Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C H E RY L A C H T E R B E R G , P H D; 1 C A R L A M I L L E R , P H D, RD 2
1
The Schreyer Honors College,The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania;
2
Department of Nutritional Sciences,The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
40
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 36 Number 1 January February 2004 41
recall sequence (A to B to C to D, etc) may help to explain theoretical models fully predict behavior or behavior
its rapid and widespread adoption by practitioners. change 6 ; perhaps they never will. However, eliminating
Hoffmans third characteristic of portability refers to the redundant constructs and combining distinct constructs into
ease by which others (beside the originating author) can use more comprehensive polytheoretical models* hold some
or apply the theory.6 Many of the theories in nutrition edu- promise for improvement in nutrition education and behav-
cation are considered too complex to learn or apply in var- ioral interventions. This may be the next most reasonable
ious practitioner settings (eg, a brief office encounter with a step for investigators to pursue. Of course, the value of this
client). Even other researchers seem reluctant to adopt other more comprehensive theoretical approach can be judged
researchers models if they are complex. On a related note, only on its ability to explain and better predict the target
Hoffman also points out the role of productivity (ie, the best behavior and promote change in the mediating variables fol-
theories should stimulate experiment).4 Only a few (eg, lowing intervention. We would assume that multiple poly-
Transtheoretical Model, Social Cognitive Theory) of our theoretical models would be needed because it is unlikely
theories appear, as yet, to have done so. Of course, we would that any one theory will work alone. Undoubtedly, research
interpret the concept experiment broadly to include inter- in nutrition behavior and behavior change might make bet-
ventions, comparisons, or any other systematic approach to ter progress if investigators joined together as a community to
building knowledge. apply, test, and evaluate promising theories.
Finally, Hoffman suggests that the acceptance of theories Furthermore, we need to determine the usefulness of the-
depends as much on the psychology of human beings as on ory in predicting specific behaviors for specific subgroups
the content of the theories.4 We would not presuppose an and the circumstances under which the theory is useful.
understanding of the psychology underlying our discipline, Some interventions are more effective for some people (eg,
but we are willing to hazard a guess that nutrition educators, those recently diagnosed with a chronic disease).7 Other
as a group, do not mirror the mentality of grazing animals. theories have successfully predicted a specific class of behav-
Rather, we tend to be characterized by individual interests ior (eg, milk consumption).2 Similarly, the same behavior in
and a variety of agendas.We ask different questions, use dif- different situations (eg, eating an apple for a snack at home
ferent tools, adopt different philosophical approaches, and versus at work) is subject to different influences. A single
rarely consult others (to our collective loss) in the process theory may successfully predict behavior under specific cir-
all of which mitigates against a single theory. cumstances for those highly motivated to change but have
Food- and nutrition-related behavior, education, and little predictive power when the circumstances are altered.
intervention (or what some people call behavioral nutrition We have only begun to tease apart these relationships, but it
education) are still too young to have developed a domi- is not unreasonable to suppose that nutrition education and
nant theory. Nutrition education and intervention began, as intervention may continue to use a set of theories, with dif-
all disciplines do, without any theory specific to the disci- ferent (but specific) theories used to address different (but
pline. However, theories, or parts of theories, have been specific) problems.
lifted and employed from related disciplines in the social To return to the central question: Is one theory better
sciences.Although no specific timetable can be given to pre- than another in nutrition education? We assert that no one
dict when any given theory in nutrition education will theory is better for all people under all conditions.The util-
dominate or, later, when such a theory will be overthrown, ity of a polytheoretical model(s)* that incorporates constructs
we feel safe in saying that we are not there yet. So we must from many disciplines proven to explain or predict nutrition-
encourage further development and exploration of theory, related behaviors awaits development.Then we can begin to
generate new ideas, continue testing a variety of theories, determine if a particular set of theories is sufficiently robust
and work toward those that can unify our various settings, to predict specific behaviors for some people under certain
audiences, and target behaviors of interest.A combination of conditions and, if so, the implications of those findings. Even-
qualitative and quantitative approaches may be most effective tually, this set of polytheoretical models (actually, theories in
in this enterprise. Given the range of ages, ethnicities, nutri- themselves) might evolve into a supertheory specific to food
tion issues, and other contextual variables that are routine in and nutrition behavior changes. The discipline is severely
our work, nutrition education and intervention may be a lacking such theories at present. Indeed, it is hard to imagine
discipline that continues to use several theories, but research any at this point in our development. Clearly, more powerful
should indicate which specific theory (or theories) should be concepts and understandings will have to be built.We do not
used to resolve any given problem. know what we do not know. At present, we can only assert,
At present, many of the frequently used theories in nutri- suggest, or guess. However, we are optimistic; the future holds
tion education and intervention include similar constructs promise for a more comprehensive and effective theoretical
(eg, outcome expectancies in Social Cognitive Theory, per- approach. Is one theory better than another in nutrition edu-
ceived benefits in the Health Belief Model, and the pros of cation? Well, yes and no; some are better than others, but
performing a behavior in the Transtheoretical Model are none are good enough. Not yet. Perhaps one day the answer
overlapping constructs).2,5 However, none of our current will be markedly different.
42 Achterberg and Miller/VIEWPOINT: THEORIES FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION
For the first time, SNE members will be able to vote on-line in the 2004 elections.
The procedure promises to be easy for members while saving SNE lots of money.
Look for more information about voting procedures
via email
on SNEEZE
in JNEB
at www.sne.org