 33, e00213315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Barquera, S.; Rivera, J.A. Obesity in Mexico: Rapid Epidemiological Transition and Food Industry Interference in Health Policies. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020, 8, 746–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Espinoza-Ortega, A.; Martínez-García, C.G.; Thomé-Ortiz, H.; Vizcarra-Bordi, I. Motives for Food Choice of Consumers in Central México. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 2744–2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Escobar-López, S.Y.; Espinoza-Ortega, A.; Vizcarra-Bordi, I.; Thomé-Ortiz, H. The Consumer of Food Products in Organic Markets of Central Mexico. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 558–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Serrano-Cruz, M.R.; Espinoza-Ortega, A.; Sepúlveda, W.S.; Vizcarra-Bordi, I.; Thomé-Ortiz, H. Factors Associated with the Consumption of Traditional Foods in Central Mexico. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2695–2709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ares, G.; Gámbaro, A. Influence of Gender, Age and Motives Underlying Food Choice on Perceived Healthiness and Willingness to Try Functional Foods. Appetite 2007, 49, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cabral, D.; Cunha, L.M.; Vaz de Almeida, M.D. Food Choice and Food Consumption Frequency of Cape Verde Inhabitants. Appetite 2019, 139, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Szakály, Z.; Kontor, E.; Kovács, S.; Popp, J.; Pető, K.; Polereczki, Z. Adaptation of the Food Choice Questionnaire: The Case of Hungary. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 1474–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Powell, P.K.; Lawler, S.; Durham, J.; Cullerton, K. The Food Choices of US University Students during COVID-19. Appetite 2021, 161, 105130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Onwezen, M.; Reinders, M.; Verain, M.; Snoek, H. The Development of a Single-Item Food Choice Questionnaire. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 71, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Verain, M.C.D.; Snoek, H.M.; Onwezen, M.C.; Reinders, M.J.; Bouwman, E.P. Sustainable Food Choice Motives: The Development and Cross-Country Validation of the Sustainable Food Choice Questionnaire (SUS-FCQ). Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 93, 104267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sobal, J.; Bisogni, C.A. Constructing Food Choice Decisions. Ann. Behav. Med. 2009, 38, s37–s46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Salas-García, M.A.; Bernal-Orozco, M.F.; Díaz-López, A.; Betancourt-Núñez, A.; Nava-Amante, P.A.; Danquah, I.; Martínez, J.A.; de Luis, D.A.; Vizmanos, B. Updated-Food Choice Questionnaire: Cultural Adaptation and Validation in a Spanish-Speaking Population from Mexico. Nutrients 2024, 16, 3749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Comité de Nivel Socioeconómico AMAI. Nivel Socio Económico AMAI 2018. 2018. Available online: https://www.amai.org/descargas/Nota-Metodolo%CC%81gico-NSE-2018-v3.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2024).
  33. FAO. Escala Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Seguridad Alimentaria (ELCSA): Manual de Uso y Aplicaciones. 2012. Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/i3065s/i3065s.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2024).
  34. Blanco-Penedo, I.; García-Gudiño, J.; Angón, E.; Perea, J.M.; Escribano, A.J.; Font-i-Furnols, M. Exploring Sustainable Food Choices Factors and Purchasing Behavior in the Sustainable Development Goals Era in Spain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Marcoulides, K.M.; Raykov, T. Evaluation of Variance Inflation Factors in Regression Models Using Latent Variable Modeling Methods. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2019, 79, 874–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ramsey, J.B. Tests for Specification Errors in Classical Linear Least-Squares Regression Analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Methodol. 1969, 31, 350–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. INEGI Encuesta Nacional de Acceso a La Información Pública y Protección de Datos Personales, 2016. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/rnm/index.php/catalog/223/study-description (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  38. Acar Tek, N.; Karaçil Ermumcu, M.Ş.; Erdoğan Gövez, N.; Çıtar Dazıroğlu, M.E. Evaluation of Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes Level of Sustainable Nutrition in Different Age Groups: A Cross-Sectional Study. Eur. J. Environ. Public Health 2023, 7, em0142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Monterrosa, E.C.; Frongillo, E.A.; Drewnowski, A.; de Pee, S.; Vandevijvere, S. Sociocultural Influences on Food Choices and Implications for Sustainable Healthy Diets. Food Nutr. Bull. 2020, 41, 59S–73S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Tien, Y.H.; Huang, J. Gender Differences in Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions, Environmental Values, Tolerance of Environmental Protection Cost, and Confidence in Citizen Participation in Environmental Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Taiwan. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2023, 32, 4813–4823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Asteria, D.; Haryanto, J.T. Empowerment Key Factors in Shaping Women’s Awareness of Household Waste Management. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2021, 7, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Spinelli, S.; Dinella, C.; Tesini, F.; Bendini, A.; Braghieri, A.; Proserpio, C.; Torri, L.; Miele, N.; Aprea, E.; Mazzaglia, A.; et al. Gender Differences in Fat-Rich Meat Choice: Influence of Personality and Attitudes. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Gama, A.P.; Adhikari, K.; Hoisington, D. Factors Influencing Food Choices of Malawian Consumers: A Food Choice Questionnaire Approach. J. Sens. Stud. 2018, 33, e12442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Oviedo-Solís, C.I.; Hernández-Alcaraz, C.; Sánchez-Ortíz, A.; López-Olmedo, N.; Jáuregui, A.; Barquera, S. Association of Sociodemographic and Lifestyle Factors with Dietary Patterns among Men and Women Living in Mexico City: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 859132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Aguilar-Montes de Oca, Y.P.; Valdez-Medina, J.L.; González-Arratia, I.N.; González-Escobar, S. Los Roles de Género de Los Hombres y Las Mujeres En El México Contemporáneo. Enseñanza Investig. Psicol. 2013, 18, 207–224. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kroshus, E. Gender, Marital Status, and Commercially Prepared Food Expenditure. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2008, 40, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hietanen, A.-E.; Pick, S. Gender Stereotypes, Sexuality, and Culture in Mexico. In Psychology of Gender Through the Lens of Culture; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 285–305. ISBN 978-3-319-14004-9. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wardle, J.; Haase, A.M.; Steptoe, A.; Nillapun, M.; Jonwutiwes, K.; Bellisle, F. Gender Differences in Food Choice: The Contribution of Health Beliefs and Dieting. Ann. Behav. Med. 2004, 27, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Missagia, S.V.; Oliveira, S.R.; Rezende, D.C. Beauty and the Beast: Gender Differences in Food-Related Behavior. Rev. Bras. Mark. 2013, 12, 149–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vandello, J.A.; Bosson, J.K.; Caswell, T.A.; Cummings, J.R. Healthful Eating as a Manhood Threat. J. Mens. Health 2024, 20, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and Social Factors That Influence Pro-Environmental Concern and Behaviour: A Review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Curi-Quinto, K.; Unar-Munguía, M.; Rodríguez-Ramírez, S.; Rivera, J.A.; Fanzo, J.; Willett, W.; Röös, E. Sustainability of Diets in Mexico: Diet Quality, Environmental Footprint, Diet Cost, and Sociodemographic Factors. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 855793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Hartmann, C.; Dohle, S.; Siegrist, M. Time for Change? Food Choices in the Transition to Cohabitation and Parenthood. Public Health Nutr. 2013, 17, 2730–2739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Azizi Fard, N.; De Francisci Morales, G.; Mejova, Y.; Schifanella, R. On the Interplay between Educational Attainment and Nutrition: A Spatially-Aware Perspective. EPJ Data Sci. 2021, 10, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Forray, A.I.; Coman, M.A.; Cherecheș, R.M.; Borzan, C.M. Exploring the Impact of Sociodemographic Characteristics and Health Literacy on Adherence to Dietary Recommendations and Food Literacy. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Gibbs, H.D.; Ellerbeck, E.F.; Gajewski, B.; Zhang, C.; Sullivan, D.K. The Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument Is a Valid and Reliable Measure of Nutrition Literacy in Adults with Chronic Disease. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2018, 50, 247–257.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kim, S.; Love, F.; Quistberg, D.A.; Shea, J.A. Association of Health Literacy With Self-Management Behavior in Patients With Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004, 27, 2980–2982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Darmon, N.; Drewnowski, A. Contribution of Food Prices and Diet Cost to Socioeconomic Disparities in Diet Quality and Health: A Systematic Review and Analysis. Nutr. Rev. 2015, 73, 643–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eng, P.M.; Kawachi, I.; Fitzmaurice, G.; Rimm, E.B. Effects of Marital Transitions on Changes in Dietary and Other Health Behaviours in US Male Health Professionals. J. Epidemiol. Community Health (1978) 2005, 59, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Furst, T.; Connors, M.; Bisogni, C.A.; Sobal, J.; Falk, L.W. Food Choice: A Conceptual Model of the Process. Appetite 1996, 26, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Guibrunet, L.; Ortega-Avila, A.G.; Arnés, E.; Ardila, F.M. Socioeconomic, Demographic and Geographic Determinants of Food Consumption in Mexico. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0288235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Nieschwitz, N.; Kershaw, J.; Hamady, C.; Fevrier, B. A Comparison of Degree of Food Insecurity and Food Choice Motives Among College Students. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2022, 122, A57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hagedorn, R.; McArthur, L.; Hood, L.; Berner, M.; Anderson, E.; Connell, C.; Wall-Bassett, E.; Spence, M.; Toyin-Babatunde, O.; Brooke, K.; et al. Expenditure, Coping, and Academic Behaviors among Food-Insecure College Students at 10 Higher Education Institutes in the Appalachian and Southeastern Regions. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2019, 3, nzz058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Shamah-Levy, T.; Mundo-Rosas, V.; A Rivera-Dommarco, J. La Magnitud de La Inseguridad Alimentaria En México: Su Relación Con El Estado de Nutrición y Con Factores Socioeconómicos. Salud Publica Mex. 2014, 56, S79–S85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cunha, L.M.; Cabral, D.; Moura, A.P.; Vaz de Almeida, M.D. Application of the Food Choice Questionnaire across Cultures: Systematic Review of Cross-Cultural and Single Country Studies. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ding, E.L.; Powe, N.R.; Manson, J.E.; Sherber, N.S.; Braunstein, J.B. Sex Differences in Perceived Risks, Distrust, and Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials: A Randomized Study of Cardiovascular Prevention Trials. Arch. Intern. Med. 2007, 167, 905–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Kim, C.O. Food Choice Patterns among Frail Older Adults: The Associations between Social Network, Food Choice Values, and Diet Quality. Appetite 2016, 96, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nava-Amante, P.A.; Betancourt-Núñez, A.; Díaz-López, A.; Bernal-Orozco, M.F.; De la Cruz-Mosso, U.; Márquez-Sandoval, F.; Vizmanos, B. Clusters of Sociodemographic Characteristics and Their Association with Food Insecurity in Mexican University Students. Foods 2024, 13, 2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of study participants.
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of study participants.
ParametersTotal (n = 786)Men (n = 236)Women (n = 550)p-Value 1
Age, mean (SD)24.7 (8.5)24.5 (7.4)24.8 (8.9)0.609
Age group, n (%)
 18–29 years old629 (80.0)185 (78.4)444 (80.7)0.034
 30–40 years old109 (13.9)42 (17.8)67 (12.2)
 ≥41 years old48 (6.1)9 (3.8)39 (7.1)
Marital status, n (%)
 Single, divorced, or widowed640 (81.4)195 (82.6)445 (80.9)0.570
 In a relationship 2146 (18.6)41 (17.4)105 (19.1)
Educational level, n (%)
 Basic level 3535 (68.1)152 (64.4)383 (69.8)0.140
 Higher level 4250 (31.9)84 (35.6)166 (30.2)
Employment status, n (%)
 Unemployed410 (52.3)102 (43.2)308 (56.1)0.002
 Employed 375 (47.7)134 (56.8)241 (43.9)
SES 5, n (%)
 Middle or low459 (58.5)122 (51.7)337 (61.4)0.012
 High326 (41.5)114 (48.3)212 (38.6)
Housing status, n (%)
 Owner469 (59.7)143 (60.6)326 (59.3)0.891
 Tenant238 (30.3)71 (30.1)167 (30.4)
 Borrower or other79 (10.0)22 (9.3)57 (10.4)
Food security status 6, n (%)
 Food security381 (48.7)115 (48.7)266 (48.4)0.755
 Mild food insecurity228 (29.0)65 (27.5)163 (29.6)
 Moderate food insecurity109 (13.9)37 (15.7)72 (13.1)
 Severe food insecurity68 (8.7)19 (8.1)49 (8.9)
Geographic residential area 7, n (%)
 North101 (12.8)39 (16.5)62 (11.3)0.164
 West674 (85.8)191 (81.0)483 (87.8)
 Center and southeast11 (1.4)6 (2.5)5 (0.9)
Values are expressed as mean (SD) or frequency (%). Abbreviations—SD: standard deviation; SES: socioeconomic status. 1 p-values were calculated with the Chi-squared test (for qualitative variables) or Student’s t-test (for age). The significance of the numbers in bold is p-value < 0.05. 2 Married or common law. 3 Elementary, middle school, high school. 4 Bachelor’s degree, graduate degree, or medical specialty. 5 Assessed through the AMAI’s (Asociación Mexicana de Agencias de Inteligencia de Mercado y Opinión) tool [32]. The original 7 categories (A/B, C+, C, C−, D+, D, and E) were dichotomized into high (A/B and C+) and middle–low socioeconomic status (all the other categories). 6 Determined through the Latin American and Caribbean Scale for Food Security [33] (ELCSA for its acronym in Spanish). 7 Categories derived from the geographic distribution of Mexico: northern region, western region, central region, and southeastern region (the latter two were combined for statistical purposes) [37].
Table 2. Mean values (SD) of relative food choice motives’ importance in the whole sample and by sociodemographic groups.
Table 2. Mean values (SD) of relative food choice motives’ importance in the whole sample and by sociodemographic groups.
Variablen (%)Sensory AppealMoodConvenienceHNCPriceFood IdentityEWAIm
Mean (SD)
Total sample786 (100.0)1.24 (0.21)1.09 (0.18)1.10 (0.19)1.08 (0.10)1.06 (0.23)0.90 (0.16)0.85 (0.15)0.63 (0.15)
Sex
 Male236 (30)1.25 (0.23)1.07 (0.20)1.12 (0.21)1.08 (0.10)1.10 (0.26)0.90 (0.17)0.82 (0.16)0.66 (0.15)
 Female 550 (70)1.24 (0.20)1.10 (0.17)1.08 (0.18)1.09 (0.09)1.04 (0.21)0.90 (0.16)0.86 (0.14)0.62 (0.16)
 p-value 1 0.5770.1160.0120.357<0.0010.462<0.0010.008
Age group
 18–29 years old629 (80.0)1.25 (0.21) *1.10 (0.19) *1.10 (0.20)1.08 (0.10)1.07 (0.24) *0.90 (0.16)0.84 (0.15) *0.64 (0.15)
 30–40 years old109 (13.9)1.20 (0.19) *1.07 (0.14)1.10 (0.15)1.10 (0.09)1.02 (0.19)0.90 (0.16)0.87 (0.13)0.61 (0.16)
 ≥41 years old48 (6.1)1.16 (0.22) *1.02 (0.13) *1.07 (0.13)1.10 (0.08)0.96 (0.17) *0.94 (0.13)0.93 (0.12) *0.60 (0.18)
 p-value 1 0.0010.0160.5320.0510.0010.201<0.0010.055
Marital status
 Single640 (81.4)1.26 (0.21)1.10 (0.19)1.10 (0.20)1.08 (0.10)1.07 (0.23)0.89 (0.16)0.84 (0.15)0.63 (0.15)
 In a relationship 2146 (18.6)1.17 (0.18)1.04 (0.15)1.08 (0.15)1.09 (0.08)1.02 (0.21)0.93 (0.13)0.89 (0.14)0.63 (0.17)
 p-value 1 <0.001<0.0010.1760.1310.0200.008<0.0010.890
Educational level
 Basic 3536 (68.1)1.26 (0.21)1.11 (0.19)1.11 (0.21)1.07 (0.10)1.08 (0.24)0.90 (0.15)0.83 (0.15)0.64 (0.15)
 Higher 4250 (31.9)1.20 (0.19)1.05 (0.15)1.08 (0.16)1.10 (0.09)1.01 (0.18)0.90 (0.16)0.87 (0.14)0.63 (0.17)
 p-value 1 <0.001<0.0010.045<0.001<0.0010.710<0.0010.557
SES 5
 Middle or low459 (58.5)1.25 (0.21)1.09 (0.19)1.10 (0.20)1.08 (0.09)1.08 (0.24)0.91 (0.15)0.84 (0.15)0.63 (0.15)
 High 326 (41.5)1.23 (0.21)1.09 (0.18)1.09 (0.18)1.09 (0.10)1.03 (0.18)0.90 (0.16)0.85 (0.15)0.63 (0.16)
 p-value 1 0.4040.8740.8470.1530.0020.3420.3330.999
Food security status 6
 Food security381 (48.5)1.25 (0.21)1.08 (0.19)1.09 (0.18)1.09 (0.09)1.03 (0.21) *0.90 (0.16)0.84 (0.15)0.63 (0.15)
 Mild FI228 (29.0)1.23 (0.20)1.09 (0.18)1.09 (0.19)1.08 (0.09)1.07 (0.23)0.93 (0.15) *0.85 (0.14)0.63 (0.15)
 Moderate FI109 (13.9)1.21 (0.16)1.12 (0.16)1.13 (0.19)1.08 (0.09)1.10 (0.24) *0.86 (0.17) *0.84 (0.15)0.64 (0.16)
 Severe FI68 (8.7)1.28 (0.30)1.09 (0.19)1.11 (0.26)1.07 (0.13)1.08 (0.28)0.88 (0.16)0.84 (0.18)0.65 (0.16)
 p-value 1 0.1020.4590.2390.3680.0120.0010.8250.756
Values are expressed as mean (SD). Abbreviations—HNC: health and natural content; EWA: environmental and wildlife awareness; Im: image management; SD: standard deviation; SES: socioeconomic status; FI: food insecurity. 1 p-values were calculated with Student’s t-test or ANOVA test, as appropriate. The significance of the numbers in bold is p-value < 0.05. Categories in which significant differences were observed after ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni correction are marked with * (p < 0.05). 2 Married or common law. 3 Elementary, middle school, high school. 4 Bachelor’s degree, graduate degree, or medical specialty. 5 Assessed through the AMAI’s (Asociación Mexicana de Agencias de Inteligencia de Mercado y Opinión) tool [32]. The original 7 categories (A/B, C+, C, C−, D+, D, and E) were dichotomized into high (A/B and C+) and middle–low socioeconomic status (all the other categories). 6 Determined through the Latin American and Caribbean Scale for Food Security [33] (ELCSA for its acronym in Spanish).
Table 3. Multivariable linear regression models of associations between sociodemographic characteristics and relative food motives’ importance: health and natural content, environmental and wildlife awareness, convenience, and price (n = 786).
Table 3. Multivariable linear regression models of associations between sociodemographic characteristics and relative food motives’ importance: health and natural content, environmental and wildlife awareness, convenience, and price (n = 786).
Sociodemographic CharacteristicsHealth and Natural ContentEnvironmental and Wildlife AwarenessConveniencePrice
β 1(95% CI)p 2β(95% CI)p 2β(95% CI)p 2β(95% CI)p 2
Sex
 Male vs. female (ref.)−0.01 −0.03, 0.010.023−0.05−0.07, −0.02<0.0010.040.01, 0.070.0080.080.04, 0.11<0.001
Age group
 30–40 vs. 18–29 y (ref.)0.00−0.02, 0.030.7530.02−0.03, 0.060.4600.03−0.02, 0.080.253−0.03−0.09, 0.030.391
 ≥41 vs. 18–29 y (ref.)0.01−0.03, 0.050.5760.060.00, 0.110.0440.01−0.06, 0.080.832−0.07−0.15, 0.010.087
Educational level
 Superior 3 vs. Basic 4 (ref.)0.020.01, 0.040.0110.01−0.01, 0.040.330−0.04−0.07, 0.000.065−0.04−0.09, 0.000.045
Marital status
 In a relationship vs. Single, divorced or widowed (ref.)−0.01−0.03, 0.020.5140.02−0.02, 0.050.348−0.01−0.06, 0.040.6270.02−0.03, 0.080.424
Employment status
 Employed vs. unemployed (ref.)0.01−0.00, 0.020.1580.02−0.00, 0.040.080−0.01−0.04, 0.020.488−0.02−0.05, 0.010.243
SES 5
 Middle or low vs. high (ref.)−0.01−0.01, 0.030.1970.00−0.02, 0.030.760−0.01−0.04, 0.020.6240.03−0.01, 0.070.062
Housing status
 Tenant vs. owner (ref.)0.00−0.02, 0.020.910−0.01−0.04, 0.010.3240.030.00, 0.070.0310.01−0.03, 0.050.561
 Borrower vs. owner (ref.)−0.01−0.03, 0.020.7380.00−0.03, 0.040.949−0.01−0.05, 0.040.7920.02−0.04, 0.070.497
Food security status 6
 Mild FI vs. food security (ref.)−0.01−0.03, 0.000.1230.00−0.02, 0.300.857−0.00−0.03, 0.030.9470.050.01, 0.090.013
 Moderate FI vs. food security (ref.)−0.01−0.03, 0.010.383−0.00−0.04, 0.030.7910.04−0.01, 0.080.0850.070.02, 0.110.008
 Severe FI vs. food security (ref.)−0.02−0.05, 0.010.1380.00−0.04, 0.040.9830.02−0.03, 0.070.4830.05−0.01, 0.110.094
Goodness-of-fit measuresR2: 0.026, Adjusted R2: 0.016, Root MSE: 0.100R2: 0.044, Adjusted R2: 0.034, Root MSE: 0.152R2: 0.018, Adjusted R2: 0.008, Root MSE: 0.196R2: 0.062, Adjusted R2: 0.052, Root MSE: 0.227
Linear regression models were used to calculate the β coefficient (β) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For all models, VIFs were below 2.0, tolerance values were above 0.7, and no omitted variables were found according to the Ramsey RESET test. Abbreviations—U-FCQ: Updated Food Choice Questionnaire; CI: confidence interval; SES: socioeconomic status; FI: food insecurity; Root MSE: root mean square error. 1 The models were run separately for each food choice motive outcome. The models were mutually adjusted for all sociodemographic characteristics displayed in these tables as the exposure. 2 The significance of the numbers in bold is p-value < 0.05. 3 Bachelor’s degree, graduate degree, or medical specialty. 4 Elementary, middle school, high school. 5 Assessed through the AMAI’s (Asociación Mexicana de Agencias de Inteligencia de Mercado y Opinión) tool [32]. The original 7 categories (A/B, C+, C, C−, D+, D, and E) were dichotomized into high (A/B and C+) and middle–low socioeconomic status (all the other categories). 6 Determined through the Latin American and Caribbean Scale for Food Security [33] (ELCSA for its acronym in Spanish).
Table 4. Multivariable linear regression models of associations between sociodemographic characteristics and relative food motives: sensory appeal, mood, image management, and food identity (n = 786).
Table 4. Multivariable linear regression models of associations between sociodemographic characteristics and relative food motives: sensory appeal, mood, image management, and food identity (n = 786).
Sociodemographic CharacteristicsSensory AppealMoodImage ManagementFood Identity
β 1(95% CI)p 2β(95% CI)p 2β(95% CI)p 2β(95% CI)p 2
Sex
 Male vs. female (ref.)0.01−0.02, 0.050.386−0.02−0.05, 0.000.1380.040.01, 0.060.004−0.01−0.04, −0.010.421
Age group
 30–40 vs. 18–29 y (ref.)0.01−0.05, 0.670.7100.03−0.02, 0.080.258−0.05−0.09, −0.010.011−0.03−0.07, 0.020.206
 ≥41 vs. 18–29 y (ref.)0.00−0.75, 0.0770.984−0.02−0.08, 0.050.626−0.04−0.09, 0.040.0800.01−0.06, 0.060.934
Educational level
 Superior 3 vs. Basic 4 (ref.)−0.04−0.08, −0.000.035−0.04−0.07, 0.000.0300.01−0.02, 0.040.502−0.01−0.04, 0.020.405
Marital status
 In a relationship vs. Single, divorced or widowed (ref.)−0.07−0.11, −0.020.008−0.04−0.08, 0.000.0790.04−0.00, 0.070.0540.05−0.00, 0.090.017
Employment status
 Employed vs. unemployed (ref.)−0.05−0.08, −0.020.002−0.02−0.05, 0.000.176−0.02−0.04, 0.000.1060.040.02, 0.070.001
SES 5
 Middle or low vs. high (ref.)0.02−0.05, 0.010.219−0.03−0.06, 0.000.058−0.00−0.03, 0.200.7730.030.00, 0.050.039
Housing status
 Tenant vs. owner (ref.)0.01−0.03, 0.040.6740.03−0.00, 0.060.052−0.03−0.05, −0.000.031−0.02−0.04, 0.000.166
 Borrower vs. owner (ref.)0.01−0.04, 0.060.7000.02−0.03, 0.060.507−0.03−0.07, 0.000.1370.02−0.02, 0.060.269
Food security status 6
 Mild FI vs. food security (ref.)−0.01−0.04, 0.030.6080.01−0.02, 0.040.534−0.00−0.03, 0.020.9000.02−0.00, 0.050.170
 Moderate FI vs. food security (ref.)−0.04−0.08, 0.000.0890.03−0.00, 0.070.0940.01−0.02, 0.050.4580.04−0.08, −0.010.009
 Severe FI vs. food security (ref.)0.03−0.03, 0.080.371−0.00−0.05, 0.040.8810.02−0.02, 0.060.252−0.03−0.07, 0.020.227
Goodness-of-fit measuresR2: 0.046, Adjusted R2: 0.036, Root MSE: 0.211R2: 0.033, Adjusted R2: 0.023, Root MSE: 0.185R2: 0.035, Adjusted R2: 0.025, Root MSE: 0.155R2: 0.029, Adjusted R2: 0.019, Root MSE: 0.162
Linear regression models were used to calculate the β coefficient (β) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For all models, VIFs were below 2.0, tolerance values were above 0.7, and no omitted variables were found according to the Ramsey RESET test. Abbreviations—U-FCQ: Updated Food Choice Questionnaire; CI: confidence interval; SES: socioeconomic status; FI: food insecurity; Root MSE: root mean square error. 1 The models were run separately for each food choice motive outcome. The models were mutually adjusted for all sociodemographic characteristics displayed in these tables as the exposure. 2 The significance of the numbers in bold is p-value < 0.05. 3 Bachelor’s degree, graduate degree, or medical specialty. 4 Elementary, middle school, high school. 5 Assessed through the AMAI’s (Asociación Mexicana de Agencias de Inteligencia de Mercado y Opinión) tool [32]. The original 7 categories (A/B, C+, C, C−, D+, D, and E) were dichotomized into high (A/B and C+) and middle–low socioeconomic status (all the other categories). 6 Determined through the Latin American and Caribbean Scale for Food Security [33] (ELCSA for its acronym in Spanish).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salas-García, M.A.; Bernal-Orozco, M.F.; Díaz-López, A.; Betancourt-Núñez, A.; Nava-Amante, P.A.; Vizmanos, B. Associations of Sociodemographic Characteristics with Food Choice Motives’ Importance Among Mexican Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Foods 2025, 14, 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14020158

AMA Style

Salas-García MA, Bernal-Orozco MF, Díaz-López A, Betancourt-Núñez A, Nava-Amante PA, Vizmanos B. Associations of Sociodemographic Characteristics with Food Choice Motives’ Importance Among Mexican Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Foods. 2025; 14(2):158. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14020158

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salas-García, Miguel Amaury, María Fernanda Bernal-Orozco, Andrés Díaz-López, Alejandra Betancourt-Núñez, Pablo Alejandro Nava-Amante, and Barbara Vizmanos. 2025. "Associations of Sociodemographic Characteristics with Food Choice Motives’ Importance Among Mexican Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis" Foods 14, no. 2: 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14020158

APA Style

Salas-García, M. A., Bernal-Orozco, M. F., Díaz-López, A., Betancourt-Núñez, A., Nava-Amante, P. A., & Vizmanos, B. (2025). Associations of Sociodemographic Characteristics with Food Choice Motives’ Importance Among Mexican Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Foods, 14(2), 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14020158

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop