It’s not queasy being green : the role of disgust in willingness-to-pay for more sustainable product alternatives

Scholars differ in the extent to which they regard the “yuck factor” as an important predictor of sustainable consumption decisions. In the present decision experiment we tested whether people’s disgust traits predicted relative willingness-to-pay (WTP) for sustainable product alternatives, including atypically-shaped fruit and vegetables; insect-based food products; and medicines/drinks with reclaimed ingredients from sewage. In a community sample of 510 participants (255 women), using path analyses we examined the extent to which effects of disgust traits on WTP were mediated by cognitive appraisals of perceived taste, health risk, naturalness, visual appeal, and nutritional/medicinal value. Further, we assessed whether these effects were moderated by the tendency to regulate disgust using reappraisal and suppression techniques. Across all product categories, when controlling for important covariates such as pro-environmental attitudes, we found a significant negative effect of trait disgust propensity on WTP. In total, a 1 SD increase in participants’ disgust propensity scores predicted between 6% and 11% decrease in WTP. Appraisals of perceived naturalness, taste, health risk, and visual appeal significantly mediated these effects, differing in importance across the product categories, and explaining approximately half of the total effect of disgust propensity on WTP. Little-to-no support was found for moderation of effects by trait reappraisal or suppression. Individual differences in disgust are likely to be a barrier for certain viable sustainable alternatives to prototypical products. Marketing interventions targeting consumer appraisals, including in particular the perceived naturalness and taste, of these kinds of products may be effective

Emotions, delay, and avoidance in cancer screening:Roles for fear, embarrassment and disgust

Delay and avoidance are massive problems in cancer screening. While work continues to examine demographic and cognitive factors, emotions are central and likely causally implicated. In this chapter, a discrete emotions view of the origins of cancer screening is presented. After characterizing emotions, focus rests on evaluating the evidence regarding how and why three avoidance-promoting emotions (fear, embarrassment, and disgust) are implicated. The chapter describes the symptoms and medical examinations that elicit these emotions and suggests that people fail to screen for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers because screenings elicit (or are anticipated to elicit) these feelings. It concludes by assessing some of the measurement, design, and interpretative challenges in the area, considers the sexual nature of many screens, and discusses the fact that screenings may elicit multiple emotional responses.<br/

Emotional suppression and well-being in immigrants and majority group members in the Netherlands

We were interested in interethnic differences in emotional suppression. We propose a model in which suppression of specific emotional experiences (suppressive behaviours during interactions with others) mediates the relationship between emotional suppression tendency (intention to suppress emotions) and well-being, operationalised as mood disturbance, life dissatisfaction and depressive and physical symptoms. The sample consisted of 427 majority group members and 344 non-Western and 465 Western immigrants in the Netherlands. Non-Western immigrants scored higher on emotional suppression tendency and lower on well-being than the other groups. We did not find interethnic differences in suppression of specific emotional experiences. The full mediation model was supported in all groups. Interethnic differences in well-being could not be accounted for by differences in emotional suppression

Fear and loathing in the Caribbean: three studies of fear and cancer screening in Brooklyn's immigrant Caribbean subpopulations

Background: Anxiety, worry, and fear are among the most common emotional responses to the threat of disease and several studies have linked various fears to cancer preventive and detection behaviors. Cancer-related worry and fears about screening or its consequences are also characteristics that vary across ethnic groups and may be differentially linked to screening outcomes 1. Limiting the utility of this growing literature are at least two key considerations. First, little attention has been paid to documenting variation in cancer-related fears among subpopulations of persons of African descent, despite evidence that (a) rates of screening may vary among both male 2 and female 3 immigrants from islands in the Caribbean living in the United States and (b) incidence rates for cancers such as those of the prostate may be very high in men from Jamaica 4, Guadaloupe 5 and Trinidad and Tobago 6, as well as in immigrant groups in both the United Kingdom 7 and United States 8. Second, findings regarding the relations anxiety, cancer worry, and screening fear hold with screening behavior seen thus far have been inconsistent, in our view because anxieties stemming from different sources have different relations with behavior. In the emotions theory view, understanding the role of fear in health behavior in diverse groups is predicated on understanding the object or source of the fear 91011 for the simple reason that anxiety motivates avoidance of particular elicitors 1012. Research conducted within the U54 Comprehensive Cancer Partnership between Long Island University and Columbia University has produced several studies documenting differences in breast and prostate cancer screening frequencies among Caribbean subpopulations living in Brooklyn, New York 11213. A major concentration in this program of behavioral research has investigated whether trait anxiety, cancer worry, and screening-related fears vary across Caribbean subpopulations and whether these highly differentiated emotional responses independently predict screening behavior in multivariate models 12121314. Consistent with theory, we expected that fears pertaining to the screening context (e.g., fear of pain or the psychological implications of certain screens), would predict avoidance of the fear-inducing situation and thus be associated with less frequent screening. Conversely, where fears relate to the disease itself, greater fear should predict more frequent screening. Methods: Because of our overarching interest in the links between cancer and cancer-screening-related fears and cancer screening behaviors among the diverse groups of men and women living in Brooklyn, New York, we combined data from three community-based studies. Although measures and samples varied somewhat across studies, each study investigated the link between emotions and screening outcome in ethnic groups that included immigrants from islands in the Caribbean. Because of our interest in examining differences within traditional racial categories, we used a combination of (a) self-categorization based on a the traditional racial categories offered in the US Census together with (b) information regarding country of origin. Allowing a combination of self-reported racial categorization (tapping aspects of identity and minority status) in concert with shared birthplace to influence groupings increases the likelihood that participants share cultural and developmental characteristics thought to form part of ethnicity 15. We distinguished between Black men born in the United States (hereafter, U.S.-born African Americans), and those originating from countries in the English-speaking Caribbean (e.g., Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica, Barbados). Immigrant and non-immigrant minority groups were contrasted with men self-identifying as "European or White/Non-Hispanic" who were born in the United States (hereafter, U.S.-born European American). In Study 1, stratified cluster-sampling was used to recruit 1364 women (aged between 50–70 years) from six ethnic groups: US-born African American, US-born European American, immigrants from islands in the English-speaking Caribbean (Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago), the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Eastern Europe 1. In Study 2, 180 US-born African American, US-born European American and immigrant Jamaican men (aged between 40–70 years) were recruited using convenience sampling 13. In Study 3, 533 men (aged between 45–70 years) from four groups – US-born African American, US-born European American, and immigrant men from Jamaica and from Trinidad and Tobago – were recruited 12. In each study, participants provided background data, reported on screening history for either breast or prostate cancer, and completed a measure of trait anxiety, cancer worry, and/or screening fears. Results: As expected, we found differences among groups of African descent from the United States and the Caribbean. Although women from all groups screened at rates below those recommended, data from Study 1 showed that English-speaking Caribbean, Haitian and Dominican women screened less frequently than US-born African Americans and European Americans and that immigrant Eastern European women were also infrequent screeners (see Figure 1). Conversely, however, there were no differences in rates of self-reported prostate screening among men from the English-speaking Caribbean, US-born African Americans, or US-born European Americans in either Study 2 or Study 3. As expected, cancer-related emotional characteristics also varied across subpopulations (see Figure 2). Cancer worry was generally lower among women from the various Caribbean immigrant groups (Study 1) than it was among US-born African Americans or US-born European Americans. Fears regarding screening, however, varied somewhat differently. Fear of screening was higher among US-born African Americans and immigrant men from the English-speaking Caribbean (Studies 2 and 3) than among US-born European Americans. Consistent with the need to carefully measure fear-related constructs in the context of cancer behavior, however, our data also demonstrated that a specific fear related to concerns regarding threats to masculinity in the context of male screening strongly characterized the attitudes of men from the English-speaking Caribbean compared to the views of US-born European and US-born African Americans (Study 2). Finally, a combination of multiple regression and ANOVAs in each study showed that emotional characteristics independently predicted screening, in most cases even when background characteristics were controlled. Across studies, greater cancer worry predicted more frequent screening while fear of screening predicted less frequent screening. Figure 1 Number of cancer screens in prior 10 years Number of cancer screens in prior 10 years. DRE = digital rectal examination, PSA = prostate specific antigen test, Mamm = mammogram, CBE = clinical breast exam. Figure 2 Emotion characteristics related to screening Emotion characteristics related to screening. Trait = trait anxiety, Worry = cancer worry, Scr. Fr. = screening fear, and Em. Con. = emasculation concern. Conclusion: Data from three large-scale studies in Brooklyn, New York suggest that members of immigrant Caribbean subpopulations screen for breast and prostate cancer at very low rates; in most cases lower than those of either US-born African or US-born European Americans. Groups of Caribbean men and women also vary in the emotions they report regarding cancer and the screening process, generally revealing a pattern that is predictive of poorer screening. Coupled with the fact that emotion characteristics predicted screening outcomes even when controlling for other factors, data from these three studies suggest that the emotional responses Caribbean groups place them at risk for poor screening. Interventions that address these responses may offer the prospect of improving screening frequency in these disadvantaged groups. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors' contributions: NSC and CM was involved in study design, analysis, interpretation/write up and critical revision of the manuscript. BA and DH in the analysis, interpretation and write up. AKJ, TU and LNB were involved in the interpretation and write up. PMR was part of the study design, analysis and interpretation/write up. JMM and AIN had part in the study design, analysis and critical revision whilst JSJ took part in critical revision

Farm to All Tables: Understanding how Advocacy Coalitions Influence SNP-related Policies for Farmers' Markets

This MPP essay examines how states expand access to nutritious food for low-income families, focusing specifically on policies related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and farmers’ markets. Coalitions made up of nonprofits focused on hunger, farmers, and health collaborate to impact relevant policies in their respective states. The purpose of this research is to address how and why these policies differ from state to state by answering the following questions: (a) What factors influence the level of support states provide to farmers’ markets so they are accessible to low-income households?; (b) What role do advocacy groups play at the state level in setting this agenda? The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) provides a structure for comparing case studies of Mississippi, Oregon, and Oklahoma advocacy groups and their role in advocating for policies that expand access to farmers’ markets. All three states are marked by a lack of direct conflict on the issue, changes driven by shifting federal policies, wide-reaching collaboration within advocacy coalitions, and resource limitations. Lessons of this analysis potentially relevant to other advocacy coalitions include the positive impact of nonprofits dedicated to specific policy areas, active collaboration between nonprofits and state agencies expands access and increases awareness, and a diverse range of advocate groups leads to practical solutions. Keywords: Food Insecurity, Food Security, SNAP, Advocacy Coalition Framework, ACF, farmers’ markets, advocacy group

Sociocultural considerations in aging men's health: implications and recommendations for the clinician

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jomh.2009.07.00