Table 1.
Description of Input Variables Included in the Conditional Inference Tree Analyses Performed Using Data From Eating and Activity Over Time, United States, 2010–2018
| Item No. | Variable | Process of Oppression, Marginalization, Privilege, and Power | Operational Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender | Social identity connected to sexism, genderism | Participants reported their gender during EAT 2018. Response options included: 1) male, 2) female, 3) different identity. |
| 2 | Race/ethnicity | Social identity connected to racism | Participants reported their racial/ethnic identity at EAT 2010. Response options included White, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Native American, and other. Participants were able to select more than one identity. Due to small cell sizes, race/ethnicity was modeled with 5 categories: 1) White, 2) Black or African American, 3) Hispanic or Latino, 4) Asian, and 5) mixed or other racial group. |
| 3 | US nativity | Social identity connected to ethnocentrism and xenophobia | US nativity was assessed with the question “Were you born in the United States?” at EAT 2010. Response options included: 1) yes, 2) no. |
| 4 | Household language | Social identity connected to ethnocentrism | During EAT 2010, household language was assessed with the question: “What language is usually spoken in your home?” Response options included: 1) English; 2) a language other than English; and 3) English and another language about equally. |
| 5 | Personal income | Social position connected to classism | Personal income during EAT 2018 included response options: 1) none; 2) under $5,000 a year; 3) $5,000 to $14,999 a year; 4) $15,000 to $24,999 a year; 5) $25,000 to $29,999 a year; 6) $30,000 to $39,999 a year; 7) $40,000 a year or more. |
| 6 | Public assistance | Social position connected to classism | Receipt of public assistance was measured at EAT 2018 with a single question: “In the past year, did you or any member of your household receive WIC benefits or SNAP benefits?” Response options were: 1) no, 2) yes, and 3) I don’t know |
| 7 | Personal educational attainment | Social position connected to classism | “What is the highest level of education that you have completed?” Responses ranged from: 1) middle school or junior high to 8) graduate or professional degree (master’s degree, PhD, MD, etc.). Due to small cell size, responses were categorized into 5 groups: less than high school, high school or GED equivalent, college degree, advanced degree, and vocational or other. Test-retest agreement = 92.0%. |
| 8 | Financial difficulty | Social position connected to classism | Financial difficulty was measured at EAT 2018 with a single item asking the degree of difficulty participants currently experience living on their total household income (58). Participants selected from 4 response options: 1) not at all difficult, 2) somewhat difficult, 3) very difficult or can barely get by, 4) extremely difficult or impossible. Due to small cell sizes, response options very difficult and extremely difficult or impossible were merged into a single response. |
| 9, 10 | Parental educationa | Social position connected to classism | Participants reported at EAT 2010 how far in school each parent (e.g., mother, father) went, with response options: 1) did not finish high school; 2) finished high school or got GED; 3) some college or training after high school; 4) finished college; 5) advanced degree (e.g., master’s degree, PhD, MD); 6) I don’t know. |
| 11, 12 | Parental employmentb | Social position connected to classism | Participants reported the employment status of each parent (e.g., mother, father) at EAT 2010, with response options of: 1) full time, 2) part time, 3) not working for pay or other, 4) I don’t know. |
| 13, 14 | Neighborhood safetyc | Social experience connected to racism and classism | Participants responded to 2 questions at EAT 2018: 1) “The crime rate in my neighborhood makes it unsafe to go on walks during the day”; and 2) “the crime rate in my neighborhood makes it unsafe to go on walks at night.” Response options included: 1) strongly disagree, 2) somewhat disagree, 3) somewhat agree, and 4) strongly agree. |
| 15, 16 | Food insecurityd | Social experience connected to racism, classism, sexism/genderism | Participants responded at EAT 2018 to 2 questions assessing food insecurity within the past 12 months: 1) “Did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food?” and 2) “Were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because there was not enough money for food?" Response options included: 1) no, 2) yes, and 3) I don’t know. |
| 17 | Intersectional everyday discrimination | Social experience connected to racism, classism, sexism/genderism, harmful beauty ideals | Day-to-day discrimination was defined as ongoing or routine everyday experiences of unfair or differential treatment of people by social institutions or individuals because of race/ethnicity, class, sex, or other social attributes (59, 60). Participants were asked to respond at EAT 2018 to 3 specific questions from the EDS. Participants were not required to ascribe the experience of unfair treatment to any one attribute (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, sex, etc.). Example items include being treated with less respect or courtesy or receiving poorer service than other people. Response options for each item range from 1) never to 5) a few times a month. The 3 EDS items were summarized into a single summary score for day-to-day discrimination, ranging from 3 (none) to 15 (high) (α = 0.83, test-retest = 0.69). |
| 18–22 | Teasing or harassmente | Social experience connected to racism, classism, sexism/genderism, harmful beauty ideals | Participants were asked at EAT 2018 to respond to 5 questions about different forms of teasing or harassment. Each form of teasing or harassment pertained to socially sanctioned identities or specific experiences): 1) race/ethnicity, 2) financial situation, 3) sexual way (e.g., grabbing/pinching, sexual comments, unwanted touching, etc.), 4) weight, or 5) appearance. Response options for each question were: never, less than once a year, a few times a year, a few times a month, at least once a week. |
Abbreviations: CIT, conditional inference tree; EAT, Eating and Activity Over Time; EDS, Everyday Discrimination Scale; GED, General Educational Development; SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or Food Stamp Program; WIC, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
a Each parent’s educational status was entered in the conditional inference tree models as a separate input variable.
b Each parent’s employment status was entered in the CIT models as a separate input variable.
c Each measure of neighborhood safety was entered in the CIT models as a separate input variable.
d Each form of food insecurity was entered in the CIT models as a separate input variable.
e Each type of harassment or teasing was entered in the CIT models as a separate input variable.