1. Grocery Shopping Among the
Food Insecure
Anne Geoghegan, Aaron Knestrict,
Stacey Radziwon, Tina Toquica

2. Abstract
Grocery shopping is a food procurement strategy important for
understanding the population living in a food desert. Previous research
has found differences in shopping behaviors between men and women,
and among household structures (Ahuja, Capella, Taylor, 1998; Blake et al.,
2009). However, previous research has not considered gender differences
or household structure differences in grocery shopping in a population
that is food insecure and/or living in a food desert. A quantitative survey
that included questions about grocery store shopping was administered to
clients of the Saint Vincent DePaul Food Pantry over the course of six
weeks. Research found that household structure and gender affect the
food procurement strategies of people in a food insecure situation. It was
found that household structure influences who is more likely to be the
primary shopper. Gender differences influence the type of store used to
grocery shop. The research provides a better understanding of the
population served by SVDP and gives insight to the particular struggles
that food insecure populations face when living in a food desert.

3. Research Question
How does household structure and gender
affect grocery shopping methods in a food
insecure population?

4. Background/ Past Research
• Food insecurity is limited availability of nutritious and sufficient food and the
limited capacity of obtaining that food by socially acceptable methods (Townsend,
Love, Achterberg, & Murphy, 2001).
• Food access is having the resources and ability to obtain food, also food insecurity
refers to having a decent size store that would sell a variety of nourishing food at a
reasonable price and that is located at a reasonable distance (Pringle, 2013).
• According a report supported by the USDA, in 2009 14.7% of U.S households were
food insecure and 5.7% were experiencing low food insecurity (Ivers et al., 2011).
• Women are more prone to poverty than men are. (Pressman, 2002)
• Mothers were more likely than fathers to be single and to receive food assistance
and to have lower incomes (Devine, Farrell, Blake, Jastran, Wethington, & Bisogni,
2009).
• Some examples or coping strategies for the food insecure are: 1) food prepared at/
away from home 2) missing meals 3)individualizing meals (family eats differently,
separately, or together) 4) speeding up to save time 5) planning ahead. (Devine et
al., 2009)

5. Background/ Past Research
• It has been widely found that walking and taking public transportation are the two
methods that are used the most by participants when procuring food in a food
insecure situation. (Smith & Hoerr, 1992).
• In a study conducted by the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at
Michigan State University, it was found that many single mothers and the
households they head were food pantry dependent. Due to the high consumption
of food that these families had to provide, the family’s food stamps would only last
three weeks instead of four, forcing both the mother and her children to skip
meals more frequently (Smith & Hoerr, 1992).
• Single mothers also use high levels of planning, often weeks in advance, schedule
shopping trips, economize, and make use of information while shopping (Ahuja et
al.,1998; Gifford, 2011).
• While both married mothers and single mothers hold similar attitudes toward
grocery shopping, and purchase majority of their groceries from a supermarket,
single mothers spend significantly less than married mothers. Even when income
level and household size were kept constant, the difference remained statistically
significant (Ahuja et al., 1998).

6. Method
A survey was developed and passed out to clients of Saint Vincent
DePaul Food Pantry over the course of six weeks. Clients living in the
zipcode 45202, 45203, 45214, 45219, 45225, 45229, or 45232 are eligible
to use the services at Saint Vincent DePaul. They also must bring a picture
ID, social security cards, or a printout for the entire household, and proof
of address.
The survey was developed after reading previous research articles on
the topic of food insecurity. Participants were asked questions about their
household structure (11 items), food procurement strategies (4 items),
grocery shopping (5 items), coping strategies (1 item) and their experience
at Saint Vincent DePaul Food Pantry (5 items). Students from Xavier
University visited Saint Vincent DePaul on Friday and Saturday mornings
over the course of six weeks. As clients walked in, students approached
them to ask if they were willing to participate in the survey. If clients
agreed, they were given the questionnaire. Some participants took the
survey themselves, while others were interviewed by a Xavier University
student. 106 clients were surveyed over this time period.

7. Results
• Men and women equally indicated that they were
the primary shoppers in their household. 46.2%
of the valid responses of “I do” when being asked
who shops for the household were women.
45.1% were men.
• More men walk to the grocery store than women.
34.7% of the people who responded to that they
walked to the grocery store were men saying yes.
18.8% were women who also responded yes.
• More women drive their own car to the grocery
store than men.

8. Percentage of the person usually does the
shopping for household. Comparison by
household Structure
34.40%
1.10%
0
57%
5.40%
2.20%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
I do Another adult in household Relative/ friend not in household
Single person household
2 or more person household
Response categories
Percentage

9. Percentage of the person who usually does the
shopping for household. Comparison by gender
46.20%
1.10%
0
45.10%
5.50%
2.20%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
I do Another adult in household Relative/friend not in household
Female
Male
Response categories
Percentage

10. Percentage of time taken to get to the grocery
store. Comparison by household structure
3%
7.80%
2%
1% 1% 1%
12.60%
16.40%
5.80%
1% 1%
1.90%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
0-10 minutes 11-20 minutes 21-30 minutes 31-40 minutes 41-50 minutes 51-60 minutes
Single person household
2 or more person household
Percentage
Time

11. Percentage of time taken to get to the grocery
store. Comparison by gender
6%
18.80%
5%
1% 1% 1%
7.90%
14.80%
3.00%
0%
1%
2.00%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
0-10 minutes 11-20 minutes 21-30 minutes 31-40 minutes 41-50 minutes 51-60 minutes
Female
Male
Time
Percentage

12. Percentage of amount spent per grocery
shopping trip. Comparison by household
structure
16.80%
5.60%
1.40%
0.00%
30.80%
23.70%
7%
2.80%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
$1-$100 $101-$200 $201-$300 $301-$400
Single person household
2 or more person household
Dollars
Percentage

13. Percentage of amount spent per grocery
shopping trip. Comparison by gender
19.80%
10%
5.70%
2.80%
31.10%
11.40%
7.10%
0
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
$1-$100 $101-$200 $201-$300 $301-$400
Female
Male
Dollars
Percentage

14. Percentage of people who answered yes to
utilizing various methods of transportation.
Comparison by household structure
22.30%
2.90%
3.90%
8.80%
1.90%
9.70%
1% 1%
30.10%
1.90%
20.40%
25.50%
3.90%
21.40%
1%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Single person household
2 or more person household
Methods of transportation
Percent

15. Percentage of people who answered yes to
utilizing various methods of transportation.
Comparison by gender
18.80%
1.00%
15.80%
19.00%
3.00%
12.90%
1%
3%
34.70%
4.00%
7.90%
15.00%
3.00%
17.80%
1% 1%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Walk Bike Drive own car Get a ride Take a taxi Take the bus Take a group
van
Other
transportation
Female
Male
Methods of transportation
Percent

16. Percentage of large grocery store visitation per month.
Comparison by household structure
1.10%
11.70%
7.40%
3.20%
5.30%
2.10%
1.10%
9.60%
21.30%
13.80%
10.60%
12.80%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Single person household
2 or more person household
Frequency of visit per month
Percentage

17. Percentage of neighborhood or corner store
visitation per month. Comparison by household
structure
8.30%
6.90%
4.20%
5.60%
1.40%
2.80%
13.90%
12.50%
6.90%
15.30%
8.30%
13.90%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
0 1 2 3 4 5 or more
Single person household
2 or more person household
Frequency of visit per month
Percentage

18. Percentage of gas station or convenience store
visitation per month. Comparison by household
structure
20%
3.30%
1.70%
3.30%
0.00%
2%
26.70%
13.30%
11.70%
3.30%
8.30%
6.70%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 1 2 3 4 5 or more
Single person household
2 or more person household
Frequency of visit per month
Percentage

19. Percentage of farmer’s market visitations per
month. Comparison by household structure
13.80%
10.80%
3.10%
0
1.50% 1.50%
16.90% 16.90%
20%
6.20%
9.20%
0
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
0 1 2 3 4 5 or more
Single Person Household
2 or more person household
Frequency of visit per month
Percentages

20. Discussion & Conclusion
The results of this research are important in several capacities. As
discovered in preliminary research, there is a gap in the literature which
this research has identified and helped fill. SVDP also benefits from the
results, giving alternative dimensions to the struggle and strategies of the
population served. Future projects may also be affected by the results of
this research, either using it for background knowledge, a launching point,
or to change policies that affect such populations.
This research is not free from limitations, however. The population
surveyed is limited and deeply affected by the local climate. As such, some
results may not be widely replicable as the population surveyed is not
generally reflective of food bank users. The survey was written with a
slightly different population assumed, and therefore some results and
questions are irrelevant. Another limitation is the time during which the
survey was conducted. SVDP is open Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday. This
survey was administered on Fridays and Saturdays, crossing months which
opens the possibility of potentially surveying someone twice.

21. Future Research
Future research could alter the survey to focus
on specific issues this research uncovered. It
could also take the survey to other areas and
other food banks, both within the Cincinnati,
Ohio, or Midwest area, and out into other
locations in America. Future research could
also examine more closely the effects of
gender and household structure on all aspects
of poverty and food insecurity.

22. References
• Ahuja, R. D., Capella, L. M., & Taylor, R. D. (1998). Child influences, attitudinal and behavioral
comparisons between single parent and dual parent households in grocery shopping decisions.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(1), 48-62.
• Blake, C. E., Farrell, T. J., Bisogni, C. A., Jastran, M., Devine, C. M., & Wethington, E. (2009).
Employed parents' satisfaction with food-choice coping strategies. Influence of gender and
structure [electronic resource]. Appetite, 52(3), 711-719.
• Darko, J. (2013). Shopping behaviors of low-income families during a 1-month period of time.45,
20-29.
• Devine, C. M., Farrell, T. J., Blake, C. E., Jastran, M., Wethington, E., & Bisogni, C. A. (2009). Work
Conditions and the Food Choice Coping Strategies of Employed Parents. Journal Of Nutrition
Education And Behavior, 41(5), 365-370.
• Eicher-Miller, H., Mason, A., & Abbott, A. (2009). The effect of food stamp nutrition education on
the food insecurity of low-income women participants.41, 161-168.
• Hendricks, S. & Hendricks S. (2002) Unfair Burden: Women's Risks and Vulnerability to Food
Insecurity. Agenda, 51, 51-57.

23. Cont.
• Ivers, L., & Cullen, K. (2011). Food insecurity: special considerations for women. American Journal
Of Clinical Nutrition, 94(6), 1740S-1744.
• Pressman, S. (2002). Explaining the Gender Poverty Gap in Developed and Transitional Economies.
Journal of Economic Issues, 36(1) 17-40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4227746
• Pringle, P. (Ed.). (2013). A place at the table. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
• Sim, M., Glanville, T., & McIntyre, L. (2011). Food management behaviours: In food-insecure, lone
mother-led families.72, 123-130.
• Smith, P., & Hoerr, S. (1994). A comparison of current food bank users, non-users and past users in a
population of low income single mothers 24, 59-66.
• Stevens, C. (2009). Exploring food insecurity among young mothers (15–24 years), 1-9.
• Thiagarajan, P., Ponder, N., & Lueg, J. (2009). The effects of role strain on the consumer decision
process for groceries in single-parent households. 207-215.

24. Cont.
• Townsend, M., Peerson, J., Love, B., Achterberg, C., & Murphy, S. (2001). Food insecurity is
positively related to overweight in women. The Journal of Nutrition, 131(6), 1738-1742.
• Wiig, K., & Smith, C. (2009). The art of grocery shopping on a food stamp budget: Factors
influencing the food choices of low-income women as they try to make ends meet. Public Health
Nutrition, 12(10), 1726-1734.
• Wood, D. K., Shultz, J., Butkus, S. N., & Ballejos, M. (2009). Patterns of Food Coping Strategies
Among Food Pantry Clients. Journal Of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 4(2), 185-202.
doi:10.1080/19320240902915292
• Wood, D. K., Shultz, J., Edlefsen, M., & Butkus, S. (2006). Food Coping Strategies Used by Food
Pantry Clients at Different Levels of Household Food Security Status. Journal Of Hunger &
Environmental Nutrition, 1(3), 45-68. doi:10.1300/J477v01n03_04
•
Zekeri, A. A. (2010). Household food insecurity and depression among single mothers in rural
Alabama. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 25(1), 90-102.