Factors That Influence Parental

8/20/2019 Factors That Influence Parental

1/27

Journal of Marketing Management, 2006, 22, 929-954

ISSN1472-1376/2006/9-10/00929 + 25 ©Westburn Publishers Ltd.

Renée Shaw Hughner1 and Jill Kurp Maher2

Factors that Influence ParentalFood Purchases for Children:Implications for Dietary Health

Arizona State University

Robert Morris University

Parents play an important role in developingchildren’s dietary habits; the foods madeavailable, bought, and role-modelled are thosethat become familiar and acceptable tochildren. This research seeks to further ourunderstanding of the role parents play inchildren’s dietary habits by examining

parental attitudes and purchase behaviours ofcertain types of children’s food products.Using a survey, three topic areas wereinvestigated: parental attitudes and behaviours

toward children’s convenience andentertainment-oriented food products,attributes deemed important in children’s food,and the level of parental monitoring ofchildren’s diets. Post hoc interviews wereconducted to further investigate reportedattitude-behaviour inconsistencies. Combined,the findings lead to important implicationsregarding consumer education, foodmanufacturing, labelling, and retail practices.

Keywords: children’s food, food attitudes, food choice, purchase attributes

Introduction

BackgroundChildhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions (Rocchini 2002).

Worldwide, approximately 155 million school-aged children are overweightor obese (International Obesity Task Force 2002), and 22 million children

1 Correspondence: Renée Shaw Hughner, Ph.D., Morrison School of Management andAgribusiness , Arizona State University , 7001 E. Williams Field Rd., Mesa, AZ 85212,Phone: 480-727-1570, Fax: 480-727-1961, E-mail: [email protected] 2 Jill Kurp Maher, Ph.D., Robert Morris University , School of Business, 228 MasseyHall, 6001 University Blvd., Moon Township, PA 15108 , E-mail: [email protected]


2/27

930 Renée Shaw Hughner and Jill Kurp Maher

under the age of five are overweight (World Health Organization 2004). InEurope, childhood obesity is currently “an acute health crisis” (InternationalObesity Task Force 2002, p.3). The percentages vary among Europeancountries; however, all have witnessed a marked acceleration in childhoodobesity over the course of the last two decades (IOTF 2002). In the United

Kingdom, the number of obese children has tripled in 20 years withapproximately 22% of the children overweight or obese(http://www.bbc.co.uk).

In the United States, the percentage of obesity has nearly doubled over thepast two decades for preschool children aged 2-5 years and more than tripledfor children aged 6-11 years (Institute of Medicine 2005). Type 2 diabetes,previously considered an adult-onset disease, has increased drasticallyamong youth in the United States and is now considered a national healthepidemic for children. Similar to Europe, other obesity-related healthmaladies are consequently rapidly increasing among children (Hedley et al.2004; Muntner et al. 2004). Related, the economic costs associated withobesity have soared, more than tripling over the past two decades in theUnited States alone (Institute of Medicine 2005).

The Causes Obesity is a function of the energy equation – the amount of energy in-

take (calories consumed) versus the amount of energy expended (caloriesburned). When energy intake exceeds the amount of energy expended,weight gain occurs. When looking at childhood obesity, then, the factors thatinfluence both eating and physical activity must be considered. There are amultitude of such factors which result from multifaceted interactions acrossnumerous social, environmental, and policy contexts (Institute of Medicine2005). Some factors that have been identified include: a more sedentarylifestyle than generations past (attributable to a host of cultural patterns thatinclude television and other screen time activities, as well as fear of allowingchildren to ‘go outside and play’), changed eating patterns (e.g., the trendtowards meal consumption outside of the home and fast food meals) andfood marketing (e.g., astute advertising targeted to children, increaseddevelopment of products laden with sugar and empty calories, and largerportion sizes).

ObjectiveIn this paper, we chose to examine one factor in the obesity equation –

parents3. Recommendations from various health agencies (e.g., Center forDisease Control) have called for parents to be more diligent in their food

3 For the purpose of this paper, parents are defined as primary caregivers.


3/27

Factors that Influence Parental Food Purchases for Children 931

purchasing behaviours. “Parents are the policy makers for the home. Theymake daily decisions on recreational opportunities, food available at home,and children’s allowances; they determine the setting for foods eaten in thehome; and they implement countless other rules and policies that includehow much various members of the family engage in healthy eating and

physical activities” (Institute of Medicine 2005, p. 1). Thus, in this researchwe explore the types of food products parents buy for their children, theattributes and benefits sought from these purchases, as well as how parentalconcern for their children’s diets impacts the above.

Relevant Research

Socialisation TheoryIt is not surprising that numerous health agencies have called for greater

involvement from parents regarding their children’s nutrition, as parents areone of the most significant socialisation agents for children. Consumer

socialisation is “the process by which young people acquire skills,knowledge, and attitudes relevant to their functioning in the marketplace,”(Ward 1980, p. 380). Previous research suggests that there are severalsocialisation agents that exist together in the development of children asconsumers. Those most widely discussed are parents, peers, and media (forexamples see Grossbart, Carlson, and Walsh 1991; Mandrik, Fern, and Bao2005; Moschis and Churchill 1978; Ward and Wackman 1971). Roedder John(1999) provides an extensive review of the extant research pertaining toconsumer socialisation of children. Here, we briefly discuss the researchpertaining to parental influences on child consumer socialisation.

Findings have demonstrated that parental influence on the consumerbehaviour of their children varies across situations, products (e.g., greater fordecisions concerning products with high perceived risk) and consumers (e.g.,influence differs dependent upon child’s age, race, gender and social class).To facilitate understanding of how family members influence children’sconsumer knowledge and behaviour, researchers have focused on the role ofcommunication within families (Carlson, Grossbart and Stuenkel 1992;Moschis 1985).

The typology of family communication patterns (Moschis 1985), positsfour distinct communication styles in families: protective, pluralistic,consensual and laissez faire. These styles are based on two dimensions ofparent-child communication relations: (1) socio-oriented structures wherecommunication is designed to “produce deference [and] foster harmonioussocial relationships” and (2) concept-oriented structures wherecommunication focuses on “positive constraints that help the child todevelop his/her own views about the world” (Moshis 1985, p. 899). Findings


4/27


have demonstrated that communication styles employed within familiesdirectly influence the development of adolescents’ consumer behaviour:pluralistic patterns foster the development of consumer competition;protective patterns increase the susceptibility to outside influences (Moschis1985). Thus, communication styles within families (for example, discussions

about food) will affect children’s socialisation of food consumption.With food acquisition and consumption being among the earliest of all

consumer socialisation processes, parents play an important role as earlysocialisation agents in the formation of children’s food habits and preferences(Nicklas et al. 2001; Young et al. 2004). The logic behind this role is thatcontrolling what children eat should influence what they like and providingchildren with a healthier diet is likely to increase their liking for healthyfoods (Wardle 1993). Parents influence their children’s food choices in threeways: by making specific foods available, by acting as models for theirchildren and by their behaviour in specific situations (Koivisto Hursti 1999;Young et al. 2004).

Much of the research that has investigated parental influence in children’sfood-related attitudes and behaviours has focused on parent-childsimilarities, demonstrating correlations between parents and children onvarious indices (e.g., health risk factor indices, food preferences, dietaryknowledge). Several studies have examined weight correlations betweenparents and their children (e.g., Agras et al. 2004). In general, this researchhas illustrated fairly high parent-child weight correlations and has concludedthat the risk of a child being overweight increases substantially if parents areoverweight. Other health risk indices (such as cholesterol levels) have alsobeen significantly correlated between children and their parents (Morrison etal. 1994; Oliveria et al. 1992). This research has led to the conclusion thatwhen parents, in particular mothers, consume an unhealthy diet, theirchildren are much more likely to consume such a diet.

With respect to food knowledge, research has illustrated that parentalhealth knowledge and involvement can affect children’s diets. Termed “foodsocialisation practices”, parental knowledge about nutrition has beencorrelated with nutrient intakes of children (Niklas et al. 2001; Taylor et al.2004). Wardle (1993) reports finding significant parent-child correlations formacronutrient knowledge and for evaluation of the ‘healthiness’ ofindividual foods.

Contento et al. (1993) found that mothers’ health beliefs (referred to as

health motivation) strongly influenced the quality of children’s diets. In thehealth-oriented families, children’s diets were more health promoting andrisk reducing for chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer. Gibson etal. (1998) also concluded that parents’ nutritional knowledge may affect thenutritional quality of foods purchased as well as the size of portions served


5/27


to the child. Similarly, Cooke et al. (2004) found that parental consumption,breast-feeding and early introduction to fruit and vegetables were related tointake of children’s fruit and vegetable consumption.

Other research has illustrated the power of familiarity with respect to foodpreferences. Birch and Marlin (1982) found that two-year olds chose to eat

foods with which they were most familiar and prefer those foods that areavailable and acceptable in the household. Similarly, Beauchamp and Moran(1982) found that infants who were more accustomed to drinking sweetenedwater chose to take more sweetened water compared to those babies whowere not, suggesting that even preference for sweet tastes may be modifiedby familiarity.

The above body of research provides persuasive evidence that parentshave a significant influence on the food attitudes and behaviours of theirchildren via a consumer socialisation process. Next, research that hasexamined the factors that influence parental food choices on behalf of theirchildren is reviewed.

Influencers on Parental Food PurchasesChildren. Much of the research that has examined the influences on

parents’ food purchasing behaviour has focused on the role of children’sinfluence. Commonly referred to as ‘pester power’ this research has generallyconcluded that children exert considerable influence on parents’ food choicesthrough nagging (e.g., Palojoki and Tuomi-Grohn 2001). However, otherresearch has found that many parents do not perceive their children’sbadgering to influence their actual decisions. For example, Spungin (2004)reports that only 14 percent of parents surveyed said that they would agreeto their children to buy a new product without first approving it. Similarly,in a wide-scale survey among EU members, Lennernas et al. (1997) foundthat “family preferences” were listed by 29% of the respondents as beingranked in the top five perceived influences on food choice (quality, price,taste, and healthiness preceded family influence, respectively). Clearly, then,other factors affect the food choices parents make on behalf of their children;though, the research that has examined these other factors is sparse.

Attributes Sought. Nutritional concern dictates many food-related choicesparents make on behalf of their children (Clarke 2004; Coveney 2005; St. JohnAlderson and Ogden 1999; Taylor, Gallagher and McCullough 2004; Wardle1993; Williams, Innis, Vogel and Stephen 1999). Spungin (2004) reports that

when food shopping for the family, parents rated ‘nutritional value’ as themost important factor with ‘what the children prefer’ and ‘value for money’second and third.

Food Usage. Research has revealed that parents use food in several ways:to shape children’s behaviour (Baughcum et al. 1998); to express love and


6/27


financial security (Jain et al. 2005); as a means to alleviate parental guilt(Baughcum et al. 1998); and as a way to reduce illness or minimise the risk ofcertain diseases (Coveney 2005). Commonly cited examples of shapingchildren’s behaviour via food included using food to reinforce goodbehaviour, promote positive outcomes, avoid negative behaviours, and as a

punishment for bad behaviours (withholding food) (Jain et al. 2005; Rogers etal. 1980). It is difficult to state to what extent these food usage behaviours arepresent, as the little research that does exist is mostly qualitative in nature.

Foods Consumed. This stream of research has looked mainly at differencesin type of food consumption across socio-economic classes. Data hasdemonstrated that higher educated respondents and their families consume agreater variety of food and are more likely to meet nutritionalrecommendations. Fruit and vegetables are recognised to be more commonlyconsumed in high income groups, as is lower fat proteins such as chicken(Cooke et al. 2004; Guenther, Jensen, Batres-Marquez 2005). Despite findingsof meeting nutritional recommendations, obesity has climbed – andcontinues to do so – into the upper classes.

Research Questions

As consumer socialisation literature suggests, parents play an important rolein developing children’s dietary habits. Few investigations have exploredthe question of what foods parents buy on behalf of their children and theirpurchase motivations for doing so. We have thus chosen to pursue this lineof research by exploring the type of foods parents buy for their children. Ourinvestigation is focused on the areas of snack and convenience foodscommonly consumed by children. The rationale for this focus is: (1) manyfoods in this category are specifically developed for children (2) often, thesefood products are relatively high in sugar, fat, and/or sodium and thusunhealthy, (3) the foods included in our survey have enjoyed marketplacesuccess and (4) there exists a void in our understanding of parentalpurchases in this food category.

We investigated three topic areas related to the food parents buy on behalfof their children:

(1) What are parents’ attitudes toward certain types of children’s foodproducts (i.e. convenience products and “fun” products)? To whatextent do parents buy these types of kids’ foods? Related, to whatextent are children’s opinions considered by parents?

(2) Which food attributes are important to parents when purchasing foodfor their children? Related, how do parents use food?


7/27


(3) To what extent do parents monitor their children’s diet? Do parentswho more closely monitor their children’s diets evidence differentbehaviours and/or seek different attributes?

Methodology

SubjectsA convenience sample of 180 subjects was recruited. One hundred forty-

nine respondents were females; 31 were males. Ninety-five percent wereCaucasian. The distribution of subjects in age groups was (18-31), 26 percent;(32-36), 27 percent; (37-42), 29 percent; and (43 and older), 18 percent. Eighty-one percent of the sample worked at least part-time; 19 percent were notemployed. Thirty-five percent of the respondents were high schoolgraduates; 65 percent were higher educated. Eighty-two percent of thesample was married.

InstrumentA survey was designed to investigate the above listed areas. Respondents

were instructed to answer the questions with respect to their beliefs andbehaviours pertaining to their child/children living in their home betweenthe ages of three and 12 years.

Relative to Objective One, scales #1 through #4 were used:

1. Attitude Toward Convenience Foods. Parents were asked about theirglobal attitudes toward convenience food products. Examples ofconvenience food products were given and included Kraft’sLunchables and Smucker’s Uncrustables. Three bi-polar adjectives

were provided (bad/good, unsatisfactory/satisfactory, andunfavorable/favorable) (Sanbonmatsu and Kardes 1988). A seven-point summated scale was used (1 = most negative assessment to 7= most positive assessment).

2. Attitudes towards ‘fun’ food products. Attitudes toward children’sfood products marketed as ‘fun’ or entertaining, were alsoassessed, as these products are often attractive to children and wewanted to assess how ‘pester power’ might affect parents’ attitudestoward these types of foods. The same attitudinal scale as abovewas used. Ore Ida Blue French Fries and Heinz Blastin GreenKetchup were given as examples of fun food products.

3. Child’s Opinion. In order to assess the influence of children onparents’ purchasing behaviours, Jenkins’ (1979) child’s influencescale was used. Parents were asked to indicate the degree to which


8/27


their child’s opinion should be included in their purchases.Responses were recorded on a five-point summated scale from1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

4. Parents’ Purchase Behaviours. Parents were given a list of children’s

food products and asked to indicate how often the listed food waspurchased, from 1 = never to 5 = always.

Relative to Objective Two, scales #5 and #6 were used:

5. Perceived Importance of Food Attributes. Parents were asked to ratethe importance of several food attributes when shopping for theirchild. Twelve attributes, developed from the above-reviewedliterature and those commonly mentioned in children’s foodadvertising, were provided. A five-point scale (1 = not at allimportant to 5 = extremely important) was employed.

6. Food Usage Behaviours. Respondents were also asked to indicate howoften they engaged in a number of food usage behaviours.Specifically, how often they used food to: avoid a temper tantrum,calm, reward, treat, entertain, occupy, and make their child happy.Parents rated the frequency they engaged in the above behavioursfrom 1 = never to 5 = frequently.

Relative to Objective Three, scale #7 was used:

7. Parents’ Monitoring of Children’s Food Intake. A modification of

Moorman and Matulich’s (1993) Diet (Health) Scale was used toassess parental monitoring of children’s diet. It is a six-item,seven-point summated rating scale that measures the frequencywith which a person engages in monitoring behaviours relative tohealthy nutrition.

Results

Attitudes and Purchase Behaviours

Related to our first research objective, we investigated parents’ attitudestoward certain types of popular children’s foods and determined the extent

to which parents buy these foods, in order to assess attitude-behaviourconsistency. The Cronbach alpha for these three items was .83. The meanscore reported was 13.5 (std.dev. = 4.23), suggesting that this sample has onlya moderately favorable attitude toward these types of convenience-oriented


9/27


children’s foods. Though, some variation in attitude is noted and will befurther considered.

Similarly, parents’ attitudes toward fun or entertainment-oriented foodswere investigated as many of these foods are targeted at children and mayinfluence parents’ attitudes. Using the same scale as above (Cronbach Alpha

= .88), parents reported a mean score of 11.7 (std.dev. = 4.66), indicating thatthey were somewhat neutral with regard to these ‘fun’ foods, and againdisplaying some degree of variation.

Next, the importance of children’s opinions on parents’ attitudes towardfun foods was examined. The mean score reported on the ‘child’s opinion’scale was 18.21 (std.dev. = 5.01, Cronbach Alpha = .84), suggesting that thissample of parents does not believe their children’s opinions should beincluded when purchasing various products (included in the scale weregrocery items). Furthermore, upon examination of the influence of children’sopinions on parents’ attitudes toward fun foods, linear regression resultsindicate the absence of a statistically significant relationship (F = .146, p =.703, Adj R2 = -.005).

We also examined parents’ purchases of several popular children’s foodproducts in order to understand the consistency (or lack thereof) of attitudestoward types of children’s food products and actual purchase behaviour.While parents in our sample did not have particularly positive attitudestowards children’s convenience foods, they did indicate frequent purchasingof several types of these convenience-oriented foods.

Perceived Importance of Food AttributesCorresponding to our second research objective, parents were asked to

rate the importance of several attributes considered important in thepurchase of children’s food products. For a list of the mean scores of all 12attributes, see Table 1. Parents rated nutrition as the most important attribute(mean = 3.79, s.d. = .97).

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Importance of Food Attributesn = 180

Food Attribute Mean Standard Deviation ___________________________________________________________________________Nutrition 3.79 .974Convenience 3.72 1.00

Ease of Preparation 3.70 1.07Brand Name 3.22 1.14Portability 3.14 1.13Original Flavours 3.08 1.14

Cont’d…


10/27


Food Attribute Mean Standard Deviation

___________________________________________________________________________Colour 2.63 1.23Fun Shapes 2.59 1.18

Food Entertainment 2.45 1.15“Play” Aspect 2.28 1.23Bright Packaging 2.24 1.16

Respondents also reported on their food usage behaviours. Parents use foodto: treat their child (mean 3.39, s.d.=.98); reward their child (mean 2.8l.s.d.=1.2) and make their child happy (mean, 2.55, s.d.=1.2). Other reportedfood usage behaviours were considerably lower.

Parental Monitoring of Children’s Food IntakeOne factor that may explain differences between those parents who

purchase certain children’s snack and convenience foods more frequently,from those who do not, is the level of dietary monitoring in which parentsengage. Corresponding to the third research objective, parents were askedhow often they monitor sodium, fat, sugar, red meat, snacks and treats, andadditive and preservative intake for their children. Results from the scalesuggest that, as a whole, parents in this study are moderately monitoringtheir children’s food intake (mean = 22.5, s.d. = 7.95). The Cronbach alpha forthe scale was .89.

Some parents in the study rated their monitoring behaviour with a scoreof 6 (none of the time) while other parents scored a 42 (all of the time) foreach of the monitoring categories. Given this full range of scores, we used a

median split to examine how monitoring behaviour affects food choice. Themonitoring variable was used as the independent variable to examinewhether there were differences in the importance of food attributes, attitudestoward convenience, and actual purchase behaviours between parents whooften monitor their children’s food intake (PM) and parents who do not (PNM).Statistically significant differences were indeed found and reported in Table2.

Relative to actual purchase behaviours, parents who do not frequentlymonitor their children’s food intake reported purchasing several popularchildren’s food products more often than parents who are frequent monitorsof their children’s food intake. See Table 3 for the mean scores.


11/27


Table 2. Independent Samples T-tests Results for Differences in PerceivedImportance of Food Attributes by Parents’ Food Monitoring Behaviours

Food Attribute Mean ___________________________________________________________________________

Ease of PreparationLow Monitoring Behaviour 3.89High Monitoring Behaviour 3.51(t= 2.45, p= .015)

ConvenienceLow Monitoring Behaviour 3.90High Monitoring Behaviour 3.53(t= 2.53, p= .012)

Nutrition Low Monitoring Behaviour 3.44High Monitoring Behaviour 4.15(t= -5.20, p= .000)

Table 3. Independent Samples T-tests Results for Differences in Parents’

Food Purchasing Behaviours by Parents’ Food Monitoring Behaviours

Food Product Mean ___________________________________________________________________________Gummy Fruit Snacks

Low Monitoring Behaviour 3.52High Monitoring Behaviour 3.15 (t=2.14, p=.034)

LunchablesLow Monitoring Behaviour 3.01High Monitoring Behaviour 2.46 (t=2.63, p=.009)

Packaged Chicken NuggetsLow Monitoring Behaviour 3.79

High Monitoring Behaviour 3.27 (t=2.79, p=.006)

Pop Tarts Low Monitoring Behaviour 3.71High Monitoring Behaviour 3.29 (t=2.29, p=.023)

While those parents who more closely supervise their children’s dietsevidence statistically different purchasing behaviours, their mean scores, aswell as large standard deviations warranted further investigation. We thusexamined more closely the purchase behaviours of the respondents whoreported high levels of monitoring behaviour. Looking individually at the

scale items, we found that while many respondents indicated high dietarysupervision of food components such as sugar, sodium, and preservatives;many of these same respondents reported frequent purchase behaviours offoods containing high levels of these ingredients. For example, of therespondents who indicated monitoring their children’s sugar intake all or


12/27


nearly all of the time (responses 6 and 7 out of a seven-point scale), 33percent reported frequently or always buying gummy fruit snacks; 50percent reported purchasing Capri Sun fruit drink frequently or always, and48 percent reported buying pop tarts frequently or always. Similarly, ofparents who reported monitoring the level of preservative and additive

intake all or nearly all of the time, 39 percent frequently or always purchasedpop tarts and chicken nuggets. While reporting the percentages from intervalscales is not common, we report these findings in order to call attention tothe underlying trends and note that this phenomenon is one requiringfurther exploration.

Discussion of Survey ResultsResults from the questionnaire illustrated that the sample of parents

surveyed are impartial toward children’s convenience foods. Despite theirindifference, they buy some of these types of foods frequently, suggesting anattitude-behaviour inconsistency. Relative to fun foods, parents’ attitudes

and purchase behaviours are consistent; they do not have favorable attitudestoward these products and do not purchase them with any frequency.

Related to the second research objective, parents indicated that nutritionwas the most important attribute when choosing food for their children.Their purchase behaviours, at first glance, do not seem to reflect the purchaseof nutritious foods (e.g., chicken nuggets, pop tarts, juice drinks). However,upon closer consideration, many of the foods included in the survey havedeclarations of nutritional benefit labeled prominently on the front of theirpackages (e.g., “Good Source of 7 Vitamins and Minerals”, “Excellent Sourceof Calcium” “Made with Real Fruit”). So, while many children’s foods maytend to be less healthy because they are more processed with higher levels ofsugar, sodium, and/or additives, it may be that parents view healthiness notin terms of the absence of negative attributes such as sugar and sodium, butrather in terms of positive ones such as vitamin content.

Lastly, related to the third set of research objectives, significant differencesin food attitudes and purchase behaviours exist dependent upon the level ofdietary supervision in which parents engage. Parents who are not as diligentin monitoring their children’s diets deemed convenience-oriented foodattributes to be more important, had more favorable attitudes towardconvenience foods, and purchased more frequently several popularchildren’s food products than parents who are more observant of theirchildren’s diets. Significant differences in the importance of food attributeswere also noted. High monitors rated nutrition as more important andconvenience less important; their behaviours (comparatively) are consistentwith this. Additionally, high monitors exhibit different food usagebehaviours, using food to reward and treat, more frequently than do low


13/27


monitors. Puzzling, though, is the finding that even within the ‘high monitor’group, a sizeable percentage of parents tended to frequently purchasevarious foods high in the attributes they purported to regulate.

Post hoc interviews were subsequently conducted in order to furtherinvestigate the contradictions observed in the exploratory survey. Three

central areas were further investigated: the discrepancy found between foodattitudes and behaviours with respect to convenience foods, the question ofwhether parents differentiate between healthiness and nutrition in children’sfoods, and the inconsistency between reported monitoring behaviours andactual food purchases.

Study Two – Post Hoc Interviews

A convenience sample of five parents was chosen. All participants werefemale, had college degrees and had household incomes well above the U.S.average of $44,000. The duration of the interviews ranged from 30 to 60

minutes. Parents were engaged in discussions of their attitudes andperceptions of their children’s diets, children’s foods commonly purchased,level of food knowledge, purchase criteria, and so forth.

Findings from Interviews

We have limited the findings presented to those that pertain directly to ourmission of explaining the observed contradictions in the exploratory survey.Four themes were thus identified: (1) Level of concern (2) Trust (3)Imperceptible attributes, and (4) Desire to fit in. These are discussed brieflybelow.

Level of ConcernAll of the parents interviewed generally expressed concern about their

children’s diets and the foods purchased for their children. This concern wasrelayed through conversations about their thoughts on the lunches andsnacks provided at school, reference to limiting some types of junk food (e.g.,McDonald’s), limiting candy, buying 100 percent juice, and so forth. Thelevels of concern varied, from one respondent who attempted to insure herchildren ate at least two fruits and one vegetable daily and tried to limit herchildren’s intake of sugar to another respondent who sought simply toincorporate a variety of food in her child’s diet, without concern for specificfoods or attributes, such as sugar or fat. This mother believed that childrencould eat pretty much anything as long as they “go outside and play and runaround.”


14/27


Trust

Parents commonly alluded to the idea that they trusted the foodmarketing system. This theme was conveyed in several ways and in severaldifferent contexts.

Trust in Retailer . Through discussions of grocers, many respondents stated

their preference for particular retailers, stating their preferred retailers hadbetter produce, better quality food and higher standards. In large part, theirtrust in the grocer was extended to the foods they bought. For example, Juliestated she shopped at Trader Joe’s because their products are better.

I like Trader Joe’s … their milk doesn’t have hormones, it’s natural, all oftheir products are natural …even their cookies and desserts are better. Ithink they have high buying standards.

When questioned how their dessert products are better, she stated that theingredients used are higher quality and that the flavour tasted natural, as

opposed to the artificial-tasting flavour of packaged desserts sold at othergrocers. She claimed even their macaroni and cheese was healthy, becausethe box was labelled ‘all natural’ on the front. Another parent, whomentioned shopping at Wild Oats frequently, stated that she trusted the storeto provide wholesome products, which was important because her son hadAttention Deficit Disorder.

Trust in FDA. Parents were questioned about some ingredients found incommonly purchased food items, such as ‘potassium sorbate’ and‘monoglycerides’. None of the respondents could state what the ingredientswere, but there was a general consensus that they were safe.

I have no idea, but I think they’re probably safe, … I grew up on Pop tartsand I’m healthy. … everything in moderation. I think if these were bad orsomehow dangerous, the FDA would have caught it long ago.

Respondents trusted the FDA to insure the safety of food. Many felt that theFDA imposed stringent standards to which all food manufacturers have toadhere. Commonly expressed was the view that if these various foodingredients (e.g., preservatives and dyes) were harmful, they would not becommonly used. While Marsha acknowledged that “you never know whatthey’ll say is bad for you ten years from now”, most deemed the risk ofadditives, preservatives, and dyes to be minimal.

Trust in Brand Name. One respondent stated she liked to buy well-knownbrands. She thought they were better quality and used better ingredients.Pepperidge Farm was given as an example of being a more wholesomebrand. When asked if there were other brands that held certain meanings,she responded she thought Dannon to be a healthy brand “probably because


15/27


their products are so healthy”. Another respondent only bought HebrewNational hotdogs because she believed Hebrew National “adheres to higherstandards”; while another believed Oscar Mayer’s Lunchables to be “easy,cheap and decent.” When questioned why she believed the food to be decent,she replied “they’re made with Oscar Mayer lunchmeats”. When this

respondent was asked whether she believed they contained nitrates, sheindicated she did not know, but thought “probably not”.

Trust in Food Label. A couple of respondents cited nutritional informationlearned from the labels of children’s foods. Hershey’s chocolate milk wasgiven as an example of a beverage that contained more calcium than regularmilk; gummy-type fruit snacks, another.

Yes, I usually pack a lunchbox treat, something like the Sunkist fruit gems or[fruit] roll-ups…. she likes them and they’ve got vitamin C.

When questioned about the ingredients in Sunkist Fruit Gems, this parent

replied:

They’re made with real fruit juice, have got vitamin C, probably there’ssugar, but for the most part, they’re not too bad. The fruit helps make themnutritious and [laughing while saying it] at least if she doesn’t eat an orange,she’s still getting vitamin c!

Imperceptible AttributesAll respondents were questioned about the snack foods they commonly

purchased, as well as their understanding of the ingredients found in thesefoods. Frequently bought lunchbox and snack food items included:

Pepperidge Farm Goldfish crackers, Sunkist fruit chews, Nutrigrain bars,Quaker granola bars, pretzels, yogurt tubes, popsicles, graham crackers, andfruit served with dessert toppings, to name a few.

Depending upon the responses, parents were then queried on theirunderstanding of the ingredients found in the types of products that werementioned. In particular, two unhealthy ingredients found in manychildren’s food products – hydrogenated oil and high fructose corn syrup –were inquired about. None of the five respondents knew what hydrogenatedor partially hydrogenated oil was; a couple surmised it was a type of coconutor palm oil. On whether it was better or worse than saturated fat, all saidprobably better. Of the parents who indicated they gave Pepperidge FarmGoldfish crackers to their children, all were unsure whether the crackerscontained hydrogenated oil4. When questioned about trans fats, most

4 At the time of these interviews in 2004, partially hydrogenated oil was aningredient in Pepperidge Farm Goldfish crackers.


16/27


respondents generally knew that trans fats were not healthy. This knowledgecame from food package labels stating “no trans fats” as well as mediacoverage. There was no association of hydrogenated oil being a trans fat.

Fructose corn syrup was identified as being a type of sugar, but most wereunsure of whether it was a more or less desirable ingredient as compared to

sugar. All of the respondents commonly purchased foods for their childrenthat contained these two ingredients. Fibre and sodium, two attributes thathave received much attention for their role in adult health, were hardlymentioned among respondents. No one explicitly stated fibre as an attributethey considered when purchasing snack foods. When questioned directly,two parents stated they did consider fibre; the others did not. Nutri-Grainbars and Sara Lee’s whole wheat bread were cited as ways parentsincorporated fibre into their children’s diets. One parent could not believe“the junk” parents give their children. She prided herself on staying awayfrom sugary snacks and instead giving her children Nutri-Grain bars forsnacks.

A couple of parents mentioned trying to limit the consumption of saltyproducts; however, both were unable to state any objective criteria orstandard to determine if a product was one containing too high a level ofsodium. As an example, when questioned about how she determines whatconstitutes a high sodium product, Jessica responded:

I don’t know. I’ve wondered that. I just use my judgment. Like the Ramennoodle soups, they’re real salty, so I keep it to one bowl…

Parents’ Desire for Child to Fit InA few parents indicated that pressure – not from their own children – from

other children dictated some of their food choices. While no one explicitlystated they felt social pressure to adjust their children’s diets according towhat other children were eating, their stories reflected it. As an example, oneparent recounted a story about why she decided to buy the school lunch.

I felt bad for Donna and gave in to the school lunch. She didn’t even nag meabout it… one night for dinner I was having hot dogs for dinner and Donna

got excited and asked if we were going to have buns with red and yellow justlike they do in school. … I realised how she must have felt, everyone eatingthe hotdog lunch on Fridays, and her having to pack her lunch. So I signedher up for hot dog lunch; and even though I’m not crazy about the cookie and

Cheetos it comes with, it’s not such a big deal.

As another example, when questioned about the cookies in her pantry, Monaclaimed that cookies and popsicles were for when her children (aged 7 and 9)had friends over to play:


17/27


When Jamie and Michael have play dates I bend the rules. I don’t want their friends thinking they’re weird, so I let them have the Oreos and potato chips.

Nearly all respondents talked about birthday parties and other such events(school field trips, holiday parties, Sunday school). At these types of events,

parents resigned themselves to unhealthy eating – cake, ice cream, candy,cola were frequently mentioned as typical foods served. But parentsgenerally agreed that regulating what children ate at these venues wasconsidered off limits, since all of the other children consume sweets at theseget-togethers. One mother claimed that between birthday parties, schoolevents, club events, and so forth, they often had treats on a daily basis; evenso she refused to dictate what her children could eat at social gatherings.

Discussion of Qualitative FindingsWhile the nature of these interviews precludes any type of generalisations,

there are a number of observations that can be made. First, as witnessed by

the survey and supported by prior research, the parents in this sample areconcerned about their children’s diets. Concern, though, appears to be less ofa scrutinised monitoring and more of a general supervision of the child’soverall diet, broadly ensuring children are eating well-balanced diets. Whileparents are concerned about what their children eat, for the most part, theydeem current mainstream offerings to be satisfactory. In many instances,parents’ knowledge of foods appeared to be learned from food marketing(i.e., packaging and advertising).

In the survey, there were notable discrepancies among the behaviours inwhich respondents stated they engaged. While many respondents indicatedfrequently monitoring their children’s diets, they also indicated frequentlypurchasing products containing high levels of the attributes they purportedlymonitored. The interviews helped to shed some light on the possible causesof these inconsistencies. Parents did not deem their behaviours to bediscrepant. Gummy fruit snacks and Lunchables were not seen as unhealthypurchases. There were a few reasons for this: one, parents sought theinclusion of particular nutrients in their children’s diets; two, parents tendedto overlook those ingredients with which they were unfamiliar (trans fatsand various additives); three, they relied on food marketing messages,unable or unwilling to decipher healthiness on their own; and four, theirdesire for their children to socially fit in with their peers was deemed moreimportant than healthy eating.

Parents’ evaluative purchase criteria seemed to be guided by particularnutrients they sought to include in their children’s diets (e.g., vitamin C,calcium, fibre), rather than the avoidance of particular food attributes (sugar,sodium, preservatives). Parents stated they controlled the amount of sugar


18/27


children consumed, but then recounted how they served chocolate milk (at awhopping 60 grams of sugar per serving) and fruit with caramel sauce totheir children. The positive vitamins and nutrients in the foods appeared tobe more important than the negative attributes, as sugar. It thus appears thatthese parents did not differentiate between nutritious food (food that

contains vitamins and nutrients) and healthy food (food that containsnutrients without the added negative food attributes).

Additionally, because most respondents were unknowledgeable aboutmany common food ingredients, their attention seemed to be diverted fromingredients with which they were unfamiliar, to those that were known.Since unfamiliar ingredients have little meaning, they are not used inevaluating food products. Thus the coined phrase ‘imperceptible’ attributes.Parents’ unawareness of the unhealthy ingredients commonly found in manychildren’s food products (e.g., hydrogenated oils, fructose corn syrup,nitrates) may have led them to believe their purchases were more healthythan perhaps they actually are. The level of trust parents expressed in theregulatory environment and retailers to ensure the safety and healthiness offood may also explain their behaviour.

Evidence of parents’ reliance on food labels and names that denotedvarious food attributes was also demonstrated. A Nutri-Grain bar has 120calories, less than one gram of fibre and the predominant ingredient is highfructose corn syrup. The first grain (enriched whole wheat) is listed as thesixteenth ingredient; following high fructose corn syrup, fructose, glycerin,and partially hydrogenated soybean oil, among others. Yet the Nutri-GrainCereal Bars brand name clearly conveyed a more healthy meaning.

Our findings are not entirely surprising. Several studies have shown thatconsumers' understanding of food-label information is low concerning termsused for nutrition information (e.g., Heimbach 1982; Jacoby, Chestnut andSilberman 1977; Reid and Hendricks 1994; Viswanathan and Hastak 2002).The current study supports this finding as parents stated that they preferredfoods low in negative attributes (e.g, sugar, fat), but purchased products highin high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils. Parents simply may notunderstand this information.

One explanation may be the Percentage Daily Value (% DV) format inwhich nutritional information is presented. Researchers have found that the% DV format is not particularly effective in conveying nutritionalinformation (Barone et al. 1996; Viswanathan and Hastak 2002). Viswanathan

and Hastak (2002) found that summary nutritional information, such asaverages or ranges, may facilitate comprehension of nutritional information,as compared to detailed information such as % DV formats.

Ford and colleagues (1996) suggest that health claims and nutritioninformation have independent effects on consumer beliefs about product


19/27


healthiness. However, they found that in certain situations – whennutritional information is contradictory or absent – health claims may have amisleading effect on consumer beliefs about product attributes. They presentthe possibility that consumers who do not have the time or the motivation toconsider the nutrition information listed, may rely solely on the product’s

health claim. “If so, then the potential misleading effects of the health claimare particularly problematic. The health claim might produce unwarrantedinferences (halo effects) on related and unrelated attributes that are notcorrected by the nutritional disclosure” (Ford et al. 1996: 27). Related to ourfindings, parents may belong to the time-pressed population of consumers towhom Ford et al. refer. Alternatively, for many of the products discussed(e.g., gummy fruit snacks, goldfish crackers), the health claims are at oddswith the nutritional data presented – which may give rise to erroneousattributions. Additionally, Ippolito and Mathios (1991) find that health claimson food packages play an important role in educating consumers. Ourfindings are consistent with these conclusions. Parents seemed to attend tothe easily comprehended, prominently listed manufacturer claims andcommunications, neglecting the more detailed nutritional data.

Conclusions

Together, the results from the survey and interviews point to a number ofinteresting observations, as well as some important avenues for futureresearch. The findings lead to important implications regarding consumereducation, food manufacturing, labelling and retail practices.

Consumer Education

This study revealed that parents – even those with relatively high levels ofeducation and income – are not knowledgeable about some commonly foundingredients in the foods frequently bought for children. It may be that theirtrust in the food marketing system is used to make inferences about thehealthiness of food products. Troubling is the substitution of candy-likesnacks for whole foods such as fruit, because both are deemed to benutritionally-equivalent. If parents are to make more healthy food choices,they need to be better informed. That parents rate ‘nutrition’ as the mostimportant attribute conveys concern; of question is whether parents areunwilling or unable to decipher the ingredients in food products. Policymakers have an obligation to help parents make more informed food choiceson behalf of their children. Our findings point to a need for more consumereducation. Currently, the only educational program targeted at higher socio-economic classes in the United States is the food pyramid (now revised)which itself has been poorly constructed and dominated by industry interests


20/27


(Nestle 2003).As a point of clarification, we do not intend to state that parents who buy

flavoured milk or Lunchables for their children will, as a result, have obeseor unhealthy children. Rather, consumer socialisation literature wouldsuggest that eating patterns are established in childhood. If children are

given a package of gummy candy-like chews in place of a piece of fruit; ordevelop palates accustomed to the taste of a meal containing more than halfof the daily recommended sodium limits, it sets them up for poor dietaryhabits and choices in adulthood – which subsequently can lead to poorhealth (Steptoe et al. 1995).

Food Labelling and Retail PracticesFor food manufacturers, parents’ desire for nutritious, convenient food is

an opportunity to strengthen loyalty, act honestly, and better meet consumerneeds. Overall, parents had impartial attitudes toward convenience foods,yet convenience-oriented attributes were most valued. This could point to a

gap in consumer wants and marketplace offerings. These parents wantnutritious, convenience-oriented foods, but may perceive the marketplacehas yet to provide such offerings. Some brands are making an attempt to bemore healthy; the elimination of trans fats by some and the incorporation ofwhole grains by others are illustrative of recent industry developments. Yet,the sugar, sodium, additives, and/or preservatives for many of these brandsremain unchanged, or worse, increase; while the dietary fibre remainsrelatively low (Weise 2005).

Findings that parents tended to dismiss or overlook those ingredientswith which they were unfamiliar (what we termed ‘imperceptible attributes’)adds to the dubious nature of food labelling practices. Unhealthy ingredientssuch as monoglycerides and hydrogenated oils – found in nearly allchildren’s food products – can be argued as simply different ways to state‘fat’. It is troubling that in this period where dietary-related diseases are thenumber one preventable cause of death, that ingredient and package labelinformation remains unclear and potentially deceptive, especially for theuninformed consumer. Parents in this sample relied on package claims andbrand names for product information. Rather than a chance to exploituninformed parents, food manufacturers have an opportunity to enhanceconsumer loyalty by developing food products that can live up to consumerperceptions and make product claims that are not misleading. For retailers,similar opportunities exist. Providing guidance to customers seeking healthyfood, as well as being sincere about the products carried may serve toprovide better service and enhance consumer loyalty.

Currently, in the United Kingdom, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) isinvestigating a food labelling system that addresses this very issue of


21/27


facilitating nutritional comprehension. The system being proposedsummarises a product’s nutritional information in an easy to understandformat – a traffic light. The proposed Multiple Traffic Light labelling systemwould provide at-a-glance information on whether a food is high, medium orlow in total fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt. The threat of this FSA labelling

mandate has already motivated some food manufacturers to respond bydeveloping their own labelling schemes presented in a % DV format.Unfortunately, as discussed above, research has illustrated this type offormat is confusing to consumers (Barone et al. 1996; Viswanathan andHastak 2002).

Perceived Parental Control

As initially stated, there are a multitude of factors that impact uponchildren’s dietary attitudes and behaviours. Parents are only one componentof a much larger equation. Interesting is parents’ perception of the need toconform their children’s dietary habits to those of their child’s social

surroundings. If a parent feels pressure from a 7-year-old’s play date, one canonly imagine the very real perceived pressures of school lunches, parties,fundraisers, soccer games, and so forth. That parents feel their children willbe alienated or viewed as abnormal by eating healthily, points, in ouropinion, to a very sad state of cultural affairs.

Future Research

Several avenues for future work exist. First is the need to engage in alarge-scale study to determine the extent to which our results - from bothsurvey and interview - are found in the larger population. Clearly, theinability to generalize our findings is a key limitation of the study. Questionspertaining to the importance of various food attributes, parental attitudestoward foods, and actual purchase behaviours, should be furtherinvestigated. In addition, results from the interviews need to be furtheraddressed. To what extent are parents knowledgeable about various,potentially harmful ingredients commonly found in children’s food products(e.g., nitrates, trans fats, sugar in its various forms and names)? Do parentsdifferentiate between negative and positive food attributes (i.e., do they seekpositive attributes such as vitamins, but are indifferent towards negativeattributes such as sugar)? And to what extent do parents place their trust invarious food marketing sources (e.g., retailers, labels, brands)? The answersto these questions are essential if we are to fully understand the food choicesmade by parents on behalf of their children.


22/27


References

Agras, W. S., Hammer, L. D., McNicholas, F. and Kraemer, H. C. (2004) “RiskFactors for Childhood Overweight: A Prospective Study From Birth to 9.5Years,” Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 145, No. 1, pp. 20-25.

Barone, Michael J., Rose, Randall L., Manning, Kenneth C. and Miniard, PaulW. (1996), "Another Look at the Impact of Reference Information onConsumer Impressions of Nutrition Information," Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing, 15 (1), 55-62.Beauchamp G. K. and Moran, M. (1982) “Dietary Experience and Sweet Taste

Preference in Human Infants,” Appetite, Vol. 3, pp. 139-152.Birch, L. L. and Marlin, D. W. (1982) “I Don’t Like It; I Never Tried It: Effects

of Exposure to Food on Two-Year-Old Children’s Food Preferences,” Appetite, Vol. 4, pp. 353-360.

Baughcum, A. E., Burklow, K. A., Deeks, C. M., Powers, S. W. and Whitaker,R. C. (1998) “Maternal Feeding Practices and Childhood Obesity: A Focus

Group Study of Low-Income Mothers,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 152, pp. 1010-1014.

Carlson, L., Grossbart, S. and Stuenkel, J. K. (1992) “The Role of ParentalSocialization Types on Differential Family Communications PatternsRegarding Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 1,pp. 31-52.

Cooke, L. J., Wardle, J., Gibson, E. L., Sapochnik, M., Sheiham, A. andLawson, M. (2004) “Demographic, Familial and Trait Predictors of Fruitand Vegetable Consumption by Pre-School Children,” Public HealthNutrition, Vol. 7 , No. 2, pp. 295-302.

Conento, I. R., C. Basch, C., Shea, S., Gutin, Zybert, B. P., Michela, J. L. andRips, J. (1993) “Relationship of Mothers’ Food Choice Criteria to FoodIntake of Preschool Children: Identification of Family Subgroups,” HealthEducation Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 243-259.

Coveney, J. (2005) “A Qualitative Study Exploring Socio-EconomicDifferences in Parental Lay Knowledge of Food and Health: Implicationsfor Public Health Nutrition,” Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 290-297.

Dietz, W. H. and Robinson, T. N. (2005) “Overweight Children andAdolescents,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 352, pp. 2100-2109.

Gibson, E. L., Wardle, J. and Watts, C. J. (1998) “Fruit and VegetableConsumption, Nutritional Knowledge and Beliefs in Mothers andChildren,” Appetite, Vol. 31, pp. 205-228.

Grossbart, S., Carlson, L. and Walsh, A. (1991) “Consumer Socialization andFrequency of Shopping With Children,” Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 19, Summer, pp. 155-163.


23/27


Ford, Gary T., Hastak, Manoj, Mitra, Anusree and Ringold, Debra Jones(1996), “Can Consumers Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence ofa Health Claim? A Laboratory Investigation,” Journal of Public Policy and

Marketing, 15 (Spring), 16-27.Guenther, P. M., Jensen, H. H., Batres-Marquez, S. P. and Chen, C. F. (2005)

“Sociodemographic, Knowledge, and Attitudinal Factors Related to MeatConsumption in the United States,” Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, Vol. 105, No. 8, pp. 266-74.Hedley, O., Johnson, C. and Curtin, F. (2004) “Prevalence of Overweight and

Obesity Among US Children, Adolescents, and Adults, 1999-2002,” Journalof the American Medical Association, Vol. 291, pp. 2847-2850.

Heimbach, James T. (1982) “Public Understanding of Food LabelInformation”. Report published by the Food and Drug Administration,Bureau of Foods, Division of Consumer Studies, Washington D.C.

Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2005) “Parents Can Play ARole in Preventing Childhood Obesity,” from Preventing Childhood Obesity:Health in Balance 2005. Available from:http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/22/617/0.pdf. [AccessedNovember 24, 2005].

Ippolito, Pauline and Mathios, Alan D. (1991), “Health Claims in FoodMarketing: Evidence on Knowledge and Behavior in the Cereal Market,”

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10 (1), 15-32. Jacoby, Jacob, Chestnut, Robert W. and Silberman, William (1977),

“Consumer Use and Comprehension of Nutrition Information,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 4, (September) 119-128.

Jain, A., Sherman, S. N., Chamerlin L. A., Carter,Y., Powers, S. W. andWhitaker, R. C. (2001) “Why Don’t Low-Income Mothers Worry AboutTheir Preschoolers Being Overweight?,” Pediatrics, Vol. 107 , No. 5, pp.1138-1145.

Jenkins, R. L. (1979) “The Influence of Children in Family Decision-Making:Parents’ Perceptions”. In: Wilkie, William L. (ed.), Advances in ConsumerResearch, 6, Ann Arbor, MI: Association of Consumer Research, pp. 413-418.

Koivisto Hursti, U. (1999) “Factors Influencing Children’s Food Choice,” Ann Med, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 26-32.

Lennernas, M., Fjellstrom, C., Becker, W., Giachetti, I., Schmitt, A., Remaut deWinter, A. and Kearney, M. (1997) “Influences on Food Choice Perceived

to be Important by Nationally-Representative Samples of Adults in theEuropean Union,” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 51, No.2, pp.S8-S15.

Mandrik, C. A., Fern and Y. Bao, Y. (2005) “Intergenerational Influence: Rolesof Conformity to Peers and Communication Effectiveness,” Psychology and


24/27


Marketing, Vol. 22, October, pp.813-832.Moorman, C. and Matulich, E. (1993) “A Model of Consumers’ Preventative

Health Motivation and Health Ability,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.20, September, pp. 208-228.

Morrison, J.A., Payne, G., Barton, B. A., Khoury, P. R. and Crawford, P.

(1994) “Mother-Daughter Correlations of Obesity and CardiovascularDisease Risk Factors in Black and White Households: The NGLBI Growthand Health Study,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 84, pp. 1761-1767.

Moschis, G. P. (1985) “The Role of Family Communication in ConsumerSocialization of Children and Adolescents,” Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 898-914.

Moschis, G. P. and Churchill Jr., G. A. (1978) “Consumer Socialization: ATheoretical and Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, November, pp. 599-609.

Muntner, P., He, J., Cutler, J. A., Wildman, R. P. and Whelton, P. K. (2004)“Trends in Blood Pressure Among Children and Adolescents,” Journal ofthe American Medical Association, Vol. 291, pp. 2107-2113.

Nestle, M. (2002) Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition andHealth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Nicklas, T. A., Baranowski, T., Cullen, K. W., Berenson, G. (2001) “EatingPatterns, Dietary Quality and Obesity,” Journal of American College ofNutrition, Vol. 20, pp. 599-608.

Oliveria, S. A., Ellison, R. C., Moore, L. L., Gillman, M. W., Garrahie, E .J.and Singer, M. R. (1992) “Parent-Child Relationships in Nutrient Intake:The Framingham Children’s Study,” The American Journal of ClinicalNutrition, Vol. 56, pp. 593-598.

Palojoki P. and Tuomi-Grohn, T. (2001) “The Complexity of Food Choices inan Everyday Context,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 25,pp.15-23.

Reid, Debra J. and Hendricks, Suzanne M. (1994), “Consumer Understandingand Use of Fat Cholesterol Information On Food Labels,” Canandian

Journal of Public Health, 85(5), 334-337Rocchini, A. P. (2002) “Childhood Obesity and a Diabetes Epidemic,” New

England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 346, No.11, pp. 853-854.Roedder John, D. (1999) “Consumer Socialization of Children: A

Retrospective Look at Twenty-five Years of Research,” Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol.26

, No. 3, pp. 183-213.Sanbonmatsu, D. and Kardes, F. R. (1988) "The Effects of PhysiologicalArousal on Information Processing and Persuasion," Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 15, December, pp. 379-385.

Spungin, P. (2004) “Parent Power, Not Pester Power,” Advertising and


25/27


Marketing to Children, April-June, pp. 37-40.Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. M. and Wardle, J. (1995) “Development of a Measure

of the Motives Underlying the Selection of Food: The Food ChoiceQuestionnaire,” Appetite, Vol. 25, pp. 267-284.

St John Alderson, T. and Ogden, J. (1999) “What Do Mothers Feed Their

Children and Why?,” Health Education Research, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 717-727.Taylor, L. J., Gallagher, M. and McCullough, S. W. (2004) “The Role of

Parental Influence and Additional Factors in the Determination of FoodChoices for Pre-school Children,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 337.

Viswanathan, Madhubalan and Hastak, Manoj (2002), “The Role of SummaryInformation in Facilitating Consumers’ Comprehension of NutritionInformation,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 21 (Fall), pp. 305-318.

Ward, S. (1980) “Consumer socialization”. In: Kassarjian, Harold H. andRobertson, Thomas S. (eds.), Perspectives in Consumer Behavior , Glenville,IL: Scott Foresman.

Ward, S. and Wackman, D. B. (1980) “Family and Media Influences onAdolescent Consumer Learning,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 14, pp.415-427.

Wardle, J. (1995) “Parental Influences on Children’s Diets,” Proceedings of theNutrition Society, Vol. 54, pp. 747-758.

Weise, E. (2005) “Wonder what's next? Whole-grain white bread,” USA Today,Nation, 6/29/2005 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-29-wonderbread_x.htm?csp=34, Accessed September 27, 2006.

Williams, P. L., Innis S. M., Vogel, A. M. and Stephen, L. J. (1999) “FactorsInfluencing Infant Feeding Practices of Mothers in Vancouver,” Canadian

Journal of Public Health, Vol. 90, No. 2, pp. 114-119.World Health Organization (2004) “Help Fight Childhood Obesity to Help

Prevent Diabetes, Say WHO and IDF,” Available from:http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr81/en/.Accessed November 9, 2005.

Young, E. M., Fors, S. W. and Hayes, D. M. (2004) “Associations BetweenPerceived Parent Behaviors and Middle School Student Fruit andVegetable Consumption,” Journal of Nutrition Education Behavior , Vol. 36, pp. 2-12.

About the Authors

Renée Shaw Hughner, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of marketing atArizona State University. Broadly, her research is focused on understandingthe role and relationship of food in consumer wellness. She has published


26/27


work in the areas of organic food, health paradigms and food safety. Shereceived her doctorate at the Arizona State University and taught in the FoodMarketing Department at St. Joseph’s University before joining the MorrisonSchool of Management and Agribusiness at Arizona State University.

Jill K. Maher (Ph.D. Kent State University) is an associate professor ofMarketing at Robert Morris University. Dr. Maher’s primary research interestis child consumers, including gender and ethnic biases in children’sadvertising, as well as children’s processing of television commercials. Shehas also published work in consumer materialism and nonprofitmanagement/marketing.


27/27

Documents

Factors That Influence Parental