Youth involvement in food preparation practices at home: A multi-method exploration of Latinx youth experiences and perspectives

Abstract

Youth are frequently involved in preparing meals for themselves and family members. Latinx youth may be more likely to be involved in food preparation compared to youth from other ethnic backgrounds. Involvement in food preparation has been linked to various positive health outcomes, such as better diet quality and higher self-esteem. However, little is known about how youth come to be involved in food preparation at home. In addition, previous research has failed to explore the perspectives of youth regarding their role in food preparation. The objective of the present study was to qualitatively explore the food preparation practices of youth from im/migrant Latinx families. A multi-method study consisting of participatory focus groups embedded within an ethnographic fieldwork period was conducted. Participatory focus groups with Latinx youth featured inclusive discussions and participatory techniques, such as draw-write-tell activities, photo-elicitation activities, a decision-making chart activity, and listing activities. Twenty-three youths ages 9 to 17 years participated in this study. A thematic analysis uncovered themes related to gender norm expectations, specific cooking skills bound by age and food type, and food preparation as an important household contribution. Findings illustrate the diverse experiences of Latinx youth in food preparation. The investigation of youth involvement in food preparation in the home environment may identify potential targets for obesity prevention and dietary health promotion.

Introduction

Research concerned with family food practices has often investigated the ways in which parents contribute to family eating patterns. This body of research has provided valuable evidence in characterizing the many ways in which parents, particularly mothers, shape family dietary patterns (Golan & Crow, 2004; Lindsay, Sussner, Kim, & Gortmaker, 2006). However, burgeoning research has begun to investigate the ways in which children and adolescents (hereon collectively referred to as youth) also influence and contribute to family food practices. Previous work indicates that youth not only exert substantial influence on family food choices in and out of the home (Atkin, 1978; Ekstrom, Tansuhaj, & Foxman, 1987; Henry & Borzekowski, 2011; Maubach, Hoek, & McCreanor, 2009; O’Dougherty, Story, & Stang, 2006; Rimal & Flora, 1998), but are also frequently involved in preparing meals for themselves and family members (Berge, MacLehose, Larson, Laska, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2016; Chu et al., 2013; Chu, Storey, & Veugelers, 2014; Larson, Story, Eisenberg, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2006; Leak, Aasand, Vickers, & Reicks, 2018; Sattler et al., 2015; Woodruff & Kirby, 2013). For example, among a diverse U.S. sample of more than 4,000 adolescents from the Project Eating and Activity in Teens (EAT) in years 1998-1999, 68.6% adolescents reported helping prepare dinner at least once during the past week (Larson, Story, et al., 2006). Findings from a study with 289 low-income African-American 9- to 15-year-olds reported youths preparing food on average 6.7 times a week (Sattler et al., 2015). Although these findings demonstrate the frequency of youth involvement in food preparation, it is helpful to examine the various factors that influence this involvement, along with understanding the experiences of youth involved in this activity.

Youths’ involvement in food preparation has been shown to vary among boys and girls, with girls consistently preparing food more frequently than boys (Berge et al., 2016; Woodruff & Kirby, 2013). In addition, youth from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to be involved in food preparation (Larson, Story, et al., 2006; Utter, Denny, Lucassen, & Dyson, 2016). However, little is known beyond these demographic factors. In addition, much of the existing research investigating youths’ involvement in food preparation has often narrowly focused on dinner, rather than other mealtimes. Investigating how youth come to be involved in food preparation across various mealtimes and how youth perceive this role may aid in our understanding of youths’ food preparation practices. Such understanding is necessary as findings from cross-sectional work suggest youths’ involvement in food preparation at home to be associated with better diet quality (Berge et al., 2016; Chu et al., 2014), a stronger preference for fruits and vegetables, and higher self-esteem (Chu et al., 2013). Indeed, these findings suggest the potential role of youths’ involvement in food preparation in the development of dietary patterns and food preferences that may have long-term implications for health.

Youth from certain populations may be more likely to be involved in food preparation. Findings from previous research centered on the ways in which youth contribute to their families have noted Latinx adolescents to contribute at higher frequency rates compared to their peers from other ethnic backgrounds (Fuligni, 2001). As substantiated by previous ethnographic accounts, these contributions often include grocery unpacking, feeding younger siblings, and preparing traditional cultural foods (e.g., pupusas and tamales), setting the table and washing dishes (Denmark & Jones Harden, 2012; Orellana, 2001). Investigating the role of Latinx youth in food preparation is imperative given the potential links to dietary health outcomes, particularly given the fact that Latinx youth suffer from some of the highest rates of dietary-related health conditions. For example, a staggering 25.8% of Latinx youths aged 2 to 19 years were obese in 2015-2016, compared to 14.1% among non-Hispanic/Latinx white youth (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). This disparity, coupled with the already troubling rates of diabetes in the Latinx community (Schneiderman et al., 2014), further demonstrates the need to identify and understand potential targets for prevention and intervention efforts. Youth involvement in food preparation practices may be one such target.

The purpose of the present study was to qualitatively explore the food preparation practices of youth from low-income im/migrant Latinx families. This study addresses a major gap in the literature by exploring youths’ perspectives related to their role in food preparation at home using a rich qualitative design that incorporates participatory methods. Further, this study purposefully centers on youth who come from low-income Latinx families, as previous studies suggest youth of low-income families are more likely to be involved in food preparation (Larson, Story, et al., 2006; Utter et al., 2016). This study is informed by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979) and its emphasis on the reciprocal interaction between youth and various social environments. This study highlights how youth act on their home food environments in the context of food preparation. We acknowledge that youth exist in families, which are a part of communities and larger societies that are situated within a specific historical place in time. To further understand the ecological system in the context of food preparation at home, we also apply Ecocultural Theory (Bernheimer, Gallimore, & Weisner, 1990; Weisner, 1984, 2002) as an extension of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. Ecocultural Theory posits that families engage in routines and practices every day. Such routines and practices are made up of activities that are actively constructed based on sociocultural context, the characteristics of individual family members, as well as the family’s own values and goals. Here, we position youths’ involvement in food preparation as an example of a behavior enacted in response to the family’s needs, values, and goals. That is, we see the participation of youth in preparing meals for themselves and family members as an activity that is informed by a combination of youth personal characteristics (e.g., age, gender, personality) and specific desires set out by families for their youth, reflecting any beliefs tied to the kitchen as a cultural site with its own norms and customs.

The first aim of this study was to describe Latinx youths’ involvement in family food preparation. Family food preparation, for the purposes of this study, is defined as a set of behaviors used to make or arrange a meal or snack to be consumed by at least one family member (other than oneself). The following research questions guided this aim:

1. What is the level of youths’ involvement in food preparation?

2. What types of foods and meals do youth prepare, and for whom are these foods prepared?

The second aim was to explore the individual-level and family-level factors that may inhibit or promote Latinx youths’ involvement in food preparation at home. The following research questions guided this aim:

1. What personal characteristics (e.g., age, development, personality) do youth perceive as important in determining participation in food preparation?

2. What family or cultural beliefs do youth identify as determinants for participation in food preparation?

Methods

Study design and setting.

To investigate the aforementioned aims, this study invited youth participants to join a series of participatory focus group sessions (PFGs) during the month of October 2017. This series of PFGs was embedded within a larger ethnographic fieldwork period that took place in a rural region of northeastern U.S. from May 2017 to April 2018. The research site of interest sits within the third ranking county in its state for the highest childhood obesity rates. County-level demographics include a population of 95% white, non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals. Hispanic/ Latinx origin individuals almost entirely make up the remaining 5%. At the county-level, 12% of the general population lives below federal poverty guidelines. However, this number reaches close to 20% for this specific research site. In addition, more Hispanic/Latinx individuals live below the poverty guidelines than any other racial/ethnic groups in the area (United States Census Bureau, 2016).

All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the The Pennsylvania State University. Parent consent was obtained prior to the start of the study and youth assent was an active, ongoing process throughout the entire study. When describing the purpose of the study to youth and their parents, it was made clear that the principal investigator (PI; M. Martin Romero) wanted to learn more about how youth help at home and especially in the kitchen. At the beginning of each session, youth participants were reminded that they could withdraw from the study or choose not to participate in any activity at any time. All PFGs were audio-recorded. In line with the participatory nature of this study, youths were invited to select a pseudonym for themselves during the last session. Pseudonyms were selected during the last session rather than the first session to avoid the possibility of performance under a new identity (i.e., the chosen pseudonym). Participant pseudonym selection was incorporated to enhance greater agency in the labeling and description of participants’ narratives (Allen & Wiles, 2016). In a few cases, the PI was required to select the final pseudonym due to participant absence during the last session or due to pseudonym repetition.

Recruitment and sample.

A non-random, critical case sampling design paired with snowball sampling (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007) was employed to recruit youths of Latinx families between the ages of 9 and 17. Recruitment flyers in Spanish and English were posted throughout the community (e.g., in local food pantry, at laundromat) where the study took place. The principal investigator also handed flyers to parents of potential participants during community encounters based on her knowledge of the family’s cultural background and possible routines. Parents of potential participants were asked to inform the PI of their interest in the study and, if interested, enroll their child(ren) via phone call or text. Youths were eligible to participate if they were between the ages of 9 – 17 years and had at least one parent whose native language was Spanish. Parents’ native language of Spanish was used as one aspect of eligibility criteria to simplify identifying families of Latinx background who may have recently im/migrated to the mainland U.S. This was coupled with the PI’s established connections within the community during fieldwork. Multiple youths within the same family could participate if all eligibility requirements were met. A wide age range was selected to allow for the examination of potential differences associated with age, sibling dynamics, and birth order. Youth were excluded if they had any condition that would impair their ability to communicate verbally (in Spanish or English).

A total of 23 youths from 14 different families participated. Forty-eight percent were girls and the average age was 12.4 ± 2.9 years. Youth ages fell relatively evenly across the three age categories of 9-11 years (n=8), 12-14 years (n=8), and 15-17 years (n=7). All participants came from low-income families with approximately 71% of these families from Central America (i.e., Honduras or El Salvador). Close to 57% of participants were born in the U.S. mainland. All participants spoke Spanish at home as their first language although close to half (11) preferred to speak in English. All participants had at least one parent who was born outside of the U.S. mainland, including migrants from Puerto Rico. No participants identified as an only child. The average number of siblings currently living in a household was 3.1, ranging from 2 to 5. Based on the relatively large number of families who showed interest, enrolled participants were divided into two groups that met on separate days at two local churches (n=10 and 13 in each group). The average participation rate across all sessions was 92% (range: 60% - 100%).

Participatory Focus Group (PFG) Session Procedures

Youths were invited to participate in eight sequential PFGs, each lasting approximately one hour. Each PFG was followed by a short (30 minutes or less) recipe activity. Youth participants also received a $10 gift card from a different vendor at the completion of each PFG. The timing of disbursement and variety in gift cards, along with the inclusion of recipe activities, were done strategically to encourage participant retention. All PFGs and recipe activities were facilitated by the PI without the help of a note-taker, as no other bilingual (English and Spanish) team members were available. In addition, all PFGs and recipe activities were conducted in a bilingual format (English and Spanish) based on the linguistic needs of participating youths. This meant that PFG questions and instructions were stated in English and Spanish and youth were encouraged to respond in whichever language they felt most comfortable. All PFGs consisted of “codeswitching,” where participants and the PI would cycle back and forth between English and Spanish during the conversation.

Each PFG was designed to provide participating youths with multiple ways to express their experiences while addressing a distinct research question. Guided by the study’s purpose, PFGs featured inclusive discussions and participatory techniques, such as draw-write-tell activities, photo-elicitation activities, a decision-making chart activity, and listing activities. The participatory nature of this study was developed with the intention to encourage greater participation, acknowledging the diverse age range. In addition, the use of multiple methods allowed for the gathering of richer data along with the ability to establish greater validity and reliability via triangulation (Golafshani, 2003). Because participants came from such a wide age range, the PI consistently checked in with younger participants to ensure their voices were heard. Many of the older participants, especially those who were present with their younger siblings, assisted in making sure younger participants felt comfortable with expressing their ideas as well.

Group discussions.

Youths were invited to participate in multiple discussions throughout the study. The first discussion, “How I Help”, asked youths to talk about how they help out in the family, initiated by the first prompt of “Tell me about a time when you help your family.” The second discussion, “Talking about Norms”, asked youths to discuss existing norms related to helping the family in general and then specifically about food preparation. An example question included, “When you all think about the different ways you help out your family, what are things that only girls should do?” Specific probes related to culture, age and gender were explored (see table 1 for list). Preliminary probes were developed by the first and second author based on findings from past literature related to food preparation practices (Berge et al., 2016; Leak et al., 2018). Additional probes emerged from fieldnotes based on interactions with families throughout the community as well as those with youth participants during the PFGs. In the final PFG, youths were asked to provide their opinions of the different activities used in the study, along with their opinions related to the overall research study. Youth participants were also asked to verify information and answer any final clarification questions according to a participant information sheet created by the lead investigator. This information sheet included basic information about each participant and prompted youths to correct any errors. Specifically, each sheet featured quotes from each participant and included details about their family and experiences. All questions throughout the discussions were presented in a conversational nature to encourage open-ended responses.

Table 1.

Example questions and probes used throughout participatory focus group sessions.

Domain	Exemplars
Helping the family	Now let’s think about how you all help out in your family. In what ways do you help your family?  • How do you feel when you help your family? How does helping your family make you feel?  • In what ways do you help your family in the kitchen?
Gender norms	Let’s talk about food preparation, food choice or any role in the kitchen now. Are there certain things that only girls should do? What about things that only boys should do? Let’s make a list together.  • Why do you think that only girls should do X?  • Why do you think that only boys should do X?
Age norms	Are there certain things that older kids or older siblings should do? What about things that younger kids can do? Let’s make a list together.  • So why do you think that older siblings should do X?  • What if someone is an only child? Does that change what they’re able to do?  • Kitchen
Cultural norms	Are there any other reasons or characteristics that may help decide who does what and who doesn’t?  • How about where your family is from and their culture or their way of doings things?  • Can anyone give an example of this?
Decision-making	What we’re going to do now is think about who makes decisions about food and how it is cooked in your family. First, we’re going to start with breakfast.  • Who usually prepares breakfast?  • Who is it made for?  • Who usually decides what is cooked or prepared for breakfast?  • Does this change depending on the day of the week, like a Monday vs. a Saturday?

Draw-write-tell activity.

The draw-write-tell method asks participants to draw about a certain theme, write a description of the drawing and then discuss the drawing and description during an interview (Angell, Alexander, & Hunt, 2015). For this study, youth participants were asked to draw and/or write about themselves and their family during the first PFG. This was done to introduce all group members and the facilitator. Youth participants were given the option to draw or write, or to do both. Each participant was provided with a personal drawing pad, along with pencils, pens, and coloring markers to use during the PFGs.

Photo elicitation activities.

Photo elicitation methods typically prompt participants to photograph images that relate to a specified theme. Participants are then are asked to elaborate on those images during an individual interview (Epstein, Stevens, McKeever, & Baruchel, 2006; Harper, 2002). In this study, youths were asked to participate in two photo elicitation activities. The first activity asked participants to take pictures of examples of how they help in general at home over a 7-day period. The second activity asked participants to take pictures of the meals they ate in and out of the home over a 7-day period. Participants were prompted to describe meal contents and indicate who prepared the meal. For both activities, participants were asked to only take pictures of non-identifiable objects or parts of people (e.g., no faces, tattoos, or anything particularly identifiable). Once photos were submitted, all photos were printed and then discussed, prompting participants to provide details about each photo that was taken. The final photos presented in this paper were selected by the PI based on the following criteria: (1) clearness of image and (2) relevance to specific theme as indicated by the participant’s photo description and/or actual contents of photo.

Decision-making chart activity.

The decision-making chart activity asks participants to think about and describe what decisions are made and by whom by making a chart (O’Kane, 2000). For this study, participants were asked to create a chart that displayed what they typically eat, who typically makes the food, and who typically decides what will be eaten. Participants were prompted to provide details for different time points in the day (i.e., morning, afternoon, and evening). The charts were then used to generate discussion among the group.

Listing activities.

For this activity, participants were invited to form smaller groups (based on their own designation) and create lists related to the following topics: (1) foods they eat (categorized by standard mealtimes, such as lunch; as well as their favorite foods), (2) names of places where they buy or consume food, and (3) cooking skills by age. All lists were used to generate discussion amongst the group.

Recipe activities.

At the end of each PFG, participants were invited to join in a short recipe activity. These activities included recipes that featured simple preparation techniques, such as making a fruit smoothie and no-bake oatmeal cookies. Participants were encouraged to suggest recipe ideas for the final four sessions. No data was collected during these activities as their purpose were to incentivize youth to participate in every PFG.

Together, these participatory techniques positioned youths as social actors within the research process (O’Kane, 2000), generating both textual and visual data related to food preparation practices. Past research studies with youth have suggested emphasizing the importance of youths’ own perspectives and sharing control throughout dialogues (Christensen, 2004; Hill, 1997; Pearce et al., 2009). Aware of the power dynamics innate to the research process, the PI took care in establishing relationships with participants where they felt respected and appreciated. Participants were consistently reminded at the beginning of, and throughout each session, that their participation was voluntary, meaning that they could choose not to answer any questions and/or not participate in any activity at any time.

Data Preparation and Analysis

To maintain consistency and reliability, transcripts were produced by the PI. Transcripts were then reviewed for accuracy by a bilingual, bicultural professional. This study utilized a modified constructivist grounded theory approach where the collection and preliminary analysis of data occurred simultaneously while theory was derived directly from the data (Charmaz, 2006). Upon leaving the field, a bicultural and bilingual research team comprised of the PI and two trained research assistants performed a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the data according to the study’s research objectives. Open coding followed by focused coding (Charmaz, 2006) was performed by hand to search for patterns and outliers. One central codebook was developed as codes were formed based on each focus group transcript individually. Codes were then used to identify emerging themes derived from transcripts and field notes. Once transcripts were coded, data from the participatory techniques, such as photos and charts, along with field notes, were analyzed. This additional data served to supplement the narratives uncovered from the multiple group discussions with participants. Data analysis spanned a four-month period during which each step was collaborative and iterative.

Results

Analyses revealed three major thematic categories specific to involvement in food preparation. These three major thematic categories centered on (1) gender norm expectations in family roles, (2) specific cooking skills bound by age and food type, and (3) the cooking process as an opportunity for youths to contribute to the household. These major thematic categories were further divided into subthemes and are described below, supplemented with examples from photos, lists, charts, and quotes generated by participants. All names provided are pseudonyms and all text originally in Spanish has been translated to English where appropriate.

Gender norm expectations and participation

Participants noted the importance of all siblings completing household tasks; however, they were aware of clear differences in the expectations set by their families for each sibling. These expectations, often demarcated by gender, extended into the kitchen setting and helped to determine who exactly was encouraged or even allowed to prepare food. Of the 11 girl participants, six noted that their families expected them to cook or at least help prepare meals. This expectation resulted in greater involvement in food preparation among girls. Participants attributed these gender norm expectations to growing up in a Latinx household and as being a traditional feature of Latinx culture.

Girl + older sibling = more responsibilities.

Eight girl participants had younger siblings and described themselves as having more responsibilities. This heavier task load for girls was frequently confirmed by statements from older girl siblings as well as statements from their younger siblings who consistently mentioned the ways in which their older sisters helped them. Melissa, a 14-year-old girl with two younger siblings, explained her role:

I am the oldest in my household. I have to make breakfast when I wake up, I have to bathe them [younger siblings], and dress them and if mommy is not ready before 7:50, I have to take them to school. (Melissa, 14-year-old girl).

In support of Melissa’s example, the other seven older girl siblings shared similar experiences about helping at home with younger siblings and later went on to describe their involvement in food preparation as a prime example of helping at home. Of the eight girls who had younger siblings, four described their time in the kitchen as an everyday role while one reported participating in food preparation at least weekly. This participation would occur either by themselves without assistance or at the side of their mothers as they assisted in preparing meals together.

Task load increase with coming to the U.S.

Many of the participants who were born outside of the mainland U.S. described dramatic changes in the amount and types of tasks they had to complete once arriving to their new homes in the mainland U.S. This change was consistently characterized as participants having more responsibilities related to caring for themselves in addition to caring for their family in multiple ways. These participants often lived with grandparents or other family members before reuniting with their parents who had migrated at an earlier time to the mainland U.S.

I think it depends how your parents or how your grandparents are with you because when I was in Honduras I was like the princess of the house and I never [did] like nothing. …So, when I came here everything was different. I have to cook for myself, I have to wash my clothes, I have to do everything for me. … I was the only girl over there and I was not the oldest because my older brother was living with me. Now I’m the oldest and I have to take care, I’m the second mom of the house (Katherine, 15-year-old girl).

This change in task load was noted among both girls and boys.

Just like her, I didn’t do anything. My grandparents… I would just lay down and they would bring me food. Now I have to do everything! (Cristiano, 12-year-old boy).

When these participants came to the U.S., they now had younger siblings to care for, placing them with the responsibilities associated with being an older sibling.

Cooking as a future-oriented task.

The utility in learning to cook was often seen in terms of future roles and outcomes. For girls, cooking was a practical skill necessary for marriage and the obtainment of this skill was highly encouraged by their families. For example, one girl described her mother’s reasoning for incorporating girls in the kitchen as this:

She’s like you need to learn because when you get married your husband is not going to clean either, he’s going to work and that’s it. (Abisai, 17-year-old girl).

There was a positive consensus among participants when asked if boys should learn how to cook. However, the enactment of cooking by boys and men was restricted to conditions where a woman might not be able to cook as she normally would. A prime example of such conditions was pregnancy:

Men should learn how to cook, too, because just in case. There’s a lot of women at our church that are pregnant right now and I feel like those men that don’t have somebody else to cook for them and they have extra kids, I feel like they have to learn. (Abisai, 17-year-old girl).

Another future motivation for boys centered on a future partner’s inability or disinterest in preparing food.

I think we should just learn…we gotta learn how to cook, too, because you never know if you’re gonna have a lazy wife (laughter). Some wives can be really lazy. (Leo, 13-year-old boy).

In addition to serving as a useful skill in the event of an emergency or other extraordinary condition, learning to cook was a noted economic strategy. This economic strategy was particularly advantageous for boys who would otherwise purchase prepared meals from restaurants and other food outlets.

Let’s take Leo for example. Let’s say he moves outside of his mom’s house and he’s not gonna get married right away. And if he lives far, say he’s like off somewhere else. He’s gonna have to learn how to cook because not every day he’s gonna have money to buy take-out food or like fast food. He’s gonna have to learn how to cook to save money. (Abisai, 17-year-old girl).

Participants were aware of gender role norm expectations and implicitly referred to these norms in describing their current and future selves. They articulated distinct and inherent characteristics between boys and girls, labeling boys as “messy” and “dumb” and girls as “clean” and “responsible”. These differences, participants argued, made it so that girls naturally had greater task loads in helping the family in and out of the kitchen with clear implications for gendered roles in the future.

Cooking skills and foods prepared by youth bound by age and food type

Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the foods commonly prepared by participants in this study. Experience in food preparation varied across genders and ages. Younger girls (9 – 12 years old) were less involved in the kitchen compared to older girls (13 – 17 years old). Younger girls’ involvement was mostly characterized as preparing accompanying foods and side dishes, such as tortillas and plantains, rather than complete meals. Most (10 of 12) of the boys admitted to having very limited, if any, cooking experience. When boys described a personal cooking experience, this experience was often dependent upon the help of an older sister, such as the case of Logan (age 11) and his sister, Karnation (age 13).

Figure 1.

A. Scrambled eggs, refried beans, cheese, toast, and coffee prepared by 13-year-old girl. B. Cereal with milk prepared by 17-year-old boy. C. Chicken nuggets and pretzel sticks prepared by 9-year-old boy. D. Mondongo (tripe stew) prepared by 17-year-old girl.

Logan: Sometimes I make eggs. Sometimes.

Karnation: Yeah, but I have to turn on the stove. I have to put the oil in the pan. I have to find the pan. I have to crack the egg.

This example from Logan and Karnation demonstrates boys’ limited cooking skills as well as the interdependent relationship among younger siblings and older siblings where gender norm expectations may be emphasized even more.

The kitchen and its potential dangers.

The kitchen was described as a setting with potential hazards, especially for younger youth. Participants often stated fears of burning themselves or causing a fire as a barrier to food preparation and noted the importance in evaluating the age of a child for safety reasons.

For example, I’m not gonna put a 5-year-old to mess with the stove. You don’t want to do that. They can do a bowl of cereal or something easy, but messing with hot stuff, no. (Abisai, 17-year-old girl).

Participants, especially boys, shared their failed attempts at preparing meals. The following excerpt relayed by two brothers, Anuel (age 13) and M.W. (age 9), provides a prime example:

M.W.: I make an explosion in the house. [For example, with] the macaroni and cheese. I didn’t add the water and the plate burned.

Anuel: He burned the whole thing! You know those macaroni and cheese bowls that you have to put the water in? He put it in the microwave and then suddenly lots of sparks came out. We thought the microwave exploded, but it didn’t.

Specific ages can do specific things.

When prompted to talk about how age could possibly influence a child’s participation in food preparation, participants detailed specific requirements for certain tasks. For example, in evaluating the capabilities of younger siblings, one participant said:

They can make a sandwich, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. But it depends on the age because my baby brother he’s 2 years old and he can’t do nothing. (Jenni, 15-year-old girl).

Table 2 presents a chronological list of cooking skills by age as delineated by boys and girls separately. Participants chose to complete these lists in groups separately based on gender; that is, boys worked in one group while girls worked in the other. The lists created by these groups present distinct categorizations of cooking techniques that vary by age according to boys versus girls. For example, girls expressed that by age seven a child should be able to cook eggs; however, boys did not mention this skill until age 11. In further thinking on the importance of age, a few girls (3) indicated the age of 13 as the maximum age for being able to learn how to cook, signaling the importance in learning how to cook at an early age.

Table 2.

Chronological list of cooking skills by age according to youth participants.

	Boys say…	Girls say…
5-to-6 years old	Make sandwiches	Put juice in a cup Make sandwiches Make cereal
7-to-8 years old	Use microwave	Use a toaster Use blender Make eggs Make ramen noodles Cut fruit
9-to-10 years old	Prepping pollo asado (roasted chicken)	Make pancakes Make tortillas Make grilled cheese sandwich Make rice Make sofrito (a sauce used to season foods)
11-to-12 years old	Make eggs	Cook meat Cook beans Make French fries Make desserts Make mashed potatoes
13-to-14 years old	Make salads	Make spaghetti Make cake/bread Make most foods
15-to-17 years old & older	Start cooking	Can cook pretty much anything

Abisai: 13 and up! If you don’t know how to cook, you’re never gonna learn.

Katherine: That’s what Latina moms say!

Facilitator: So, after 13 there’s no hope?

Abisai: No, but after 13 it’s so much, because, you know, when you’re younger, your brain retains more when you ‘re growing. So, I think it’s easier if you learn when you’re 7, 8, [or] 9, compared to 13.

Referring to the need to start early, participants indicated the need in developing cooking skills before age 13 to better retain these skills. In fact, some (4) of the girls mentioned how they started to get involved in the kitchen around the age of eight. In addition to age differences, participants’ lists displayed differences in the sheer amount of cooking skills recorded, with girls listing a greater variety of skills compared to boys.

“Basic” food vs. “fuerte” food.

Participants were able to make clear distinctions between types of foods and their difficulty in preparing them. Two general categorizations emerged: (1) basic foods and (2) fuerte foods (see figure 2). The Spanish-language word fuerte’ translates to ‘strong’ in English. Basic foods were described as foods that were easy to prepare. Examples of basic foods included cereal, eggs, ham and cheese sandwiches, and pancakes. Fuerte foods were said to fully satiate hunger and consisted of a starch (e.g., rice) paired with meat, fish, or poultry. However, it is important to note that participants’ definition of fuerte food was distinct from the typical concept of a “plato fuerte” (main dish) as not all main course meals qualified as being fuerte.

Figure 2.

Photo examples of basic and fuerte foods taken by youth. Left: Basic food - Ham and cheese sandwich prepared by 17-year-old boy. Right: Fuerte food - Fish with plantains and salad prepared by 17-year-old girl.

Fuerte foods were noted to be more difficult to prepare compared with basic foods. A common example of a fuerte food was rice and beans with stewed chicken. In fact, many of the cultural foods mentioned by participants were described as fuerte foods. Some of these cultural foods were said to be very difficult in preparing and/or time intensive, which resulted in decreased consumption of the food in the home environment.

I used to eat mofongo [a popular dish in Puerto Rico]. I don’t eat it anymore…. Because nobody makes it, it’s too much work. You gotta take out a lot of stuff to do it. (Anuel, 13-year-old boy).

Boys and younger girls (ages 9-12) were more likely to only prepare basic foods, while older girls (ages 13-17) exhibited more advanced preparation techniques and a broader knowledge of recipes.

I cook like fuerte food. I also bake. Like I do tres leches [a type of cake], flan [a type of custard], all that stuff. And I also cook all types of rice, all types of meat. I really don’t have a thing that I don’t cook. (Abisai, 17-year-old girl).

Cooking as an opportunity to contribute to the family

In families where older girls were actively involved in the kitchen, cooking was described as a process that allowed for negotiation in deciding the family’s menu. Older girls and mothers often worked together to choose and prepare meals for the family, especially during dinner time. Table 2 displays an example of this decision-making process as shared by a 15-year-old older girl sibling. Older girls noted that they were actively involved in making sure that everyone in the family was fed and saw the importance in fulfilling this responsibility. These girls described their role in the kitchen as a dynamic one where they had to be attuned to the preference of each family member, but also had to balance time and feasibility. The foods that these girls prepared were often traditional foods from the family’s place of origin. When mothers decided the menu alone, participants mentioned the advantage in knowing how to cook if one did not want to eat the food that was prepared. For example,

You could decide, but if you know how to make it yourself. My mom, if you don’t want to eat her food then you just do whatever, you make whatever you want to eat. (Leo, 13-year-old boy).

The notion of having a choice in what one could eat under the condition of preparing the food by oneself applied to both boys and girls and was not tied to a specific age.

Learning to cook traditional foods by watching mothers.

When asked how they learned how to prepare the foods they currently make, participants indicated watching their older family members, particularly mothers, as the primary learning source. Girls who were more active in food preparation were better able to describe this didactic process.

I look at what she does. Most of the time she doesn’t teach me step-by-step how to make something, like add this, add that. When I want to learn something that she knows how to do I simply watch what she adds. (Abisai, 17-year-old girl).

Girls described the process of learning to cook as an observational activity. These girls attributed the restriction to learning by observation to their mothers’ limited patience in the kitchen. For example,

My mom doesn’t have that patience to be like ‘Here, look, add this’. She’s like ‘get out of my way!’ (Abisai, 17-year-old girl).

Further confirming this experience, another girl quickly added,

My mom, nuh-uh. She says just watch me because I’m not explaining anything. (Jenni, 15-year-old girl).

Four girls in this study generalized their mother’s lack of patience in the kitchen setting to being “a Latina mom”; however, some were able to identify other Latina women (e.g., an aunt) who were patient enough to teach them step-by-step.

Technology as a cultural bridge in the kitchen.

When seeking recipes outside of the family’s cultural foods, many participants utilized technology to find recipes or for entertainment related to food preparation. Technological resources included digital platforms, such as YouTube, Tasty, Facebook, and Google search engine.

Facilitator: Does anyone ever look up recipes online?

Abisai: Yes! Facebook provides with that.

Jenni: YouTube! …I have an app for Tasty. It’s good. I love Tasty.

A younger set of girls added,

I use Google, too, to help me with decorating cakes and stuff like that. (April, 12-year-old girl).

[I watch the] “Cooking, but not really ” show (referring to a YouTube video channel series) (Luna, 12-year-old girl).

Seven of the participating girls pointed out the usefulness of these digital platforms as they allowed them to search for and learn to make new recipes. One boy (age 17) mentioned having used the internet to find a recipe for a class assignment, while the all other boy participants noted how such tools were not applicable to them due to their limited involvement in food preparation. The new recipes that girls sought out often featured foods different from the cultural foods they would normally eat at home and, thus, could not be taught by mothers.

Jenni: I use it a lot when my mom doesn’t know how to do something.

Facilitator: What kind of recipes do you look for?

Jenni: Random ones.

Abisai: I look for English [American] recipes.

Participants sought out new recipes out of curiosity as well as a desire to replicate some of the foods to which they were introduced outside of the home, such as teriyaki chicken and pastas. They purposefully pursued these new recipes as acculturative opportunities, bridging different culinary worlds under one roof. As participants’ accounts illustrate, cooking was more than a task done to feed the family. Cooking served as a cultural socialization mechanism for families that fostered unique bonds between youths and parents, especially among daughters and mothers.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore youth perspectives on their involvement in food preparation practices and the individual- and family-level factors that shape this involvement. Our findings demonstrated that the Latinx youth in this study participated in food preparation as one of the various family routines and practices implemented at home. These routines and practices were characterized by shared responsibilities among family members implemented in support of family goals and values (e.g., household maintenance, gender role fulfilment). Participants’ involvement in such routines align with cultural values and behaviors often associated with Latinx families, such as family obligation and cooperation (Bridges et al., 2012; Telzer, Gonzales, & Fuligni, 2014). Furthermore, our findings revealed the ways in which these responsibilities often extend into the kitchen and necessitate youths’ involvement in food preparation for themselves and other family members. This was especially true for older girls with younger siblings, where some played such a significant role in support of the family’s well-being that they perceived themselves as “the second mom of the house.” Youths’ experiences related to their involvement in food preparation at home are consistent with the main tenets of Ecocultural Theory (Weisner, 1984, 2002) and Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For these youth, food preparation was an activity informed by gender-, age-, and culture-based norms within their family microsystem, evidencing a bidirectional interaction between youth and one specific ecological system: home.

Involvement in food preparation served as a means for cultural transmission between youths and parents, especially older daughters and mothers. Such evidence of cultural transmission in the kitchen setting is supported by findings from Bowen and Devine’s (2011) investigation of the food choices of Puerto Rican girls living in New York and Puerto Rico. The girls in their study reported learning how to cook traditional Puerto Rican foods by watching older family members (not restricted to mothers) (Bowen & Devine, 2011). However, beyond food traditions passed down to youth through observation, our study’s findings show that youth also use digital platforms, such as Facebook, Tasty, and YouTube, to search for new recipes and food preparation techniques different than those learned within the family’s kitchen. Future nutrition-based prevention and intervention programs would do well to incorporate these platforms and other digital outlets to keep current with technology as it rapidly evolves. The findings from this study demonstrate that Latinx youth are intentionally utilizing such technology to connect them with diverse culinary worlds.

Norms and expectations related to gender and age dominated participants’ conceptualizations of food preparation roles. These conceptualizations, in turn, helped to shape differences in both the current involvement in food preparation and future aspirational roles among boys and girls as well as those among older girl siblings and younger girl siblings. Our findings are corroborated by preliminary qualitative work conducted by Leak and colleagues (Leak et al., 2018) investigating adolescents’ role in household food preparation among low-income African-American and white families in Minnesota. Like the participants in our study, adolescents who had younger siblings were more often involved in food preparation compared to peers without younger siblings (Leak et al., 2018). However, as opposed to primarily preparing convenience foods, the participants in our study exhibited a diverse set of cooking skills embedded within a novel binary categorization that varied by age and gender. As outlined by participants, this binary categorization of foods as “basic” and “fuerte” evolved across the chronological timeline and should be taken into consideration during the development of future prevention and intervention work. Many of the existing cooking-based interventions for youth tend to place an emphasis on snack preparation or preparation of one individual meal (as example, see Davis, Ventura, Cook, Gyllenhammer, & Gatto, 2011). However, as seen with many of the older girl siblings who participated in this study, cooking can be and often is an opportunity where some youth frequently prepare meals for multiple family members at various mealtimes. These youth actively curate the family menu and, in turn, the family diet. In addition, the youth participants in our study were aware of the utility in knowing how to prepare food as it enabled food choice at home.

Taken together, these findings highlight two major implications. First, given that some youth are responsible for preparing meals for the entire family, their involvement in food preparation may be an appropriate target for prevention and intervention work. As findings from our study indicate, the participation of Latinx older girl siblings in prevention and intervention programs aimed at improving family diet may be efficacious. However, it must not be assumed that all older girl siblings are or should be actively involved in food preparation. That is, special attention to family context must first be considered. Second, a thorough investigation of the health-related characteristics of food preparation methods implemented and food choices made by youth who are actively involved in family food preparation is warranted. Such exploration should be longitudinal and would allow for the necessary investigation of youth involvement in food preparation and its potential links to individual- and family-level diet quality, weight status, and associated health outcomes over time. Previous findings from emerging research that have demonstrated associations between cooking skills and/or food preparation involvement and diet-related outcomes support this implication. Specifically, findings from experimental studies have shown youth involvement in food preparation to be associated with increased food intake (DeJesus, Gelman, Herold, & Lumeng, 2019; van der Horst, Ferrage, & Rytz, 2014) and increased willingness to taste novel foods (Allirot, da Quinta, Chokupermal, & Urdaneta, 2016). Among adults, frequent food preparation has been associated with improved diet quality (Larson, Perry, Story, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2006) while having more cooking skills has been positively associated with higher vegetable intake as well as less frequent consumption of convenience foods (Hartmann, Dohle, & Siegrist, 2013). These sets of findings, paired with the youth perspectives uncovered in our study, emphasize the importance in centering efforts on providing youth with food preparation skills for better health outcomes.

There are a few limitations to consider when interpreting this study’s findings. The cross-sectional design only offers a snapshot at one point in time of the lives of the youths who participated in this study. Longitudinal work may provide more accurate descriptions of changes in food preparation behaviors over time, considering the malleability of family structure and roles. Such a design would be especially advantageous in further understanding the finding of task load increase with migration to the U.S. In addition, the narratives presented here are specific to low-income, Spanish-speaking, im/migrant Latinx families living in a small, rural area of northeastern U.S. These experiences may not necessarily be shared among all Latinx families nor among all low-income families in the U.S. Future work should investigate this role among other socioeconomic groups and other racial/ethnic groups to further disentangle socioeconomic influences from racial/ethnic cultural factors. Furthermore, the experiences identified in this study are limited to youths who were able to participate in the project. Non-random convenience sampling may have resulted in a biased sample; that is, the youths who participated in this study may have had fewer responsibilities at home and/or more free time, which ultimately enabled them to participate in the study. This possibility is emphasized by the example of one 14-year-old girl who had to shorten her participation in the study due to an intensified role in caring for her younger siblings in the face of a family emergency. This example may be a particularly relevant detail to consider in the development and design of future research efforts, including exploratory studies and interventions.

Conclusion

While a predominant body of research on family food practices has centered on mothers’ involvement, this study highlights youths’ experiences in family food preparation. Using multiple qualitative methods, our study provides rich, new information on youths’ contributions to family food preparation. The findings show that aside from filling the immediate need for food, some youth ascribe value to the process of food preparation for family relationships (e.g., spending time with a parent), and for future development (e.g., learning useful skills). Ecocultural Theory posits that these “everyday routines and activities” are important contexts for youth development, and engagement in these activities should improve child well-being (Weisner, 2002). Our study offers valuable insights from the perspectives of Latinx youth and highlights the need to recognize the important contributions that youth make to their family, and their larger role in youth and family development. By highlighting the dynamic process of family food preparation, this study also provides potential targets for health promotion and prevention efforts. Involving youth in food preparation may be a process by which important health messages and values are transferred. Most notably, we acknowledge youth as potential health change agents, through which positive health behaviors may be transferred and modeled to other family members, including adults. Future research should further explore this dynamic process of youth involvement in family food preparation among families of economically-, culturally-, and geographically- diverse backgrounds.

Table 3.

An example of a decision-making chart bv a 15-year-old older girl sibling.

	What do you eat?	Who decides?	Who prepares?
Breakfast	Cereal, Coffee with bread	Me	Me
Lunch*	Shrimp soup, meat, beans	Me	Me
Dinner	Roasted meat, rice with chicken, beans, plantains,	Me/mom	Me/mom
Snacks	Fast food, Chinese food, tamales, toasted bread, beans with fried plantain, tortillas with cheese	Me	Me/pre-prepared

^*Note: Excludes foods served at school