Understanding the Relationships Between Acculturation, Food Insecurity, and Food Parenting Practices Among Socioeconomically/Racially Diverse Parents

Abstract

Research suggests that acculturation and food insecurity are factors that are separately associated with the use of specific food parenting practices among United States (US) families. Certain food parenting practices, such as coercive control and unstructured food parenting practices, are related to negative health consequences in children, such as eating disorders. The current study aimed to explore associations between acculturation strategies and food parenting practices in a sample of 577 Latinx, Hmong, Somali/Ethiopian, and Multiracial families. A secondary objective was to understand whether food security status significantly modified the relationships between acculturation strategies and food parenting practices. Results showed that acculturation strategies were significantly related to food parenting practices, and patterns in these relationships differed across race and ethnicity. Further, food security status significantly modified the relationship between acculturation strategies and food parenting practices for Latinx, Hmong, and Somali/Ethiopian families, but not for Multiracial families. These results point to the complex relationships among acculturation strategies, food security status, and food parenting practices in immigrant populations in the US. Longitudinal studies exploring the temporal relationships between acculturation strategies, food security status, and food parenting practices would help tease apart how food parenting practices may evolve upon migrating to the US.

1. Introduction

1.1. Operationalizing Food Parenting Practices

Food parenting practices are related to child eating habits, and certain practices (i.e., coercive control and unstructured food parenting practices) are associated with less healthful dietary intake (e.g., reduced intake of certain vitamins and minerals) and disordered eating in children (Chen et al., 2021; Flores-Barrantes et al., 2021; Loth et al., 2014). Throughout this article, coercive control and unstructured practices will be referred to as less supportive of healthful outcomes in children, whereas other food parenting practices (i.e., structure) will be referred to as more supportive of healthful outcomes in children. Examples of coercive control include parental restriction of what the child eats, pressuring the child to eat, or using food in response to the child’s emotions (Vaughn et al., 2015). Examples of structure include modeling dietary practices for children, monitoring child food intake, setting meal routines, and setting rules to facilitate the child’s learning of normative eating behaviors (Vaughn et al., 2015). Further investigation of factors associated with the differential use of food parenting practices is needed to help inform potential targets for the promotion of nutritive eating patterns and the prevention of eating disorders in children.

1.2. Sociocultural Predictors of Food Parenting Practices

1.2.1. Acculturation

Individuals from marginalized racial/ethnic groups (i.e., Asian American, Hispanic, African American, and mixed race) and recent immigrants to the US are more likely to use less supportive food parenting practices, particularly coercive control (restriction and pressure to eat) practices (Loth et al., 2013; Othman et al., 2022). Few studies have explored potential explanations for the use of particular food parenting practices among marginalized racial/ethnic groups and immigrant populations in the US. Differences in acculturation (i.e., the process of acquiring a new culture and/or retaining one’s native culture) are one such factor that may be related to the heterogeneity in food parenting practices within immigrant families in the US. However, the majority of research exploring the relationship between acculturation and food parenting practices has focused on Latinx families.

Among Latinx families, higher levels of acculturation to US culture, measured via English language proficiency or having a mother that was born in the US or has spent 50% or more of her life in the US, was associated with decreased use of coercive control feeding practices (i.e., pressuring children to eat, restricting children’s eating, and using bribes and threats; Arredondo et al., 2006; Kaiser et al., 2001; Power et al., 2015). However, findings are equivocal, as other studies have found that more acculturated, predominantly English-speaking parents may be more likely than less acculturated, Spanish-speaking parents to use other coercive control practices, such as using food to calm their child (Evans et al., 2011), and others have found no association (LeCroy et al., 2019). Though most studies examining the association between acculturation and food parenting practices have focused on Latinx families, two studies found that higher levels of acculturation to US culture was associated with lower use of coercive control feeding practices (i.e., restricting, pressure to eat, using bribes and threats, and emotional feeding) and greater use of unstructured feeding practices (i.e., indulgent) among Chinese-American parents (Gu et al., 2022; Pai & Contento, 2014). Among these studies exploring the relationship between acculturation and food parenting practices, researchers have mostly relied on language proficiency as a proxy of acculturation status or have targeted specific racial/ethnic groups (Celenk & Van de Vijver, 2011). However, acculturation entails greater complexity, and more comprehensive measures are ideal.

For example, the process of acculturation is conceptualized as occupying two dimensions, affiliation with a new culture and maintaining one’s native culture. These dimensions encompass four strategies: assimilation (high affiliation with the new culture and low affiliation with their native culture), integration (high affiliation with both the new and native cultures), separation (high affiliation with native culture and low affiliation with new culture), and marginalization (low affiliation with both the new and native cultures; Berry, 1997; Schumann et al., 2020). Each of these acculturation strategies are differentially related to mental and physical health consequences (Unger et al., 2002). For example, authors of a recent systematic review reported that integration and assimilation were associated with lower likelihoods of depression and anxiety symptoms, whereas marginalization and separation were associated with worse depression and anxiety symptoms among immigrant populations (Choy et al., 2021). However, integration is consistently associated with the most positive mental health outcomes relative to the other acculturation strategies (Choy et al., 2021; Yoon et al., 2013). Similarly, integration is associated with lower cardiovascular disease risk and self-reported overall health status compared to marginalization (Commodore-Mensah et al., 2018; Ma & Xia, 2021). Studies exploring the relationship between acculturation strategies and food parenting practices or associated outcomes, such as child dietary intake or eating disorder symptomatology are lacking and may help to clarify the relationship between acculturation and food parenting practices.

1.2.2. Food Insecurity

Parents with food insecurity are more likely to use coercive control feeding practices (i.e., bribes and threats, restricting food, pressuring their children to eat) than parents with food security (Bauer et al., 2015; Feinberg et al., 2008). These behaviors may reflect a desire to compensate for periods of food shortage. Food insecurity is also more prevalent among immigrant families, or those who have lived in the US for shorter periods of time and in families with parents who are less acculturated to US culture or have low English language proficiency (Hadley et al., 2007; Kaiser et al., 2002; McElrone et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2018; Winham & Armstrong Florian, 2015). Paradoxically, however, another study found that speaking only Spanish and being born in the US were both associated with food insecurity, suggesting that these different measures of acculturation status may measure distinct constructs (Dhokarh et al., 2011). Examining food insecurity as a moderator in the relationship between acculturation strategies and differential feeding styles among parents would provide valuable insights into the factors that shape food parenting practices within immigrant families.

1.3. The Current Study

Despite known associations between acculturation and food insecurity and their separate associations with food parenting practices, no study to date has examined how these sociocultural factors interact to produce differential patterns of food parenting practices among socioeconomically and ethnically diverse families. Elucidating the potential interaction between socioeconomic factors, such as food insecurity, and cultural factors, such as acculturation strategies, is necessary for the development of intervention strategies for food parenting practices that are less supportive of healthful outcomes, which may have downstream consequences for child eating patterns. Thus, the current study sought to identify whether acculturation strategies, measured in Latinx, Hmong, Somali/Ethiopian, and Multiracial families, was associated with the differential use of food parenting practices. We hypothesized that assimilation and integration strategies would be negatively related to the use of coercive control feeding practices (e.g., pressure-to-eat and restrictive feeding practices) and positively related to the use of structured feeding practices, and separation and marginalization strategies would be positively related to the use of coercive control feeding practices and negatively related to the use of structured feeding practices among parents. A secondary objective of this study was to examine whether food insecurity status moderated the relationship between acculturation and food parenting practices. We hypothesized that food insecurity would significantly moderate the association between acculturation strategies and food parenting practices, such that for families with food insecurity, the relationship between lower assimilation and integration and increased use of coercive control food parenting practices would be stronger relative to families without food insecurity. Because previous research using data from the present study identified that Latinx, Hmong, and Somali/Ethiopian families used different food parenting practices (Othman et al., 2022), we conducted analyses on the full sub-sample, including only families from four racial/ethnic groups (Latinx, Hmong, Somali/Ethiopian, and Multiracial) pooled together, and separately by racial/ethnic group. Moreover, because we expected that Multiracial families may acculturate in different ways than single-racial/ethnic families, we placed Latinx, Hmong, and Somali/Ethiopian families who identified as more than one race/ethnicity into their own Multiracial group and examined them separately.

2. Methods

2.1. Data

Data for this study came from Family Matters, an incremental, mixed-methods longitudinal study aiming to increase whole-person health across the life course (Berge et al., 2017). Parents and children aged 5–9 from low-income and racially/ethnically diverse households (N=1307) were enrolled in the study between November 2016 and November 2019 and followed across two time points, 18 months apart. The current study used baseline and time 1 follow-up data collected via an online survey. All study protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Minnesota (1107S02666). All study materials (e.g., consent forms, survey questions) were translated into Spanish, Hmong, and Somali. The translation was conducted by bilingual and bicultural staff members; study materials were first translated by one staff member and then reviewed by another staff member.

2.2. Sample

Parent/child dyads were recruited from primary care clinics in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota. The clinics identified 5–9-year-old children who had recently had a well-child visit, and therefore, a recent height and weight measurement. A letter was sent from the primary care physician inviting the family to participate in the Family Matters study; recruitment letters provided a unique code that parents could use to access the online survey. Parents/guardians consented online prior to beginning the survey. Families were eligible to participate if they met the following eligibility criteria: (1) the child was 5–9 years old; (2) the child’s BMI percentile was greater than the fifth percentile; (3) the person completing the survey was the primary guardian and caregiver of the child; (4) the child lived with the respondent more than 50% of the time; and (5) the child was from one of the following racial/ethnic categories: African American, Latinx, Hmong, Native American, Somali/Ethiopian, or White. Of the 1,307 families enrolled at baseline, a sub-sample of 577 Latinx, Hmong and Somali/Ethiopian families were used in analyses for the current study, 73 of whom we classified as Multiracial families. Of the 577 children in the sample at baseline, an additional observation 18 months after baseline was also available for 465 children, making the analysis sample size 1,042 observations on 577 children. As described below in section 2.4, we examined this longitudinal sample using a random effects model that accounts for multiple observations of the same family over time.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Food Parenting Practices

The survey asked parents 27 questions about food-related parenting practices adapted from several validated questionnaires. This adaptation was conducted because the survey that was administered as part of the study covered a range of topics important for child eating outcomes; thus, we chose a smaller set of items to reduce participant burden when completing the survey. The 27 questions that were chosen were used to create nine scales. Pressure-to-eat, food restriction, and monitoring are from the Child Feeding Questionnaire (Birch et al., 2001). Unstructured practices (i.e., allowing child to wander around/get up from the table during a meal), emotional practices (e.g., connecting food with comfort), and threats and bribes are from the Parental Feeding Style Questionnaire (Wardle et al., 2002). Rules and limits and modeling are from the Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (Musher-Eizenman & Holub, 2007). Finally, a scale of food availability practices (i.e., avoiding unhealthy foods) was developed by Ogden et al. (2006). See Table 1 for a description of the food parenting practice measures used in the current study, how they were operationalized, and their Cronbach alpha coefficients.

Table 1.

Description of Food Parenting Practices

Measure	Question Wording (Mean & SD)	Response Options	Variable Creation (Scale reliability coefficient)
Coercive Control
Pressure-to-Eat
Child Feeding Questionnaire (Wardle et al., 2002)	How often does the following occur? I have to be especially careful to make sure [child] eats enough (Mean=2.4, SD=1.2)	1, Rarely; 2, Sometimes; 3, Often; 4, Always	Added 1 to first item to match range of other items, then items are averaged (Alpha=0.63)
	How much do you agree with the following statements? [Child] should always eat all the food on his/her plate (Mean=3.4, SD=1.2)	1, Disagree; 2, Slightly Disagree; 3, Neutral; 4, Slightly Agree; 5, Agree
	If [child] says “I’m not hungry,” I try to get him/her to eat anyway (Mean=3.1, SD=1.3)
	If I did not guide or regulate how [child] eats, he/she would eat much less than he/she should (Mean=3.1, SD=1.4)
Food Restriction
Child Feeding Questionnaire (Wardle et al., 2002)	How much do you agree with the following statements? I have to make sure that [child] does not eat too many sweets (candy, ice cream, cake, or pastries) or his/her favorite foods (Mean=3.9, SD=1.3)	1, Disagree; 2, Slightly Disagree; 3, Neutral; 4, Slightly Agree; 5, Agree	Items are averaged (Alpha=0.71)
	I intentionally keep some foods out of [child]’s reach (Mean=3.3, SD=1.5)
	If I did not guide or regulate [child]’s eating, he/she would eat too many junk foods/favorite foods (Mean=3.4, SD=1.5)
Threats and Bribes
Parental Feeding Style Questionnaire (Wardle et al., 2002)	As a parent, how often do you…If [child] misbehaves, I withhold his/her favorite foods/sweets/desserts (Mean=2.5, SD=1.4)	1, Never; 2, Once in a while; 3, About half of the time; 4, Very often; 5, Always	Items are averaged (Alpha=0.68)
	Use desserts as a bribe to get [child] to eat his/her main course (Mean=2.3, SD=1.1)
	I offer sweets (candy, ice cream, cake, pastries) or favorite foods to [child] as a reward for good behavior (Mean=1.8, SD=1.4)
Emotional
Parental Feeding Style Questionnaire (Wardle et al., 2002)	As a parent, how often do you… Give [child] something to eat to make him/her feel better (e.g., when anxious, sad) (Mean=2.1, SD=1.2)	1, Never; 2, Once in a while; 3, About half of the time; 4, Very often; 5, Always	Items are averaged (Alpha=0.92)
	Give [child] something to eat to make him/her feel better when s/he has been hurt (Mean 2.1, SD=1.2)
Structure
Monitoring
Child Feeding Questionnaire (Wardle et al., 2002)	As a parent, how much…Do you keep track of the sweets that [child] eats (candy, ice cream, cake, pies, pastries)? (Mean=3.5, SD=1.2)	1, Never; 2, Rarely; 3, Sometimes; 4, Mostly; 5, Always	Items are averaged (Alpha=0.81)
	Do you keep track of the snack food that [child] eats (potato chips, Doritos, cheese puffs)? (Mean=3.9, SD=1.1)
	Do you keep track of the high fat foods that [child] eats? (Mean=3.7, SD=1.2)
Unstructured Practices
Parental Feeding Style Questionnaire (Wardle et al., 2002)	How much do you agree with the following statements? I allow [child] to choose which foods to have for meals (Mean=3.2, SD=1.2)	5, Disagree; 4, Slightly Disagree; 3, Neutral; 2, Slightly Agree; 1, Agree	Items are averaged (Alpha=0.70)
	I let [child] decide when s/he would like to have his/her meal (Mean=2.7, SD=1.3)
	I allow [child] to wander around/get up from the table during a meal (Mean=1.8, SD=1.2)
Rules and Limits
Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (Musher-Eizenman & Holub, 2007)	How much do you agree with the following statements?… Tell [child] what to eat and what not to eat without question (Mean=3.0, SD=1.4)	1, Disagree; 2, Slightly Disagree; 3, Neutral; 4, Slightly Agree; 5, Agree	n/a
Modeling
Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (Musher-Eizenman & Holub, 2007)	How much do you agree with the following statements?… I model healthy eating for [child] by eating healthy foods myself (Mean=4.2, SD=1.0)	1, Disagree; 2, Slightly Disagree; 3, Neutral; 4, Slightly Agree; 5, Agree	Items are averaged (Alpha=0.62)
	I try to eat healthy foods in front of [child] even if they are not my favorite (e.g., vegetables) (Mean=4.0, SD=1.2)
	Try not to eat unhealthy foods when [child] is around? (Mean=3.1, SD=1.4)	1, Never; 2, Once in a while; 3, About half of the time; 4, Very often; 5, Always
Food Availability
Adapted from a questionnaire examining overt and covert control over a child’s eating (Ogden et al., 2006)	As a parent, how often do you…Avoid going to restaurants or fast food places which sell unhealthy foods with [child]? (Mean=3.3, SD=1.2)	1, Never; 2, Once in a while; 3, About half of the time; 4, Very often; 5, Always	Items are averaged (Alpha=0.83)
	Not buy foods that you like because you do not want [child] to have them? (Mean=2.3, SD=1.2)
	Avoid buying cookies, candy, and other treats to avoid bringing them into the house? (Mean=3.3, SD=1.3)
	Avoid having snack foods such as candy and chips in the house? (Mean=3.2, SD=1.2)
	Avoid having unhealthy foods in the house? (Mean=3.4, SD=1.2)

Note. All nine parenting practice scales range between 1 and 5, thus comparisons across means, standard deviations, and coefficients are possible.

2.3.2. Acculturation

Acculturation was assessed using the Acculturation, Habits, and Interests Multicultural Scale for Adolescents (AHIMSA; Unger et al., 2002). At both data collection time points, parents were asked seven questions from the AHIMSA: 1) My best friends are from…; 2) The people I fit in with the best are from…; 3) My favorite music is from…; 4) My favorite TV shows are from…; 5) The holidays I celebrate are from…; 6) The food I eat at home is from…; and 7) The way I do things and the way I think about things are from…. An eighth question from the original scale (I am most comfortable being with people from) was not asked in this survey because participants’ responses to the first two questions (i.e., “My best friends are from…” and “The people I fit in with the best are from…”) provided sufficient information for the purposes of the present study. The response options for all seven questions were a) the US, b) the country my family is from, c) both, and d) neither. Four scores were created using these questions: Assimilation (the number of “US” responses, Cronbach alpha=0.89), Separation (the number of “The country my family is from” responses, Cronbach alpha=0.85), Integration (the number of “Both” responses, Cronbach alpha=0.86), and Marginalization (the number of “Neither” responses, Cronbach alpha=0.82). Each score can range from 0 to 7. Because the respondent chooses one response for each question, the sum of the four scores will always equal seven.

2.3.3. Food Insecurity

A household food insecurity scale (range 0–6) was created by summing the parent’s responses to six questions from the USDA’s 6-item questionnaire (0 = high food security and 6 = very low food security; Blumberg et al., 1999; USDA Economic Research Service, 2012). This measure was dichotomized into “food insecure” (if the score was two or more) and “food secure” (if the score was 0 or 1). Food insecurity was assessed at both interview waves.

2.3.4. Race/Ethnicity

Because the Family Matters sample used a pre-stratified recruitment strategy such that there were roughly equal numbers of participants from six racial/ethnic groups, whole families were categorized as having one racial/ethnic group at the time of recruitment to ensure representation across racial/ethnic backgrounds. The primary caregiver respondent identified which of the six groups their family most closely identified with. However, many of the participants’ families include a parent and child of different races/ethnicities and many parents and children identified individually as Multiracial. Thus, we created an additional Multiracial category that included households where the parent and child were of different races/ethnicities and households where the parent or child were individually identified as Multiracial. Of the 215 families who identified as Latinx for stratification purposes, 49 (23%) were categorized as Multiracial using this definition. Of the 226 families who identified as Hmong, 11 (5%) were Multiracial, and of the 136 Somali/Ethiopian families, 13 (10%) were categorized as Multiracial.

2.3.5. Covariates

In all analyses, we included the following covariates to adjust for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the family: the household’s income and food security status, except for analyses where food security status was the predictor, not a covariate; the child’s age and gender; the primary caregiver’s education; and the survey time point (baseline or follow-up). In addition, we adjusted for the child’s weight status as parent’s parenting practices and acculturation may both be related to child weight (Pai & Contento, 2014). In models with the full sub-sample, we also included indicators for the four racial/ethnic groups; the Latinx group was treated as the reference group.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Hypotheses and analytic plans were not pre-specified before the data were collected, given that the present study was a secondary data analysis using data from the Family Matters longitudinal study.

Adjusted associations between nine food parenting practices and four acculturation strategies were estimated using linear random effects models. All models included the covariates listed above. Random effects models were used to adjust for multiple observations on the same child over time. Standard errors were further adjusted for intra-cluster correlations at the household level using the clustered sandwich estimator because some families contributed more than one child to the sample.¹ Following guidance from Unger et al. (2002), the four acculturation measures are run in separate regressions because they are dependent as they are all created from the same seven questions.

To determine whether the association between food parenting practices and acculturation varied by food security status, we estimated another set of regressions that added an interaction term between food insecurity status and acculturation score. Finally, because food parenting practices can be rooted in cultural norms, we estimated each model for the full sub-sample and separately for each racial/ethnic category.

This analysis involved estimating a large number of regressions (raising the likelihood of Type I error), but most of the tests were exploratory. Thus, instead of adjusting for multiple hypotheses which could mask true associations (raising the likelihood of Type II error), we instead chose to provide indicators of three ranges of p-values (p<0.05, p<0.01 and p<0.001) for transparency and focused our discussion on coefficients that were significant at the 1% or 0.1% levels. Regarding power considerations, post-hoc power analyses were conducted and identified that we were sufficiently powered to observe a meaningful slope even in the smallest sub-sample (i.e., Multiracial individuals). All analyses were conducted in Stata 18.0 (Stata Corp, 2023).

3. Results

3.1. Sample Characteristics

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics on all key variables and covariates at baseline, plus statistics on length of time in the US and language use for context. A total of 577 families from Latinx, Hmong, Somali/Ethiopian, and Multiracial backgrounds completed the baseline survey and were included in the analyses. Of these respondents, 166 (29%) of families were Latinx, 215 (37%) were Hmong, 123 (21%) were Somali/Ethiopian, and 73 (13%) were Multiracial. On average, children were 7.2 years old (SD = 1.5). Most children (65%) were below the 85^th percentile for BMI. Because recruitment occurred in primary care clinics that serve large low-income populations, the families in the sample have relatively low incomes. Almost 60% have incomes less than $35,000 a year and 27% of households experienced food insecurity at baseline.

Table 2.

Baseline Characteristics

	Full Sub-Sample (n=577)	Latinx (n=166)	Hmong (n=215)	Somali/Ethiopian (n=123)	Multiracial (n=73)	Sig Diff by Race/Ethnicity (p-value)
Child’s Age M(SD)	7.2 (1.5)	7.3 (1.6)	7.0 (1.5)	7.4 (1.6)	7.1 (1.5)	0.799
Child is Female n(%)	268 (46%)	78 (47%)	102 (47%)	48 (39%)	40 (55%)	0.181
Child’s weight status n(%)
<85th percentile BMI	373 (65%)	97 (58%)	140 (65%)	87 (71%)	49 (67%)
85 – 95th percentile BMI	99 (17%)	32 (19%)	35 (16%)	20 (16%)	12 (16%)	0.437
>95th percentile BMI	105 (18%)	37 (23%)	40 (19%)	16 (13%)	12 (16%)
Parent Education n(%)
Less than high school	151 (26%)	57 (34%)	28 (13%)	52 (42%)	14 (19%)	<0.001
High school graduate	152 (26%)	44 (27%)	56 (26%)	35 (28%)	17 (23%)
Some College	177 (31%)	37 (22%)	95 (44%)	25 (20%)	20 (27%)
College graduate+	97 (17%)	28 (17%)	36 (17%)	11 (9%)	22 (30%)
Household Income n(%)
Less than $20,000	153 (27%)	57 (34%)	31 (14%)	46 (37%)	19 (26%)	<0.001
$20,000 - $34,999	178 (31%)	52 (31%)	60 (28%)	44 (36%)	22 (30%)
$35,000 - $49,999	122 (21%)	33 (20%)	58 (27%)	23 (19%)	8 (11%)
$50,000+ (or NR)	124 (21%)	24 (14%)	66 (31%)	10 (8%)	24 (33%)
Household is Food Insecure n(%)	153 (27%)	48 (29%)	63 (29%)	20 (16%)	22 (30%)	0.037
Household Race/Ethnicity n(%)
Latinx	166 (29%)	166(100%)				n/a
Hmong	215 (37%)		215(100%)
Somali/Ethiopian	123 (21%)			123(100%)
Multiracial	73 (13%)				73(100%)
Coercive Control Food Parenting Practices M(SD) Range 1–5
Pressure-to-eat	3.4 (0.9)	3.4 (0.9)	3.5 (0.8)	3.4 (0.9)	3.1 (1.0)	0.011
Food Restriction	3.6 (1.1)	3.8 (1.1)	3.6 (1.0)	3.6 (1.2)	3.5 (1.2)	0.565
Threats and Bribes	2.3 (1.0)	2.1 (1.0)	2.3 (0.9)	2.5 (1.1)	2.3 (1.1)	0.020
Emotional	2.2 (1.2)	1.9 (1.1)	2.2 (1.0)	2.8 (1.4)	2.0 (1.0)	<0.001
Structure-related Food Parenting Practices M(SD) Range 1–5
Monitoring	3.8 (1.0)	3.6 (0.7)	3.7 (1.0)	4.2 (1.0)	3.7 (1.0)	<0.001
Unstructured Practices	2.6 (0.9)	2.3 (0.9)	2.6 (0.8)	3.0 (1.0)	2.7 (0.9)	<0.001
Rules and Limits	3.1 (1.3)	2.8 (1.5)	3.3 (1.1)	3.2 (1.4)	3.0 (1.4)	<0.001
Modeling	3.8 (0.9)	4.0 (0.8)	3.5 (0.9)	4.0 (0.9)	3.7 (1.0)	<0.001
Food Availability	3.1 (1.0)	3.3 (0.9)	2.9 (0.9)	3.4 (1.1)	3.1 (0.9)	0.001
Acculturation Scores M(SD) Range: 0–7
Assimilation (US)	1.1 (2.0)	0.5 (1.5)	1.8 (2.3)	0.5 (1.1)	1.7 (2.5)	<0.001
Separation (home country)	1.3 (2.0)	1.4 (2.0)	0.5 (1.2)	2.5 (2.3)	1.3 (2.1)	<0.001
Integration (both)	4.3 (2.5)	4.9 (2.3)	4.5 (2.5)	3.8 (2.4)	3.6 (2.7)	0.001
Marginalization (neither)	0.2 (0.8)	0.2 (0.6)	0.2 (0.7)	0.3 (0.8)	0.5 (1.3)	0.093
Time in United States n(%)
Born in the US	151 (26%)	26 (16%)	89 (41%)	1 (0%)	35 (48%)
10+ years	322 (56%)	99 (60%)	119 (55%)	75 (61%)	29 (40%)	<0.001
<10 years	103 (18%)	40 (24%)	7 (3%)	47 (38%)	9 (12%)
Survey not taken in English n(%)	162 (28%)	119 (72%)	9 (4%)	18 (15%)	16 (22%)	<0.001

Note. NR = Not reported; Chi-square tests were conducted to test for differences by race/ethnicity

3.2. Food Parenting Practices and Acculturation by Race/Ethnicity

Eight out of the nine measures of food parenting practices (excluding food restriction) were statistically dependent on race/ethnicity (Table 2). Among coercive control practices, Hmong parents had the highest average pressure-to-eat score (3.5), and Somali/Ethiopian parents had the highest average threats and bribes score (2.5) and emotional score (i.e., using food in response to child’s emotions; 2.8). Among structure-related practices, Somali/Ethiopian parents had the highest average for four of the five scores; Hmong had the highest average for rules and limits.

Acculturation was also statistically dependent on race/ethnicity (Table 2). Hmong parents had the highest average assimilation score (i.e., answered the US for more questions on average), Somali/Ethiopians parents had the highest average separation score (i.e., answered their home country for more questions), and Latinx parents had the highest average integration score (i.e., answered both for more questions). There were no significant differences in average marginalization scores (i.e., answered neither for more questions) by race/ethnicity.

For context, note that 48% of respondents from Multiracial families were born in the US, followed by 41% of respondents from Hmong families. No respondents from Somali/Ethiopian families were born in the US and 38% had lived in the US for less than a decade. In addition, 72% of respondents from Latinx families chose to take the survey in Spanish, whereas only 4% of respondents from Hmong families chose to take the survey in Hmong, 16% of respondents from Somali families chose to take the survey in Somali, and 22% of respondents from Multiracial families chose to take the survey in a language other than English.

3.3. Associations Between Acculturation and Food Parenting Practices

Table 3 reports 36 coefficients for the full sub-sample and for each racial/ethnic group, each from a separate regression. Overall, the results in Table 3 indicate that marginalization was the only acculturation strategy that was significantly associated with coercive control practices in the full sub-sample, and acculturation strategies were significantly associated with structure-related food parenting practices when the sample was separated by race/ethnicity. The specific results are discussed for the full sub-sample and by race/ethnicity in the following paragraphs.

Table 3.

Adjusted Associations between Acculturation and Food Parenting Practices by Race/Ethnicity

	Coercive Control				Structure
	Pressuring	Restricting	Threats / Bribes	Emotional	Monitoring	Unstructured practices	Rules/Limits	Modeling	Food availability
Full Sub-Sample (n=1042 observations on 577 children)
Assimilation	−0.004	−0.002	0.008	−0.004	−0.044	0.022	0.014	−0.002	−0.007
	(0.016)	(0.022)	(0.021)	(0.023)	(0.023)	(0.021)	(0.020)	(0.018)	(0.020)
Separation	0.020	−0.029	−0.005	0.034	0.008	0.026	0.024	0.004	0.021
	(0.017)	(0.022)	(0.019)	(0.027)	(0.021)	(0.020)	(0.028)	(0.015)	(0.018)
Integration	−0.012	0.017	−0.013	−0.036*	0.016	−0.026	−0.030	0.010	0.003
	(0.012)	(0.015)	(0.013)	(0.018)	(0.015)	(0.014)	(0.018)	(0.011)	(0.013)
Marginalization	0.022	−0.000	0.066	0.123 **	0.028	−0.006	0.056	−0.063	−0.065
	(0.035)	(0.048)	(0.041)	(0.045)	(0.049)	(0.048)	(0.045)	(0.037)	(0.043)
Latinx (n=305 observations on 166 children)
Assimilation	0.045	−0.080	−0.065	−0.030	0.029	0.006	−0.004	0.081	0.062
	(0.035)	(0.043)	(0.071)	(0.073)	(0.050)	(0.079)	(0.052)	(0.046)	(0.067)
Separation	−0.033	−0.064	−0.067*	−0.014	0.003	0.018	−0.031	0.018	0.052
	(0.028)	(0.038)	(0.027)	(0.029)	(0.023)	(0.036)	(0.048)	(0.026)	(0.032)
Integration	−0.000	0.056	0.043	−0.001	0.018	−0.042	0.014	−0.008	−0.033
	(0.026)	(0.031)	(0.023)	(0.025)	(0.020)	(0.029)	(0.037)	(0.020)	(0.027)
Marginalization	0.056	0.102	0.157	0.117	−0.185*	0.180*	0.061	−0.187 ***	−0.155*
	(0.088)	(0.083)	(0.083)	(0.069)	(0.073)	(0.083)	(0.068)	(0.036)	(0.070)
Hmong (n=391 observation on 215 children)
Assimilation	−0.015	−0.004	0.029	0.011	−0.051	0.005	0.021	−0.023	−0.019
	(0.020)	(0.028)	(0.023)	(0.029)	(0.030)	(0.028)	(0.026)	(0.023)	(0.019)
Separation	0.053*	−0.022	−0.015	−0.014	0.103 **	0.011	−0.012	0.029	0.057
	(0.022)	(0.037)	(0.040)	(0.060)	(0.033)	(0.041)	(0.053)	(0.031)	(0.036)
Integration	−0.010	0.005	−0.032	−0.013	−0.003	0.008	−0.003	0.010	−0.004
	(0.016)	(0.022)	(0.021)	(0.028)	(0.026)	(0.023)	(0.026)	(0.018)	(0.018)
Marginalization	0.040	0.033	0.092	0.062	0.101	−0.109*	−0.079	0.001	0.014
	(0.048)	(0.065)	(0.059)	(0.078)	(0.081)	(0.054)	(0.079)	(0.052)	(0.061)
Somali/Ethiopian (n=208 observations on 123 children)
Assimilation	0.034	−0.001	0.008	−0.002	−0.143	−0.037	0.058	−0.003	−0.088
	(0.049)	(0.113)	(0.087)	(0.135)	(0.089)	(0.073)	(0.065)	(0.053)	(0.073)
Separation	0.023	−0.053	0.033	0.104	−0.094*	0.078*	0.108	−0.036	−0.026
	(0.037)	(0.045)	(0.037)	(0.057)	(0.046)	(0.038)	(0.057)	(0.027)	(0.037)
Integration	−0.037	0.055	−0.032	−0.115*	0.079*	−0.039	−0.152 ***	0.038	0.048
	(0.028)	(0.038)	(0.037)	(0.054)	(0.036)	(0.038)	(0.046)	(0.025)	(0.036)
Marginalization	0.066	−0.048	0.004	0.171	0.265**	−0.170	0.298*	−0.039	−0.042
	(0.102)	(0.137)	(0.099)	(0.143)	(0.085)	(0.109)	(0.131)	(0.064)	(0.095)
Multiracial (n=138 observations on 73 children)
Assimilation	0.012	0.090*	0.056	−0.024	−0.033	0.098 **	0.025	0.042	0.057
	(0.035)	(0.039)	(0.038)	(0.042)	(0.045)	(0.033)	(0.050)	(0.036)	(0.036)
Separation	0.033	0.016	0.035	0.076	−0.007	−0.019	0.041	−0.010	−0.005
	(0.044)	(0.061)	(0.047)	(0.069)	(0.047)	(0.050)	(0.061)	(0.048)	(0.043)
Integration	−0.019	−0.049	−0.041	−0.063	0.017	−0.089 **	−0.076	−0.015	−0.016
	(0.032)	(0.035)	(0.033)	(0.042)	(0.039)	(0.030)	(0.045)	(0.031)	(0.028)
Marginalization	−0.019	−0.098	−0.048	0.144	0.038	0.082	0.171 ***	−0.041	−0.070
	(0.043)	(0.065)	(0.034)	(0.103)	(0.068)	(0.058)	(0.049)	(0.078)	(0.089)

Note. Unstandardized betas from random-effects linear regressions reported. Standard errors in the parentheses.

^*p<0.05,

^**p<0.01,

^***p<0.001.

Each coefficient is from a separate regression. All models adjust for child’s age, gender, weight status, parent’s education, household income, household food insecurity, and wave. In the full sub-sample, indicators for race/ethnicity were also included. Example interpretation: (Latinx panel, Separation-Threats/Bribes) With each additional point on the separation score (which ranges from 0 to 7), the average Latinx parent scored 0.067 points lower on the threats and bribes scale (which ranges from 1 to 5, p<0.05). Note that in the first seven columns, a positive coefficient indicates parents engaging in practices which have been found to be LESS supportive. In contrast, in the last two columns, a positive coefficient indicates parents engaging in practices found to be MORE supportive.

3.3.1. Full Sub-Sample

One of the 36 coefficients was statistically significant at p<.01. Marginalization was significantly associated with more engagement in emotional practices in the full sub-sample.

3.3.2. Latinx Families

One of the 36 coefficients was statistically significant at p<.001. Marginalization was significantly negatively associated with modeling, such that with each additional point on the marginalization score, the parent scored 0.187 points lower on the modeling food parenting practices scale (p<.001).

3.3.3. Hmong Families

As with Latinx families, only one of the 36 coefficients was significant at p<.01 for Hmong families. Separation was positively associated with monitoring, such that with each additional point on the separation score, the parent scored 0.103 points higher on the monitoring scale (p<0.01).

3.3.4. Somali/Ethiopian Families

Among Somali/Ethiopian families, integration was negatively associated with rules and limits (−0.152, p<0.001) and marginalization was positively associated with monitoring (0.265, p<0.01).

3.3.5. Multiracial Families

Marginalization was positively associated with rules and limits among Multiracial families (0.171, p<0.001). Assimilation was positively associated with unstructured practices (0.098, p<0.01), whereas integration was negatively associated with unstructured practices (−0.089, p<0.01).

3.4. Differences in the Associations Between Acculturation and Food Parenting Practices by Food Security Status

Another set of regressions were run which included interactions between food security status and acculturation strategies (see Appendix Table 1 for full results). Food insecurity was generally associated with less supportive food parenting practices, but its interaction with acculturation strategies were somewhat mixed. For ease of interpretation, figures showing the predicted food parenting scores by acculturation score and food security status are provided for all cases where the interaction coefficient was significant at the 1% or 0.1% level. The specific results are discussed for the full sub-sample and by race/ethnicity in the following paragraphs.

3.4.1. Full Sub-Sample

One interaction between separation and food insecurity (threats and bribes) and one interaction between marginalization and food insecurity (threats and bribes) were significant at the 1% level. In both interactions (see Figure 1), the associations between acculturation and food parenting practices were not significantly different from zero for families without food insecurity. For families with food insecurity, greater separation from US culture was associated with significantly fewer threats and bribes; and greater marginalization was associated with significantly more threats and bribes.

Figure 1.

Association between Acculturation and Food Parenting Practices by Food Security Status – Full Sub-Sample

3.4.2. Latinx Families

Two interactions between assimilation and food insecurity were significant at the 1% or 0.1% levels: food restriction and food availability practices. The left panel of Figure 2 shows that among families without food insecurity, the food restriction score was about 3.7 regardless of their assimilation score. However, among Latinx families with food insecurity, assimilation was negatively associated with food restriction (−0.213, p<0.01). This pattern suggests that assimilated Latinx families with food insecurity restricted food significantly less than non-assimilated families with food insecurity. With respect to food availability (see right panel of Figure 2), Latinx families without food insecurity adjusted food availability more if they were more assimilated (p<0.001), but Latinx families with food insecurity reduced their use of food availability practices when they were more assimilated. In both cases, non-assimilated Latinx families behaved similarly regardless of food security status, where assimilated Latinx families engaged in much less food restriction and food availability practices when experiencing food insecurity.

Figure 2.

Association between Acculturation and Food Parenting Practices by Food Security Status – Latinx Families

3.4.3. Hmong Families

Four interactions between marginalization and food insecurity were significant at the 1% or 0.1% levels. For Hmong families without food insecurity, marginalization was not associated with pressure-to-eat, threats and bribes, or emotional practices, and was negatively associated with rules and limits. However, for Hmong families with food insecurity, marginalization was positively associated with all practices (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Association between Acculturation and Food Parenting Practices by Food Security Status – Hmong Families

3.4.4. Somali/Ethiopian Families

Five interactions between acculturation variables and food insecurity were significant for Somali/Ethiopian families. While assimilation was unrelated to emotional practices among families without food insecurity, emotional practices increased with assimilation among Somali/Ethiopian families with food insecurity (see top left panel of Figure 4). Assimilation also interacted with food security with respect to food availability –families without food insecurity engaged in fewer food availability practices if they were more assimilated, whereas families with food insecurity engaged in more food availability practices as they assimilated (top right panel of Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Association between Acculturation and Food Parenting Practices by Food Security Status – Somali/Ethiopian Families

Separation was associated with monitoring and unstructured practices, but in opposite directions by food security status. Families with food insecurity engaged in more monitoring if they were more separated from US culture, whereas families without food insecurity engaged in less monitoring if they were more separated (see middle left panel of Figure 4). In contrast, families with food insecurity engaged in fewer unstructured practices if they were more separated from US culture, whereas families without food insecurity engaged in more unstructured practices if they were more separated (see middle right panel of Figure 4).

Finally, families with food insecurity engaged in more emotional practices, whereas emotional practices were unrelated to emotional practices in families without food insecurity (bottom panel of Figure 4).

3.4.5. Multiracial Families

No interactions between acculturation and food insecurity were significant at the 1% or 0.1% levels for Multiracial families.

4. Discussion

The current study sought to identify whether acculturation strategies, measured in Latinx, Hmong, Somali/Ethiopian, and Multiracial families, were associated with the differential use of specific food parenting practices. A secondary objective of this study was to examine whether food security status moderated the relationship between acculturation and food parenting practices. Regarding the first research question, findings supported the study hypotheses that acculturation strategies are significantly related to use of specific food parenting practices across Latinx, Hmong, Somali/Ethiopian, and Multiracial families. In particular, marginalization was significantly associated with more engagement in emotional practices in the full sub-sample. However, none of the coefficients examining the relationship between marginalization and engagement in emotional practices reached significance in the racial/ethnic subgroups, but the signs of the coefficients were consistent in all samples, suggesting that this pattern generally held for all immigrant subgroups. The hypotheses that assimilation and integration would be associated with more supportive food parenting practices (i.e., structure practices) and that separation and marginalization would be associated with less supportive food parenting practices (i.e., unstructured and coercive control practices) were not fully supported across each racial/ethnic group. Notably, patterns in the relationship between acculturation strategies and food parenting practices differed across race and ethnicity. For example, within Hmong families, separation was associated with greater use of monitoring (p<0.01). In contrast, Somali/Ethiopian families endorsing higher separation reported decreased use of monitoring (p<0.05). These relationships suggest that race/ethnicity is an important construct to consider when examining the association between acculturation strategies and food parenting practices.

Most studies examining the relationship between acculturation and food parenting practices have done so in samples representing one racial/ethnic group (e.g., Latinx families; Evans et al., 2011; Mojica et al., 2019; Power et al., 2015). However, more research is needed to help elucidate the complex interplay between acculturation and food parenting practices among various immigrant populations in the US. Specifically, including more diverse samples who are understudied in the literature is important – including Hmong, Somali/Ethiopian, and Multiracial families – as they are experiencing rapid population growth in the US and represent significant segments of the immigrant community (Anderson, 2017; Budiman, 2021; Jones et al., 2021). Notably, the present study’s findings are supported by a previous study conducted using the same Family Matters sample, which employed time spent in the US as a proxy measure of acculturation. For example, for Latinx and Hmong participants, but not Somali/Ethiopian participants, length of time spent in the US was significantly related to food parenting practices, such that participants who had recently moved to the US engaged in more structured food parenting practices (Othman et al., 2022). Importantly, however, it is unknown whether use of specific acculturation strategies differs according to generational status or other proxy measures of acculturation typically used in acculturation research (e.g., are first generation immigrant families more likely to engage in one acculturation strategy over another?).

Other studies exploring the relationship between other measures of acculturation (e.g., generational status) in Latinx families indicate that Latinx mothers born outside of the US are more likely to engage in coercive control food parenting practices than Latinx mothers born in the US (Power et al., 2015). The authors provide a plausible explanation for this association, indicating that mothers born outside the US may be more inclined to encourage their children to consume unprocessed or minimally processed foods (e.g., fresh fruit and vegetables) rather than processed foods (e.g., packaged chips and cookies; Power et al., 2015). This tendency might arise if they haven’t been consistently exposed to persuasive television advertisements promoting processed food items common in the US (Power et al., 2015). However, recent findings have challenged this notion, as they reveal that Latinx families, both in Latin America and the US, continue to be exposed to food-related advertising primarily featuring processed foods, despite the implementation of food advertising regulations in Latin America (Bacardi-Gascon & Jimenez-Cruz, 2015). Exploring potential mechanisms behind the association between acculturation (and relevant proxies) and food parenting practices could yield valuable insights. These mechanisms might encompass disparities between parents’ traditional food beliefs and the prevailing food culture in the US, involving factors such as the ready availability and extensive marketing of processed foods.

Regarding the second objective of the study, the relationship between acculturation and food parenting practices varied by food security status, and patterns in this relationship differed across race/ethnicity. Overall, food insecurity was associated with increased use of less supportive food parenting practices, which is consistent with prior literature (Bauer et al., 2015; Feinberg et al., 2008). The relationships between specific acculturation strategies and food parenting practices were significantly modified by food security status in the full sub-sample and among Latinx, Hmong, and Somali/Ethiopian families, but not among Multiracial families. Specifically, in the full sub-sample, for families with food insecurity, greater separation from US culture was associated with fewer threats and bribes, and greater marginalization was associated with more threats and bribes. When scanning the corresponding coefficients in the racial/ethnic-specific sub-samples, the associations between acculturation strategies (i.e., marginalization and separation) and food parenting practices among families without food insecurity had the same directionality for most subgroups even if not significant, suggesting that these associations generally held for most immigrant groups in the analysis. It is important to note that food insecurity can present significant challenges for families, and these findings highlight the potential impact of such circumstances on food parenting practices. Given the novelty of these results, the mechanisms behind these relationships are still unclear. However, these patterns suggest that specific acculturation strategies may play a particularly important role in shaping food parenting practices for Latinx, Hmong, and Somali/Ethiopian families. Authors of one study identified that families experiencing food insecurity who reported stress earlier in the day endorsed restrictive feeding practices the same day at the evening meal (Berge et al., 2020). It is possible that the combination of acculturation, food insecurity, and stress helps shape how food is allocated and managed within the family, consequently affecting food parenting practices. Further, the degree to which families implement traditional food beliefs and/or adopt US cultural beliefs about food may also be intertwined with both food insecurity and acculturation. For example, when faced with food insecurity, families may embrace US cultural beliefs about food as they are exposed to and influenced by the prevalent food environment. In their efforts to manage food scarcity, families who are less separated from US culture may employ specific food parenting practices, such as pressuring children to eat when food becomes available, even if these practices deviate from their traditional food beliefs. Qualitative or longitudinal studies exploring the complex interplay between acculturation, food insecurity, and food parenting practices would provide further clarity on how culturally diverse families adopt food parenting practices.

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

Despite the valuable insights gained from this study, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. First, given that the AHIMSA asks participants to answer questions related to their orientation to the US, their native culture, or both, it is unclear how Multiracial participants may have defined their native culture. Multiracial participants are an important segment of the US, and acculturation measures should be improved to adequately capture their unique experiences. Of course, like all racial/ethnic groups, those with Multiracial identities are not a monolith. Eating-related behaviors can be different depending on the unique combination of identities as well (Burke et al., 2021), and food parenting practices are possibly similarly varied (particularly with the interaction of acculturation). Second, three of the food parenting practices scales (i.e., modeling, threats and bribes, and pressure to eat) had relatively poor internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha < 0.70). Thus, it is possible that these scales may not be reliable indicators of the food parenting practices that they were intended to measure. Future work focused on designing short and reliable measurement tools assessing food parenting practices would facilitate collection of this important data in survey studies examining a broad range of constructs. Third, though exploring how food parenting practices translate to child dietary behaviors and health outcomes was not within the scope of this study, future research should explore how the differential use of food parenting practices translate to childhood outcomes within Latinx, Hmong, Somali/Ethiopian, and Multiracial families. Importantly, the majority of research exploring the relationship between food parenting practices and child health outcomes has not explored these relationships within this combination of racial/ethnic identities. Thus, whether certain food parenting practices can accurately be categorized as more or less supportive within Latinx, Hmong, Somali/Ethiopian, and Multiracial families – and the structural factors which may underlie such strategies – is still unknown. Fourth, temporal relationships between acculturation strategies, food insecurity, and food parenting practices were not ascertained in this study. We considered examining the association between baseline acculturation and follow-up food parenting practices in this study but were not sufficiently powered to conduct these analyses due to small subgroup sample size when requiring two observations per child. Only 465 families contributed a follow-up observation; thus. we were underpowered for lagged or within estimator models for subgroups. Longitudinal studies on larger samples that examine the acculturation strategies employed by families upon migration to the US, as well as the relationship between these strategies, food security status, and food parenting practices over time are crucial for teasing apart the complex relationships among these variables. Lastly, the sample of the present study was recruited from the Twin Cities, and results may not be generalizable to immigrant populations located elsewhere in the US or abroad. Studies including more representative samples of US migrants/refugees from other regions of the US are necessary.

4.2. Conclusion

In conclusion, findings from the present study illustrate the complex interplay between acculturation strategies, food security status, and food parenting practices among migrant/refugee families in the US. The present study highlights the importance of conducting research on factors related to the use of certain food parenting practices in underserved and understudied samples, particularly given negative downstream consequences associated with less supportive food parenting practices (i.e., coercive control and unstructured practices), such as eating disorders and health complications related to nonnutritive eating patterns (Hurley et al., 2011; Loth et al., 2014; Shloim et al., 2015). Research in representative samples of US immigrants should explore temporal relationships between acculturation strategies, food security status, and food parenting practices to further elucidate how food parenting practices evolve upon moving to the US. Additionally, it will be important to understand how food parenting practices are related to health outcomes (e.g., full-threshold eating pathology and cardiovascular health outcomes) in youth within racially/ethnically diverse migrant/refugee samples in the US.

Appendix Table 1.

Adjusted Associations between Acculturation, Food Parenting Practices, and Food Insecurity (FI) by Race/Ethnicity

	Coercive Control				Structure
	Pressuring	Restricting	Threats/Bribes	Emotional	Monitoring	Unstructured practices	Rules/Limits	Modeling	Food availability
Full Sub-Sample (n=1042 observations on 577 children)
Assimilation	−0.004	0.005	0.002	0.001	−0.048	0.035	0.010	−0.015	−0.012
	(0.018)	(0.025)	(0.022)	(0.026)	(0.027)	(0.024)	(0.024)	(0.020)	(0.023)
FI	0.089	0.258 **	0.169*	0.120	−0.141	0.148	0.199	−0.168*	−0.095
	(0.074)	(0.096)	(0.084)	(0.095)	(0.088)	(0.085)	(0.113)	(0.079)	(0.085)
Assimilation*FI	−0.002	−0.030	0.027	−0.021	0.019	−0.056	0.015	0.051	0.020
	(0.031)	(0.039)	(0.038)	(0.041)	(0.040)	(0.039)	(0.046)	(0.030)	(0.032)
Separation	0.036	−0.039	0.016	0.053	0.001	0.033	0.012	0.005	0.018
	(0.020)	(0.026)	(0.022)	(0.030)	(0.025)	(0.023)	(0.031)	(0.018)	(0.021)
FI	0.177*	0.166	0.309 **	0.198*	−0.146	0.116	0.155	−0.101	−0.084
	(0.071)	(0.098)	(0.094)	(0.099)	(0.097)	(0.092)	(0.118)	(0.083)	(0.088)
Separation*FI	−0.068*	0.041	−0.085 **	−0.077*	0.028	−0.029	0.050	−0.004	0.013
	(0.032)	(0.041)	(0.030)	(0.037)	(0.036)	(0.040)	(0.049)	(0.034)	(0.041)
Integration	−0.018	0.026	−0.013	−0.043	0.021	−0.037*	−0.019	0.016	0.012
	(0.014)	(0.018)	(0.016)	(0.022)	(0.018)	(0.018)	(0.021)	(0.014)	(0.016)
FI	−0.004	0.370*	0.200	−0.001	−0.044	−0.098	0.402*	−0.010	0.071
	(0.132)	(0.160)	(0.160)	(0.171)	(0.157)	(0.171)	(0.173)	(0.144)	(0.171)
Integration*FI	0.022	−0.036	0.001	0.024	−0.017	0.043	−0.043	−0.024	−0.034
	(0.025)	(0.031)	(0.031)	(0.034)	(0.030)	(0.033)	(0.035)	(0.028)	(0.032)
Marginalization	−0.018	−0.060	0.003	0.067	0.062	−0.028	0.053	−0.064	−0.110*
	(0.036)	(0.065)	(0.036)	(0.055)	(0.048)	(0.052)	(0.064)	(0.039)	(0.047)
FI	0.049	0.168*	0.135	0.031	−0.083	0.058	0.205	−0.101	−0.103
	(0.064)	(0.083)	(0.074)	(0.080)	(0.080)	(0.077)	(0.108)	(0.067)	(0.072)
Marginalization*FI	0.108	0.163*	0.172 **	0.150*	−0.091	0.061	0.009	0.003	0.122
	(0.062)	(0.077)	(0.065)	(0.072)	(0.098)	(0.093)	(0.077)	(0.082)	(0.102)
Latinx (n=305 observations on 166 children)
Assimilation	0.055	−0.016	−0.110	0.035	0.057	0.007	−0.035	0.111*	0.141*
	(0.044)	(0.044)	(0.070)	(0.105)	(0.059)	(0.105)	(0.067)	(0.051)	(0.060)
FI	−0.021	0.377 **	0.148	0.323*	0.041	0.094	−0.025	−0.290*	−0.204
	(0.127)	(0.146)	(0.126)	(0.134)	(0.100)	(0.158)	(0.183)	(0.117)	(0.142)
Assimilation*FI	−0.033	−0.213 **	0.145	−0.211	−0.090	−0.008	0.104	−0.102	−0.267 ***
	(0.072)	(0.078)	(0.120)	(0.108)	(0.076)	(0.108)	(0.101)	(0.079)	(0.076)
Separation	0.009	−0.070	−0.050	−0.015	−0.008	0.019	−0.063	−0.012	0.008
	(0.036)	(0.048)	(0.032)	(0.036)	(0.028)	(0.046)	(0.048)	(0.032)	(0.041)
FI	0.201	0.261	0.327	0.222	−0.062	0.089	−0.147	−0.508 **	−0.586 **
	(0.134)	(0.186)	(0.204)	(0.183)	(0.157)	(0.206)	(0.245)	(0.156)	(0.181)
Separation*FI	−0.129*	0.018	−0.052	0.005	0.035	−0.002	0.103	0.091	0.138
	(0.056)	(0.062)	(0.052)	(0.049)	(0.048)	(0.078)	(0.089)	(0.050)	(0.074)
Integration	−0.021	0.054	0.063*	0.000	0.004	−0.030	0.046	−0.007	−0.029
	(0.031)	(0.039)	(0.031)	(0.033)	(0.027)	(0.043)	(0.040)	(0.028)	(0.038)
FI	−0.298	0.282	0.495	0.243	−0.171	0.224	0.474	−0.340	−0.292
	(0.296)	(0.307)	(0.348)	(0.313)	(0.282)	(0.417)	(0.309)	(0.305)	(0.408)
Integration*FI	0.060	0.004	−0.060	−0.004	0.040	−0.035	−0.100	−0.001	−0.012
	(0.054)	(0.057)	(0.061)	(0.055)	(0.050)	(0.073)	(0.067)	(0.055)	(0.071)
Marginalization	−0.087	0.029	0.009	−0.031	−0.152	0.138	0.114	−0.175 **	−0.214*
	(0.067)	(0.175)	(0.119)	(0.102)	(0.099)	(0.173)	(0.145)	(0.067)	(0.108)
FI	−0.124	0.220	0.109	0.118	0.049	0.029	0.039	−0.294 **	−0.327*
	(0.119)	(0.148)	(0.125)	(0.123)	(0.092)	(0.144)	(0.190)	(0.112)	(0.141)
Marginalization*FI	0.228*	0.118	0.233	0.237*	−0.052	0.068	−0.086	−0.018	0.096
	(0.105)	(0.173)	(0.122)	(0.113)	(0.128)	(0.172)	(0.148)	(0.080)	(0.128)
Hmong (n=391 observations on 215 children)
Assimilation	−0.010	0.000	0.044	0.021	−0.060	0.029	0.032	−0.035	−0.022
	(0.024)	(0.034)	(0.026)	(0.034)	(0.038)	(0.033)	(0.031)	(0.026)	(0.024)
FI	0.194	0.089	0.496 ***	0.196	−0.184	0.091	0.192	−0.029	0.111
	(0.123)	(0.167)	(0.146)	(0.159)	(0.162)	(0.120)	(0.197)	(0.138)	(0.127)
Assimilation*FI	−0.021	−0.015	−0.055	−0.039	0.033	−0.087	−0.037	0.045	0.011
	(0.043)	(0.055)	(0.054)	(0.058)	(0.056)	(0.054)	(0.059)	(0.043)	(0.042)
Separation	0.056*	−0.047	−0.012	0.001	0.111 ***	0.001	−0.049	0.010	0.040
	(0.027)	(0.046)	(0.048)	(0.065)	(0.032)	(0.046)	(0.063)	(0.034)	(0.038)
FI	0.176	0.002	0.388 **	0.151	−0.071	−0.086	0.037	0.026	0.112
	(0.100)	(0.140)	(0.122)	(0.122)	(0.138)	(0.121)	(0.152)	(0.117)	(0.103)
Separation*FI	−0.012	0.129	−0.017	−0.075	−0.041	0.048	0.189	0.094	0.086
	(0.054)	(0.069)	(0.075)	(0.114)	(0.075)	(0.091)	(0.108)	(0.078)	(0.087)
Integration	−0.008	0.020	−0.033	−0.011	0.001	−0.010	0.013	0.029	0.009
	(0.019)	(0.026)	(0.024)	(0.034)	(0.032)	(0.026)	(0.031)	(0.021)	(0.021)
FI	0.205	0.319	0.383	0.172	−0.046	−0.376	0.401	0.405*	0.375
	(0.212)	(0.247)	(0.243)	(0.275)	(0.269)	(0.247)	(0.278)	(0.197)	(0.213)
Integration*FI	−0.009	−0.058	0.003	−0.010	−0.014	0.069	−0.063	−0.078*	−0.053
	(0.038)	(0.046)	(0.046)	(0.053)	(0.047)	(0.045)	(0.049)	(0.037)	(0.040)
Marginalization	−0.031	−0.045	0.011	−0.057	0.091	−0.108	−0.184 **	−0.046	−0.044
	(0.051)	(0.096)	(0.063)	(0.047)	(0.106)	(0.063)	(0.062)	(0.064)	(0.082)
FI	0.101	−0.005	0.313 **	0.019	−0.121	−0.060	0.033	0.022	0.089
	(0.097)	(0.130)	(0.115)	(0.117)	(0.131)	(0.115)	(0.167)	(0.108)	(0.098)
Marginalization*FI	0.236 **	0.263*	0.268 **	0.392 ***	0.031	−0.002	0.339 **	0.155	0.198*
	(0.074)	(0.116)	(0.092)	(0.081)	(0.148)	(0.120)	(0.116)	(0.087)	(0.091)
Somali/Ethiopian (n=208 observations on 123 children)
Assimilation	0.009	−0.039	−0.063	−0.148	−0.151	−0.093	−0.000	−0.058	−0.156 **
	(0.052)	(0.138)	(0.081)	(0.120)	(0.110)	(0.073)	(0.081)	(0.057)	(0.058)
FI	0.284	0.132	−0.132	−0.391	−0.311	0.225	0.831 ***	−0.133	−0.190
	(0.163)	(0.272)	(0.238)	(0.252)	(0.279)	(0.227)	(0.237)	(0.209)	(0.227)
Assimilation*FI	0.109	0.164	0.339*	0.676 ***	0.028	0.233*	0.236*	0.236*	0.293 **
	(0.091)	(0.181)	(0.162)	(0.200)	(0.139)	(0.114)	(0.110)	(0.095)	(0.095)
Separation	0.040	−0.064	0.049	0.136*	−0.124*	0.113 **	0.137*	−0.019	−0.004
	(0.039)	(0.053)	(0.039)	(0.060)	(0.051)	(0.039)	(0.060)	(0.030)	(0.038)
FI	0.605 **	0.012	0.326	0.549	−0.721*	0.876 **	1.416 ***	0.254	0.289
	(0.199)	(0.344)	(0.364)	(0.445)	(0.325)	(0.308)	(0.312)	(0.233)	(0.263)
Separation*FI	−0.109	0.079	−0.109	−0.224*	0.193 **	−0.235 **	−0.184	−0.116	−0.149*
	(0.064)	(0.114)	(0.076)	(0.101)	(0.075)	(0.087)	(0.098)	(0.086)	(0.074)
Integration	−0.049	0.075	−0.034	−0.118*	0.103 **	−0.060	−0.182 ***	0.033	0.041
	(0.029)	(0.044)	(0.037)	(0.060)	(0.039)	(0.042)	(0.051)	(0.027)	(0.038)
FI	0.078	0.648	0.034	−0.028	0.227	−0.117	0.406	−0.120	−0.225
	(0.301)	(0.458)	(0.322)	(0.533)	(0.290)	(0.411)	(0.452)	(0.375)	(0.373)
Integration*FI	0.074	−0.115	0.010	0.019	−0.139	0.119	0.162	0.026	0.042
	(0.057)	(0.099)	(0.091)	(0.111)	(0.083)	(0.089)	(0.092)	(0.076)	(0.081)
Marginalization	0.066	−0.031	−0.004	0.124	0.279 **	−0.193	0.317*	−0.045	−0.053
	(0.105)	(0.142)	(0.102)	(0.130)	(0.091)	(0.108)	(0.132)	(0.066)	(0.099)
FI	0.363*	0.269	0.032	−0.211	−0.134	0.206	1.133 ***	−0.033	−0.084
	(0.177)	(0.267)	(0.228)	(0.235)	(0.259)	(0.224)	(0.236)	(0.201)	(0.220)
Marginalization*FI	0.015	−0.357	0.161	1.369 ***	−0.185	0.487	−0.492	0.144	0.280
	(0.181)	(0.354)	(0.369)	(0.401)	(0.288)	(0.424)	(0.276)	(0.366)	(0.197)
Multiracial (n=138 observations on 73 children)
Assimilation	0.013	0.089*	0.049	−0.020	−0.031	0.104 **	0.011	0.039	0.058
	(0.038)	(0.044)	(0.040)	(0.046)	(0.047)	(0.036)	(0.058)	(0.039)	(0.041)
FI	0.043	0.624*	0.021	−0.108	−0.057	0.301	0.198	−0.099	0.017
	(0.181)	(0.297)	(0.236)	(0.275)	(0.255)	(0.232)	(0.368)	(0.220)	(0.261)
Assimilation*FI	−0.006	0.006	0.040	−0.021	−0.008	−0.034	0.089	0.015	−0.008
	(0.069)	(0.065)	(0.072)	(0.060)	(0.097)	(0.053)	(0.124)	(0.060)	(0.078)
Separation	0.002	0.009	0.056	0.113	0.017	−0.011	0.035	0.031	−0.003
	(0.058)	(0.077)	(0.060)	(0.087)	(0.058)	(0.061)	(0.077)	(0.054)	(0.050)
FI	−0.098	0.556*	0.170	0.005	0.036	0.217	0.297	0.048	−0.017
	(0.202)	(0.229)	(0.211)	(0.257)	(0.236)	(0.203)	(0.367)	(0.211)	(0.220)
Separation*FI	0.102	0.032	−0.078	−0.123	−0.075	−0.026	0.021	−0.134	−0.006
	(0.082)	(0.118)	(0.096)	(0.115)	(0.120)	(0.092)	(0.137)	(0.088)	(0.089)
Integration	−0.008	−0.046	−0.050	−0.083	0.017	−0.129 ***	−0.060	−0.038	−0.009
	(0.040)	(0.044)	(0.040)	(0.050)	(0.046)	(0.037)	(0.052)	(0.038)	(0.039)
FI	0.171	0.633	−0.018	−0.371	−0.063	−0.304	0.547	−0.357	0.068
	(0.252)	(0.333)	(0.293)	(0.312)	(0.358)	(0.229)	(0.411)	(0.271)	(0.347)
Integration*FI	−0.043	−0.012	0.031	0.073	0.002	0.149*	−0.057	0.079	−0.028
	(0.055)	(0.069)	(0.074)	(0.085)	(0.072)	(0.063)	(0.096)	(0.067)	(0.072)
Marginalization	−0.017	−0.145	−0.044	0.170	0.010	0.176 **	0.208 ***	−0.038	−0.137
	(0.064)	(0.081)	(0.052)	(0.163)	(0.073)	(0.066)	(0.045)	(0.117)	(0.125)
FI	0.030	0.546*	0.106	−0.132	−0.106	0.303	0.325	−0.099	−0.115
	(0.180)	(0.216)	(0.192)	(0.233)	(0.211)	(0.190)	(0.356)	(0.181)	(0.187)
Marginalization*FI	0.001	0.134	−0.011	−0.075	0.079	−0.270*	−0.103	−0.011	0.201
	(0.087)	(0.097)	(0.083)	(0.186)	(0.148)	(0.107)	(0.115)	(0.143)	(0.138)

Note. Random effects coefficients reported. For interaction effects:

^*p<0.05,

^**p<0.01,

^***p<0.001.

Three coefficients from each regression are reported (coefficient on acculturation score, food insecurity coefficient, and interaction coefficient). All models adjust for child’s age, gender, weight status, parent’s education, household income, and wave. In the full sub-sample, indicators for race/ethnicity were also included. Example interpretation: (Latinx panel, Separation-Pressuring) There is no significant association between the separation score and pressuring for a food secure Latinx household. For a food insecure Latinx household, each point higher on the separation score was associated with the parent scoring 0.129 points lower on the pressuring scale, and this association is statistically significantly (p<0.05) different than that for food secure Latinx households.

DATA AVAILABILITY:

Deidentified individual participant data (including data dictionaries) used in the current study will be made available when requested from the first author. Proposals should be submitted to Dr. Jerica M. Berge (jberge@umn.edu).