Abstract
Objective. To investigate associations between sibling weight status, concerns about sibling weight, and parents’ differential use of restrictive feeding practices. Methods. Participants included 70 mother-father pairs with two biological children between 6 and 12 years old. Each parent completed three Child Feeding Questionnaire (CFQ) subscales (perception of child weight, concern about child weight, and restriction) for each participant sibling. Researchers measured heights and weights and converted child data into Body Mass Index percentiles (BMI%). Multiple regression analysis examined predictors of restrictive feeding practices used by both parents. The nature of differential treatment was examined by calculating Pearson's correlations among sibling differences (older minus younger sibling) in maternal and paternal CFQ reports and sibling BMI%. Results. Concern for child weight, but not actual child BMI% or parental perception of child weight, predicted restrictive feeding practices for both parents. Child gender was not related to child weight status, perception of child weight, concern for child weight, or restriction. Parents were more likely to use differential restrictive feeding practices when they had differential concern for the weight status of their children. However, this differential treatment was not related to differences in actual sibling BMI% or parental perception of child weight. Conclusions. Parental concern for child weight, rather than actual child weight status, predicts restriction by both mothers and fathers. Across families, parents generally tend to use similar feeding practices with each of their children. Within families, parents may have different interactions with each sibling regarding food when differentially concerned about sibling weight status.
Acknowledgements
We thank the families who participated in this project as well as the 30 graduate and undergraduate students who collected and entered data. The authors have no financial interest in this research. In addition, the authors report no conflict of interest related to this research. The first author received funding support through the Office of Student Research, the Graduate Student Association Senate, and the Wiley Smith Family, all administered through Appalachian State University. We thank these groups for their longstanding and generous support of student research. Aside from funding support, these groups had no involvement in any part of this publication. Dr Mary Ballard and Dr Denise Martz provided helpful suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.