Fruit and Vegetable Intake: the Interplay of Planning, Social Support, and Sex

  • Daniela Lange
  • Jana Corbett
  • Nina Knoll
  • Ralf Schwarzer
  • Sonia Lippke
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Intention and planning are important predictors of dietary change. However, little attention has been given yet to the relationship between them as a function of other social-cognitive factors and their interplay with socio-demographics such as sex.

Methods

In an observational study (1520 women, 430 men) with two measurement points in time, intention (predictor), planning (mediator), social support (first moderator), and sex (second moderator) were assessed to predict changes in diet separately for fruit and vegetable intake.

Results

All predictors had a main effect on fruit intake but no interactions emerged. For vegetable intake, the mediation-chain was qualified by a three-way interaction: for women, the lower the perceived social support, the more the translation of planning into behavior; for men, the higher the perceived social support, the more the translation of planning into behavior.

Conclusions

Even though intention and planning are predictors of dietary change, they operate differently under specific conditions (level of social support), for specific subgroups (men vs. women), and for different target behaviors (fruit vs. vegetable intake). These results suggest to further examine the mechanisms by which intentions are translated into behavior via planning.

Keywords

Fruit and vegetable intake Intention Planning Social support Sex differences 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Kureva Pritchard Matuku and Maria Bianca Leonte for their support in copy editing the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

DL conceived of and designed the project, recruited participants, collected the questionnaires, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. SL and JC helped designing the study, recruiting participants, and collecting the questionnaires. NK supported the data analysis and drafting the manuscript. RS and SL oversaw the project in terms of progress and analysis, provided expertise as a researcher, and helped draft the manuscript. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the data and revising the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

The study procedures were approved by the ethics committee of the unit of health psychology at the first authors’ home institution. Written informed consent was provided by all study participants before receiving the baseline questionnaires.

Consent for Publication

All authors read and approved the final manuscript and agreed to the publication of this manuscript or a revised version of it.

References

  1. 1.
    Boeing H, Bechthold A, Bub A, Ellinger S, Haller D, Kroke A, et al. Critical review: vegetables and fruit in the prevention of chronic diseases. Eur J Nutr. 2012;51:637–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armitage CJ. Effects of an implementation intention-based intervention on fruit consumption. Psychol Health. 2007;22:917–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guillaumie L, Godin G, Manderscheid JC, Spitz E, Muller L. The impact of self-efficacy and implementation intentions-based interventions on fruit and vegetable intake among adults. Psychol Health. 2012;27:30–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cox DN, Anderson AS, Reynolds J, McKellar S, Lean MEJ, Mela DJ. Take five, a nutrition education intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intakes: impact on consumer choice and nutrient intakes. Br J Nutr. 1998;80:123–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kellar I, Abraham C. Randomized controlled trial of a brief research-based intervention promoting fruit and vegetable consumption. Br J Health Psychol. 2005;10:543–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Millen BE, Quatromoni PA, Pencina M, Kimokoti R, Nam BHO, Cobain S, et al. Unique dietary patterns and chronic disease risk profiles of adult men: the Framingham nutrition studies. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:1723–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nooyens AC, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, van Boxtel MP, van Gelder BM, Verhagen H, Verschuren WM. Fruit and vegetable intake and cognitive decline in middle-aged men and women: the Doetinchem cohort study. Br J Nutr. 2011;106:752–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blanck HM, Gillespie C, Kimmons JE, Seymour JD, Serdula MK. Trends in fruit and vegetable consumption among US men and women, 1994–2005. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thompson OM, Yaroch AL, Moser RP, Finney Rutten LJ, Petrelli JM, Smith-Warner SA, et al. Knowledge of and adherence to fruit and vegetable recommendations and intakes: results of the 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey. J Health Commun. 2011;16(3):328–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heuer T, Krems C, Moon K, Brombach C, Hoffmann I. Food consumption of adults in Germany: results of the German National Nutrition Survey II based on diet history interviews. Brit J Nutr. 2015;113:1603–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wardle J, Haase AM, Steptoe A, Nillapun M, Jonwutiwes K, Bellisie F. Gender differences in food choice: the contribution of health beliefs and dieting. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27:107–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sniehotta FF, Schwarzer R. Modellierung der Gesundheitsverhaltensänderung. In: Jerusalem M, Weber H, editors. Psychologische Gesundheitsförderung. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2003. p. 677–94.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheeran P. Intention-behaviour relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2002;12:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwarzer R. Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors: theoretical approaches and a new model. In Schwarzer R (Ed.): self-efficacy: thought control of action. Washington, DC. Hemisphere. 1992:217–42.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwarzer R. Modeling health behavior change: how to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Appl Psychol. 2008;57:1–29.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adriaanse MA, Vinkers CDW, de Ridder DTD, Hox JJ, de Wit JBF. Do implementation intentions help to eat a healthy diet? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Appetite. 2011;56:183–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.10.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guillaumie L, Godin G, Vézina-Im LA. Social-cognitive determinants of fruit and vegetable intake in adult population: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-7-12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hagger MS, Luszczynska A. Implementation intention and action planning interventions in health contexts: state of the research and proposals for the way forward. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2014;6:1–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norman P, Conner M. The theory of planned behavior and exercise: evidence for the mediating and moderating roles of planning on intention-behavior relationships. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2005;27:488–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwarzer R, Schüz B, Ziegelmann J, Lippke S, Luszczynska A, Scholz U. Adoption and maintenance of four health behaviors: theory-guided longitudinal studies on dental flossing, seat belt use, dietary behavior, and physical activity. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33:156–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jackson C, Lawton R, Knapp PR, Raynor DK, Conner MT, Lowe CJ, et al. Beyond intention: do specific plans increase health behaviours in patients in primary care? A study on fruit and vegetable consumption. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:2383–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rutter DR, Steadman L, Quine L. An implementation intentions intervention to increase uptake of mammography. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32:127–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Biltoft-Jensen A, Groth MV, Matthiessen J, Wachmann H, Christensen T, Fagt S. Diet quality: associations with health messages included in the Danish Dietary Guidelines 2005, personal attitudes and social factors. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12:1165–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blanchard CM, Kupperman J, Sparling PB, Nehl E, Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, et al. Do ethnicity and gender matter when using the theory of planned behavior to understand fruit and vegetable consumption? Appetite. 2009;52:15–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hankonen N, Absetz P, Ghisletta P, Renner B, Uutela A. Gender differences in social cognitive determinants of exercise adoption. Psychol Health. 2010;25:55–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tamres LK, Janicki D, Helgeson VS. Sex differences in coping behavior: a meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2002;6:2–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lange D, Corbett J, Lippke S, Knoll N, Schwarzer R. The interplay of intention, autonomy, and sex with dietary planning: a conditional process model to predict fruit and vegetable intake. Br J Health Psychol. 2015;20:859–76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schwarzer R, Knoll N. Social support. In: Kaptein JWA, editor. Health psychol. Oxford: Blackwell; 2010. p. 283–93.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hagler AS, Norman GJ, Zabinski MF, Sallis JF, Calfas KJ, Patrick K. Social-cognitive correlates of dietary intake among overweight and obese men. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31:3–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jackson T. Relationships between perceived close social support and health practices within community samples of American women and men. Aust J Psychol. 2006;140:229–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kelsey KS, Campbell MK, Tessaro I, Benedict S, Belton L, Fernandez LM, et al. Social support and health behaviors among blue-collar women workers. Am J Health Behav. 2000;24:434–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steptoe A, Perkins-Porras L, Rink E, Hilton S, Cappuccio FP. Psychological and social predictors of changes in fruit and vegetable consumption over 12 months following behavioral and nutrition education counseling. Health Psychol. 2004;23:574–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fisher JD, Fisher WA, Amico K, Harman JJ. An information-motivation behavioral skills model of adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Health Psychol. 2006;25:462–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ochsner S, Luszczynska A, Stadler G, Knoll N, Hornung R, Scholz U. The interplay of received social support and self-regulatory factors in smoking cessation. Psychol Health. 2014;29:16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schröder K. Self-regulation competence in coping with chronic disease. Waxmann, Münster: Internationale Hochschulschriften; 1997.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bengtson VL, Kuypers JA. The family support cycle: social-cognitive issues in the aging family. Life Span Chang Geront Pers. 1985;  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-510260-5.50020-7.
  37. 37.
    Warner LM, Ziegelmann JP, Schüz B, Wurm S, Tesch-Römer C, Schwarzer R. Maintaining autonomy despite multimorbidity: self-efficacy and the two faces of social support. Eur J Ageing. 2011;8:3–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reyes Fernández BR, Warner LM, Knoll N, Montenegro EM, Schwarzer R. Synergistic effects of social support and self-efficacy on dietary motivation predicting fruit and vegetable intake. Appetite. 2015;87:330–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Molloy GJ, Dixon D, Hamer M, Sniehotta FF. Social support and regular physical activity: does planning mediate this link? Br J Health Psychol. 2010;15:859–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sallis JF, Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR. Predictors of adoption and maintenance of vigorous physical activity in men and women. Prev Med. 1992;21:237–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Scholz U, Ochsner S, Hornung R, Knoll N. Does social support really help to eat a low fat diet? Main effects and gender differences of received social support within the health action process approach. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2013;5:270–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    American Psychological Association (APA). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Am Psychol. 2002;57:1060–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Luszczynska A, Tryburcy M, Schwarzer R. Improving fruit and vegetable consumption: a self-efficacy intervention compared with a combined self-efficacy and planning intervention. Health Educ Res. 2007;22:630–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hayes AF. PROCESS (Version 2.12). 2014. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/macrofaq.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
  45. 45.
    Enders CK. A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Struct Equ Modeling. 2001;8:128–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hayes AF. Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Comm Monogr. 2009;76:408–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2013.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Disatnik D, Sivan L. The multicollinearity illusion in moderated regression analysis. Soc Sci Res Net 2014;  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2283066.
  50. 50.
    Westmaas JL, Wild TC, Ferrence R. Effects of gender in social control of smoking cessation. Health Psychol. 2002;21:368–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Loftfield E, Yi S, Immerwahr S, Eisenhower D. Construct validity of a single-item, self-rated question of diet quality. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2015;47:181–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review. Brit J Soc Psych. 2001;40:471–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chung SJ, Hoerr SL, Levine R, Song WO, Coleman G. Validity for classifying the stages of change among the dietary assessment methods on eating fruit and vegetable for American college students. J Community Nutr. 2002;4:143–50.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Horaceck TM, Greene G, Georgious C, White A, Ma J. Comparison of three methods for assessing fruit, vegetable, and grain stage of change for young adults. Top Clin Nutr. 2002;17:36–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lange D, Richert J, Koring M, Knoll N, Schwarzer R, Lippke S. Self-regulation prompts can increase fruit consumption: a one-hour randomised controlled online trial. Psychol Health. 2013;28:533–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wardle J, Parmenter K, Waller J. Nutrition knowledge and food intake. Appetite. 2000;34:269–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Lange
    • 1
  • Jana Corbett
    • 2
  • Nina Knoll
    • 1
  • Ralf Schwarzer
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sonia Lippke
    • 4
  1. 1.Health PsychologyFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.School of Psychological ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.SWPS University of Social Sciences and HumanitiesWarsawPoland
  4. 4.Jacobs Center on Lifelong Learning and Institutional DevelopmentJacobs University BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations