Sex and income level can be determinants for meat attachment behavior among Turkish university students

Background: The Meat Attachment Questionnaire (MAQ) is a scale to measure the positive bond in meat consumption.

Aims: This study aimed to validate and assess reliability of the Turkish version of the MAQ and to explore its relationship with various factors, including sociodemographic characteristics, meat consumption habits, and subscales of the Green Eating Survey (GES).

Subjects and Methods: The study was carried out with 214 university students. Participants completed the MAQ, the Food Frequency Questionnaire, and the GES. Statistical analyses including item analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient test - retest reliability, one-way ANOVA, Welch ANOVA, t-test, Pearson’s correlation, and post hoc tests (Tukey’s HSD and Games-Howell), were performed using SPSS (version 26). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with the lavaan (version 0.6 – 13) and semPlot (version 1.1.6) R packages.

Results: All factor loadings were statistically significant, and high fit indices were obtained for the model tested in the second-order CFA model. (χ2/df = 151,93/101 = 1.50; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.08; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.97). Significant differences were found in several MAQ subscale scores: hedonism, entitlement, dependence, and global scores were higher among men (p < 0.05). The entitlement score was significantly higher in the “income < expenses “group compared to the “income = expenses “group (p < 0.05). Participants with higher red meat and poultry consumption exhibited significantly higher hedonism, dependence, and global MAQ scores (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: The Turkish version of the MAQ can be accepted as a reliable and valid scale for use among university students. While factors such as sex, income level, and meat consumption appear to influence MAQ scores, body mass index and green eating behaviors do not have a direct effect.

Keywords

Green eating meat reliability sustainability validity
  • İstanbul Health and Technology University, Faculty of Health Science, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics. İstanbul. İstanbul Health and Technology University, Institute of Graduate Education, İstanbul
  • Ayhan Parmaksiz
    İstanbul Health and Technology University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Bioistatistics. İstanbul
  • İstanbul Health and Technology University, Faculty of Health Science, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics. Sütlüce, Imrahor Cd. No: 82, 34275 Beyoğlu İstanbul

How to Cite

Sex and income level can be determinants for meat attachment behavior among Turkish university students. (2024). The North African Journal of Food and Nutrition Research, 8(18), 217-228. https://doi.org/10.51745/najfnr.8.18.217-228

Akyüz, H. E. (2018). Yapı Geçerliliği İçin Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi: Uygulamalı Bir Çalışma. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.414490

Austgulen, M. H., Skuland, S. E., Schjøll, A., & Alfnes, F. (2018). Consumer readiness to reduce meat consumption for the purpose of environmental sustainability: Insights from Norway. Sustainability, 10(9), 3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093058

Austgulen, M. H. (2014). Environmentally sustainable meat consumption: An analysis of the Norwegian public debate. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-013-9246-9

Bakır, B. O., Cebioğlu, İ. K., Günalan, E., & Bilgin, G. D. (2021). The association of fat preference with eating behavior and sex: Turkish version of the Fat Preference Questionnaire©. Food Science & Nutrition, 9(5), 2754–2761. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2237

Battaglia-Richi, E., Baumer, B., Conrad, B., Darioli, R., Schmid, A., & Keller, U. (2015). Health Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies. International journal for vitamin and nutrition research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Vitamin- und Ernahrungsforschung. Journal International de Vitaminologie et de Nutrition, 85(1-2), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1024/0300-9831/a000224

Biesalski, H. K. (2005). Meat as a component of a healthy diet-are there any risks or benefits if meat is avoided in the diet? Meat Science, 70(3), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.07.017

Boada, L. D., Henríquez-Hernández, L. A., & Luzardo, O. P. (2016). The impact of red and processed meat consumption on cancer and other health outcomes: Epidemiological evidences. Food and Chemical Toxicology: An international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 92, 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.04.008

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lonner & J. Berry (Eds.), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research (pp. 137–164). Sage.

Cambaz, M. (2021). Çevreye Duyarlı Beslenme Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirliği, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

Clonan, A., Wilson, P., Swift, J. A., Leibovici, D. G., & Holdsworth, M. (2015). Red and processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviours and attitudes: impacts for human health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Public Health Nutrition, 18(13), 2446–2456. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980015000567

Similar Articles

1-10 of 36

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Downloads 195

-

Views 620

-

Country (Top 10)