Contents:
|
Page no.
[in original thesis] |
|
ABSTRACT |
i
|
|
List of Tables |
viii
|
|
List of Figures |
xi
|
|
[To be hyperlinked at a later date.] | ||
Section 0 | Introduction |
1
|
Section 1 | The List Heuristic |
6
|
1.0 | Introduction |
7
|
1.1 | The Problem: Learning About Food Rejections |
8
|
1.2 | Methodological Approaches |
10
|
1.3 | Neophobia |
11
|
1.4 | Literature Review |
12
|
1.4.1 | Methods of Earlier Studies |
12
|
1.4.2 | Psychometric Measures |
16
|
1.4.3 | Relationships with Other Variables |
18
|
1.5 | Two New Studies |
22
|
1.5.1 | South Bank Sample |
22
|
1.5.1.1 | Method |
22
|
1.5.1.2 | Results |
25
|
1.5.1.3 | Discussion |
29
|
1.5.2 | Family Diet Study Sample |
30
|
1.5.2.1 | Methods |
30
|
1.5.2.2 | Results |
32
|
1.5.2.3 | Discussion |
33
|
1.6 | A Synthesis? |
34
|
Section 2 | Food Rejection Taxonomy |
38
|
2.0 | Introduction |
39
|
2.1 | The Need for a Taxonomy |
40
|
2.2 | The Method of Rozin & Fallon (1980) |
42
|
2.3 | The Importance of Nausea |
46
|
2.4 | Methodology |
47
|
2.4.1 | The Food Rejection Indices and its Design |
47
|
2.4.2 | Procedure |
55
|
2.5 | Basic Results |
59
|
2.5.1 | Description of Subjects |
59
|
2.5.2 | Results: FRIs |
61
|
2.6 | Multidimensional Scaling Results |
64
|
2.6.1 | Preliminary Data Processing |
64
|
2.6.2 | Overall Solution |
67
|
2.6.3 | Bootstrapping |
70
|
2.7 | Prototypes for the Four Rejection Categories |
75
|
2.7.1 | ‘Distaste’ |
75
|
2.7.2 | ‘Disgust’ |
77
|
2.7.3 | ‘Danger’ |
90
|
2.7.4 | ‘Inappropriate’ |
90
|
2.7.5 | Conclusion |
99
|
2.8 | Neophobia |
100
|
2.8.1 | MDS Results |
101
|
2.8.2 | Suggested Ethology |
112
|
2.8.3 | Relationship with Anxiety |
115
|
2.9 | Food scares—BSE and Salmonella |
118
|
2.9.1 | Introduction |
120
|
2.9.1.1 | History and Description of BSE |
120
|
2.9.1.2 | History and Description of Salmonella |
123
|
2.9.1.3 | Comparison Between BSE and Salmonella |
124
|
2.9.1.4 | Timing |
125
|
2.9.2 | ‘Danger’ or ‘disgust’? |
125
|
2.9.2.1 | Review |
125
|
2.9.2.2 | Results |
131
|
2.9.3 | Uncertainty |
136
|
2.10 | Unusual Variants |
138
|
2.10.1 | Sullivan & Birch (1990) |
138
|
2.10.2 | Results |
139
|
2.10.3 | Suggested Ethology |
139
|
2.11 | Smoking |
144
|
2.11.1 | MDS Results |
144
|
2.11.2 | Use of FRI in a Different Context |
144
|
2.12 | Conclusion |
149
|
Section 3 | Learned Food Aversions |
151
|
3.0 | Introduction |
152
|
3.1 | Literature Review |
153
|
3.1.1 | Experimental Psychology |
154
|
3.1.1.1 | Non-humans |
154
|
3.1.1.2 | Humans |
156
|
3.1.2 | Clinical (Human) Phenomena |
158
|
3.1.2.1 | Emetic Aversion Therapy |
158
|
3.1.2.2 | Anticipatory Nausea and Vomiting (ANV) |
159
|
3.1.2.3 | "Cancer Anorexia" |
160
|
3.1.2.4 | Pregnancy |
160
|
3.2 | The Nature of the Response Produced |
161
|
3.2.1 | Literature Review |
163
|
3.3 | Clinical Perspectives |
174
|
3.4 | Methodological Issues to do with Nausea in Humans |
176
|
3.4.1 | Generating Nausea in an Ethically Acceptable Way |
176
|
3.4.2 | Measurement of Nausea |
179
|
3.5 | Two Studies |
181
|
3.5.1 | Study 1 |
181
|
3.5.1.1 | Methods |
182
|
3.5.1.2 | Results |
186
|
3.5.1.2.1 | Symptom Ratings |
186
|
3.5.1.2.2 | Responses to Kœrrta |
190
|
3.5.1.3 | Discussion |
193
|
3.5.2 | Study 2 |
194
|
3.5.2.1 | Methods |
196
|
3.5.2.2 | Results |
201
|
3.5.2.2.1 | Symptom Ratings |
204
|
3.5.2.2.2 | Responses to Kœrrta |
209
|
3.5.2.2.3 | Physiological Measures |
213
|
3.6 | Conclusion |
216
|
Section 4 | Conclusion |
217
|
Section 5 | Appendices |
221
|
5.1.1 | Food Lists |
222
|
5.1.2 | Anglicized Version of the Food Neophobia Scale |
223
|
5.1.3 | Modern Equivalents for ‘Neuroses’ in the Early List Heuristic Studies |
223
|
5.2.1 | Example FRI |
226
|
5.2.2 | FRI Items Chosen by Subjects |
228
|
5.2.2.1 | ‘Distaste’ Items |
228
|
5.2.2.2 | ‘Disgust’ Items |
230
|
5.2.3 | FRI Results in Full |
230
|
5.3.1 | Modified Cincinnati Neophobia Scale |
253
|
5.3.2 | Electrogastrography |
253
|
Section 6 | References |
257
|
List of Tables
Page no. | ||
Section 1 | The List Heuristic | |
Table 1.1 | Correlations with FNS from Pliner & Hobden (1992). |
17
|
Table 1.2 | List derived variables (South Bank sample). |
24
|
Table 1.3 | Cronbach’s ? for list measures (South Bank sample). |
26
|
Table 1.4 | Descriptive statistics for the main list heuristic variables (South Bank sample). |
27
|
Table 1.5 | List derived variables (Family Diet Study sample). |
31
|
Section 2 | Food Rejection Taxonomy |
|
Table 2.1 | Food rejection questions, ordered following Rozin & Fallon (1980) with related items in Fallon & Rozin (1983) matched. |
43
|
Table 2.2 | Food rejection questions used in the current study. |
48
|
Table 2.3 | Items used in the current study. |
49
|
Table 2.4 | Vegetarian status of subjects. |
59
|
Table 2.5 | Descriptive statistics for background variables. |
60
|
Table 2.6 | Correlations with FNS. |
61
|
Table 2.7 | Number of subjects who reported having tried the neophobia items. |
115
|
Table 2.8 | Correlations between FNS and overall attitude towards eating the neophobia items. |
116
|
Table 2.9 | Canonical correlations between FNS and FRI. |
116
|
Table 2.10 | Canonical correlations between trait STAI and FRI. |
117
|
Table 2.11 | FRI profiles by smoking behaviour. |
147
|
Section 3 | Learned Food Aversions |
|
Table 3.1 | Symptom history. |
187
|
Table 3.2 | Symptoms at baseline. |
187
|
Table 3.3 | Relationship between peak symptom ratings. |
188
|
Table 3.4 | Peak symptom ratings by procedural group. |
189
|
Table 3.5 | Peak symptom ratings in the circular vection group, split on peak nausea ratings. |
190
|
Table 3.6 | Time 1 kœrrta ratings. |
191
|
Table 3.7 | Change in kœrrta ratings by group. |
192
|
Table 3.8 | Time 1 and 2 kœrrta ratings by group. |
193
|
Table 3.9 | Descriptive statistics for background variables. |
202
|
Table 3.10 | Descriptive statistics for CNS and hunger ratings, untransformed. |
203
|
Table 3.11 | Time 1 kœrrta ratings. |
203
|
Table 3.12 | Relationship between time 1 kœrrta ratings. |
204
|
Table 3.13 | Symptom history data. |
205
|
Table 3.14 | Symptoms at baseline. |
205
|
Table 3.15 | Symptoms immediately prior to vestibular stimulation or control. |
206
|
Table 3.16 | Peak symptom ratings by procedural group. |
207
|
Table 3.17 | Peak symptom ratings in the vestibular stimulation group, split on peak nausea ratings. |
208
|
Table 3.18 | Relationship between peak symptom ratings. |
209
|
Table 3.19 | Change in kœrrta ratings by group. |
211
|
Table 3.20 | Pulse measurements. |
213
|
Table 3.21 | Number of averages available from the EGG recordings. |
214
|
Section 5 | Appendices |
|
Table 5.1 | Modern equivalents for terminology used in Wallen (1948). |
225
|
Table 5.2 | ‘Distaste’ items selected by subjects. |
229
|
Table 5.2 | ‘Distaste’ items selected by subjects. |
230
|
Table 5.3 | Index of FRI results. |
231
|
Table 5.4 | FRI results for "mild distaste". |
232
|
Table 5.5 | FRI results for "strong distaste". |
233
|
Table 5.6 | FRI results for "lemon juice". |
234
|
Table 5.7 | FRI results for "quinine". |
235
|
Table 5.8 | FRI results for "wasabi". |
236
|
Table 5.9 | FRI results for "disgust". |
237
|
Table 5.10 | FRI results for "carcinogen". |
238
|
Table 5.11 | FRI results for "cramps". |
239
|
Table 5.12 | FRI results for "food poisoning". |
240
|
Table 5.13 | FRI results for "cardboard". |
241
|
Table 5.14 | FRI results for "cockroach". |
242
|
Table 5.15 | FRI results for "water buffalo". |
243
|
Table 5.16 | FRI results for "clover". |
244
|
Table 5.17 | FRI results for "moss". |
245
|
Table 5.18 | FRI results for "gurnoe". |
246
|
Table 5.19 | FRI results for "pance". |
247
|
Table 5.20 | FRI results for "skoikos". |
248
|
Table 5.21 | FRI results for "BSE". |
249
|
Table 5.22 | FRI results for "Salmonella". |
250
|
Table 5.23 | FRI results for "Differs". |
251
|
Table 5.24 | FRI results for "Cigarette". |
252
|
List of Figures
Page no. | ||
Section 2 | Food Rejection Taxonomy | |
Figure 2.1 | Overall multidimensional scaling analysis output. |
68
|
Figure 2.2 | Point cloud for "mild distaste". |
78
|
Figure 2.3 | Confidence region for "mild distaste". |
79
|
Figure 2.4 | Point cloud for "strong distaste". |
80
|
Figure 2.5 | Confidence region for "strong distaste". |
81
|
Figure 2.6 | Point cloud for "quinine". |
82
|
Figure 2.7 | Confidence region for "quinine". |
83
|
Figure 2.8 | Point cloud for "lemon juice". |
84
|
Figure 2.9 | Confidence region for "lemon juice". |
85
|
Figure 2.10 | Point cloud for "wasabi". |
86
|
Figure 2.11 | Confidence region for "wasabi". |
87
|
Figure 2.12 | Point cloud for "disgust". |
88
|
Figure 2.13 | Confidence region for "disgust". |
89
|
Figure 2.14 | Point cloud for "carcinogen". |
91
|
Figure 2.15 | Confidence region for "carcinogen". |
92
|
Figure 2.16 | Point cloud for "cramps". |
93
|
Figure 2.17 | Confidence region for "cramps". |
94
|
Figure 2.18 | Point cloud for "food poisoning". |
95
|
Figure 2.19 | Confidence region for "food poisoning". |
96
|
Figure 2.20 | Point cloud for "cardboard". |
97
|
Figure 2.21 | Confidence region for "cardboard". |
98
|
Figure 2.22 | Point cloud for "cockroach". |
102
|
Figure 2.23 | Confidence region for "cockroach". |
103
|
Figure 2.24 | Point cloud for "water buffalo". |
104
|
Figure 2.25 | Confidence region for "water buffalo". |
105
|
Figure 2.26 | Point cloud for "clover". |
106
|
Figure 2.27 | Confidence region for "clover". |
107
|
Figure 2.28 | Point cloud for "gurnoe". |
108
|
Figure 2.29 | Confidence region for "gurnoe". |
109
|
Figure 2.30 | Point cloud for "moss". |
110
|
Figure 2.31 | Confidence region for "moss". |
111
|
Figure 2.32 | Point cloud for "BSE". |
132
|
Figure 2.33 | Confidence region for "BSE". |
133
|
Figure 2.34 | Point cloud for "Salmonella". |
134
|
Figure 2.35 | Confidence region for "Salmonella". |
135
|
Figure 2.36 | Point cloud for "differs". |
140
|
Figure 2.37 | Confidence region for "differs". |
141
|
Figure 2.38 | Point cloud for "cigarette". |
145
|
Figure 2.39 | Confidence region for "cigarette". |
146
|
Section 5 | Appendices |
|
Figure 5.1 | EGG output showing normal response. |
255
|
Figure 5.2 | EGG output for Subject 29, second session. |
256
|