Exploring Emotional-Eating Patterns in Different Cultures: Toward a Conceptual Framework Model

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Luomala, Harri T.]On: 16 April 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 910474844]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of International Consumer MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306871

Exploring Emotional-Eating Patterns in Different Cultures: Toward a ConceptualFramework ModelHarri T. Luomala a; Lucie Sirieix b; Rizwan Tahir c

a The University of Vaasa/EPANET, Foodwest Ltd., Seinäjoki, Finland b Montpellier SupAgro, UMR Moisa,Montpellier, France c Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Online Publication Date: 01 July 2009

To cite this Article Luomala, Harri T., Sirieix, Lucie and Tahir, Rizwan(2009)'Exploring Emotional-Eating Patterns in Different Cultures:Toward a Conceptual Framework Model',Journal of International Consumer Marketing,21:3,231 — 245

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/08961530802202818

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08961530802202818

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306871

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08961530802202818

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21:231–245, 2009Copyright c© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0896-1530 print / 1528-7068 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08961530802202818

Exploring Emotional-Eating Patterns in Different Cultures:Toward a Conceptual Framework Model

Harri T. LuomalaLucie SirieixRizwan Tahir

ABSTRACT. There exists a lack of understanding in food-consumption research concerning howpeople in different cultures regulate their emotional experiences through different forms of eatingpatterns. This paper integrates conceptual preunderstanding with the insights from empirical explorationto offer a tentative framework model that can be used in analyzing emotional eating in different cultures.The emotions of happiness, gratitude, irritation, and shame and their self-regulation through differentemotional eating activities were compared across Finnish, French, and Pakistani cultures. There werestrong differences among the three samples: Finnish students react to positive emotions with solitaryeating patterns, and to negative emotions by social and luxurious eating patterns. On the contrary,French students associate social and luxurious eating patterns with positive emotions, and in the case ofnegative emotions, reject both social and luxurious eating activities. Pakistani students associate a socialand everyday eating activity to both positive and negative emotions. Despite the cultural differencesdiscovered, understanding these differences in terms of differences in cultural values is challenging.These challenges are discussed when a framework for analyzing emotional eating in different culturesis developed in the concluding section of the article.

KEYWORDS. Emotions, culture, food consumption, eating patterns

INTRODUCTION

Food and many activities associated with itplay an essential role in human life and thus havean important economic, psychological, social,and cultural significance in consumers’ every-day lives (Mennell, Murcott, and Van Otterloo,1992; Hirschman et al., 2004). Our study focuseson the links between emotions and eating pat-terns. Recent research has demonstrated that itis common in everyday life that emotional states

Harri T. Luomala is Professor of Consumer Behavior at the University of Vaasa/EPANET, Foodwest Ltd.,Seinajoki, Finland. Lucie Sirieix is Professor at Montpellier SupAgro, UMR Moisa, Montpellier, France.Rizwan Tahir is Senior Lecturer at Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

Address correspondence to Harri T. Luomala, Professor of Consumer Behavior, University ofVaasa/EPANET, Foodwest Ltd., Vaasantie 1C, 60100 Seinajoki, Finland. E-mail: [email protected]

and situations affect food consumption (Machtand Simons, 2000; Geliebter and Aversa, 2003).Meals eaten in positive and negative moods arelarger than meals eaten in a neutral mood (Pateland Schlundt, 2001) and quality of emotions(sadness vs. joy) can have an impact on moti-vation to eat and on eating responses (Macht,Roth, and Ellgring, 2002). Also scales to tap thechanges in the amount of food eaten as a re-sponse to different emotional states have beendeveloped (Arnow, Kenardy, and Agras, 1995;

231

Downloaded By: [Luomala, Harri T.] At: 07:04 16 April 2009

232 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Kenardy et al., 2003). However, previous stud-ies focus on the amount of food or on the dif-ferent food products eaten but not on emotional-eating patterns. Yet, emotional-eating patternshave connections with obesity, anorexia nervosa,and bulimia, which makes the study of this topicsocially relevant.

Another trend has been that cross-culturalfood-consumption studies are gaining more mo-mentum partly because despite globalizationtendencies and international convergence in foodconsumption, specific regional consumption pat-terns are persistent (Askegaard and Madsen,1998). In recent years, a number of studies havebeen conducted by scholars to study how foodconsumption (e.g., food-quality perception, foodchoices, food attitudes, food-related lifestyle)varies across cultures (Grunert, 1997; Rozinet al., 1999; Reid et al., 2001; Prescott et al.,2002), revealing both differences and similari-ties between cultures.

Bringing these two research perspectivestogether starts filling in the void in currentunderstanding concerning how people in dif-ferent cultures regulate their emotional experi-ences (see Butler, Lee, and Gross, 2007) throughemotional-eating patterns. For instance, it is con-ceivable that people in individualistic and col-lectivistic cultures exhibit different emotional-eating patterns. A study surveying differencesin general mood-regulatory activities among theFinnish, Danish, Indians, and Chinese revealed,among other things, some emotional eating-related findings (Luomala et al., 2004). To illus-trate, the importance of mood-regulatory activi-ties such as having a dinner in a restaurant withyour closest ones, cooking or baking with yourfamily/friends, and buying yourself somethinggood to eat or drink (e.g., chocolate, candy, icecream, coffee, beer, wine) clearly varied amongthese cultures.

To our knowledge, the present study rep-resents the first attempt at exploring cross-cultural differences in emotional-eating patterns.Thus, our paper seeks to contribute to food-consumption literature by developing a concep-tual framework for analyzing emotional eatingin different cultures. Three objectives are set forthe paper. First, to form a conceptual preunder-standing that can be used as a starting-point

in analyzing emotional eating in different cul-tures. Second, to empirically explore how peoplein different cultures react by choosing differentemotional-eating patterns as responses to differ-ent emotional experiences. Third, to merge thediscussed conceptual ideas with the empiricalinsights in the form of a conceptual frameworkmodel.

The rest of the paper is structured as fol-lows. In the next section we review the emo-tion, culture, and consumer-research literaturesto form a conceptual preunderstanding for guid-ing the empirical study. In the third section webriefly describe the methodological choices ofour research. The results of an exploratory three-culture survey are reported next. Lastly, the pa-per is concluded by the discussions highlightingthe development of the framework model foranalyzing emotional eating in different culturesand managerial and societal implications.

Developing a ConceptualPreunderstanding

When developing the conceptual preunder-standing for our study, we consulted emotion,culture, and consumer behavior-research liter-atures. At the outset, we wanted our concep-tual consultation to produce two guiding prin-ciples for our empirical exploration. First, itshould identify those emotions that will be dif-ferently experienced in different cultures. Sec-ond, it should reveal a parsimonious and yetcomprehensive way to cover the broad spectrumof emotional-eating patterns (Figure 1).

Positive and Negative Ego-Focusedand Other-Focused Emotions

According to cross-cultural emotion litera-ture, different emotional experiences are high-lighted and relevant in different cultures (Markusand Kitayama, 1991; Aaker and Williams, 1998;Tan et al., 2005). Markus and Kitayama (1991)draw a distinction between ego-focused andother-focused emotions. Ego-focused emotionstend to be associated with an individual’s inter-nal state or attributes, to the exclusion of others,and are consistent with the need for individualawareness, experience, and expression, whereasother-focused emotions tend to be associated


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232558390_Culture_and_Self_Implications_for_Cognition_Emotion_and_Motivation?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-611fb975-73a9-47d9-80c6-918d180ce9bf&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzQ5NTQ5NTtBUzoxNDIyNzcyMTMxNjc2MTZAMTQxMDkzMjkzOTAzMg==

Luomala, Sirieix, and Tahir 233

FIGURE 1. A Conceptual Preunderstanding Used to Guide the Empirical Exploration

Culture Culture

Happiness Gratitude Irritation Shame

Emotional-eating patterns

- solitary & everyday- social & everyday- solitary & luxurious- social & luxurious

with others in a social context or close others andare consistent with the need for unity, harmony,and the alignment of one’s actions with thoseof another (Aaker and Williams, 1998). As theprevalence of ego- and other-focused emotionscan be assumed to vary culturally, we selectedboth ego-focused and other-focused emotions asthe target for our analysis.

Furthermore, we wanted to analyze the effectsof both positive and negative emotions. The se-lection of the negative emotions was made onthe basis of the emotional-eating scale (Arnow,Kenardy, and Agras, 1995). Yet, as stated byKenardy et al. (2003), the emotional-eating scalefailed to assess the role of positive emotions, sowe derived the positive items from their study.Finally, four different emotions were thus de-rived from the literature: happiness (positive,ego-focused), irritation (negative, ego-focused),gratitude (positive, other-focused), and shame(negative, other-focused).

The spectrum of patterns of emotional eat-ing that people adhere to is vast and difficultto capture. A severe limitation of past researchhas been to concentrate solely on the amount offood intake as a function of experienced emo-tions. An approach that can satisfactorily takeinto account the types of food and consump-tion situations would represent a step forward inemotional-eating research. One conceptual solu-

tion that can serve as a starting-point is offerednext.

EMOTIONAL-EATING PATTERNS:SOLITARY VS. SOCIAL, LUXURIOUS

VS. EVERYDAY FOOD CONSUMPTION

Beginning with the food-consumption situa-tions, one basic distinction is whether food isconsumed alone or in the company of others;planning, preparing, and enjoying food have al-ways had a role in maintaining and developingsocial relationships (Luomala, Laaksonen, andLeipamaa, 2004). A study comparing generalmood-regulatory activities in individualistic andcollectivistic cultures utilized social/asocial na-ture of activities as an analytical principle (Luo-mala et al., 2004). We think this dichotomy is es-pecially relevant in the case of emotional-eatingpatterns because sometimes emotional experi-ences inhibit social interaction, while some othertimes they enhance it (Luomala and Laaksonen,1999).

The second dichotomy that can be ap-plied to make sense of the type of food con-sumed as a response to emotions is the dis-tinction between everyday and luxurious (cf.Hirschman et al., 2004). Many consumers seeklow prices and ordinary food on weekdays, but


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24099008_Empathy_Versus_Pride_the_Influence_of_Emotional_Appeals_Across_Cultures?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-611fb975-73a9-47d9-80c6-918d180ce9bf&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzQ5NTQ5NTtBUzoxNDIyNzcyMTMxNjc2MTZAMTQxMDkzMjkzOTAzMg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6325364_Eating_mood_and_gender_in_a_noneating_disorder_population?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-611fb975-73a9-47d9-80c6-918d180ce9bf&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzQ5NTQ5NTtBUzoxNDIyNzcyMTMxNjc2MTZAMTQxMDkzMjkzOTAzMg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267971773_Exploring_the_Architecture_of_Contemporary_American_Foodways?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-611fb975-73a9-47d9-80c6-918d180ce9bf&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzQ5NTQ5NTtBUzoxNDIyNzcyMTMxNjc2MTZAMTQxMDkzMjkzOTAzMg==


still give themselves an occasional permission(e.g., weekends, parties) to indulge in deliciousand luxurious food. Luxurious may mean thatfood is simply something that tastes very good(e.g., ice cream, chocolate), or that there is abun-dance of food (e.g., a buffet lunch), or that food isprepared using high-quality ingredients (e.g., fil-let instead of chops) or that food is a rarity (e.g.,caviar and fine champagne) (Luomala, Laakso-nen, and Leipamaa, 2004).

CULTURAL VALUES

Finally, we postulate that cultural values willinfluence what kind of emotional-eating patternsare highlighted among different groups of pop-ulations. For example, asocial emotional-eatingpatterns may predominate in individualistic cul-tures while social emotional-eating patterns maypredominate in collectivistic cultures (Luomalaet al., 2004). Butler, Lee, and Gross (2007)demonstrated that cultural values play a role inhow suppression as a form of emotion regulationfunctions. Alternative theoretical formulationsexist to conceptualize and operationalize cul-tural differences, most notably the approachesby Hofstede (1991) and Schwartz (1994). Bothof these approaches to measuring cultural val-ues have been extensively used in marketing andconsumer behavior research, even though theyare conceptually and methodologically different(De Mooij, 2004). Hofstede’s (1991) approachis dimensional: He proposes five dimensionsalong which cultures vary: individualism versuscollectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoid-ance, masculinity versus femininity, and Confu-cian dynamism.

In contrast, Schwartz’s (1994) approach iscategorical, with the underlying idea that culturalvalues can be represented as a circumplex. Forcomparing cultures, seven value classes (repre-senting different positions in the circumplex) canbe used: conservatism, intellectual autonomy, af-fective autonomy, mastery, hierarchy, harmony,and egalitarian commitment (Schwartz, 1994).Conservatism emphasizes maintenance of thestatus quo, propriety, and avoidance of actionsor inclinations of individuals that might disturbthe traditional order. Intellectual and affective

autonomy stipulate persons as autonomous en-tities entitled to pursue their individual interestsand desires. Mastery highlights active control ofthe social environment through self-assertion.Hierarchy underscores the legitimacy of hier-archical role and resource allocation. Harmonyemphasizes being in unison with nature andstanding against changing the world throughself-assertion and exploitation of people and re-sources. Egalitarian commitment expresses tran-scendence of selfish interests and exhorts volun-tary commitment to promoting the welfare ofother people.

There exist only few cross-cultural studiesthat have linked either Hofstede’s cultural di-mensions or Schwartz’s value classes to someaspect of food consumption. As the first ex-ample, Prescott et al. (2002) reported that theimportance of mood-related food-choice fac-tor was highest in Malaysia (low masculinity)and lowest in Japan (high masculinity). Sec-ond, according to De Mooij (2004), in highpower-distance cultures people want to demon-strate their social position and status in soci-ety through consumption of luxury products;for example, a significant correlation has beenfound between high power distance and regu-lar consumption of Scotch whiskey, aperitifs,and champagne. Third, in their analysis concern-ing Danish, Finnish, and American consumers,Bech-Larsen and Grunert (2003) found positiverelation between Schwartz’s mastery value classand attitudes towards functional and geneticallymodified foods. Our study is among the first intrying to link cultural values to emotional eating.

METHOD

Our empirical study is exploratory in nature.First, we compare how emotional-eating patternsdiffer in three cultures: Finland, France, and Pak-istan. According to Hofstede’s country scores,these cultures are relatively distinct as regardto their value bases (De Mooij, 2004). Conse-quently, our second empirical task is to investi-gate to what extent the detected differences inemotional eating can be understood in terms ofdifferences in cultural values.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267921973_Consumer_Behavior_and_Culture_Consequences_for_Global_Marketing_and_Advertising?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-611fb975-73a9-47d9-80c6-918d180ce9bf&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzQ5NTQ5NTtBUzoxNDIyNzcyMTMxNjc2MTZAMTQxMDkzMjkzOTAzMg==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44819785_Cultures_and_Organizations_The_Software_of_the_Mind?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-611fb975-73a9-47d9-80c6-918d180ce9bf&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzQ5NTQ5NTtBUzoxNDIyNzcyMTMxNjc2MTZAMTQxMDkzMjkzOTAzMg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234021883_Beyond_IndividualismCollectivism_New_Cultural_Dimensions_of_Values?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-611fb975-73a9-47d9-80c6-918d180ce9bf&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzQ5NTQ5NTtBUzoxNDIyNzcyMTMxNjc2MTZAMTQxMDkzMjkzOTAzMg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234021883_Beyond_IndividualismCollectivism_New_Cultural_Dimensions_of_Values?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-611fb975-73a9-47d9-80c6-918d180ce9bf&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzQ5NTQ5NTtBUzoxNDIyNzcyMTMxNjc2MTZAMTQxMDkzMjkzOTAzMg==


Samples

We conducted a survey in three universities,among university students in Finland (Vaasa),France (Montpellier), and Pakistan (Lahore).The number of respondents in Finland was 94; inFrance 68; and Pakistan 77. The use of a studentsample has both strengths and weaknesses. Onthe one hand, a student sample may reflect traitsthat are characteristics of students as a whole,but not that of the general population. This pre-vents generalizations to the larger populations.On the other hand, if differences can be foundeven within a student population, one can be rea-sonably confident that this is likely to be an un-derestimate of the main effect in the population.Thus, there is a higher likelihood that the differ-ences found are due to cultural differences, be-cause young university students are more glob-alized than the population in general. The genderdistribution was as follows: Finland 34 percentmale versus 66 percent female; France 56 per-cent male versus 44 percent female; and Pakistan56 percent male versus 44 percent female. Themeans for age were 23.6. for Finland, 23.5 forFrance, and 22.2 for Pakistan.

Measures

As there are no empirical studies concerningcultural differences in emotional eating, a ques-tionnaire had to be developed for that purpose.Thus, the survey instrument was our own contri-bution, even though some ideas were taken fromLuomala et al. (2004). The final version of thequestionnaire was a result of several iterationsand a test with a small sample. The question-naire was translated from English into Finnishand French by bilingual researchers. In Pakistan,the English version was used, as English is anofficial language there.

The questionnaire began with two generalquestions concerning the frequency of emotionaleating. The response scale allowed for a rangeof 5 responses from “extremely usual” to “ex-tremely unusual” for the question “How usual itis to you that your positive or negative emotionalexperiences affect your eating?,” and from “to-day” to “It was so long ago that I do not recall”for the question “When did you last time react to

your positive or negative emotional experiencesby eating?”

Next, in four consecutive sections, the emo-tions (happiness, gratitude, irritation, shame)and their regulation through eating were tack-led. In each of these sections, questions relatedto three aspects of emotional eating were asked.

� First, it was asked whether the experienceof these emotions resulted in reducing orincreasing the amount of food eaten (Theresponse scale allowed for a range of 5responses from 1 “eat considerably less”to 5 “eat considerably more”).

� The second question involved asking therespondents to select (as many as theywished) emotional eating activities froma list of eight. The activities varied sys-tematically in terms of their sociality (e.g.,indulge yourself with your favorite pizza,kebab, or hamburger vs. dine with yourfriends/closest ones in a restaurant) andluxuriousness (e.g., preparing everydaysnack such as sandwich, fruits, or cere-als for yourself vs. having a delicious treatsuch as freshly baked buns or self-madegourmet food with your friends/closestones at home). So there were two every-day and solitary, two everyday and social,two luxurious and solitary, and two luxuri-ous and social emotional-eating activitiesin the list.

� Thirdly, the questionnaire turned to askingabout cultural values of the respondents.To measure cultural values, we appliedSchwartz’s Value Inventory (Schwartz,1994) because it is a previously validatedtool of high degree of external and conver-gent validity and appropriateness in cross-cultural research (Bond and Smith, 1996).The cultural value measurement (45 items)was conducted by following the proceduresput forth by Watson et al. (2002).

Finally, in the connection of asking certainbackground information, a few questions werepresented to the respondents concerning age,gender, food meanings, perceived weight, andbody image. The statistical software packageSPSS 11.0 was used for analyzing the data.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5300578_Cross-Cultural_Social_and_Organizational_Psychology?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-611fb975-73a9-47d9-80c6-918d180ce9bf&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzQ5NTQ5NTtBUzoxNDIyNzcyMTMxNjc2MTZAMTQxMDkzMjkzOTAzMg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223841292_Cultural_values_and_important_possessions_A_cross-cultural_analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-611fb975-73a9-47d9-80c6-918d180ce9bf&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzQ5NTQ5NTtBUzoxNDIyNzcyMTMxNjc2MTZAMTQxMDkzMjkzOTAzMg==


TABLE 1. Frequency of Emotional Eating in Different Cultures

FIN∗ FRA∗ PAK∗ Significant differences“How usual it is to you that your positive or negative emotional experiences affect your eating?”

From 5 “extremely usual” to 1 “extremely unusual”3.18 (1.203) 3.47 (1.152) 3.57 (1.046) FIN vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.076

“When did you last time react to your positive or negative emotional experiences by eating?”From 5 “today” to 1 “It was so long ago that I do not recall.”

3.05 (1.203) 3.48 (0.975) 2.91 (1.293) FIN vs. FRA ; Sig : 0.079FRA vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.013

Note. ∗Means and standard deviation (in parentheses); highest means in bold characters.

RESULTS

This section describes the differences foundin emotional eating among Finland, France, andPakistan, and it is organized according to thelogic of the questionnaire. The statistical meth-ods employed to produce the findings includedvarious tests of means (Tables 1, 2, and 5) andpercentages (Tables 3, 4, and 6) among the cul-tural groups (e.g., ANOVAs). The use of thesestatistical methods is consistent with the explo-rative nature of the study. For the same reasonwe have adopted the liberal significance level of0.1 in the identification of cultural differences.

Frequency of Emotional Eating

The frequency of emotional eating in differ-ent cultures was measured by using the two items“How usual is it to you that your positive or neg-

ative emotional experiences affect your eating?”and “When did you last time react to your pos-itive or negative emotional experiences by eat-ing?” The results of cross-cultural comparisonsare somewhat mixed (see Table 1). However,the results on the whole seem to indicate that inFrance the phenomenon of emotional eating ismore common than in Finland and Pakistan.

Increasing or Decreasing FoodConsumption as a Responseto Different Emotions

An intriguing issue is how Finnish, French,and Pakistani students differ in terms of in-creasing or decreasing food consumption as aresponse to different emotions. Here, the resultsshow two clear patterns (see Table 2). First,Finnish students react to negative emotionalexperiences (irritation and shame) by increasing

TABLE 2. Eating More or Less as a Response to Emotional Experiences in Different Cultures(<3 indicates an increase in eating, >3 indicates a decrease in eating)

FIN∗ FRA∗ PAK∗ Significant differencesHAPPINESS

4.00 (1.173 ) 3.19 (1.188 ) 3.62 (1.169 ) FIN vs. FRA ; Sig : 0.000FRA vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.085

GRATITUDE4.64 (0.967 ) 4.40 (1.306 ) 3.62 (1.513 ) FIN vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.000

FRA vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.001IRRITATION

3.69 (1.376 ) 2.72 (1.423 ) 2.90 (1.517 ) FIN vs. FRA ; Sig : 0.000FIN vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.001

SHAME3.79 (1.271) 2.85 (1.528 ) 2.56 (1.482) FIN vs. FRA ; Sig : 0.000

FIN vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.000

Note. ∗Means and standard deviation (in parentheses); highest means in bold characters.



TABLE 3. Types of Eating Activities Engaged in as a Response to Happiness and Gratitude inDifferent Cultures

FIN * FRA * PAK * Significant differencesSOLITARY AND EVERYDAY EATING ACTIVITIES

HAPPINESS1) Warm up a convenience meal and then eat it by yourself.

10.4 2.9 0.0 FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 8.966 ; Sig : 0.0032) Prepare everyday snack for yourself (e.g. sandwich, fruits, cereals. . . )

12.5 5.9 12.9GRATITUDE

1) Warm up a convenience meal and then eat it by yourself.12.5 0.0 0.0 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 9.596 ; Sig : 0.001

FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 11.015 ; Sig : 0.0012) Prepare everyday snack for yourself (e.g. sandwich, fruits, cereals. . . )

9.5 20.6 5.1 FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 8.385 ; Sig : 0.004SOCIAL AND EVERYDAY EATING ACTIVITIES

HAPPINESS1) Go for a cup of coffee or tea with your friends/closest ones.

31.3 52.9 53.8 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 8.076 ; Sig : 0.005FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 9.446 ; Sig : 0.002

2) Have a lunch with your friends/closest ones in a student cafeteria or a lunchroom.27.1 7.4 15.3 FIN vs . FRA ; F-value 10.641 ; Sig : 0.001

GRATITUDE1) Go for a cup of coffee or tea with your friends/closest ones.

33.3 23.5 46.2 FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 8.469 ; Sig : 0.0042) Have a lunch with your friends/closest ones in a student cafeteria or a lunchroom.

19.8 7.6 12.8 FIN vs . FRA ; F-value 5.021 ; Sig : 0.026SOLITARY AND LUXURIOUS EATING ACTIVITIES

HAPPINESS1) Go and buy ice cream, candy, chocolate etc. for yourself.

27.1 35.3 34.62) Indulge yourself with your favorite pizza, kebab, or hamburger.

25.0 8.8 19.2 FIN vs . FRA ; F-value 7.189 ; Sig : 0.008GRATITUDE

1) Go and buy ice cream, candy, chocolate etc. for yourself.13.5 1.5 3.8 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 7.545 ; Sig : 0.007

FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 4.926 ; Sig : 0.0282) Indulge yourself with your favorite pizza, kebab, or hamburger.

10.5 0.0 1.3 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 7.902 ; Sig : 0.006FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 6.300 ; Sig : 0.013

SOCIAL AND LUXURIOUS EATING ACTIVITIESHAPPINESS

1) Dine with your friends/closest ones in a restaurant.34.4 44.1 30.8 FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 2.792 ; Sig : 0.097

2) Have a delicious treat with your friends/closest ones at home (e.g. freshly baked buns, self-made gourmet food).20.8 51.5 35.9 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 18.443 ; Sig : 0.000

FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 4.972 ; Sig : 0.027FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 3.632 ; Sig : 0.059

GRATITUDE1) Dine with your friends/closest ones in a restaurant.

28.1 19.1 10.3 FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 8.889 ; Sig : 0.0032) Have a delicious treat with your friends/closest ones at home (e.g. freshly baked buns, self-made gourmet food).

14.7 30.9 14.1 FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 6.288 ; Sig : 0.013FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 6.147 ; Sig : 0.014

Note. *Percentages of respondents who selected the activity from the list; highest percentages in bold characters



TABLE 4. Types of Eating Activities Engaged in as a Response to Irritation and Shame inDifferent Cultures

FIN * FRA * PAK * Significant differencesSOLITARY AND EVERYDAY EATING ACTIVITIES

IRRITATION1) Warm up a convenience meal and then eat it by yourself.

26.6 30.9 10.3 FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 7.842 ; Sig : 0.006FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 10.259 ; Sig : 0.002

2) Prepare everyday snack for yourself (e.g. sandwich, fruits, cereals. . . )14.9 36.8 16.7 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 10.893 ; Sig : 0.001

FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 7.931 ; Sig : 0.006SHAME

1) Warm up a convenience meal and then eat it by yourself.23.4 26.5 12.8 FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 3.175 ; Sig : 0.077

FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 4.440 ; Sig : 0.0372) Prepare everyday snack for yourself (e.g. sandwich, fruits, cereals. . . )

20.2 33.8 12.8 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 3.850 ; Sig : 0.051FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 9.640 ; Sig : 0.002

SOCIAL AND EVERYDAY EATING ACTIVITIESIRRITATION

1) Go for a cup of coffee or tea with your friends/closest ones.23.4 7.4 25.6 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 5.518 ; Sig : 0.020

FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 6.622 ; Sig : 0.0032) Have a lunch with your friends/closest ones in a student cafeteria or a lunchroom.

8.5 0.0 7.7 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 6.247 ; Sig : 0.013FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 5.589 ; Sig : 0.019

SHAME1) Go for a cup of coffee or tea with your friends/closest ones.


2) Have a lunch with your friends/closest ones in a student cafeteria or a lunchroom.8.5 0.0 10.3 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 6.247 ; Sig : 0.013

FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 7.665 ; Sig : 0.006SOLITARY AND LUXURIOUS EATING ACTIVITIES

IRRITATION1) Go and buy ice cream, candy, chocolate etc. for yourself.

22.3 11.9 39.7 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 3.157; Sig : 0.078FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 5.155 ; Sig : 0.024FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 15.488 ; Sig : 0.000

2) Indulge yourself with your favorite pizza, kebab, or hamburger.11.7 2.9 12.8 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 4.158 ; Sig : 0.043


1) Go and buy ice cream, candy, chocolate etc. for yourself.19.1 8.8 25.6 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 3.361 ; Sig : 0.069

FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 7.273 ; Sig : 0.0082) Indulge yourself with your favorite pizza, kebab, or hamburger.


SOCIAL AND LUXURIOUS EATING ACTIVITIESIRRITATION

1) Dine with your friends/closest ones in a restaurant.9.6 1.5 1.3 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 4.544 ; Sig : 0.035

FIN vs. PAK ; F-value 5.461 ; Sig : 0.0212) Have a delicious treat with your friends/closest ones at home (e.g. freshly baked buns, self-made gourmet food).8.5 0.0 6.4 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 6.247 ; Sig : 0.013


1) Dine with your friends/closest ones in a restaurant.4.3 0.0 1.3 FIN vs. FRA ; F-value 2.941 ; Sig : 0.088

2) Have a delicious treat with your friends/closest ones at home (e.g. freshly baked buns, self-made gourmet food).4.3 1.5 9.0 FRA vs. PAK ; F-value 4.004 ; Sig : 0.047

Note. *Percentages of respondents who selected the activity from the list; highest percentages in bold characters



TABLE 5. Cultural Differences Between Finland, France and Pakistan in Terms of Schwartz’sValue Casses

FIN * FRA * PAK * Significant differenceHIERARCHY (wealth, authority, humble, influential, social power)

15.66 (5.929) 15.18 (6.868) 22.95 (6.411) FIN vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.000FRA vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.000

CONSERVATISM (devout, family security, preserving public image, clean, honoring parents and elders, obedient,forgiving, national security, politeness, wisdom, reciprocation of favors, self-discipline, moderate, respect traditions)

63.94 (11.211) 60.52 (17.719) 75.42(16.006)

FIN vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.000FRA vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.000

MASTERY (successful, choosing own goals, capable, independent, ambitious, daring).29.24 (5.240) 27.15 (6.691) 31.14 (6.172) FIN vs. FRA ; Sig : 0.022

FIN vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.031FRA vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.000

EQUALITARIAN COMMITMENT (freedom, helpful, responsible, loyal, accepting my position in life, honest,a world at peace, social justice, equality).

45.56 (6.607) 46.22 (9.230) 46.68 (9.469)INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY (creativity, curious, broadminded)

14.83 (3.533) 15.04 (3.244) 14.91 (3.592)AFFECTIVE AUTONOMY (pleasure, enjoying life, an exciting life, a varied life).

20.44 (3.704) 18.53 (5.073) 19.62 (4.957) FIN vs. FRA ; Sig : 0.005HARMONY (a world of beauty, unity with nature, protecting the environment)

11.70 (4.217) 12.27 (4.787) 14.72 (4.375) FIN vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.000FRA vs. PAK ; Sig : 0.001

Note. * Means and standard deviation (in parentheses); highest means in bold characters

food consumption to a much greater extentthan French and Pakistani students do. In otherwords, negative emotional experiences causefood indulgence in Finnish students, while theycause food abstinence in French and Pakistanistudents. The second aspect is more specific. Asregards the emotional experience of gratitude,students representing Western culture (Finnishand French) appear to increase their foodconsumption in comparison to the Pakistanistudents.

Emotional-Eating Patterns AssociatedWith Positive Emotions

Table 3 offers information concerning whatkind of emotional-eating patterns are associatedwith happiness and gratitude in different cul-tures. Considering the results related to positiveemotional experiences as a whole reveals thatthey are associated more often with luxuriousthan with everyday eating activities, and no no-ticeable difference was found between the ego-focused (happiness) and other-focused (grati-tude) emotions. However, different profiles canbe noticed.

The results indicate that when happy, Frenchstudents engage in social and luxurious eatingactivities to a greater extent than Finnish or Pak-istani students do. They appreciate above all to“have a delicious treat with their friends or theirclosest ones at home.” When happy or grateful,Pakistani students prefer a social and everydayeating activity: to “go for a cup of coffee ortea with their friends/closest ones.” On the con-trary, Finnish students engage in solitary eating

TABLE 6. Focal Food Meanings in DifferentCultures

FIN∗ FRA∗ PAK∗ Significant differencesPERSONAL PLEASURE

37.6 46.3 21.3 FIN vs. PAK, Z-value 1.672 Sig : 0.05FRA vs. PAK, Z-value : 2.311 Sig : 0.025

MEANS TO SHARE NICE MOMENTS WITH OTHERS25.8 40.3 34.7 FIN vs. FRA, Z-value 1.377 Sig : 0.1

NECESSITY TO LIVE34.4 11.9 38.7 FIN vs. FRA, Z-value 2.533 Sig : 0.01

FRA vs. PAK, Z-value 2.797 Sig : 0.005NOTHING INTERESTING

2.2 1.5 5.3

Note. *Percentages of respondents indicating what food meanings arefocal for them; highest percentages in bold characters.



activities: everyday activities (“warm up witha convenience meal”) or luxurious eating ac-tivities (“indulge themselves with their favoritepizza, kebab, or hamburger”) to a much greaterextent than either French or Pakistani studentsdo.

Emotional-Eating Patterns AssociatedWith Negative Emotions

As regards to negative emotions (irritation andshame), the observed differences include the fol-lowing (see Table 4). Strong differences appearamong the three samples.

First, when irritated or ashamed, French stu-dents engage in solitary and everyday eatingactivities to a greater extent than Finnish andPakistani students do. Table 4 shows also quitelogically that Finnish and Pakistani students en-gage in social and everyday eating activities to agreater degree than French students, who clearlyreject social eating activities.

Second, when irritated or ashamed, Finnishand especially Pakistani students engage in soli-tary and luxurious eating activities to a greaterextent than French students, who reject luxuriouseating. Finally, Finnish students also engage insocial and luxurious eating activities to a greaterextent than French students, and to a lesser ex-tent than Pakistani students do. This strengthensthe previous implication that the French do notexercise food gourmandizing when they are in abad mood.

Another interesting difference betweenFrench and Pakistani students was detected con-cerning the relationship between the emotionalexperience of irritation or shame and type of eat-ing activities pursued. French students engagein solitary and everyday eating activities whilePakistani students engage in social and everydayeating activities on the one hand (“go for a cupof coffee or tea with their friends/closest ones”),and solitary and luxurious eating activities onthe other hand.

Generally, it seems that the French react tonegative emotions by solitary and everyday eat-ing, while the Finns react, especially to irritation,by social and luxurious eating. The Pakistani re-act to negative emotional experiences by contra-dictory tendencies, as already stated.

Differences in Cultural Values andMeanings of Food

Next, a logical question to be asked is towhat extent observed differences in emotionaleating can be understood in terms of differencesin cultural values. Table 5 shows the results ofthe statistical tests concerning the cultural dif-ferences among Finland, France, and Pakistanin terms of Schwartz’s value classes. The fol-lowing notions can be highlighted. First, Pak-istani students seem to possess more hierarchi-cal, conservative, and harmony-oriented valuesthan Finnish and French students do. Second,perhaps surprisingly, Finnish students possessmore hedonistic values (affective autonomy)than French students do. Finally, Pakistani stu-dents possess more mastery-oriented values thanFinnish and French students do, while Finnishstudents are more mastery-oriented than Frenchstudents.

We analyzed food meanings by asking therespondents which one of the following foodmeanings was focal to them: a personal plea-sure, means to share nice moments with oth-ers, a necessity to live, and nothing interesting.There were notable differences in food meaningsacross Finland, France, and Pakistan (see Table6). For the Pakistani respondents, food was apersonal pleasure to a much lesser extent thanfor the French and Finnish respondents. Sec-ondly, sharing nice moments with others as afood meaning was more focal to the French thanto the Finns. The special position of food in thehearts of the French receives additional supportfrom the notion that in comparison to the Finnishand Pakistani respondents, food was much morerarely just a necessity to live for them.

DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN RESULTS

The results of our study indicate that happi-ness, gratitude, irritation, and shame are relatedto eating behaviors in different ways in Finland,France, and Pakistan. Trying to give interpreta-tions that are based on variations in cultural val-ues for the observed differences is challenging.In the case of Finland, the results suggest thatFinns react to negative emotional experiences by



excessive, indulgent, and luxurious food treats.A straightforward kind of cultural explanationwould be that it is because Finns (at leaststudents) possess the most hedonistic values incomparison to France and Pakistan.

Negative emotional experiences are also moreclosely related to eating than positive emotionalexperiences in Pakistan. Interestingly, Pakista-nis show two contradictory ways of reacting toirritation and shame by their eating activities,and this could be understood through a culturalexplanation. Some Pakistani students reacted tonegative emotional experiences by social and ev-eryday eating activities. It is conceivable that thisgroup has adopted the dominating “old” Pak-istani value base that highlights self-discipline,moderation, and respecting the norms. In con-trast, the other Pakistani students engaging insolitary and luxurious eating activities as a re-sponse to negative emotions may have adoptedthe more Westernized and hedonistic value base.This would not be too unexpected from univer-sity students that are likely to be more liberal andopen than the Pakistani population in general.

The facts that in France positive emotionalexperiences relate to social and luxurious eat-ing and that negative emotional experiences areassociated with solitary and everyday eating can-not be, at least very comfortably, accounted foras a cultural value explanation. It appears thata more apposite explanation for these Frenchresults lies in the long-established French foodculture. Because French food culture has beencharacterized by a combination of culinary he-donism, being together, and socializing, socialand luxurious eating has become strongly asso-ciated with positive emotional experiences thatthe abovementioned combination usually en-compasses. That could also be why negativeemotional experiences in France are related tothe opposite kind of eating activities: solitaryand everyday.

According to our empirical results, the roleculture plays in emotional eating activities is dif-ficult to establish, even though we were able todiscover several differences in emotional-eatingpatterns among Finland, France, and Pakistan.We postulate that meanings consumers attachto food and eating have a stronger influence onemotional-eating patterns than culture. The in-

terrelation between culture and food meaningsrequires more theoretical attention. Past studieshave shown that culture or cultural values affectwhat kind of meanings consumers attach to theirfavorite possessions (Watson et al., 2002), ma-terialism (Ger and Belk, 1999), and gift giving(Park, 1998).

Disregarding cultural values, the food-meaning data resonate well with some of thefindings. To illustrate, Finnish students and somePakistani students who considered eating as a ne-cessity to live to a greater extent than French stu-dents reacted to negative emotional experiencesby personal indulgent food treats. These foodtreats might be construed as painkillers takento restore one’s composure and normal level offunctioning (cf. Luomala, 2002), bringing eat-ing and food quite literally close to “necessityto live.” In contrast, French students, who, un-like Finnish students, consider food as means toshare nice moments with others and not as a ne-cessity to live, relate delicious food to positiveemotional experiences and socializing.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS:TOWARD A CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK MODEL

Taken together, the conceptual preunder-standing and empirical insights stimulated anintellectual attempt to develop a general frame-work model for analyzing emotional eating indifferent cultures (see Figure 2). According toour empirical results, the role culture plays inemotional eating activities is difficult to estab-lish. That is why we have indicated the mod-erating influence of culture on emotional-eatingpatterns with the dashed line in Figure 2. Wepostulated that meanings consumers attach tofood and eating have a stronger influence onemotional-eating patterns than culture. Still, cul-ture can logically be related to food meanings(Askegaard and Madsen, 1998). Thus, the sig-nificance of culture is probably more subtle andindirect in emotional eating and realizes throughmeanings consumers attach to food.

Emotional-eating activities can be successfulin their function; that is, through them consumers



FIGURE 2. A General Framework Model for Analyzing Emotional Eating in Different Cultures

Universe ofemotions

Culture Culture

Emotionaleating

patterns

Foodmeanings

Foodmeanings

Success/failure in emotional foodconsumption

Learningsignifications

are able to maintain and extend positive emo-tional experiences and mitigate negative emo-tional experiences. Still, for some reasons theymay also fail in their main functions (Luomalaand Laaksonen, 1999). Either a succeeding ora failing emotional-eating activity can be pre-sumed to have an immediate effect on the con-sumer’s current emotional state.

Consumer research has shown that good con-sumption feelings result in heightened satisfac-tion and bad consumption feelings are likely tolead to dissatisfaction (Westbrook and Oliver,1991). We propose that the resulting satisfac-tion or dissatisfaction from emotional-eating ac-tivities can in consumers’ minds be attachedto several sources: the product/brand, the food-

shopping process, the ingredients, the recipe, thecooking method, the aesthetics of eating envi-ronment, or the social interaction involved. Theversatility of the sources of satisfaction/ dissat-isfaction in emotional eating explains the greatvariation in individuals’ favorite food-relatedreward and therapy behaviors. We surmisethat the number and content of these habit-ual food-related reward and therapy behaviorsare dynamically shaped on the basis of satis-faction/dissatisfaction derived from emotional-eating activities (cf. Luomala, 2002, p. 833).

In our framework model, we have borrowedthe concept of learning of “significations” fromsemiotics to make the point that consumers,through their satisfaction and dissatisfaction



experiences with different patterns of emotionaleating, construct systems of beliefs and attitudes,or mental models that may lie outside consciousawareness, that are related to food and eatingin general (cf. Christensen and Olson, 2002).Learning these significations acts as a basis forfood consumers’ interpretive functions such asproblem solving, event appraisals, planning,goal setting, and behavioral routines. Thus,we claim that outcomes from emotional-eatingactivities are both direct (affecting the existingemotional state of the consumer) and indirect(affecting the meanings consumers attach tofood and different aspects of eating).

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS,LIMITATIONS, AND LINES FOR

FUTURE RESEARCH

Our study results also carry a few implica-tions for marketers and health promoters. Cur-rently the product positioning and communica-tion of food marketers is often based either onconsumption situation (e.g., snacking productsand portions for single-person consumption) oremotional benefits (e.g., Nestle’s Web site pro-moting the idea that chocolate is useful in gen-erating a good mood). Rarely, however, do foodmarketers use both to create a compelling sellingproposition. To illustrate, in France 2007, Nes-tle’s Ricore advertisement showed a man whodid not want to wake up (negative emotion) inthe morning (situation) but eventually succeeds,thanks to Ricore. Since in France negative emo-tions are associated with solitary food consump-tion, this choice is consistent. In Finland, it mightbe more appropriate to show therapy food prod-ucts in a more social context.

Secondly, the results imply that differenttypes of foods are used for the purpose of emo-tion management in different cultures and thatemotional meanings associated with food andeating are culture specific (Cervellon and Dube,2002). The results from the study by Butler, Lee,and Gross (2007) provide some support for theculture specificity of emotion management. Thishas significant practical implications for globalmarketers of therapy and reward foods. It sig-

nals the need to understand the culture-specificmeaning dynamics involved in emotional eat-ing. This enables food marketers to tailor theirproduct and communication strategies to maxi-mize the socioemotional benefits for consumersof therapy and reward foods in different cultures.

Our study results offer promising insightsfor public health promotion too. For example,since in France positive emotions are associ-ated with social-eating patterns, healthy prod-ucts should be linked to these situations. That iswhat was done in 2006 in the French nationalcampaign promoting fruits and vegetables. Inthis campaign fruits and vegetables were associ-ated with festive social contexts. A supplemen-tary health-promotion campaign might suggestforms of negative emotion regulation that are notrelated to eating (e.g., physical exercise in var-ious forms, social interaction, consumption ofexperiences) or are related to eating healthy butstill generally pleasurable foods (dark chocolate,coffee, dehydrated fruits and berries, sushi). Theunderlying idea here is to increase consumers’sensitivity to their emotional experiences andtheir typical ways of coping with these experi-ences. Without this sensitivity it is not realistic toexpect that there will be changes in consumers’(bad) emotion-regulatory habits.

Our results must be interpreted with threelimitations in mind. First, as already stated, thestudy was conducted on the basis of reported be-haviors with a convenience sample of students,which prevents generalizations to the largerpopulations. Moreover, the gender distributionwas the same in France and Pakistan, butdifferent in Finland (however, results fromfemale and male students were not significantlydifferent). Second, our study only focuses onfour emotions. It is conceivable that many otheremotions and their self-regulation (see, e.g.,Shaver et al., 1987) are linked to eating patternsas well. Third, emotional-eating patterns needmore conceptual elaboration in future studies.For example, recognizing different phasesin the food-consumption process (choosing,preparing, eating) might prove fruitful forunderstanding emotional eating more broadly.In addition to the solitary–social and everyday–luxurious dichotomies, other oppositions suchas healthy–indulgent, formal–informal, and



convenient–laborious (Luomala, Laaksonen,and Leipamaa, 2004b; Hirschman et al., 2004)could be used to frame emotional-eatingbehaviors.

The most natural lines of future research in-clude the following three. First, the various the-oretical conjectures presented in the connectionof developing the framework model should beformalized into research hypotheses and tested.Second, emotional-eating activities should beempirically compared across a larger number ofcultures and using more diverse and represen-tative samples. Third, research pursuing moreclearly the emic approach to studying cultures(in-depth culture-specific investigations) (Sun,Horn, and Merritt, 2004) should also be con-ducted to produce a profound understanding ofsubtleties of emotional-eating activities throughqualitative methodologies.

REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L. and Williams, P. 1998. Empathy versus pride:The influence of emotional appeals across cultures.Journal of Consumer Research 25:241–261.

Arnow, B., Kenardy, J., and Agras, W. S. 1995. The emo-tional eating scale: The development of a measure toassess coping with negative affect by eating. Interna-tional Journal of Eating Disorders 18:79–90.

Askegaard, S. and Madsen, T. K. 1998. The local and theglobal: Exploring traits of homogeneity and heterogene-ity in European food cultures. International BusinessReview 7:549–568.

Bech-Larsen, T. and Grunert, K. G. 2003. The perceivedhealthiness of functional foods: A conjoint study ofDanish, Finnish, and American consumers’ perceptionof functional foods. Appetite 40:9–14.

Bond, M. H. and Smith, P. B. 1996. Cross-cultural socialand organizational psychology. Annual Review of Psy-chology 47:205–235.

Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., and Gross, J. J. 2007. Emotionregulation and culture: Are the social consequencesof emotion suppression culture-specific. Emotion 7:30–48.

Cervellon, M.-C., and Dube, L. 2002. Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of affective and cognitive compo-nents of attitude. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology33:346–357.

Christensen, G. L. and Olson, J. C. 2002. Mapping con-sumers’ mental models with ZMET. Psychology andMarketing 19:477–502

De Mooij, M. 2004. Consumer behavior and culture: Con-sequences for global marketing and advertising. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Geliebter, A. and Aversa, A. 2003. Emotional eating inoverweight, normal weight, and underweight individu-als. Eating Behaviors 3:341–347.

Ger, G. and Belk, R. W. 1999. Accounting for materialismin four cultures. Journal of Material Culture 4:183–204.

Grunert, K. G. 1997. What’s in the steak? A cross-culturalstudy on the quality perception of beef. Food Qualityand Preference 8:157–174.

Hirschman, E. C., Carscadden, N., Fleischauer, L., Hasak,M., and Mitchell, M. 2004. Exploring the architectureof contemporary American foodways. In Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 31, ed. B. E. Kahn, and M. F.Luce, 548–553. Provo, UT: Association for ConsumerResearch.

Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Softwareof the mind. New York: McGraw Hill.

Kenardy, J., Butler, A., Carter, C., and Moor, S. 2003. Eat-ing, mood, and gender in a noneating disorder popula-tion. Eating Behaviors 4:149–158.

Luomala, H. T. 2002. An empirical analysis of the practicesand therapeutic power of mood-alleviative consumptionin Finland. Psychology and Marketing 19:813–836.

Luomala, H. T. and Laaksonen, M. 1999. A qualitative ex-ploration of mood-regulatory self-gift behaviors. Jour-nal of Economic Psychology 20:147–182.

Luomala, H. T., Kumar, R., Worm, V., and Singh, J. D. 2004.Cross-cultural differences in mood-regulation: An em-pirical comparison of individualistic and collectivisticcultures. Journal of International Consumer Marketing16:39–62.

Luomala, H. T., Laaksonen, P., and Leipamaa, H. 2004.How do consumers solve value conflicts in foodchoices? An empirical description and points for theory-building. In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31,ed. B. E. Kahn, and M. F. Luce, 564–570. Provo, UT:Association for Consumer Research.

Macht, M. and Simons, G. 2000. Emotions and eating ineveryday life. Appetite 35:65–71.

Macht, M., Roth, S., and Ellgring, H. 2002. Chocolate eat-ing in healthy men during experimentally induced sad-ness and joy. Appetite 39:147–158.

Markus, H. R. and Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and theself: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motiva-tion. Psychological Review 98:224–253.

Mennell, S., Murcott, A., and van Otterloo, A. 1992. Thesociology of food, eating, diet and culture. London:Sage Publications.

Park, S.-Y. 1998. A comparison of Korean and Ameri-can gift-giving behaviors. Psychology and Marketing15:577–593.

Patel, K. A. and Schlundt, D. G. 2001. Impact of moodsand social context on eating behavior. Appetite 36:111–118.



Prescott, J., Young, O., O’Neill, L., Yau, N. J. N., andStevens, R. 2002. Motives for food choice: A compar-ison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, andNew Zealand. Food Quality and Preference 13:489–495.

Reid, M., Li, E., Bruwer, J., and Grunert, K. G. 2001.Food-related lifestyles in a cross-cultural context: Com-paring Australia with Singapore, Britain, France, andDenmark. Journal of Food Products Marketing 7:57–75.

Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A., and Wrzes-niewski, A. 1999. Attitudes to food and the role offood in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium, andFrance: Possible implications for the diet-health debate.Appetite 33:163–180.

Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism:New cultural dimensions of values. In Individualismand Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications,ed. U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C.Choi, and G. Yoon, 85–119. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Shaver, P., Schwarz, J., Kirson, D., and O’Connor, C. 1987.Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype

approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology52:1061–1086.

Sun, T., Horn, M., and Merritt, D. 2004. Values andlifestyles of individualists and collectivists: A study onChinese, Japanese, British. and U.S. consumers. Jour-nal of Consumer Marketing 21:318–331.

Tan, J. A. C., Hartel, C. E. J., Panipucci, D., and Stry-bosch, V. E. 2005. The effect of emotions in cross-cultural expatriate experiences. Cross-Cultural Man-agement 12:4–15.

Watson, J., Lysonski, S., Gillan, T., and Raymore, L. 2002.Cultural values and important possessions: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Business Research 55:923–931.

Westbrook, R. A. and Oliver, R. L. 1991. The dimen-sionality of consumption emotion patterns and con-sumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research 18:84–91.

RECEIVED: July 2007REVISED: January 2008ACCEPTED: May 2008


Documents

Exploring Emotional-Eating Patterns in Different Cultures: Toward a Conceptual Framework Model