Food Insecurity and the Association between Perceptions and Trust of Food Advertisements and Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods among U.S. Parents and Adolescents

Abstract

Adolescents exposed to food and beverage advertisements (FBAs) typically low in nutrient density can be influenced in their food choices, eating behaviors, and health. This study examines the association between perceptions and trust of FBAs (key predictor) and the outcome of daily consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in parent-adolescent dyads, with risk of food insecurity as a potential moderator. Cross-sectional data from the Family, Life, Activity, Sun, Health and Eating (FLASHE) study was used to test actor and partner effects using structural equation modeling. The final model was adjusted for parent sex and education level, and effects were compared between dyads at risk of food insecurity (n = 605) and dyads not at risk (n = 1008). In the unadjusted model, actor effects (parent: b = 0.23, p = 0.001; adolescent b = 0.12, p = 0.001) and parent-partner effects were found (b = 0.08, p = 0.004). The final comparative model produced similar results for dyads not at risk of food insecurity (parent actor: b = 0.27, p = 0.001; parent partner: b = 0.10, p = 0.01; adolescent actor: b = 0.11, p = 0.003). For dyads at risk of food insecurity, only actor effects were significant (parent: b = 0.22, p = 0.001; adolescent: b = 0.11, p = 0.013). These findings suggest that parents' favorability towards FBAs influence parent-adolescent unhealthy food consumption, and that this association is different when accounting for risk of food insecurity.

Keywords: dyadic interdependence; food advertisements; food insecurity; ultra-processed foods.

Figure 1

Flow diagram showcasing sample sizes for analysis stages. Listwise deletion was used to take care of missing data.

Figure 2

Perceptions and trust of FBAs set as latent variables. Variables in the blue box reflect the measurement model for parents while variables within the green box reflect the model for adolescents. R² values are provided above each indicator. Key: rectangles = indicators; ellipses = latent variables; small circles = residual errors; curved double-ended arrows = covariances; straight single-ended arrows = directional paths.

Figure 3

Actor and partner effects of perception and trust of FBAs and consumption of UPFs in parent-adolescent dyads. Significant regression coefficients are bolded in red. Model fit: Δχ² = 49.518, df = 13, p = 0.001; RMSEA = 0.042 (90% CI = 0.030 to 0.054), p = 0.85; CFI = 0.994; SRMR = 0.026; AIC = 39525.613.

Figure 4

Actor and partner effects of perception and trust of FBAs and consumption of UPFs in parent-adolescent dyads accounting for food insecurity. Significant regression coefficients are bolded in red. Both models adjusted for parents’ sex and parents’ education level. (a) SEM model results for dyads not at risk of food insecurity; (b) SEM model results for dyads at risk of food insecurity. Model fit: Δχ² = 59.794 & 45.814, df = 26, p = 0.001; RMSEA = 0.037 (90% CI = 0.027 to 0.047), p = 0.98; CFI = 0.990; SRMR = 0.036; AIC = 44485.329.

Figure 4

Actor and partner effects of perception and trust of FBAs and consumption of UPFs in parent-adolescent dyads accounting for food insecurity. Significant regression coefficients are bolded in red. Both models adjusted for parents’ sex and parents’ education level. (a) SEM model results for dyads not at risk of food insecurity; (b) SEM model results for dyads at risk of food insecurity. Model fit: Δχ² = 59.794 & 45.814, df = 26, p = 0.001; RMSEA = 0.037 (90% CI = 0.027 to 0.047), p = 0.98; CFI = 0.990; SRMR = 0.036; AIC = 44485.329.