SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

Objective

What predicts whether a child will be at risk for obesity? Whereas past research has focused on foods, eating habits, feeding styles, and family meal patterns, this study departs from a food-centric approach to examine how various dinner rituals might influence the BMIs of children and adults.

Methods

In this study of 190 parents (BMI = 29.1 ± 7.2) and 148 children (BMI = 20.3 ± 4.4), the relationship between their BMIs and everyday family dinner rituals was examined using both correlation and regression analysis (controlled for educational level of parents).

Results

Families who frequently ate dinner in the kitchen or dining room had significantly lower BMIs for both adults (r = −0.31) and children (r = −0.24) compared to families who ate elsewhere. Additionally, helping cook dinner was associated with higher BMI for girls (r = 0.26), and remaining at the table until everyone is finished with eating was associated with lower BMI for boys (r = −0.31).

Conclusions

Dinner tables may be one place where social support and family involvement meet—both of which relate to the BMI of children as well as parents. Family meals and their rituals might be an underappreciated battleground to fight obesity.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

What predicts whether a child will be at risk for obesity? Prior studies have often focused on the food habits and eating behaviors of children [1-4]. However, a wide range of family-related factors also influence how a child eats [5, 6], including social facilitation and consumption norms [7]. While social facilitation has often concentrated on mimicry in how much one eats [8] or what one prefers [9], we expand it here to examine a wider range of behaviors and rituals that could influence the social dynamics during dinner time. There has been recent emphasis on obtaining a better understanding of behavioral determinants of obesity [10]. Finding what repeated behaviors or family rituals might unknowingly correlate with child or adult body mass index (BMI) could suggest promising dinnertime interventions to address childhood obesity [10].

The long-ranging impact of dinners on a child's health and nutrition intake can be either positive, as in the case of higher diet quality and healthful meal patterns [11], or negative, in the case of bulimia nervosa [12]. In many cases, the impact of these childhood dinner experiences on long-term behavior may influence feelings of psychosocial well-being as much as nutrition [13]. Even what one simply talks about at mealtime has been shown to support literacy development [14].

Three general categories of dinner-related behaviors or rituals are suggested by the literature: (i) preparation involvement before dinner, (ii) the social dynamics during dinner, and (iii) the dining environment itself. Preparation involvement during dinner—cooking with kids—has received recent attention as a way to improve a child's understanding, appreciation, and talent toward meal preparation, as well as a way to encourage family bonding. A large part of the hopeful success for preparation involvement with children is the success this has received in classroom situations [15, 16]. Unfortunately, there is little research to guide us as to what impact cooking with kids would have on a child's BMI or on long-term development.

When examining the social dynamics of the dining environment, there is a wide range of research that suggests that family meals correlate with psychosocial well-being among adolescents [13] and that the type of things a family discusses may also play a role in one's development [14]. The link between the social dynamics of family conversations and BMI has not yet been made, but it seems that if there is a link between dinner conversation and positive psychological development [17], and if there is a link between positive psychological development and positive eating habits [12], there may be a relationship worth exploring. In particular, how might positive social dynamics—such as positive topics of dinner conversation—relate to the BMI of a child?

Last, the dining environment itself has recently been identified as a potentially overlooked influencer of food intake and weight gain. Many of these studies have focused on the tablescape [18]: how the size and color of plates [19], serving bowls [20], and spoons [21] influence how much both adults and children consume. What has been hypothesized [22, 23] but less carefully investigated in a family situation is where they eat (kitchen or dining room vs. in another room) and if watching television during dinner has any impact on their BMI [24, 25].

There is a rich sociological history surrounding the ritual of family dinners [26]. Based on Fiese and colleagues [27], we define dinner rituals as the set of patterned interactions and routines surrounding meals that are repeated over time. It would be useful to know which of these rituals are positively or negatively correlated with a child's BMI. Knowing this information could provide useful intervention points that could be either investigated in more detail or could be used as easy, exploratory intervention points. That is the purpose of this research.

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

For the purpose of the study, we analyzed unreported data from an unrelated study on snacking behavior [28]. Participants were 201 (115 females) children entering the third to sixth grades in the fall of 2011 from the Chicago Metro area. Data reported in this article was available for 190 parent participants (173 females) and 148 children participants (87 girls). A $70 incentive was provided to the parents of participating children. The study had Cornell University's Institutional Review Board approval, and consent from both the parents and children was obtained prior to the study.

Because it was feared that most parents do not have an accurate assessment of their child's weight and height, it was necessary for them to bring their child to the research facility where their height and weight could both be accurately measured. This was done following the completion of the survey to reduce the chance of any confounding with answers of their parent. At that point, the height and weight of the parent was also taken.

Parents and their children were recruited and met in small groups from 5 to 11 participants. After arriving at the facility and being told that they would be completing a survey on family dining and eating behavior, the children were taken to an adjoining room where they could watch television and eat a snack while their parents completed the survey.

The questionnaire completed by parents concerned the whole family's mealtime habits. They were asked a broad series of questions concerning how many days they engage in mealtime activities, such as discussing their day, during a typical week. We focused on questions regarding both the food environment and the eating environment [22], along with social interactions, meal involvement, the dining environment, and the dietary habits of both the parents and the children. Most questions were either frequency-based (e.g., “How many times in the past week did you or your family eat dinner in the kitchen or at the dining room table?”) or asked as Likert questions (using a nine-point scale to show the extent to which they strongly disagreed [1] or strongly agreed [9] with a particular statement, such as “My child usually helps me clean up after dinner.”). Specifically, because family involvement is often characterized as the interactions between family members, parents were also asked how likely family members are to “talk meaningfully about their day,” “compliment each other at dinner,” and “compliment the person who made the dinner.” Demographic information included parents' age, gender, and educational level (ranging from 1—some high school to 5—graduate degree).

Pearson correlations were calculated to assess the correspondence between the dining variables and BMI. Next, a multiple regression analysis was carried out to simultaneously test the effect of social dynamics, meal involvement, and dining environment variables on BMI. The educational level of parents was included in the regression models to control for its influence. When BMI was calculated, we excluded one female adult with a BMI of 12, which was most likely a data-entering mistake.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

The average age of the sample of parents was 41.0 years (SD = 7.0) and 102 of the 186 parents (55%) who responded to the educational level question had at least a college or graduate degree. As can be seen in Table 1, the BMI of all adults was related to dining rituals in similar ways. Talking meaningfully about children's day correlated negatively with the BMI of all adults (r = −0.18, P < 0.05) and BMI of mothers (r = −0.20, P < 0.01). The highest negative correlation was between eating in the kitchen or in the dining room and parents' BMI (parents' BMI, r = −0.31, P < 0.01; mothers' BMI, r = −0.32), P < 0.01). In addition, BMI was negatively correlated to remaining at the table until everyone is finished eating (parents' BMI, r = −0.17, P < 0.05; mothers' BMI, r = −0.19, P < 0.05). By contrast, eating with the TV on was positively correlated with BMI (parents' BMI, r = 0.23, P < 0.01; mothers' BMI, r = 0.22, P < 0.01). In other words, parents with a higher BMI indicated more frequent eating with the TV on.

Table 1. Dinner ritual correlates of BMI
 Parent's BMI (n = 190)Mother's BMI (n = 173)Child's BMI (n = 148)Girl's BMI (n = 87)Boy's BMI (n = 61)
  1. a

    P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 (two-tailed).

Social dynamics     
Saying grace or prayer with dinner0.090.090.050.050.04
Talk meaningfully about their day−0.18*−0.20**−0.130.01−0.24
Argue at dinner0.020.05−0.010.06−0.05
Compliment each other at dinner−0.03−0.02−0.020.05−0.07
Compliment the person who made the dinner−0.06−0.06−0.09−0.02−0.21
Meal involvement     
Cook dinner with your child0.090.110.130.23*0.09
My child is usually involved in helping make dinner0.030.040.110.26*0.04
My child usually helps me clean up dinner−0.14−0.14−0.010.11−0.08
Dining environment     
Eat in the kitchen or dining room−0.31**−0.32**−0.24**−0.35**−0.11
Eat with the whole family−0.10−0.09−0.050.06−0.14
Eat with the TV on0.23**0.22**0.030.07−0.02
Remain at the table until everyone is through eating−0.17*−0.19*−0.16*−0.001−0.31*
Prepare different foods for self versus kids−0.05−-0.03−0.04−0.100.01

Moderate correlations were observed for children's BMI in regards to eating in the kitchen or dining room (r = −0.24, P < 0.01) and remaining at the table until everyone is finished with their meal (r = −0.16, P < 0.05). Interestingly, the BMI of girls was associated with meal involvement (“cook dinner with your child,” r = 0.23, P < 0.05; “my child is usually involved in helping make dinner,” r = 0.26, P < 0.05), but not with social dynamics (all rs = ns). Eating in the kitchen or dining room was most strongly associated with girls' BMI (r = −0.35, P < 0.01). For boys, a negative association was observed between remaining at the table until everyone has finished eating and their BMI (r = −0.31, P < 0.05).

Results of the regression analysis using the same set of independent variables are shown in Table 2. The proportion of variance of the dependent variable BMI explained by the independent variables was 20% regarding all adults' BMI and 23% regarding mothers' BMI. After controlling for the education level of parents, eating in the kitchen or dining room was the strongest independent predictor of BMI across models, except for boys. This variable was the only significant predictor of BMI of all children (β = −0.27, P < 0.01) and girls (β = −0.42, P < 0.01), and for parents (β = −0.31, P < 0.01) and mothers (β = −0.34, P < 0.01) as well; the more frequently they report eating in the kitchen or dining room, the lower their BMI.

Table 2. Dinner ritual and education regression coefficients related to BMI
 Parent's BMI (n = 190)Mother's BMI (n = 173)Child's BMI (n = 148)Girl's BMI (n = 87)Boy's BMI (n = 61)
 Betat-valueBetat-valueBetat-valueBetat-valueBetat-value*
  1. a

    P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 (two-tailed) reported beta coefficients are standardized.

Social dynamics          
Saying grace or prayer with dinner0.152.07*0.172.27*0.080.900.111.000.010.06
Talk meaningfully about their day−0.14−1.57−0.14−1.54−0.09−0.810.110.75−0.29−1.42
Argue at dinner0.091.330.152.03*0.070.850.100.880.040.30
Compliment each other at dinner0.111.260.111.220.050.500.070.540.150.77
Compliment the person who made the dinner−0.10−1.15−0.10−1.11−0.12−1.16−0.13−0.94−0.26−1.57
Meal involvement          
Cook dinner with your child0.192.08*0.242.57*0.131.170.120.770.140.78
My child is usually involved in helping make dinner−0.14−1.50−0.18−1.860.010.090.130.800.040.23
My child usually helps me clean up dinner−0.01−0.11−0.05−0.580.040.350.141.06−0.03−0.15
Dining environment          
Eat in the kitchen or dining room−0.31−3.77**−0.34−3.94**−0.27−2.74**−0.42−3.42**−0.10−0.47
Eat with the whole family0.090.980.131.310.050.490.0040.030.060.29
Eat with the TV on0.070.880.091.12−0.11−1.16−0.16−1.11−0.12−0.68
Remain at the table until everyone is through eating−0.06−0.71−0.05−0.53−0.11−1.09−0.12−0.87−0.09−0.40
Prepare different foods for self versus kids−0.10−1.39−0.12−1.510.0020.030.030.25−0.09−0.46
Control variable          
Educational level of parents−0.24−3.17**−0.22−2.93**−0.14−1.52−0.01−0.10−0.19−1.13
Adjusted R2 0.20 0.23 0.05 0.08 −0.04

The more frequently parents (β = 0.19, P < 0.05) and mothers (β = 0.24, P < 0.05) reported cooking with their child, the higher their BMI. For these groups, saying grace or prayer with dinner positively influenced BMI (parents β = 0.15, P < 0.05 and mothers β = 0.17, P < 0.05). For girls' BMI, the value of the adjusted R2 was 0.08, showing that these variables accounted for 8% of the variation in BMI score. Boys' BMI was not well explained by the data as all variables were statistically marginally significant or insignificant with a negative adjusted R2.

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

By focusing on family dining rituals, this research departs from the more food-centric approaches --such as parental feeding practices and family meal patterns-- that have been used to predict BMI. These dinnertime rituals often tended to correlate with either parental BMI or the child's. This starts with meal preparation. While being involved in meal preparation was unrelated to the BMI of young boys, it was positively correlated with the BMI of young girls. There is no effort to imply causality. We do not know if cooking leads girls to become heavier or whether heavier girls are more interested in learning to cook and helping with meal preparation.

An interesting finding with young boys was that the social dinner dynamics of the family was correlated with lower BMI. In families where children remained at the table until everyone was finished eating, the BMI of boys was lower than those who did not remain at the table. Another social finding was that in families who claimed to talk meaningfully about their day, parents had significantly lower BMIs than those families which did not. This general finding is important because it may suggest the potential importance of social dynamics that can occur at dinner. At the very least, it underscores the potential danger of relying on television instead of meaningful conversation because eating with the TV on was significantly related to the BMI of parents. In fact, eating anywhere other than the kitchen or dining room was related to higher BMIs in both parents and in children. The regression analysis similarly showed that this behavior is a strong predictor of BMI of both parents and children.

To summarize, the ritual of where one eats and how long one eats seems to be the largest driver of both adult and child BMI. Eating in the kitchen or at the dining room table and remaining at the table until everyone is finished eating were both associated with lower BMIs for parents children. Such behavior may be related to less distracted eating or less supervised eating. These behaviors might also be associated with stronger or more positive feelings with others that might supplant a tendency toward overeating.

Limitations and future research

There is a rich sociological history surrounding the ritual of family dinners, and some of these rituals appear to correlate positively or negatively with a child's BMI. This study preliminarily investigates possible relationships that relate to this dining ritual. We corrected for educational level of the parents but did not include other relevant (sociodemographic) variables, such as income and ethnicity. It will be important for future studies to take account of these variables and identify underlying mechanisms explaining results. Although our results are correlated, they provide a strong justification for further research in this area.

There is a promising opportunity to extend a study like this to investigate how these dining rituals influence children of different ages—toddlers to teens. Additionally, another opportunity would be to survey adults about their memory of their childhood dinner rituals and correlate these with their current BMI. Although such a retrospective approach would not be without limitations, in combination with these findings, it could help narrow the potential points of influence for increased BMI.

Implications and conclusion

Although the results are correlated, they suggest the overwhelming importance of the social interaction of a meal—eating at a table and having a positive interaction. Dinnertime rituals are not costly to change, and this research suggests that families may wish to consider experimenting with different rituals. Eating together at a kitchen table or dining room with the television off appears to be the best place to start. Additionally, encouraging the children to talk meaningfully about their day might also be an easy change to make. One approach is to have everyone at the table share four items about their day: (i) their high point, (ii) their low point, (iii) who they appreciate most and why, and (iv) their plan for tomorrow.

The dinner table may be more than simply a place where food is eaten. It may be where social support and family involvement come together—both of which may relate to the BMI of children, as well as parents. Change at the dinner table might be a simple intervention to fight future family fat.

Acknowledgments

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. They are grateful to Julia Hastings-Black, and Kelsey Gatto for their editorial assistance.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  • 1
    Burgess-Champoux TL, Larson N, Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan PJ, Story M. Are family meal patterns associated with overall diet quality during the transition from early to middle adolescence? J Nutr Educ Behav 2009;41:79-86.
  • 2
    Woodruff SJ, Hanning RM. A review of family meal influence on adolescents' dietary intake. Can J Diet Pract Res 2008;69:14-22.
  • 3
    Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. Dietary sources of energy, solid fats, and added sugars among children and adolescents in the United States. J Am Diet Assoc 2010;110:1477-1484.
  • 4
    Contento IR, Williams SS, Michela JL, Franklin AB. Understanding the food choice process of adolescents in the context of family and friends. J Adolesc Health 2006;38:575-582.
  • 5
    Boutelle KN, Birnbaum AS, Lytle LA, Murray DM, Story M. Associations between perceived family meal environment and parent intake of fruit, vegetables, and fat. J Nutr Educ Behav 2003;35:24-29.
  • 6
    Patrick H, Nicklas TA. A review of family and social determinants of children's eating patterns and diet quality. J Am Coll Nutr 2005;24:83-92.
  • 7
    Herman CP, Roth DA, Polivy J. Effects of the presence of others on food intake: a normative interpretation. Psychol Bull 2003;129:873-886.
  • 8
    De Castro JM. Eating behavior: lessons from the real world of humans. Nutrition 2000;16:800-813.
  • 9
    Birch LL, Marlin DW. I don't like it; I never tried it: effects of exposure on two-year-old children's food preferences. Appetite 1982;3:353-360.
  • 10
    Affenito SG, Franko DL, Striegel-Moore RH, Thompson D. Behavioral determinants of obesity: research findings and policy implications. J Obes 2012;2012:150732.
  • 11
    Larson NI, Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan PJ, Story M. Family meals during adolescence are associated with higher diet quality and healthful meal patterns during young adulthood. J Am Diet Assoc 2007;107:1502-1510.
  • 12
    Ackard DM, Neumark-Sztainer D. Family mealtime while growing up: associations with symptoms of bulimia nervosa. Eat Disord 2001;9:239-249.
  • 13
    Eisenberg ME, Olson RE, Neumark-Sztainer D, Story M, Bearinger LH. Correlations between family meals and psychosocial well-being among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158:792-796.
  • 14
    Snow CE, Beals DE. Mealtime talk that supports literacy development. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev 2006;111:51-66.
  • 15
    Liquori T, Koch PD, Contento IR, Castle J. The cookshop program: outcome evaluation of a nutrition education program linking lunchroom food experiences with classroom cooking experiences. J Nutr Educ Behav 1998;30:302-313.
  • 16
    Beets MW, Swanger K, Wilcox DR, Cardinal BJ. Using hands-on demonstrations to promote cooking behaviors with young adolescents: the culinary camp summer cooking program. J Nutr Educ Behav 2007;39:288-289.
  • 17
    Spear BA. The need for family meals. J Am Diet Assoc 2006;106:218-219.
  • 18
    Sobal J, Wansink B. Kitchenscapes, tablescapes, platescapes, and foodscapes: influences of microscale built environments on food intake. Environ Behav 2007;39:124-142.
  • 19
    Van Ittersum K, Wansink B. Plate size and color suggestibility: the Delboeuf illusion's bias on serving and eating behavior. J Consum Res 2012;39:215-228.
  • 20
    Van Kleef E, Shimizu M, Wansink B. Serving bowl selection biases the amount of food served. J Nutr Educ Behav 2012;44:66-70.
  • 21
    Wansink B, van Ittersum K, Painter JE. Ice cream illusions. Bowls, spoons, and self-served portion sizes. Am J Prev Med 2006;31:240-243.
  • 22
    Van Ittersum K, Wansink B. Extraverted children are more biased by bowl sizes than introverts. PLoS One 2013;8:10, e78224.
  • 23
    Wansink B. Slim by Design: Mindless Eating Solutions for Everyday Life. New York, NY: William Morrow; 2014.
  • 24
    Dubois L, Farmer A, Girard M, Peterson K. Social factors and television use during meals and snacks is associated with higher BMI among pre-school children. Public Health Nutr 2008;11:1267-1279.
  • 25
    Hancox RJ, Poulton R. Watching television is associated with childhood obesity: but is it clinically important? 2005;30:171-175.
  • 26
    Cinotto S. “Everyone would be around the table”: American family mealtimes in historical perspective, 1850–1960. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev 2006;2006:17-34.
  • 27
    Fiese BH, Tomcho TJ, Douglas M, Josephs K, Poltrock S, Baker T. A review of 50 years of research on naturally occurring family routines and rituals: cause for celebration? J Family Psychol 2002;16:381-390.
  • 28
    Wansink B, Shimizu M, Brumberg A. Association of nutrient-dense snack combinations with calories and vegetable intake. Pediatrics 2013;131:22-29.