4.5 Article

The benefits of authoritative feeding style: caregiver feeding styles and children's food consumption patterns

Journal

APPETITE
Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 243-249

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2002.07.001

Keywords

child feeding; parenting styles; food consumption patterns

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research tested the associations between caregiver feeding styles and children's food consumption patterns among African-American (AA) and Hispanic (H) caregivers and their preschool children. Participants were 231 caregivers (101 AA; 130 H) with children enrolled in Head Start. Caregivers completed questionnaires on authoritarian and authoritative feeding styles (Caregiver's Feeding Styles Questionnaire; CFSQ) and various aspects of children's food consumption patterns (availability of, feeding attempts for, and child's consumption of dairy, fruit, and vegetables). Simultaneous multiple regression analyses tested the unique contribution of feeding styles in predicting food consumption patterns. Authoritative feeding was positively associated whereas authoritarian feeding was negatively associated with the availability of fruit and vegetables. Authoritative feeding was also positively associated with attempts to get the child to eat dairy, fruit, and vegetables, and reported child consumption of dairy and vegetables. Authoritarian feeding was negatively associated with child's vegetable consumption. All results remained significant after controlling for child's gender and body mass index (BMI), and caregiver's ethnicity, BMI, and level of education. Overall, results provide evidence for the benefits of authoritative feeding and suggest that interventions to increase children's consumption of dairy, fruit, and vegetables should be targeted toward increasing caregivers' authoritative feeding behaviors. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available