4.5 Article

Parental child feeding practices: how do perceptions of mother, father, sibling, and self vary?

期刊

APPETITE
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 96-102

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.05.001

关键词

Eating behavior; Child feeding practices; Parent-child interactions; Family systems

资金

  1. Wiley F. Smith Endowment
  2. Graduate Student Association Senate
  3. Office of Student Research
  4. University Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mothers are important contributors to the development of eating behavior in children, but less is known about the influence of fathers. The purpose of this study was to investigate family perceptions of parental child feeding practices. Seventy two-parent American families including a mother, father, and two biologically related children participated in the study. Participants completed parent and child versions of the Child Feeding Questionnaire that assessed perceptions of parental control in child feeding. Most family member reports were positively correlated, indicating agreement about the use of the examined parental feeding practices; however, some salient differences between the reported behaviors of mothers and fathers were uncovered. Mothers reported using higher levels of monitoring and responsibility than fathers. In addition, fathers and children reported higher levels of paternal pressure related to feeding compared with mothers. Mothers and fathers used more pressure and felt more responsible for feeding younger children compared with older children. One interaction revealed that older male siblings reported the highest level of pressure from fathers. Reported differences in parents' use of child feeding practices suggest that mothers and fathers may have distinct interactions with their children regarding food. Paternal feeding practices are likely to have unique implications for understanding the development of children's eating behavior. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据