C

PALA

ABpedfpttwOtsmriramfDtSmrMqwSSRt

LtsSmcS

Del

A

1

RESEARCH

urrent Research

arental Feeding Practices Predict Authoritative,uthoritarian, and Permissive Parenting Styles

AURA HUBBS-TAIT, PhD; TAY SEACORD KENNEDY, PhD, RD; MELANIE C. PAGE, PhD; GLADE L. TOPHAM, PhD;

MANDA W. HARRIST, PhD

sattatsCdftJ

RsmphcAiiacltmshlu

apcescpahartip

BSTRACTackground Our goal was to identify how parental feedingractices from the nutrition literature link to general par-nting styles from the child development literature to un-erstand how to target parenting practices to increase ef-ectiveness of interventions. Stand-alone parental feedingractices could be targeted independently. However, paren-al feeding practices linked to parenting styles require in-erventions treating underlying family dynamics as ahole.bjective To predict parenting styles from feeding prac-ices and to test three hypotheses: restriction and pres-ure to eat are positively related whereas responsibility,onitoring, modeling, and encouraging are negatively

elated to an authoritarian parenting style; responsibil-ty, monitoring, modeling, and encouraging are positivelyelated whereas restriction and pressure to eat are neg-tively related to an authoritative parenting style; a per-issive parenting style is negatively linked with all six

eeding practices.esign Baseline data of a randomized-controlled interven-ion study.ubjects/setting Two hundred thirty-nine parents (93.5%others) of first-grade children (134 boys, 105 girls) en-

olled in rural public schools.easures Parental responses to encouraging and modelinguestionnaires and the Child Feeding Questionnaire, asell as parenting styles measured by the Parentingtyles and Dimensions Questionnaire.tatistical analyses Correlation and regression analyses.esults Feeding practices explained 21%, 15%, and 8% ofhe variance in authoritative, authoritarian, and permis-

. Hubbs-Tait is a professor, G. L. Topham is an assis-ant professor, and A. W. Harrist, is an associate profes-or, Department of Human Development and Familycience, T. S. Kennedy is an associate professor, Depart-ent of Nutritional Sciences, and M. C. Page is an asso-

iate professor, Department of Psychology, Oklahomatate University, Stillwater.Address correspondence to: Laura Hubbs-Tait, PhD,epartment of Human Development and Family Sci-

nce, 233 HES, Stillwater, OK 74078-6122. E-mail:aura.hubbs@okstate.edu

Manuscript accepted: January 29, 2008.Copyright © 2008 by the American Dietetic

ssociation.0002-8223/08/10807-0012$34.00/0

sdoi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.04.008

154 Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION

ive parenting, respectively. Restriction, pressure to eat,nd monitoring (negative) significantly predicted an au-horitarian style (Hypothesis 1); responsibility, restric-ion (negative), monitoring, and modeling predicted anuthoritative style (Hypothesis 2); and modeling (nega-ive) and restriction significantly predicted a permissivetyle (Hypothesis 3).onclusions Parental feeding practices with young chil-ren predict general parenting styles. Interventions thatail to address underlying parenting styles are not likelyo be successful. Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108:1154-1161.

esearchers in nutrition and child development havedeveloped theoretically related measures of parent-ing styles. In nutrition, measures focus on parental

tyles of feeding children (1-4). In child development,easures focus on general parenting styles across many

arent– child interactions (5-8). General parenting stylesave been summarized as consisting of two dimensions:ontrol/demandingness and warmth/responsiveness (5-6,9).uthoritative parenting (high control and high warmth)

s characterized by high parental affection and responsiv-ty as well as high expectations or respectful limit settingnd is associated with increased independence and self-ontrol (5,10). Authoritarian parenting (high control andow warmth) employs strict discipline, may be insensitiveo the child’s emotional needs, and may result in childrenotivated by external controls (11,12). Finally, permis-

ive parents (low control and low or high warmth) mayave low expectations for child self-control and/or set few

imits, potentially leading to children with poor self-reg-lation of behavior (11,13).This nomenclature of general parenting styles has been

dapted to describe the style of parents’ child-feedingractices (3,14). Authoritative parents balance their con-erns for healthful intake with the child’s food prefer-nces (15-17). Authoritarian feeding practices include re-tricting specific foods and attempting to control thehild’s intake with little regard for the child’s wishes (4);ermissive practices are more indulgent or neglectful,llowing the child to control what, where, and how muche/she eats (1,2). Although authoritative, authoritarian,nd permissive labels have been attached to specific pa-ental feeding practices, only two studies (1,2) haveested the link between these labels and general parent-ng styles. Thus, the goal of our study is to identify howarental feeding practices link to general parenting

tyles, with the intent of understanding how to target

© 2008 by the American Dietetic Association

pvpHpl

iapipftiruhciipcmwwcecplreipseli

trnrwttrsoiira

opti((ih

tpcp

wcewttrasanbaped

MSTfittswttrwiev

fmitcnpeco

htThmbw

PAp

ractices for change to increase the effectiveness of inter-entions (18). Parental feeding practices that are inde-endent of parenting styles could be targeted singly.owever, parental feeding practices that are linked toarenting styles require interventions that treat under-ying family dynamics as a whole (19-22).

Cullen and colleagues (1) proposed that parental feed-ng practices mapped onto authoritative, authoritarian,nd permissive parenting in distinctive patterns. Oneattern consisted of links from high monitoring of feed-ng, parental modeling, and encouraging to authoritativearenting. A second pattern linked high monitoring andeeding demands to authoritarian parenting. A third pat-ern linked low parental modeling and monitoring of feed-ng practices with permissive parenting (see Table 2 ineference 1). They tested these patterns in two studiessing a parenting scale originally developed in a publicealth setting (23). Parents (1) and fourth- to sixth-gradehildren (2) completed the scales and two general parent-ng factors were identified: negative/permissive and pos-tive/supportive/authoritative. The negative/permissivearenting style was significantly related to feeding practicesonsistent with low modeling: lower food preparation byothers (1) as well as greater parental permissiveness to-ard eating (2). Positive/supportive/authoritative parentingas significantly related to control of feeding that in-

luded such monitoring practices as “She makes sure Iat my vegetables before I can eat dessert” (2). However,ontrary to prediction, positive/supportive/authoritativearenting was linked with permissive feeding (eg, “Sheets me eat whatever I want.”) and more food self-prepa-ation activities by the child (2) and not with encouragingxpectations and consequences. Thus, although some ev-dence contradicted the authors’ proposal, some sup-orted their argument that parental feeding practiceshould map onto general parenting styles. However, gen-ral authoritarian parenting was not measured so noinks between parental feeding practices and authoritar-an parenting could be evaluated.

Birch and colleagues (4) emphasize parental authori-arian feeding practices, specifically pressure to eat andestriction as measured by the Child Feeding Question-aire (CFQ). Restriction has been linked to poor foodegulation reflected in increased food intake and bodyeight (14), consistent with research linking general au-

horitarian parenting style to poor regulation of emo-ional behavior (13). Thus the link between poor childegulation of feeding behavior and parental feeding re-triction parallels the link between poor child regulationf emotional behavior and authoritarian parenting. Thismplies that feeding restriction and authoritarian parent-ng are closely associated. However, the link of CFQ pa-ental feeding restriction and pressure to the generaluthoritarian parenting style has not been tested.Birch and colleagues also emphasize one practice and

ne perception consistent with authoritative parenting:arental monitoring of child feeding and parental percep-ion of responsibility for their children’s eating. Monitor-ng has been referred to as authoritarian in some studies17) and linked with authoritative feeding styles in others15). This confusion may be due to the fact that mosttems in the monitoring scale address monitoring of un-

ealthful child behaviors such as sugar and fat consump- r

ion (4), which suggests policing of child eating. However,ositive monitoring or taking responsibility to promotehild health and well-being is consistent with the appro-riate limit setting of the authoritative style (5,10,24).Three hypotheses that parental feeding practicesould predict general parenting styles were tested: First,

oercive feeding practices—restriction and pressure toat (4)—are positively related to authoritarian parentinghereas supportive practices—responsibility and moni-

oring (4), modeling and encouraging (1,2)—are nega-ively associated with authoritarian parenting. Second,esponsibility, monitoring, modeling, and encouragingre positively related to authoritative parenting and re-triction and pressure to eat are negatively related touthoritative parenting. Third, permissive parenting isegatively linked with all six feeding practices: responsi-ility, monitoring, modeling, encouraging, restriction,nd pressure to eat. Finally, to determine which feedingractices were most closely linked with the different par-nting styles, regression analysis was employed to pre-ict each parenting style from all feeding practices.

ETHODSamplewo hundred thirty-nine parents (93.5% mothers) ofrst-grade children (134 boys; 105 girls) participated inhis first wave of a public-school-based, randomized-con-rolled intervention study. After obtaining consent fromchool administration, families of first-grade childrenere recruited from 20 elementary schools in north-cen-

ral Oklahoma during fall 2005. Sampling of schools inhe region was purposive, that is, designed to sampleural schools: Stratified random sampling techniquesere used to assign schools to the control or one of four

ntervention groups. Because our study is not examiningxperimental effects, additional details about the inter-ention groups are omitted from this report.The participant sampling strategy was as follows: 597

amilies were recruited during fall 2005; seven familiesoved in the same semester, leaving a sample of 590. Dur-

ng spring 2006, questionnaire packets were distributedhrough the mail or schools to the 590 families for parents toomplete; 253 (43%) parents returned packets. Fourteen didot complete parenting styles questionnaires leaving a sam-le of 239. Study design was prospective, ecological, andxperimental; however, the first wave (baseline) of dataollection occurred before experimental treatment. Thus,ur report is based on a correlational design.Power analysis (25) revealed that a sample of 200 parents

ad sufficient power to detect effect sizes of r�0.20 to 0.30,hat is, effect sizes consistent with previous studies (1,2).he protocol and procedures were approved by the Okla-oma State University Institutional Review Board for Hu-an Subjects and complied with Health Insurance Porta-

ility and Accountability Act of 1996 guidelines. Parentsere modestly compensated after returning questionnaires.

rocedurell parents received the same 10 questionnaires in theirackets. Only the measures that pertain to the current

eport are discussed here. Table 1 provides details about the

July 2008 ● Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 1155

fmricsstwecbzDicaCpic“tgftwbwfifivb

taIrIfmEodsppta5hffipfbt(oePPmp6

1

requency of responses for each item of demographic infor-ation. Response rates were as follows: 100% completion

ate for child age; 85% for maternal age; 82% for householdncome; 83% for maternal ethnicity; 84% for parental edu-ation. Table 2 provides details about the frequency of re-ponses for each feeding practice and parenting styles sub-cale. If parents left more than one item per subscale blank,he score was not calculated and thus data for that subscaleere missing. Missing data ranged from zero to four par-nts per subscale (98% to 100% completion rate; see fiftholumn of Table 2). The sample size for computing Cron-ach’s � in Table 2 indicates the number of subjects withero items blank per subscale (range 218 to 239).emographic Questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire

ncluded questions covering parent and child age. Also in-luded were questions about ethnicity, parent education,nd “your household income per month” (see Table 1).FQ. The CFQ (4) is a 31-item scale designed to assessarental practices and perceptions regarding child feed-ng. Four subscales were used in the current report: per-eived responsibility, restriction (including one item,Eats enough fruits and vegetables,” added by the au-hors), pressure to eat (including one item, “If I did notuide my child’s eating, he/she would not eat enoughruits and vegetables,” added by the authors), and moni-oring (including two items, keeping track of milk or foodsith calcium and keeping track of nutritious foods, addedy the authors). Monitoring and perceived responsibilityere answered on five-point scales (one�never tove�always); restriction and pressure, on a differentve-point scale (one�disagree to five�agree). All scalealues are specified in Table 2. Criterion validity has

Table 1. Means, medians, percentages, and variability of demograOklahoma (n�239)

Variable Amount

Age (y) (mean�standard deviation)Child 6.68�0.37Mother 34.81�6.91Household income/mo (median) $2,000-$2,499

%$0-$499 14.23$500-$1,499 15.90$1,500-$2,499 15.90$2,500-$3,499 10.04$3,500–$3,999 7.53�$4,000 18.83Maternal ethnicityWhite 64.4Native American 12.1Multiethnic 4.6Other minority 1.7Parental education (median) Some collegeLess than 12th grade 5.1High school diploma 14.7Some college courses 23.4Vocational-technical school graduate 9.6College graduate 31.0

een established by significant relations between paren- a

156 July 2008 Volume 108 Number 7

al restriction and child poorer eating regulation (4,26)nd between pressure to eat and child fat mass (27).nternal consistency (Cronbach’s �) of original scales (4)anged from .70 for pressure to eat to .92 for monitoring.n our study with the additional questions, Cronbach’s �sor perceived responsibility, restriction, pressure, andodeling were .83, .69, .69, and .91 (see Table 2).

ncourage Healthy Eating and Modeling. The questionnairesn encouraging healthy eating and modeling (2) wereesigned to assess parental influences on child intake,pecifically fruit and vegetable intake, from the child’serspective. Items were rephrased to reflect the parent’serspective (eg, “How much do you encourage your childo eat vegetables at supper?”). Encouraging items werenswered on a five-point scale (1�encourages a lot to�discourages a lot) but recoded before data analysis soigher scores equaled more encouragement (see Table 2or recoded values). Modeling items were answered on aour-point scale (1�never to 4�always). Criterion valid-ty was demonstrated by significant correlations betweenarental modeling and child consumption of healthfuloods (eg, fruits and vegetables) as well as correlationsetween modeling and encouraging (2). Internal consis-ency of the original encourage healthy eating subscale2) was .88 and the parent modeling subscale was .89. Inur study, Cronbach’s � was .78 for encourage healthyating and .88 for modeling.arenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). TheSDQ is a 32-item instrument composed of three scaleseasuring authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive

arenting. This is a shortened version (8) of the original2-item instrument (7). The 32-item PSDQ includes 15

measures, as reported by parents of first-grade children in rural

Interquartile range n

239202

$1,000-$1,499 to $3,500-$3,999 197

343838241845

19815429114

Some college to college graduate 2001235562374

phic

uthoritative items reflecting reasoning/induction (eg, “I

e(diicc(jidwA5st(ti�s

DDsbtweIcr

tI

ettupyfppapce

RTgcfmfithFN

natp(P(t

the tim

mphasize the reasons for rules”), warmth and supporteg, “I am responsive to my child’s feelings and needs”),emocratic participation (eg, “I allow my child to givenput into family rules”); 12 authoritarian items reflect-ng verbal hostility (eg, “I explode in anger toward myhild”), physical coercion (eg, “I slap my child when thehild misbehaves”), and nonreasoning/punitive strategieseg, “I use threats as a punishment with little or noustification”); and five permissive items all reflectingndulgence and failure to follow through (eg, “I find itifficult to discipline my child;” “I give in to my childhen the child causes a commotion about something”).ll items were answered on a five-point scale (1�never to�always). Criterion validity has been demonstrated byignificant predictions of child behavior from authorita-ive, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles28,29). Internal consistency of the original (8) authorita-ive, authoritarian, and permissive subscales of the 32-tem PSDQ was .86, .82, and .64. In our study, Cronbach’ss for the authoritative, authoritarian, and permissiveubscales were .82, .78, and .76.

ata Analysesata quality was ensured by the following methods. Re-

earch assistants checked hand-entered demographic datay comparing electronic vs paper files per child to make surehey were consistent. Scanned parent questionnaire dataere also checked to make sure that all measures had beenntered and that paper and electronic files were consistent.n addition, frequencies were run to detect outliers to doubleheck accuracy of data entry. Error rates for data entryanged from 0% to 2%. All errors were corrected.

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package forhe Social Sciences software (release 14.0.0, 2005, SPSS

Table 2. Means, internal consistencies, and sample sizes for quDimensions Questionnaire [PSDQ], Encourage Healthy Eating, and Mo(n�239) in a study to understand how to target parenting practices

Questionnaire orsubscale

Scale(mean�standard deviation)a

CFQ–Responsibilitye 4.44�0.60CFQ–Restrictione 3.41�0.68CFQ–Pressure to eate 2.79�0.98CFQ–Monitoringe 3.92�0.72Encourage Healthy Eatingf 4.13�0.49Modelingg 2.61�0.49PSDQ–Authoritativeh 4.13�0.42PSDQ–Authoritarianh 1.80�0.41PSDQ–Permissiveh 2.20�0.65

aScale means (sum of item scores/total items per respondent) allowed one missing itembCronbach’s � based on standardized items.cCronbach’s � for original items.dCronbach’s � does not allow missing items, so value is the sample size for no missinePossible answers were one to five, where for CFQ perceived responsibility 1�never, 22�rarely, 3�sometimes, 4�mostly, 5�always; and for CFQ restriction and pressure 1fPossible answers were one to 5, where 1�discourages a lot, 2�discourages a little, 3gPossible answers were one to four, where 1�never, 2�sometimes, 3�often, 4�alwahPossible answers were one to five, where 1�never, 2�once in awhile, 3�about half

nc, Chicago, IL). Paired sample t tests were used to t

valuate the relative standing of authoritative, authori-arian, and permissive parenting in the sample. Thehree hypotheses were tested by computing Pearson prod-ct-moment correlations to evaluate the association ofarenting styles and feeding practices. Regression anal-sis was used to predict each parenting style subscalerom all parent feeding practices. Correlations were com-uted between all feeding practices and the three generalarenting styles to provide a list of empirically supporteduthoritative, authoritarian, and permissive feedingractices. Only correlations are reported that met theriterion (25) of small (r�0.10), medium (r�0.30), or largeffect sizes (r�0.50). Significance was set at P�0.05.

ESULTSable 1 presents descriptive statistics on the demo-raphic characteristics of the sample. Monthly incomeategory responses ranged from $0 to $100 per month (22amilies) to $4,000 plus per month (45 families), with theedian indicating a $24,000 to $30,000 annual income, a

gure below the median household income of $37,020 forhe state of Oklahoma in 2005 (30). Most of the samplead graduated from high school and 31% from college.urther, the sample was largely non-Hispanic white andative American, living in rural areas.Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for all question-

aires. As shown in Table 2, the sample scored highest onuthoritative parenting, followed by permissive and au-horitarian. Application of t tests revealed that the sam-le was significantly more authoritative than permissivet [235]�36.02, P�0.001) or authoritarian (t [231]�51.67,�0.001) and more permissive than authoritarian

t [234]�10.05, P�0.001). The means in Table 2 showhat parents reported themselves to be responsible for

naires (Child Feeding Questionnaire [CFQ], Parenting Styles andg) administered to parents of first-grade children in rural Oklahomacrease effectiveness of interventions

�b � for original itemsc n n for �d

.83 239 238

.69 .70 239 234

.69 .71 238 233

.91 .88 239 239

.78 238 236

.88 239 231

.82 236 219

.78 235 218

.76 239 235

.m, 3�half of the time, 4�most of the time, 5�always; for CFQ monitoring 1�never,

gree, 2�slightly disagree, 3�neutral, 4�slightly agree, 5�agree.her encourages or discourages, 4�encourages a little, 5�encourages a lot.

e, 4�very often, 5�always.

estiondelinto in

.

g items�seldo�disa�neitys.

heir children’s diet “most of the time” to “always” and

July 2008 ● Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 1157

wscwt

a

pipstt

1

ere neutral to agreeing slightly with restricting butlightly disagreeing to neutral about pressuring theirhildren to eat. On average, encouraging healthy eatingas encouraged “a little,” modeling occurred “sometimes”

o “often,” and monitoring happened “mostly.”Table 3 presents the results of the correlation analyses

Table 3. Correlation matrix of feeding practices and general parentiresponses to the Child Feeding Questionnaire (CFQ), Parenting StQuestionnaire, and Modeling Questionnaire

Variable 1 2 3

1. CFQ–Responsible2. CFQ–Restrict 0.0583. CFQ–Pressure 0.145* 0.241***4. CFQ–Monitor 0.211** 0.210** 0.2625. Encourage Healthy Eating 0.259*** 0.220** 0.1266. Modeling 0.232*** 0.072 �0.1367. PSDQ–Authoritative 0.249*** �0.076 �0.0368. PSDQ–Authoritarian �0.043 0.248*** 0.2459. PSDQ–Permissive �0.050 0.103 0.097

aSample size for correlations ranges from 232 to 239.*P�0.05.**P�0.01.***P�0.001.

Table 4. Regressions predicting parenting styles from feeding practEating Questionnaire, and Modeling Questionnaire administered to p

Outcome Model Summary

Block and predictors R 2 df P va

AuthoritativeFood socialization subscales 0.21 6,223 0.00CFQ–ResponsibleCFQ–RestrictCFQ–PressureCFQ–MonitorEncourageModelAuthoritarianFood socialization subscales 0.15 6,223 0.00CFQ–ResponsibleCFQ–RestrictCFQ–PressureCFQ–MonitorEncourageModelPermissiveFood socialization subscales 0.08 6,223 0.00CFQ–ResponsibleCFQ–RestrictCFQ–PressureCFQ–MonitorEncourageModel

a� is the standardized and B is the nonstandardized regression coefficient.

mong measures of specific feeding practices and general p

158 July 2008 Volume 108 Number 7

arenting styles and Table 4 qualifies the correlations byndicating which feeding practices significantly predict eacharenting style when all are included in the same regres-ion equation. Responsibility, restricting (negative), moni-oring, and modeling all significantly predicted authorita-ive parenting (21% of variance explained). Restricting,

yles of parents of first-grade children in rural Oklahoma,a based onand Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ), Encourage Healthy Eating

4 5 6 7 8

0.448***0.357*** 0.480***0.325*** 0.271*** 0.328***

�0.084 �0.043 �0.168** �0.349***�0.152* �0.083 �0.231*** �0.136* 0.449***

based on the Child Feeding Questionnaire (CFQ), Encourage Healthyof first-grade children in rural Oklahoma

Coefficientsa

� B �standard error P value

.164 .115 .045 0.011�.148 �.091 .039 0.019�.095 �.042 .029 0.156

.260 .151 .042 0.000

.072 .062 .063 0.333

.160 .135 .062 0.029

�.036 �.025 .045 0.585.242 .144 .039 0.000.235 .100 .030 0.001

�.173 �.098 .042 0.021�.004 �.003 .077 0.960�.083 �.068 .076 0.277

.026 .027 .074 0.710

.147 .137 .064 0.032

.043 .028 .048 0.556�.132 �.117 .042 0.089

.004 .005 .104 0.965�.186 �.240 .102 0.019

ng styles

***

*

***

ices,arents

lue

0

0

5

ressuring, and monitoring (negative) all significantly pre-

Table 5. Correlation coefficients indicating relation between Child Feeding Questionnaire (CFQ), Encourage Healthy Eating Questionnaire, andModeling Questionnaire items and parenting styles of parents of first-grade children in rural Oklahoma

Scale and itema Authoritative Authoritarian Permissive

CFQ–Responsibility: When your child is at home, how often are you responsible for feedingher/him? 0.167**

CFQ–Responsibility: How often are you responsible for deciding what your child’s portionsizes are? 0.252****

CFQ–Responsibility: How often are you responsible for deciding if your child has eaten theright kind of foods? 0.221****

CFQ–Restrict: I like to be sure that my child does not eat too many sweets (candy, icecream, cake, or pastries). 0.113*

CFQ–Restrict: I intentionally keep some foods out of my child’s reach. 0.137**CFQ–Restrict: I offer sweets (eg, candy, ice cream, cake, pastries) to my child as a reward

for good behavior. 0.205*** 0.139**CFQ–Restrict: I offer my child her/his favorite foods in exchange for good behavior. 0.238**** 0.153**CFQ–Restrict: If I did not guide or regulate my child’s eating, she/he would eat too many

junk foods. �0.160** 0.206*** 0.115*CFQ–Restrict: If I did not guide or regulate my child’s eating, she/he would eat too much of

her/his favorite food. �0.134** 0.213*** 0.204***CFQ–Pressure: My child should always eat all of the food on her/his plate. 0.223****CFQ–Pressure: I have to be especially careful to make sure my child eats enough. 0.126*CFQ–Pressure: If I did not guide my child’s eating, he/she would not eat enough fruits and

vegetables. �0.150** 0.194***CFQ–Pressure: If my child says, “I’m not hungry,” I try to get her/him to eat anyway. 0.177***CFQ–Pressure: If I did not guide or regulate my child’s eating, he/she would eat much less

than he/she should. 0.111* 0.130**CFQ–Monitor: How much do you keep track of the sweets (eg, candy, ice cream, cake,

pastries) that your child eats? 0.204*** �0.128**CFQ–Monitor: How much do you keep track of the snack food (eg, potato chips, cheese

puffs) that your child eats? 0.184**CFQ–Monitor: How much do you keep track of the high-fat foods that your child eats? 0.267**** �0.100 �0.131**CFQ–Monitor: How much do you keep track of the fruits and vegetables your child eats? 0.277**** �0.140**CFQ–Monitor: How much do you keep track of milk or foods with calcium, like cheese and

yogurt, your child consumes? 0.337**** �0.131**CFQ–Monitor: How much do you keep track of the nutritious foods your child eats? 0.347**** �0.103 �0.134**Encourage: How much do you encourage your child to eat fruits at lunch? 0.237****Encourage: How much do you encourage your child to eat fruit as a snack? 0.197*** �0.125*Encourage: How much do you encourage your child to eat vegetables at supper? 0.156**Encourage: How much do you encourage your child to eat vegetables at snack time? 0.224****Encourage: How much do you encourage your child to drink 100% fruit juice instead of

soda? 0.204***Encourage: How much do you encourage your child to eat vegetables at lunch? 0.172***Model: I eat vegetables at lunch when I am with my child . . . 0.271**** �0.134**Model: I eat fruit at lunch when I am with my child . . . 0.290**** �0.142** �0.137**Model: I eat fruit at supper when I am with my child . . . 0.275**** �0.110*Model: I eat vegetables at supper when I am with my child . . . 0.225**** �0.152** �0.219****Model: I eat fruit at restaurants when I am with my child . . . 0.126* �0.151**Model: I eat vegetables at snack when I am with my child . . . 0.168***Model: I eat vegetables at restaurants when I am with my child . . . 0.278**** �0.131** �0.178**Model: I eat salads at restaurants when I am with my child . . . 0.254**** �0.144**Model: I eat fruit at snack when I am with my child . . . 0.218**** �0.126* �0.177***Model: I eat salads at supper when I am with my child . . . 0.190*** �0.194*** �0.148**Model: I eat low-fat snack foods when I am with my child . . . 0.206*** �0.106 �0.168***Model: I drink 100% fruit juice when I am with my child . . . 0.174*** �0.171***Model: I eat salads at lunch when I am with my child . . . 0.116* �0.154** �0.101Model: I eat low-fat dressing with vegetables or salad when I am with my child . . . 0.127* �0.152**

aOnly those feeding practice items (40/44) with a correlation coefficient indicating a small (or larger) effect size are included.*P�0.10.**P�0.05.***P�0.01.

****P�0.001.

July 2008 ● Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 1159

dRpssarnAir

mpftpa

DTritemtn

anewer

dttssw

emc3pr

ifdada4rtmamt

ftfmcFvaniutmwt

ccpdsWcetirmtt

rairs

CGpsiatopett

Tm

aTd

R

1

icted authoritarian parenting (15% of variance explained).estricting and modeling (negative) significantly predictedermissive parenting (8% of variance explained). Regres-ion analyses computed from original CFQ restrict, pres-ure, and monitor scales (ie, without items added by theuthors) were very similar with the same feeding practiceseaching statistical significance and identical positive oregative relations between practices and parenting styles.mounts of variance explained in authoritative, authoritar-

an, and permissive parenting were 19%, 14%, and 8%,espectively.

Table 5 presents results of computing Pearson product-oment correlations between feeding items and general

arenting styles. Small or medium effect sizes were foundor the relation of authoritative parenting to 33 of the 44otal feeding practices. For authoritarian and permissivearenting, the number of small effect sizes found was 20nd 23.

ISCUSSIONo our knowledge, this is the first study showing that well-espected measures of parental feeding practices (1,2,4)dentified in the nutrition literature as authoritative, au-horitarian, and permissive predict those same general par-nting styles. Measures of feeding practices explained theost variance in authoritative parenting, followed by au-

horitarian, and then permissive. Encouraging practices didot contribute significantly to any prediction.As hypothesized, parental perceptions of responsibility

nd parental monitoring, modeling, and restriction sig-ificantly predicted authoritative parenting. Similarly,ncouraging of healthy eating was positively correlatedith authoritative parenting. However, as already noted,ncouraging did not explain significant variance in theegression.

Also as proposed, pressure to eat and restriction pre-icted the authoritarian style. Parental modeling prac-ices were significantly negatively correlated with au-horitarian parenting. However, the regression analysisuggested that monitoring rather than modeling was theupportive feeding practice most closely negatively linkedith the authoritarian style.Finally, parental modeling significantly predicted gen-

ral permissive parenting and the negative relation ofonitoring to permissive parenting approached signifi-

ance in the regression. However, contrary to Hypothesis, restriction was positively correlated with permissivearenting and this relation reached significance in theegression analysis.

The specific items linked with authoritative, authoritar-an, and permissive parenting in Table 5 provide a list ofeeding practices that food and nutrition professionals caniscuss with parents. The overlap between permissive anduthoritarian feeding practices is striking. But, there areifferences such as pressure being more of an authoritariannd low modeling being more of a permissive practice (Table). Thus, food and nutrition professionals can focus on theelevant problematic practices when counseling differentypes of parents. Due to the infrequency of healthy eatingodeled by both permissive and authoritarian parents, food

nd nutrition professionals might encourage both to beginore healthy eating—for the sake of their own health and

hat of their children.

160 July 2008 Volume 108 Number 7

Our results confirm that a relationship exists betweeneeding practices and general parenting styles. This rela-ionship is most obvious for the authoritative style whereeeding practices explain 21% of the variance, which is aedium effect size (25) that would be considered to be

linically significant in a randomized controlled trial (31).or authoritarian and permissive parenting, amounts ofariance shared with parental feeding practices are 15%nd 8%, respectively. These findings suggest to food andutrition practitioners and researchers alike that treat-

ng feeding practices separately from family dynamics isnlikely to be effective and may help to explain some ofhe lack of success of dietary change and obesity treat-ent programs (18). These findings are also consistentith the idea of feeding practices as a missing link be-

ween parenting style and overweight (32).The few discrepancies between Tables 3 and 4 are

onsistent with statistical suppression. Suppression oc-urs in regression when the inclusion of one variableartials out the criterion-irrelevant part of another pre-ictor’s variance (33,34) resulting in an increase in thetandardized regression coefficient (�) for the predictor.hen the magnitude of � is larger than the correlation

oefficient, suppression exists (as reflected in the differ-nces between Tables 3 and 4). Thus, the real contribu-ion of each variable is best evaluated when the criterion-rrelevant portion is removed; that is, based on regressionather than correlation coefficients (34). In our study, thiseans that monitoring rather than modeling is nega-

ively linked to authoritarian parenting and that restric-ion is a strategy employed by permissive parents.

Our study is limited by its reliance on parental self-eport. Another limitation is a rural non-Hispanic whitend Native American sample, which limits generalizabil-ty. An additional limitation is the �50% questionnaireeturn rate although it is consistent with rates in othertudies using similar methodologies (35).

ONCLUSIONSeneral parenting styles are linked to parental feedingractices. Current results confirm restriction and pres-ure to eat are authoritarian whereas modeling, monitor-ng, and perceptions of responsibility are authoritative,nd low modeling is permissive in style. Food and nutri-ion professionals who are implementing dietary changer obesity treatment programs need to include more com-lex approaches to behavioral change that include par-nting styles and family dynamics. Without addressinghe family contexts of parental feeding practices, effortso change those practices are less likely to be successful.

his research was supported by United States Depart-ent of Agriculture grant no. 2004-05545.The authors thank Adelina Longoria, Aimee Barrett,

nd Julie Rutledge for assistance with data management.he authors also thank the teachers, parents, and chil-ren for their involvement.

eferences1. Cullen KW, Baranowski T, Rittenberry L, Cosart C, Owens E, Hebert

D, de Moor C. Socioenvironmental influences on children’s fruit, juice

and vegetable consumption as reported by parents: Reliability andvalidity of measures. Public Health Nutr. 2000;3:345-356.

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

A

P

WNTr

TTPr

2. Cullen KW, Baranowski T, Rittenberry L, Cosart C, Hebert D, deMoor C. Child reported family and peer influences on fruit juice andvegetable consumption: Reliability and validity of measures. HealthEduc Res. 2001;16:187-200.

3. Birch LL, Fisher J. Appetite and eating behavior in children. PediatrClin North Am. 1995;42:931-953.

4. Birch LL, Fisher JO, Grimm-Thomas K, Markey CN, Sawyer R,Johnson SL. Confirmatory factor analysis of the child feeding ques-tionnaire: A measure of parental attitudes, beliefs and practices aboutchild feeding and obesity proneness. Appetite. 2001;36:201-210.

5. Baumrind D. Effects of authoritative parental control on child behav-ior. Child Dev. 1966;37:887-907.

6. Baumrind D, Child care practices anteceding three patterns of pre-school behavior. Genet Psychol Monogr. 1967;75:43-88.

7. Robinson CC, Mandleco B, Olsen SF, Hart CH. Authoritative, author-itarian and permissive parenting practices: Development of a newmeasure. Psychol Rep. 1995;77:819-830.

8. Robinson CC, Mandleco B, Olsen SF, Hart CH. The Parenting Stylesand Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). In: Perlmutter BF, TouliatosJ, Holden GW, eds. Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques:Vol. 3. Instruments & Index. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001:319-321.

9. Baumrind D. The influence of parenting style on adolescent compe-tence and substance use. J Early Adolesc. 1991;11:56-95.

0. Coolahan K, McWayne C, Fantuzzo J, Grim S. Validation of multidimen-sional assessment of parenting styles for low-income African-Americanfamilies with preschool children. Early Child Res Q. 2002;17:356-373.

1. Chipman S, Olsen SF, Klein S, Hart CH, Robinson CC. Differences inretrospective perceptions of parenting of male and female inmatesand non-inmates. Fam Relat. 2000;49:5-11.

2. Dornbusch SM, Ritter PL, Leiderman PH, Roberts DF, Fraleigh MJ.The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance.Child Dev. 1987;58:1244-1257.

3. Lamborn SD, Mounts NS, Steinberg L, Dornbusch SM. Patterns ofcompetence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative,authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Dev. 1991;62:1049-1066.

4. Faith MS, Scanlon KS, Birch LL, Francis LA, Sherry B. Parent-childfeeding strategies and their relationships to child eating and weightstatus. Obes Res. 2004;12:1711-1722.

5. Hughes SO, Power TG, Fisher JO, Mueller S, Nicklas T. Revisiting aneglected construct: Parenting styles in a child feeding-context. Appetite.2005;44:83-92.

6. Iannotti RJ, O’Brien RW, Spillman DM. Parental and peer influenceson food consumption of preschool African-American children. PerceptMot Skills. 1994;79:747-752.

7. Patrick H, Nicklas TA, Hughes SO, Morales M. The benefits of au-thoritative feeding style: Caregiver feeding styles and children’s food

consumption patterns. Appetite. 2005;44:243-249.

8. Baranowski T. Advances in basic behavioral research will make the3

PPLICATION

arenting Practices and Nutrition Practice

sttcpcpcepidoi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.04.010

most important contributions to effective dietary change programs atthis time. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106:808-811.

9. Harrist AW, Page MC, Kennedy TS, Topham GL, Hubbs-Tait L,Ledoux T, Longoria AQ. A multidisciplinary model of childhood obe-sity: Integrating developmental, family, and nutrition science ap-proaches. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society forResearch in Child Development, Boston, MA, 2007.

0. Bosch J, Stradmeijer M, Seidell J. Psychosocial characteristics of obesechildren/youngsters and their families: Implications for preventive andcurative interventions. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;55:353-362.

1. Faith MS, Johnson SL, Allison DB. Putting the behavior into behaviorgenetics of obesity. Behav Gen. 1997;27:423-439.

2. Morrissette PJ, Taylor D. Family counseling and childhood obesity: Areview of approaches. Family J. 2002;10:19-26.

3. Jackson C, Henriksen L, Foshee VA. The Authoritative ParentingIndex: Predicting health risk behavior among children and adoles-cents. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25:319-337.

4. Darling N, Steinberg L. Parenting style as context: An integrativemodel. Psychol Bull. 1993;113:487-496.

5. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nded. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum; 1988.

6. Birch LL, Fisher J. Mothers’ child-feeding practices influence daugh-ters’ eating and weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71:1054-1061.

7. Spruijt-Metz D, Lindquist CH, Birch LL, Fisher JO, Goran MI. Rela-tion between mothers’ child-feeding practices and children’s adipos-ity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;75:581-586.

8. Querido JG, Warner TD, Eyberg SM. Parenting styles and childbehavior in African American families of preschool children. J ClinChild Psychol. 2002;31:272-277.

9. Russell A, Hart C, Robinson C, Olsen S. Children’s sociable andaggressive behaviour with peers: A comparison of the US and Aus-tralia, and contributions of temperament and parenting styles. Int JBehav Dev. 2003;27:74-86.

0. The economics of food, farming, natural resources, and rural America:Data sets—County-level unemployment and median household incomefor Oklahoma, 2006. US Department of Agriculture, Economic ResearchService Web site. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Unemployment/RDList2.asp?ST�OK. Accessed May 21, 2008.

1. Stice E, Shaw H, Marti CN. A meta-analytic review of obesity pre-vention programs for children and adolescents: The skinny on inter-ventions that work. Psychol Bull. 2006;132:667-691.

2. Rhee KE, Lumeng JC, Appugliese DP, Kaciroti N, Bradley RH. Par-enting styles and overweight status in first grade. Pediatrics. 2006;117:2047-2054.

3. Stevens JP. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002.

4. Tzelgov J, Henik A. Suppression situations in psychological research: Def-initions, implications, and applications. Psychol Bull. 1991;109:524-536.

5. McFarlane E, Olmsted MG, Murphy J, Hill CA. Nonresponse bias in amail survey of physicians. Eval Health Professions. 2007;30:170-185.

HAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY FORUTRITION PROFESSIONALS?his study (1) is the result of an interdisciplinary collabo-ation among five faculty members in three different re-

his article was written by Laura Hubbs-Tait, PhD,ay Seacord Kennedy, PhD, RD, Melanie C. Page,hD, Glade L. Topham, PhD, and Amanda W. Har-ist, PhD, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.

earch departments, one of which is a department of nutri-ional sciences. Thus, the first implication of this article ishat interdisciplinary collaborations yield new insights intooncerns of nutrition professionals such as how feedingractices and parenting styles are related. A second impli-ation is that interventions to increase positive feedingractices (eg, modeling and monitoring) coupled with de-reases in negative practices (eg, restriction and pressure toat) may be more successful if these intervention efforts alsoromote authoritative parenting. For example, one parent-

ng intervention that has successfully increased positive

July 2008 ● Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 1161