There is, however, some evidence that mothers and children are not always in line with
each other. For example, Wardle (1995) reported that mothers rated health as more
important for their children than for themselves. Alderson and Ogden (1999) similarly
reported that whereas mothers were more motivated by calories, cost, time and avail-
ability for themselves they rated nutrition and long-term health as more important for
their children. In addition, mothers may also differentiate between themselves and their
children in their choices of food. For example, Alderson and Ogden (1999) indicated that
mothers fed their children more of the less healthy dairy products, breads, cereals and
potatoes and fewer of the healthy equivalents to these foods than they ate themselves.
Furthermore, this differentiation was greater in dieting mothers suggesting that mothers
who restrain their own food intake may feed their children more of the foods that they are
denying themselves. A relationship between maternal dieting and eating behaviour is
also supported by a study of 197 families with pre-pubescent girls by Birch and Fisher
(2000). This study concluded that the best predictors of the daughter’s eating behaviour
were the mother’s level of dietary restraint and the mother’s perceptions of the risk of her
daughter becoming overweight. In sum, parental behaviours and attitudes may influence
those of their children through the mechanisms of social learning. This association,
however, may not always be straightforward with parents differentiating between them-
selves and their children both in terms of food related motivations and eating behaviour.
The role of social learning is also shown by the impact of television and food
advertising. For example, after Eyton’s ‘The F plan diet’ was launched by the media in
1982 which recommended a high fibre diet, sales of bran-based cereals rose by 30 per
cent, wholewheat bread rose by 10 per cent, wholewheat pasta rose by 70 per cent and
baked beans rose by 8 per cent. Similarly, in December 1988 Edwina Curry, the then
junior health minister in the UK said on television ‘most of the egg production in this
country, sadly is now infected with salmonella’ (ITN, 1988). Egg sales then fell by 50 per
cent and by 1989 were still only at 75 per cent of their previous levels (Mintel 1990).
Similarly massive publicity about the health risks of beef in the UK between May and
August 1990 resulted in a 20 per cent reduction in beef sales. One study examined the
public’s reactions to media coverage of ‘food scares’ such as salmonella, listeria and BSE
and compared it to their reactions to coverage of the impact of food on coronary heart
disease. The study used interviews, focus groups and an analysis of the content and style
of media presentations (MacIntyre et al. 1998). The authors concluded that the media
has a major impact upon what people eat and how they think about foods. They also
argued that the media can set the agenda for public discussion. The authors stated,
however, that the public do not just passively respond to the media ‘but that they exercise
judgement and discretion in how much they incorporate media messages about health
and safety into their diets’ (MacIntyre 1998: 249). Further they argued that eating
behaviours are limited by personal circumstances such as age, gender, income and family
structure and that people actively negotiate their understanding of food within both
the micro context (such as their immediate social networks) and the macro social con-
texts (such as the food production and information production systems). The media is
therefore an important source for social learning. This study suggests, however, the
individuals learn from the media by placing the information being provided within the
broader context of their lives.140 HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY