Abstract
Emerging research shows that parent feeding in restaurants may be distinct from parent feeding in other settings, such as the home. To our knowledge, no studies have used observational methods to examine parenting in restaurants. Our objectives were to: 1) assess the acceptability of using observational methods to examine parenting in restaurants, 2) describe observed parenting (general and food-specific) in this setting, and 3) compare observed general parenting in the restaurant to self-reported general parenting more broadly. Participants were 26 parent-child dyads, recruited from a larger study at a regional quick-service restaurant chain, who agreed to an optional evening meal observation at the study restaurant. Afterwards, an online survey was sent to assess self-reported general parenting and observation experiences. Observational measures used were the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System, which measures aspects of general parenting, and an additional coding scheme designed to explore food-specific parenting, developed by the study team. Self-reported general parenting was measured using the Parenting Dimensions Inventory-Short Version. Participants reported positive experiences with the observation overall. The most frequent general parenting behaviors observed were Neutral Talk (M=2.79, SD = 1.89), Questions (M=0.92, SD=0.85), and Commands (M=0.31, SD=0.32). Examples of observed food-specific parenting included questions, commands, and pressure to eat. No relationships emerged between observed and self-reported general parenting, aside from a positive correlation between observed commands and self-reported nurturance (r=0.41, p=.04). Results support the acceptability of using observational methods in restaurants and may further support evidence of differences in parenting at home versus in restaurants.
Keywords: general parenting, parent feeding, restaurants, observations
1. Introduction
U.S. children’s diet quality is poor (Thomson et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2020), raising the risk of developing diet-related diseases, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (Sahoo et al., 2015; Marcus, Danielsson, & Hagman, 2022). Pediatric eating habits have been shown to influence diet and weight into adulthood (Dubois et al., 2022), so it is important to understand the development of eating habits and to develop early intervention strategies.
Parents have an important influence on young children’s eating behavior (Balantekin et al., 2020). When examining relationships between parenting and child eating behavior, parenting can be conceptualized in multiple ways, including general parenting or food parenting. General parenting reflects the emotional climate in which parenting occurs overall, across different settings and domains (Darling & Steinberg, 1993), and is commonly defined along dimensions of demandingness (structure and control) and responsiveness (nurturance and warmth) (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Nurturance has been associated with more healthful eating and weight outcomes, such as lower caloric intake, while control has been associated with higher fat and sugar intake and higher body mass index (BMI) (Kim et al., 2008). A combination of nurturance and control (referred to as the authoritative parenting style) has been associated with a healthful diet and lower BMI throughout the literature (Sleddens et al., 2011; Kiefner-Burmeister & Hinman, 2020). Further evidence highlighting the relevance of general parenting for eating and weight outcomes comes from evidence-based preventive intervention studies that targeted aspects of general parenting, without any specific focus on eating or weight, and demonstrated impacts on child weight outcomes years later (Kong et al. 2023).
On the other hand, food parenting is domain-specific and refers to parenting in the realm of children’s feeding and eating, including parent feeding styles and practices. Paralleling the literature on general parenting, some degree of parental structure and control combined with warmth and autonomy support is considered adaptive when it comes to child feeding (Shloim et al., 2015). Parent feeding styles reflect the emotional climate in which feeding occurs and, as in general parenting, are also commonly defined along dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness, which in combination can be used to categorize parents into 1 of 4 feeding styles (Hughes et al., 2005). Like general parenting, parent feeding styles have been linked to various child eating and weight outcomes (Faith et al., 2004). The authoritative feeding style (high demandingness, high responsiveness) has been linked to more favorable health outcomes, such as higher intake of fruits and vegetables (Chen et al., 2021; Vollmer & Mobley, 2013), while the indulgent feeding style (low demandingness, high responsiveness) has been linked to higher BMI (Hughes et al., 2005, 2008; Shloim et al., 2015; Power et al., 2021).
While there is a substantial body of evidence linking aspects of parenting (both general and food-specific) with child eating and weight outcomes, fewer studies have considered parenting in the context of restaurants specifically. Much of the extant research on parenting during mealtimes consists of questionnaires that inquire about parenting with no specific setting specified (Shloim et al., 2015) or observations of meals eaten in a home or laboratory setting specifically (Bergmeier, Skouteris, & Heatherington, 2015). It is important to study parenting in restaurants due to the increase in prevalence of meals eaten away from home and the general poor nutritional quality of restaurant meals (O’Donnell et al., 2008; Powell, Nguyen, & Han, 2012; Powell & Nguyen, 2013). Emerging evidence suggests that parent feeding style may be different in restaurants versus at home (Kasparian et al., 2017; Anderson et al., 2023; Tauriello et al., 2024). These initial studies found that the indulgent feeding style may be even more prevalent in a restaurant environment, with this finding consistent across different sociodemographic characteristics and study methods, which to date have included parent interviews and surveys. Given that the indulgent feeding style has been linked with poorer health outcomes in children, such as higher BMI, and that the restaurant environment is increasingly becoming a part of a regular diet, it is important to understand parenting in this environment. The limited research on parenting in restaurants offers initial insights into food-specific parenting in this setting, but thus far has not included examinations of general parenting in the restaurant environment, which may also have implications for child eating behavior within this context. Research in this area has shown that expectations from parents regarding child eating in restaurants may differ from those regarding child behavior in restaurants (Kasparian et al., 2017; Anderson et al., 2023), further emphasizing the need to examine aspects of general parenting, not just food-specific parenting, in this context.
Additionally, emerging research on parenting in restaurants tends to rely on self-report measures, which can provide a global view of typical behavior from the parent’s perspective, but are also subject to limitations. Self-report measures may be subject to social desirability bias, and parents are unable to report on behaviors that they are unaware of. While observational measures have been used to examine parenting during a laboratory (e.g., Power et al., 2021) or home-based meal (e.g., Walton et al., 2019), to our knowledge this has not been done in a restaurant setting. Observational data can complement self-reports for a more comprehensive understanding of parenting in restaurants.
The current study aims to 1) determine the acceptability of using observational measures in restaurant settings, 2) describe observed parenting, both general and food-specific, in a restaurant setting, and 3) compare observed general parenting in the restaurant to self-reported general parenting. This study is exploratory in nature, so no specific hypotheses were made regarding the behaviors that would be observed in the restaurant. In exploring associations between observed and self-reported general parenting, we recognized that aspects of responsiveness and demandingness may be correlated across settings, but given the emerging research suggesting some differences in food parenting at home versus in restaurants, we also recognized the possibility that there might be differences in general parenting by setting as well.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Participants were a subsample of parent-child dyads from a larger cluster-randomized controlled trial examining the promotion of healthier kids’ meals through changes to the restaurant environment (Anzman-Frasca et al., under review). All parents/guardians (here forward parents) who were enrolled in the overarching study’s 2023 cohort were offered the opportunity to participate in an optional, one-time observation. Families from both the intervention and control groups of the main study were invited to participate, as study group was not expected to influence variables assessed in this substudy. To be eligible for the main study, participating parents had to be at least 18 years old, English speaking, the parent or legal guardian of at least one child between 4 and 8 years old, and had to report eating out at restaurants at least 2 to 3 times per month. Observations were conducted during a time when participants were already returning to the restaurant as a part of the main study and were scheduled during the dinner meal (i.e., 4–8pm) at the family’s convenience. Thirty of 58 (51.7%) parents who were invited to participate indicated interest in the optional observation, and 26 completed the observation substudy (76.9% mothers, 76.9% had at least a Bachelor’s degree, 96.2% non-Hispanic white, child age M=6.53±1.25 years). Full demographic information for this sample is reported in Table 1.
Table 1.
Parent-reported demographic characteristics (n = 26)
| Parent Characteristics | N (%) or M +/− SD |
|---|---|
| Highest level of education completed: | |
| High school or equivalent | 1 (3.9%) |
| Some college | 1 (3.9%) |
| Associate’s degree | 4 (15.4%) |
| Bachelor’s degree | 8 (30.8%) |
| Graduate degree | 12 (46.2%) |
| Eligibility for free or reduced school meals: | |
| Yes | 3 (11.5%) |
| No | 18 (69.2%) |
| Unsure | 5 (19.2%) |
| Annual household income: | |
| $25,000 to $34,999 | 1 (3.9%) |
| $35,000 to $49,999 | 1 (3.9%) |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 1 (3.9%) |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 3 (11.5%) |
| $100,000 to $149,999 | 8 (30.8%) |
| $150,000 or more | 11 (42.3%) |
| Marital status: | |
| Married | 21 (80.8%) |
| Divorced | 2 (7.7%) |
| Never married | 1 (3.9%) |
| Living with partner | 1 (3.9%) |
| Other* | 1 (3.9%) |
| Relationship to child: | |
| Mother | 20 (76.9%) |
| Father | 6 (23.1%) |
| Race/ethnicity: | |
| Non-Hispanic white | 25 (96.2%) |
| Child Characteristics | N (%) or M +/− SD |
| Age (in years) | 6.53 +/− 1.25 |
| Gender: | |
| Female | 13 (50%) |
| Male | 13 (50%) |
| Race/ethnicity: | |
| White | 25 (96.2%) |
| Multiracial | 1 (3.9%) |
Note. One participant preferred not to provide an answer for annual household income
Participant specified marital status as single
2.2. Procedures
Data were collected between September and October of 2023 at two locations of a regional quick service restaurant chain in Buffalo, NY. After arriving at the restaurant, participants were instructed to check in with the study team to go over information about the day’s visit and to ask any questions that they had. The check-in period was designed to convey all necessary information for the observation, so that the family would not need to interact with the study team after check-in, thus enabling them to proceed with their usual dining routine. Families were instructed to order and eat like they usually would.
After checking in, participants would approach the counter to order their meals and then select their table. Once seated, two research assistants would discreetly move to a nearby table to begin observing the meal, one observing general parenting behaviors and another observing food-specific parenting behaviors (described in more detail below). Two five-minute observations were conducted, one before the meal (pre-meal), while the family waited for their food, and one during the meal (during meal). The duration of each observation was selected based on the typical duration used with the measure of observed general parenting that we were using and in an effort to be as unobtrusive as possible. The two five-minute observations were separated into pre-meal and during meal, as mealtime discussion may differ depending on whether food was present at the table. Each observation period would begin only once both the participating parent and the participating child were seated. If either party left the table during the observation, the timer would be paused, and coding would stop until they returned. If the food order was ready before 5 minutes of the pre-meal observation was completed, this period would conclude early, and the during-meal observation would begin as normal. In total, unless an observation period needed to be cut short, each family was observed for 10 minutes. Participants were free to leave at their leisure after dining, as usual. An online survey containing questions about participants’ self-reported general parenting, overall and across contexts, as well as questions about the observation experience was sent to participants later that evening. Participants were asked to complete the survey within 24 hours of receipt. Upon completion of the survey, participants were compensated $35 via US Bank Card. Study procedures were approved by the University at Buffalo Institutional Review Board.
2.2.1. Observed General Parenting in the Restaurant
For general parenting, the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS; Robinson & Eyberg, 1981) was used to code parent verbalizations in the restaurant. This measure is widely used in clinical settings and has been adapted for use in other settings such as the home (e.g., Gridley, Bywater, & Hutchings, 2018) and classroom (e.g., Tiano & McNeil, 2006). Advantages of using this measure in the current setting include that it is a well-established observational tool that can be used to code relevant aspects of parenting using live coding within a relatively short observation window, typically 5 minutes. Training consisted of coding video-recorded meals of families with children who were within the age range of the study. Research assistants were trained to at least 80% agreement on two or more training videos and 85% average agreement across videos, against a master coder with expertise using the DPICS. Research assistants were also shadowed by a master coder on their first day of observations before being cleared to conduct observations on their own.
All standard categories of the DPICS were coded, which include Neutral Talk, Behavior Description, Reflection, Labeled Praise, Unlabeled Praise, Question, Negative Talk, and Command. For the purpose of this study, DPICS categories were conceptualized as either responsive, neutral, or demanding to facilitate comparisons to self-reported general parenting. Definitions and example quotes for each DPICS category are listed in Table 2. All verbalizations made from the participating parent to the participating child were coded into one or more of the categories as appropriate.
Table 2.
DPICS category definitions and example quotes
| DPICS Category | Conceptualization for the Restaurant Context | Definition | Example Quote from a Restaurant Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neutral Talk | Neutral | Verbalizations that introduce information (e.g., about people, objects, activities) or indicate parental attention to the child, but do not fall into any of the subsequent categories | “I don’t know what flavor of ice cream to get for dessert” |
| Behavior Description | Responsive | Parent describing the child’s current or immediately completed behavior | “You’re dipping your fries in ketchup” |
| Reflection | Responsive | Parent restates child’s verbalization verbatim or uses a close approximation (i.e., paraphrases while retaining the meaning of the child’s verbalization) |
Child: “I can’t wait to get ice cream” Parent: “You’re excited to get ice cream” |
| Labeled Praise | Responsive | Parent praising a specific behavior or attribute of the child | “I’m proud of you for trying your broccoli” |
| Unlabeled Praise | Responsive | Parent praising the child more generally. This type of praise is not related to a specific behavior or attribute of the child | “Good job” |
| Question | Neutral | Parent asking the child a question | “Can I try a sip of your drink?” |
| Negative Talk | Demanding | Parent speaking to the child using critical, sarcastic, or harsh language | “You better finish all of your food or else” |
| Command | Demanding | Direct or indirect attempts to control the child’s behavior using verbal prompts | “Sit down in your seat” |
Note. Example quotes do not represent real quotes heard in the restaurant
2.2.2. Observed Food-Specific Parenting in the Restaurant
The most similar existing work for conducting observations in a restaurant setting was from Castro et al. (2016), which was used as a starting place to inform our procedures, with adaptations made to arrive at a new assessment focused on food-specific parenting. This novel assessment was supplementary to the main measures of general parenting, and the intent was to generate and explore themes representing the occurrence of parenting specific to food and eating in the restaurant setting. An observer recorded direct quotes any time the parent and child were interacting about food, feeding, or eating (food-related talk). This observer also recorded instances of disengagement from the meal and sharing of foods, each by both the parent and the child (Table 3). Though not directly related to the food parenting framework, food sharing and disengagement from the meal were recorded as these may relate to observed parenting behavior (Radesky et al., 2014) and children’s eating behavior (Fiese, Jones, & Jarick, 2015). Observers were trained to at least 85% reliability across training videos of mock mealtime interactions, representing consistency in their observations of food-specific parenting, compared to a master coder. Deductive codes (e.g., pressure to eat), based on the available literature, which were expected to be observed in the restaurant, were used for observer training and reliability.
Table 3.
Summary of observed food-related parenting codes and themes
| Form Code | Conceptualization: General Parenting Dimensions | Code Definition | Key Themes | Exemplar Quotes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sharing Food | N/A | Parents sharing their drink with the child before meal items were present at the table, child and parent sharing both whole food items and small portion of food items | “Child used some of mom’s dipping sauces” | |
| 2. Food-Related Talk | ||||
| Question | Neutral | When a parent invites the child’s opinion or perspective regarding some aspect of their meal, the restaurant, or food in general | Inquiring about the child’s opinion on current meal items and future food items, child’s current preferences or needs, and general, non-meal related topics | “What do you think you should get for dessert?” |
| Command: | Demanding | When a parent, directly or indirectly, makes a statement designed to control the child’s behavior | Indirect commands attempting to change the child’s behavior, direct commands used to influence the quantity or pace of child’s food intake | “Parent asked child to pay attention to their meal” |
| Pressure to Eat*† | Demanding | When the parent attempts to coerce the child into eating their food, or makes the child feel as though they need to eat, typically against the child’s wishes | Direct commands pressuring child to eat more or specific foods, use of incentives, and presentation of indirect consequences | “You better eat the rest of your chicken after the bathroom” |
| Warning† | Demanding | When the parent cautions the child, attempting to intercept their behavior, to avoid an unfavorable outcome | Warning the child about the temperature of their food, potential to spill food, and the pace of eating | “Food might be hot so be careful!” |
| Encouragement to Eat* | Responsive | When the parent attempts to get the child to eat in a supportive way, with respect for the child’s autonomy. It is an invitation to eat, rather than a command to eat | Offering of food items to the child, particularly healthier food items, such as broccoli and chicken | “Parent asks child ‘Want to try my chicken?’ |
| Teaching | Responsive | When the parent takes an opportunity to explain something to the child. This may look like correcting the child’s behavior in a way that helps them understand why the behavior should be changed, or it may look like answering a question asked by the child | Explaining the difference between the adult and kids’ menus and discussion of the importance of eating a variety of foods and the perceived health and nutrition benefits | “Parent says ‘It’s healthy to try a lot of foods’” |
| Observation | Neutral | When the parent describes something to the child or makes a general statement about something that is currently observable to the child in reference to any meals present at the table | Neutral statements about the presence of food items and commentary on taste or enjoyment of the meal | “Mom says she liked the onion rings” |
| 3. Disengaging from Meal | ||||
| Technology Use (brief) |
N/A | Brief (roughly 30 seconds or less) use of a device (ex: phone, tablet). This may look like the parent or the child quickly checking their device before putting it away | Parent looking at phone for a short period of time. Child using an iPad before the parent intervenes | “Child was on iPad briefly before mom takes it away” |
| Technology Use (extended) |
N/A | Extended (more than 30 seconds) or repeated use of a device (ex: phone, tablet) throughout the observation period. This may be applicable if there is no clear termination of device use indicated | The child and/or parent spending a good portion of the observation period on their phone, typically independent from one another | “Mom went on phone to answer texts” |
| Leaving the Table | N/A | Any mention of the parent or child physically leaving the table | The parent or child leaving the table to get items necessary for the meal (e.g., napkins) or to throw away trash. Parent taking the child to the bathroom. Some ambiguous notes of parent leaving the table | “Child and parent got up at the same time (to get coffee)” |
| Other Disengagement | N/A | Any mention of disengagement from the meal that does not fall under technology use or leaving the table | All instances were from the child. Inattentive and restless behaviors, as well as both physical and verbal disengagement | “Child laying on chair and climbing under table” |
Note. Only food-related talk codes were categorized as either responsive, neutral, or demanding, as this category was the only one that did not reflect any child behavior.
These codes are deductive codes which were determined a priori. All other codes are inductive.
These are sub-codes of command, which have complete overlap with their parent code.
2.3. Survey Measures
2.3.1. Participant Demographics
Demographic information for both the parent and the child was obtained from an online survey that was administered the prior summer as part of the overarching study.
2.3.2. Observation-Related Measures
Online survey questions inquired about parents’ experiences with the observation to gain insight on the acceptability of this method. Questions asked about typicality of the restaurant visit (like usual, neither usual nor unusual, unusual), difficulty dining while being observed (easy to dine as usual, neither easy nor hard, difficult to dine as usual), and overall experience with the observation (positive, neutral, negative).
2.3.3. Self-Reported General Parenting
Self-reported general parenting was measured using the Parenting Dimensions Inventory - Short Version (PDI-S; Power, 2002) via brief online survey sent to parents following their observation session. The PDI-S has been validated for use in samples of parents of children aged 3 through 12 years (Power, 2002). All 6 items from the nurturance (e.g., “I encourage my child to be curious, to explore, and to question things”) and all 5 items from the amount of control (e.g., “I care more than most parents I know about having my child obey me”) subscales, which can be mapped onto the dimensions of responsiveness and demandingness, respectively, were included in this survey. Mean scores for items in each subscale were calculated using guidelines from the PDI-S manual. Nurturance was scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (Always). Amount of control was scored by assigning a “1” to the one of two response options that corresponds to the higher level of control and summing across responses, with scores ranging from 0 to 5. Resulting subscales reflect levels of nurturance and control in parenting generally, not specific to food, any specific meal, or setting.
2.4. Data Analysis
All quantitative data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4. Qualitative data were summarized in Microsoft Excel.
2.4.1. Quantitative Data: General Parenting Observation, General Parenting Survey, and Observation Experience
Prior to analysis, general observed parenting data from the DPICS were aggregated as follows: first, the number of times each DPICS category was observed was summed across the pre- and during-meal intervals. Then this value was divided by the total minutes of observation to arrive at an average frequency per minute that each category was observed, with the goal to describe which behaviors occurred at higher frequencies relative to other behaviors. We decided to combine the intervals given the low frequency of some DPICS categories and following paired samples t-test results showing that the frequency of each category did not significantly differ across the pre- and during-meal intervals. Descriptive statistics were conducted to summarize quantitative data, including demographics, general observed parenting behaviors in the restaurant, self-reported general parenting, and participant experience with the observation. Spearman’s correlations were conducted to examine relationships between aspects of observed general parenting in the restaurant and self-reported general parenting. Spearman’s correlations were chosen due to the non-normal distribution of several of these parenting variables. Results were similar with Pearson’s correlations (data not shown).
2.4.2. Qualitative Data: Food-Specific Parenting Observation
After reviewing data collected via the food-specific parenting observation forms, four of the authors met to discuss and define the codes to be used in final data coding and analysis. We used a hybrid approach that combined deductive and inductive coding, in which we expected to observe some codes a priori, while allowing flexibility for other codes to emerge from the data. Deductive codes, generated during observer training and based on common feeding practices reported in the parenting literature, included pressure to eat and encouragement to eat (Faith et al., 2004; Bergmeier, Skouteris, & Heatherington, 2015; Vaughn et al., 2016). Inductive codes were generated by the authors after an initial review of the data and refined via consensus, given the exploratory nature of this measure. Final codes and brief definitions are as follows. Food-related talk was coded as command (general): any statement made in an attempt change the child’s behavior, pressure to eat (as a sub-code of command): attempting to coerce the child to eat, warning (as a sub-code of command): cautioning the child in order to avoid an unfavorable outcome, question: inquiring about aspects of the child’s meal, encouragement to eat: an attempt to get the child to eat, which was autonomy supportive in nature, teaching: taking an opportunity to explain something to the child, observation: describing something that is observable to the child. Disengagement from the meal was split into the following codes: technology use (brief), technology use (extended), leaving the table, or other disengagement, and all instances of food sharing were coded as food sharing. Quotes were co-coded if they fit multiple code definitions. Full definitions and examples of each code are reported in Table 3. Once the codebook was established, data were double coded by two coders (the first and second author), and discrepancies were resolved via consensus. Codes were then summarized by the first and second author. To facilitate comparisons to general parenting measures, and to understand these verbal food-based interactions in the context of parenting styles, we’ve conceptualized our food-related talk codes as either responsive, neutral, or demanding by looking for conceptual overlap between code definition and accepted conceptualization in the literature. Final categorization of these codes was reached via consensus between coders.
3. Results
3.1. Acceptability of Observational Measures in a Restaurant Setting
Generally, participants reported a positive experience participating in the observation. 84.6% of parents reported their overall experience as positive, with the remainder reporting their experience as neutral. 96.2% of parents reported that it was easy to dine as usual during their observation. 84.6% of parents reported that their observation visit was like a usual visit to the restaurant for their family, while the remaining 15.4% reported that their visit was unusual. Reasons cited for the unusual visit included the absence of a family member who would normally be present and the parent not eating a full meal with their child. No parents reported having a negative experience or difficulty dining while being observed.
3.2. Observed General Parenting in the Restaurant
The three most common general parenting categories observed in the restaurant were Neutral Talk (M = 2.79, SD = 1.89), Question (M = 0.92, SD = 0.85), and Command (M = 0.31, SD = 0.32). These behaviors were considered, for the purpose of this study, to be neutral (Neutral Talk, Question) or to reflect demandingness (Command). Frequencies of other behaviors were lower than Neutral Talk, Question, and Command, with the lowest frequencies observed for those behaviors considered to be responsive (Behavior Description, Reflection, Labeled Praise, Unlabeled Praise). Average observed frequencies of each general parenting category are displayed in Table 4.
Table 4.
Descriptive statistics for observed parenting in the restaurant (DPICS) and self-reported general parenting (PDI-S)
| DPICS Category | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|
| Neutral Talk (TA) | 2.79 (1.89) |
| Behavior Description (BD) | 0.05 (0.13) |
| Reflection (RF) | 0.15 (0.20) |
| Labeled Praise (LP) | 0.003 (0.02) |
| Unlabeled Praise (UP) | 0.03 (0.08) |
| Question (Q) | 0.92 (0.85) |
| Negative Talk (NTA) | 0.04 (0.11) |
| Command (C) | 0.31 (0.32) |
| PDI-S Scale | Mean (SD) |
| Nurturance (α = 0.89) | 5.48 (0.58) |
| Amount of control (α = 0.73) | 2.81 (1.63) |
Note. DPICS = Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System, PDI-S = Parenting Dimensions Inventory – Short Version; DPICS means show the frequency of each category per minute across both observation periods; Nurturance was measured on a scale of 1 to 6; Amount of control was measured on a scale of 0 to 5
3.3. Observed Food-Specific Parenting
Definitions and themes from each code are displayed in Table 3.
3.3.1. Food-Related Talk
Examples of themes that were summarized from each code are as follows. Questions included the parent inquiring about the child’s future meal choices, the taste of the child’s current meal items, and the child’s current preferences/needs. Commands, more generally, included the attempts to change the child’s behavior, such as redirecting their attention to their meal. Pressure to eat and warning, both sub-codes of command, consisted of direct commands to eat more food and use of incentives, such as offering dessert only once the child eats their meal, and cautioning the child about the temperature of their food, respectively. Observations consisted of neutral statements about the presence of food items and commentary on the taste or enjoyment of the meal, encouragement to eat consisted of offering food items for the child to try, and teaching included providing education on the importance of eating a variety of foods.
3.3.2. Disengagement from Meal
Themes of disengagement from the meal included leaving the table, consisting of the parent leaving to acquire items related to the meal (e.g., “Mom got up and left to get napkins and utensils”) or taking the child to the bathroom. Technology use, both brief and extended, included the parent or child using an electronic device independently from each other, as well as one instance of a parent and child using a device together throughout the observation (“Parent set up her phone so that child could watch a TV show on it with her”).
3.3.3. Sharing of Foods
Sharing of foods occurred between the child and their parent or siblings, and included sharing of whole food items (e.g., “Child and parent shared a portion of fries together”) and the child and parent eating a small portion of the others’ food (e.g., “Parent ate a bite of child’s mac and cheese”). Food items (such as main dish and side dish) were not yet present during the pre-meal observation, though some instances of the parent sharing their drink with the child were observed during this time.
3.4. Self-Reported General Parenting and Correlations with Observed General Parenting in the Restaurant
In terms of general parenting across contexts, parents self-reported high nurturance (M = 5.48, SD = 0.58) and moderate control (M = 2.81, SD = 1.63) (Table 4). There was a positive correlation between observed commands in the restaurant and self-reported general nurturance (r = 0.45, p = .02). No other correlations between observed general parenting in the restaurant and self-reported general parenting were statistically significant (Table 5).
Table 5.
Spearman correlations between observed parenting in the restaurant and self-reported general parenting
| DPICS Category | PDI-S Control | PDI-S Nurturance |
|---|---|---|
| Neutral Talk | −0.11 | −0.02 |
| Behavior Description | 0.06 | 0.19 |
| Reflection | 0.13 | −0.04 |
| Labeled Praise | −0.30 | −0.09 |
| Unlabeled Praise | 0.16 | 0.24 |
| Question | −0.11 | −0.13 |
| Negative Talk | −0.05 | 0.23 |
| Command | −0.08 | 0.45* |
Note.
p < .05
4. Discussion
Results from this exploratory study highlight the potential of using observational methods in restaurant settings, as well as next steps for research in this area. Acceptability of the use of observational methods in restaurants was supported by parents’ positive reports of their experience with their observation. Neutral and demanding general parenting behaviors were observed most frequently, while responsive behaviors were less prevalent in the restaurant. Exemplar themes of food-specific parenting observed in the restaurant include the parent offering the child food items to try, asking questions about the child’s meal, and directing the child’s behavior towards their food, which are considered responsive, neutral, and demanding, respectively. In particular, an observed behavior worth highlighting was parental pressure on the child to eat, a demanding behavior which has been linked to unfavorable child health outcomes, such as food aversions (Vaughn et al., 2016) and issues with self-regulation of food intake (Savage, Fisher, & Birch, 2007). Future research is needed to determine if this aspect of food-parenting is common in restaurants. The only significant correlation to emerge between observed general parenting in the restaurant and self-reported general parenting more broadly was between observed commands and self-reported nurturance, illustrating alignment between an aspect of demandingness in the restaurant and an aspect of responsiveness more broadly. The lack of correspondence among aspects of demandingness in general and in restaurants, as well as aspects of responsiveness in general and in restaurants, suggests that there may be a distinction between general parenting in restaurants versus other settings.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to use observational methods to examine mealtime parenting in restaurants. As in the home-based mealtime observation literature (Bergmeier et al., 2016; Westen et al., 2019), participants in this study generally reported that the observed restaurant meal was typical of the family’s meals in this setting. The limited prior research on parenting in restaurants, in which the indulgent feeding style (low demandingness, high responsiveness) has been found to be more common compared to feeding styles at home (Anderson et al., 2023; Tauriello et al., 2024), might yield expectations of more responsive parenting behaviors during a typical restaurant meal and fewer demanding behaviors. Yet demanding behaviors were more common than responsive behaviors in this observation. Differences in measurement (self-report vs. observed parenting in restaurants) may account for some of the differences observed across studies (e.g., some of the ways that control is exhibited in the restaurant may be more easily observed than self-reported).
It is also possible that the present findings reflect an increase in controlling practices due to parents having higher behavioral expectations for their children when eating at restaurants, which does align with themes from previous research (Kasparian et al., 2017; Anderson et al., 2023). For example, in prior research parents remarked that they are stricter in restaurants due to the public nature of this setting (Kasparian et al., 2017). In restaurants, parents may be more responsive to their child’s desires regarding what they eat, but might be more demanding in other areas, including non-food-related behaviors, such as sitting still and complying with general behavioral expectations. Demanding food-specific parenting behaviors that were observed (e.g., commands, pressure to eat) may also relate to general behavioral expectations if instructions to eat are intended to keep the child focused on their meal versus engaging in undesirable behaviors in the restaurant. Though there is existing research supporting the idea that the restaurant environment may contribute to increased behavioral expectations, behavioral expectations may also have increased due to the parents’ knowledge that they were being observed.
The general lack of correspondence between aspects of demandingness observed in the restaurant versus reported via the survey assessing general parenting more globally, as well as aspects of responsiveness in the restaurant versus the survey, may also be explained by differences in measurement. Parental perceptions of global behavior, while important, may not align with objective researcher assessment of a specific interaction. Existing research, not specific to the restaurant context, shows evidence of these inconsistencies between parent-report and observational measures (Herbers et al., 2017; Fries et al., 2019). Alternatively, this finding may reflect different parenting approaches used by parents generally versus in restaurant settings. The one correlation that was significant was a positive correlation between an aspect of demandingness (commands) observed in the restaurant, and an aspect of responsiveness (nurturance) from the general parenting survey. This correlation may reflect that the same parents could have both increased behavioral expectations for children in restaurant settings, while also being high on responsiveness more generally. More research is needed to shed light on these possibilities and their implications for child outcomes, but overall, findings are consistent with the emerging evidence that parenting approaches may differ in restaurants versus other settings.
Though this study contributes a novel method of examining parenting in restaurants, it is not without limitations. The potential for participant reactivity to researcher presence may have altered parent and child behavior in the restaurant. Concern for this is partially mitigated by results from the follow-up questions asking participants to report on their difficulty dining and the typicality of their meal. Additionally, prior research has demonstrated that repeat observations may not be necessary for participants to adjust to researcher presence, with studies measuring multiple mealtime interactions finding no significant differences between behaviors during the first meal and subsequent meals (Gardner, 2000; Walton et al., 2019). This supports the idea that families aren’t as affected by researcher presence as we may think, and that what was observed in the restaurant has the potential to be demonstrative of the family’s typical restaurant dining experience. The short observation period, while based on an established observational measure and selected to minimize obtrusiveness, can also be framed as a limitation, as the beginning portion of mealtime may not be representative of the entire meal. Future research could observe other excerpts of families’ restaurant meals to see if findings differ. The DPICS coding system, though not developed for the restaurant context, allowed us to live code verbal parenting behaviors in the restaurant, where video recording mealtimes would have been challenging given the public setting. Future work may also build upon our exploration of food-specific parenting to design a measure that quantifies food-specific parenting in this setting and to consider how this may fit with general parenting more broadly. Given that this study’s self-report measure of parenting focused on general parenting globally, we were unable to compare observations of parenting in the restaurant to self-reported food-specific parenting or self-reports of parenting during that specific meal. This limits interpretation of our results, as we are only able to describe associations between reported general parenting more globally and observed general parenting during a portion of one specific restaurant meal. Future research could extend the aspects of parenting that are assessed via self-report, including food-parenting behaviors, to further understand their concordance with restaurant-based observations.
Lastly, the small homogenous sample is another limitation, as the majority of participating parents were non-Hispanic white, college-educated, and reported middle to high income levels. While the majority of our sample were mothers, nearly ¼ of our sample were fathers, who are typically underrepresented in parenting research. Due to this, gender differences in parenting (e.g., fathers being more authoritarian than mothers; Yaffe, 2023) may have influenced our results, such as our observation of higher frequencies of demanding behaviors in the restaurant. Future research can build upon these limitations by recruiting larger and more diverse samples, with adequate sample sizes for examining gender differences in parenting, as well as efforts to refine observed measures of parenting in restaurants and examine whether results from these investigations lend additional support to current findings.
Overall, this study’s support of the use of observational methods in a restaurant setting and initial findings about observed general and food-specific parenting in this setting can inform future research in this area. The high prevalence of meals eaten at restaurants makes this an important area to study, especially given that the restaurant environment often makes it difficult for children to make healthy choices (O’Donnell et al., 2008). Additional research exploring and refining the assessment of parenting in restaurant settings can inform future efforts to understand how parenting in restaurants relates to child outcomes and potentially inform intervention efforts in the longer term. Because many interventions already exist that target general and/or food parenting outside of restaurants, it also may be useful for interventionists working on these programs to consider whether they want to incorporate any intervention messages or measures specific to restaurant settings, given that families eat food from restaurants regularly, and given the suggestive evidence that parents may have different expectations for children in restaurants versus home. Taken together, continued research on parenting in restaurants can complement broader efforts to understand intersections between parenting and child eating and weight outcomes and the promotion of positive parenting behaviors in an effort to support child health and well-being.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank Vaishali Gupta, Khushi Parashar, and Rocco Paluch, as well as the additional staff and students in the University at Buffalo Child Health and Behavior Lab who contributed to this study.
Funding:
Funding for this study was provided by grant 1R01HD096748 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development at the National Institutes of Health.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Declarations of interest: None
Ethical Statement:
Study procedures were approved by the University at Buffalo Institutional Review Board. All participants provided informed consent prior to beginning study procedures.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data:
Data can be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References:
- 1.Anderson H, Ferrante MJ, Tauriello S, & Anzman-Frasca S. (2023). Differences in food parenting at home versus restaurants among parents of 3-to-8-year-old children. Appetite, 183, Article 106456. 10.1016/j.appet.2023.106456 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Anzman-Frasca S, Tauriello S, Epstein L, Ferrante MJ, Gampp A, Goldsmith J, Haines J, Leone LA, Paluch R. (Under Review). Promoting healthier meal selection and intake among children in restaurants: Study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial. JMIR Research Protocols. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Balantekin KN, Anzman-Frasca S, Francis LA, Ventura AK, Fisher JO, & Johnson SL. (2020). Positive parenting approaches and their association with child eating and weight: A narrative review from infancy to adolescence. Pediatric Obesity, 15(10), Article e12722. 10.1111/ijpo.12722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bergmeier H, Aksan N, McPhie S, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Baur L, Milgrom J, Campbell K, Demir D, & Skouteris H. (2016). Mutually Responsive Orientation: A novel observational assessment of mother-child mealtime interactions. Appetite, 105, 400–409. 10.1016/j.appet.2016.06.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bergmeier H, Skouteris H, & Hetherington M. (2015). Systematic research review of observational approaches used to evaluate mother-child mealtime interactions during preschool years. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 101(1), 7–15. 10.3945/ajcn.114.092114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Castro IA, Williams CB, Madanat H, Pickrel JL, Jun H-J, Zive M, Gahagan S, & Ayala GX. (2016). Food ordering for children in restaurants: multiple sources of influence on decision making. Public Health Nutrition, 19(13), 2404–2409. 10.1017/S1368980016001403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Chen B, Kattelmann K, Comstock C, McCormack L, Wey H, & Meendering J. (2021). Parenting Styles, Food Parenting Practices and Dietary Intakes of Preschoolers. Nutrients, 13(10), 3630. 10.3390/nu13103630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Darling N, & Steinberg L. (1993). Parenting Style as Context: An Integrative Model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Dubois L, Bédard B, Goulet D, Prud’homme D, Tremblay RE, & Boivin M. (2022). Eating behaviors, dietary patterns and weight status in emerging adulthood and longitudinal associations with eating behaviors in early childhood. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 19(1), 1–139. 10.1186/s12966-022-01376-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Faith MS, Scanlon KS, Birch LL, Francis LA, & Sherry B. (2004). Parent-Child Feeding Strategies and Their Relationships to Child Eating and Weight Status. Obesity Research, 12(11), 1711–1722. 10.1038/oby.2004.212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Fiese BH, Jones BL, & Jarick JM. (2015). Family Mealtime Dynamics and Food Consumption: An Experimental Approach to Understanding Distractions. Couple and Family Psychology, 4(4), 199–211. 10.1037/cfp0000047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Fries LR, van der Horst K, Moding KJ, Hughes SO, & Johnson SL. (2019). Consistency Between Parent-Reported Feeding Practices and Behavioral Observation During Toddler Meals. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 51(10), 1159–1167. 10.1016/j.jneb.2019.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gardner F. (2000). Methodological issues in the direct observation of parent-child interaction: do observational findings reflect the natural behavior of participants? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(3), 185–198. 10.1023/A:1009503409699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gridley N, Bywater TJ, & Hutchings JM. (2018). Comparing Live and Video Observation to Assess Early Parent-child Interactions in the Home. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(6), 1818–1829. 10.1007/s10826-018-1039-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Herbers JE, Garcia EB, & Obradović J. (2017). Parenting Assessed by Observation versus Parent-report: Moderation by Parent Distress and Family Socioeconomic Status. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(12), 3339–3350. 10.1007/s10826-017-0848-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hughes SO, Power TG, Orlet Fisher J, Mueller S, & Nicklas TA. (2005). Revisiting a neglected construct: parenting styles in a child-feeding context. Appetite, 44(1), 83–92. 10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hughes SO, Shewchuk RM, Baskin ML, Nicklas TA, & Qu H. (2008). Indulgent Feeding Style and Children’s Weight Status in Preschool. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 29(5), 403–410. 10.1097/DBP.0b013e318182a976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kasparian M, Mann G, Serrano EL, & Farris AR. (2017). Parenting practices toward food and children’s behavior: Eating away from home versus at home. Appetite, 114, 194–199. 10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kiefner-Burmeister A, & Hinman N. (2020). The Role of General Parenting Style in Child Diet and Obesity Risk. Current Nutrition Reports, 9(1), 14–30. 10.1007/s13668-020-00301-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kim M-J, McIntosh WA, Anding J, Kubena KS, Reed DB, & Moon G-S. (2008). Perceived parenting behaviours predict young adolescents’ nutritional intake and body fatness. Maternal and Child Nutrition, 4(4), 287–303. 10.1111/j.1740-8709.2008.00142.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kong KL, Anzman-Frasca S, Burgess B, Serwatka C, White HI, & Holmbeck K. (2023). Systematic Review of General Parenting Intervention Impacts on Child Weight as a Secondary Outcome. Childhood Obesity, 19(5), 293–308. 10.1089/chi.2022.0056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Liu J, Rehm CD, Onopa J, & Mozaffarian D. (2020). Trends in Diet Quality Among Youth in the United States, 1999–2016. JAMA, 323(12), 1161–1174. 10.1001/jama.2020.0878 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Maccoby EE, & Martin JA. (1983) Socialization in the context of the family: parent-child interaction. Handbook of Child Psychology (4th ed.) (eds Mussen PH & Hetherington EM), pp. 1–101. Wiley: New York, NY.14. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Marcus C, Danielsson P, & Hagman E. (2022). Pediatric obesity—Long-term consequences and effect of weight loss. Journal of Internal Medicine, 292(6), 870–891. 10.1111/joim.13547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.O’Donnell SI, Hoerr SL, Mendoza JA, & Goh ET. (2008). Nutrient quality of fast food kids meals. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 88(5), 1388–1395. 10.3945/ajcn.2008.26197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Powell LM, & Nguyen BT. (2013). Fast-Food and Full-Service Restaurant Consumption Among Children and Adolescents: Effect on Energy, Beverage, and Nutrient Intake. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(1), 14–20. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Powell LM, Nguyen BT, & Han E. (2012). Energy Intake from Restaurants Demographics and Socioeconomics, 2003–2008. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(5), 498–504. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.07.041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Power TG. (2002). Parenting dimensions inventory – Short Version (PDI-S): A research manual. Washington State University. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Power TG, Beck AD, Fisher JO, Micheli N, O’Connor TM, & Hughes SO. (2021). Observations of Maternal Feeding Practices and Styles and Young Children’s Obesity Risk: A Longitudinal Study of Hispanic Mothers with Low Incomes. Childhood Obesity, 17(1), 16–25. 10.1089/chi.2020.0178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Radesky JS, Kistin CJ, Zuckerman B, Nitzberg K, Gross J, Kaplan-Sanoff M, Augustyn M, & Silverstein M. (2014). Patterns of Mobile Device Use by Caregivers and Children During Meals in Fast Food Restaurants. Pediatrics (Evanston), 133(4), E843–E849. 10.1542/peds.2013-3703 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Robinson EA, & Eyberg SM. (1981). The dyadic parent-child interaction coding system: Standardization and validation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(2), 245–250. 10.1037/0022-006X.49.2.245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sahoo K, Sahoo B, Choudhury AK, Sofi NY, Kumar R, & Bhadoria AS. (2015). Childhood obesity: causes and consequences. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(2), 187–192. 10.4103/2249-4863.154628 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Savage JS, Fisher JO, & Birch LL. (2007). Parental Influence on Eating Behavior: Conception to Adolescence. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 35(1), 22–34. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00111.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Sleddens EFC, Gerards SMPL, Thijs C, de Vries NK, & Kremers SPJ. (2011). General parenting, childhood overweight and obesity-inducing behaviors: a review. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, 6(2Part2), e12–e27. 10.3109/17477166.2011.566339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Tauriello S, Ibitayo O, Ferrante MJ, & Anzman-Frasca S. (2024). Food parenting at-home vs. in restaurants among African American parents of 3-to-8-year-old children. Appetite, 198, Article 107335 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Thomson JL, Tussing-Humphreys LM, Goodman MH, & Landry AS. (2019). Diet quality in a nationally representative sample of American children by sociodemographic characteristics. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 109(1), 127–138. 10.1093/ajcn/nqy284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Tiano JD, & McNeil CB. (2006). Training Head Start Teachers in Behavior Management Using Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: A Preliminary Investigation. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3(2), 220–233. 10.1037/h0100334 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Vaughn AE, Ward DS, Fisher JO, Faith MS, Hughes SO, Kremers SPJ, Musher-Eizenman DR, O’Connor TM, Patrick H, & Power TG. (2016). Fundamental constructs in food parenting practices: a content map to guide future research. Nutrition Reviews, 74(2), 98–117. 10.1093/nutrit/nuv061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Vollmer RL, & Mobley AR. (2013). Parenting styles, feeding styles, and their influence on child obesogenic behaviors and body weight. A review. Appetite, 71, 232–241. 10.1016/j.appet.2013.08.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Walton K, Haycraft E, Jewell K, Breen A, Randall Simpson J, & Haines J. (2019). The Family Mealtime Observation Study (FaMOS): Exploring the Role of Family Functioning in the Association between Mothers’ and Fathers’ Food Parenting Practices and Children’s Nutrition Risk. Nutrients, 11(3), 630 10.3390/nu11030630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Westen SC, Mitchell TB, Mayer-Brown S, Resmini Rawlinson A, Ding K, & Janicke DM. (2019). Mother and Father Controlling Feeding Behaviors and Associations With Observed Mealtime Family Functioning. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 44(10), 1174–1183. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsz060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Yaffe Y. (2023). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 42(19), 16011–16024. 10.1007/s12144-020-01014-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data can be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.