Journal of Family Studies

ISSN: 1322-9400 (Print) 1839-3543 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjfs20

Family meals and adolescent perceptions of

parent–child connectedness

Stephen L. Brown, James Teufel, David A. Birch & Thereasa E. Abrams

To cite this article: Stephen L. Brown, James Teufel, David A. Birch & Thereasa E. Abrams
(2016): Family meals and adolescent perceptions of parent–child connectedness, Journal of
Family Studies, DOI: 10.1080/13229400.2016.1200115

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2016.1200115

Published online: 18 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjfs20

Download by: [University of Sussex Library] Date: 09 August 2016, At: 14:57
JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2016.1200115

Family meals and adolescent perceptions of parent–child

connectedness
Stephen L. Browna, James Teufelb, David A. Birchc and Thereasa E. Abramsd
a
Health Services and Promotion, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA; bDepartment of Public
Health, Mercyhurst University, Erie, PA, USA; cHealth Science, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA;
d
School of Medicine, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA

Affirming parent–child interactions, leading to Parent–Child ARTICLE HISTORY

Connectedness (PCC), may provide protective factors that support Received 13 November 2015
positive adolescent behaviors and health outcomes; shared family Accepted 6 June 2016
meals are thought to reinforce these interactions. Eight hundred
KEYWORDS
and fifty-five adolescents, ages 9–13, attending six health Adolescents; parent–child
education centers in the US were surveyed regarding their connectedness; family meals;
attitudes about selected interactions they share with their parents. parent–child communication;
This study used the variables of frequency of parent–child health behavior
communication, feeling loved by parents, perceived emotional
support, time spent with parents, and parental involvement in
school to operationalize PCC. With the exception of gender, family
structure, and parental involvement at school, all construct
variables were positively associated with frequency of family
meals. The results of this study expand understanding of the
association of family meals with PCC by investigating the
influence of family constellation on PCC, whether PCC varies by
caregiver and inquiring about the child’s satisfaction with or
desire for alterations in these interactions.

Introduction
Parent–Child Connectedness (PCC) is characterized by the quality of the emotional bond
between parent and child and the degree to which the bond is both mutual and sustained
over time (Lezin, Rolleri, & Taylor, 2004). As children advance into adolescence, they face
challenges such as autonomy, independence, and identity, which are hallmark developmen-
tal tasks for individuation and maturation for this phase of life, yet each must be balanced
with the adolescents’ feelings of social connectedness (Hardway & Fuligini, 2006; Hutchison
& Contributors, 2011; Resnick et al., 1997). PCC, with its recognized protective factors, posi-
tively influences adolescent development and health/wellness-related behavior through sup-
portive relationships that reflect feelings of attachment, parental availability, feeling loved,
emotional support, communication, autonomy granting, parental involvement, and
family cohesion (Blum, 1998; Resnick et al., 1997; Richaud de Minzi, 2006).
Rather than focusing on the individual, PCC represents the ongoing dynamic relation-
ship between parent and child, with both parent and child acknowledged as active agents
in the family dynamic (Kuczynski, 2003; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Researchers such as

CONTACT Stephen L. Brown [email protected]

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. L. BROWN ET AL.

Blum, Rinehart, and Mann (1997) and Fulkerson, Neumark-Sztainer, and Story (2006)
found that feeling connected to parents and family significantly protects both younger
and older adolescents from engaging in potentially unhealthy or risky behaviors. When
PCC is high within a family, the emotional state is one of warmth, love, caring (Blum
et al., 1997; Fletcher, Steinberg, & Williams-Wheeler, 2004; Resnick et al., 1997), and con-
sistent parental involvement in the adolescent’s activities (Pearce, Jones, Schwab-Stone, &
Ruchkin, 2003; Waizenhofer, Buchanan, & Jackson-Newsom, 2004). Conversely, when
PCC is low, the emotional climate is insensitive, leading to diminished levels of communi-
cation and understanding, causing relationships to become distant and strained (Richards
et al., 2004; Van Den Bree, Whitmer, & Pickworth, 2004). Low levels of PCC are believed
to contribute to a variety of adverse consequences, such as the child’s association with
deviant peers and risky behaviors that could be detrimental to health and wellness
(Richards et al., 2004; Van Den Bree et al., 2004).
Adolescents do want close relationships with their parents, and parental involvement is
believed to be a significant factor of PCC (Pearce et al., 2003; Resnick et al., 1997; Trivette
& Anderson, 1995) through nurturance, discipline, monitoring/supervision, and modeling
(Blum, 1998; Compan, Moreno, Ruiz, & Pascaul, 2002; DeVore & Ginsberg, 2005; Fletcher
et al., 2004; Richards et al., 2004; Ungar, 2004). Current investigations on the impact of par-
ental involvement across multiple dimensions of adolescent development over the past
decade indicate that PCC influences the health/wellness of adolescents by reducing psycho-
logical/emotional distress (Barnett, Kibria, Baruch, & Peck, 1991; Barnett, Marshall, & Pleck,
1992; Meadows, 2007; Pearce et al., 2003; Resnick et al., 1997; Wenk, Hardesty, Morgan, &
Blair, 1994) and increasing resilience (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Resnick, 2000; Rew &
Horner, 2003; Ungar, 2004). Based on historical findings, the protective factors associated
with high PCC have been found to negatively impact multiple detrimental health outcomes
among adolescents including depression (Meadows, 2007; Mueller, 2009; Richaud de Minzi,
2006), suicidal thoughts and suicidality (Kidd et al., 2006; Resnick et al., 1997; Slap,
Goodman, & Huang, 2001), low self-esteem, body dissatisfaction, unhealthy weight loss
and eating disorders (Ackard, Neumark-Sztainer, Story, & Perry, 2006; Resnick et al.,
1997), sexual risk behaviors (Henrich, Brookmeyer, & Shahar, 2006; Markham et al., 2003;
Markham et al., 2010; Resnick et al., 1997), adolescent pregnancy (Resnick et al., 1997;
Sen, 2010), and is also believed to be a salient factor in determining how well children
perform in school at both the elementary and secondary levels (Ackard et al., 2006;
Barnett et al., 1991; Barnett et al., 1992; Markham et al., 2003; Resnick et al., 1997;
Richaud de Minzi, 2006; Simmons-Morton & Crump, 2003).
Resnick, Ireland, & Borowski (2004) define protective factors as ‘the events, opportu-
nities, and experiences in the lives of young people that diminish or buffer against the like-
lihood of involvement in behaviors risky to youth and/or to others’ (p. 424.e2). Established
studies focusing on adolescent health report that sharing of family meals supports these
protective factors in adolescent development and are positively correlated to PCC
(Compan et al., 2002; Eisenberg, Neumark-Sztainer, Fulkerson, & Story, 2008; Eisenberg,
Olson, Neumark-Sztainer, Story, & Bearinger, 2004; Fiese, Foley, & Spagnola, 2006;
Fletcher et al., 2004; Fulkerson, Story, et al., 2006; Neumark-Sztainer, Eisenberg, Fulker-
son, Story, & Larson, 2008; Neumark-Sztainer, Story, Ackard, Moe, & Perry, 2000).
Neumark-Sztainer et al. (2000) state that ‘the family meal may be both a marker of and
a vehicle for promoting family connectedness’ (p. 329). Recent investigations on PCC
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 3

have concentrated interest on the theoretical importance of family meals specifically and
how adolescents are impacted by the shared experience. Utilizing a General Systems fra-
mework, Compan et al. (2002) portray the family as ‘an open system of individuals
embodying a bio-psycho-social unit, which, in constant evolution, develops its own
history and living patterns’ (p. 89). Many of these living patterns and family rules are
taught and reinforced as rituals, including the ritual of family meals, with higher frequen-
cies of family meals positively associated with the protective factors that promote healthy
adolescent behaviors and outcomes (Compan et al., 2002; Eisenberg et al., 2004; Eisenberg
et al., 2008; Fiese et al., 2006; Fulkerson, Neumark-Sztainer, et al., 2006; Neumark-Sztainer
et al., 2000; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2008).
With a sample of 9–13 year olds, the current study explored the association between
frequency of family meals, with three descriptive variables and five variables representing
PCC. The constructs of frequency of parent–child communication, feeling loved by
parents, perceived emotional support, time spent with parents, and parental involvement
in school operationalized Parent–Child Connectedness. This study is unique in three
respects: firstly, it investigated the influence of family constellation on PCC, secondly it
investigated whether PCC varies by caregiver (father, mother, or other caregiver), and
thirdly, it not only asked about current patterns of parent–child interaction, but also
asked three questions about the child’s satisfaction with or desire for alterations in
these interactions. There were five hypotheses for this study. In a model with gender,
age, and family constellation, greater frequency of family meals will be associated with:
(1) increased desire for frequency of parent–child communication; (2) feeling more
loved by parents; (3) increased desire for parental involvement at school; (4) more
seeking out parents when upset; and (5) increased desire to spend time with parents.

Methods
Procedures
Data were collected from 855 young adolescents at six health education centers within the
mid-western United States who visited the centers with their schools (see Table 1 for
sample descriptives). Our investigation was approved by Human Subjects and great

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for sample.

Locale of sampling frame
Large metropolitan area Suburb of large Large town (25,000– Small town (2,500– Rural
(>250,000) metropolitan area 250,000) 25,000) (<2,500)
21% 3% 22% 12% 17%
Race/ethnicity of sampling frame
Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian/Pacific Native
Islander American
72% 12% 11% 2% 1%
Age of sample
9 (or younger) 10 11 12 (or older)
15% 28% 33% 24%
Gender of sample
Boys Girls
48% 52%
4 S. L. BROWN ET AL.

care was taken to protect the anonymity of respondents. Trained health education staff
administered the 10-question survey to the students during class time. Each question
was individually projected on a screen at the front of the classroom as well as read
aloud by the classroom instructor. Following a brief review of the instructions, each
child was provided with a hand-held, electronic data collection device used to register
answers to the study questions. If students wished to opt out of participation, they
could simply remain in the room and not answer the questions or ask to leave the room.

Measures
Content and face validity of the questionnaire were established by an expert advisory panel
that included a child psychologist, parents, associate director within the US Department of
Education, two content experts, two health education center directors, and the research
team. The survey and script were revised following pilot tests and qualitative feedback
from two classes at one of the participating health education centers. Because individual
items were not summed to a scale, internal consistency reliability is not applicable.
Test–retest reliability was not measured.
Frequency of family meals was assessed as well as descriptive variables including
gender, age, and family constellation. Family constellation was defined as the custodial
authorities with whom the child lived (i.e. both parents, only mother, only father,
someone other than a parent). Construct variables of frequency of parent–child communi-
cation, feeling loved by parents, perceived emotional support, time spent with parents, and
parental involvement in school were established by the expert advisory panel in part to
secure data reflecting adolescent feelings and attitudes regarding parent–child inter-
actions. Additional demographic information was gathered from students and schools
including race and school attended. The communication, feeling loved, and involvement
at school constructs were measured with ordinal variables, the remaining variables were
nominal, including family meals which was a frequency.

Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for items such as gender, age, and with whom the
child resides. Chi-square tests were also computed for some demographic and survey
items. Survey items that could be dichotomized were used as dependent variables in multi-
variate logistic regression models.

Results
Shared family meals
Approximately half of the sample reported their family shares meals on a daily basis.
One in five children reported they hardly ever or never eat together as a family. Data
indicates that boys are more likely than girls to report sharing daily family meals and
that older students report greater frequency of shared family meals than younger stu-
dents (Table 2).
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 5

Table 2. Survey questions, proportions, and significant X 2 blocks.

Gender Age
Total boys girls 9 10 11 12/13
Who do you live with?
Both my parents 73% 71% 74% 72% 73% 74% 69%
My mom 20% 20% 20% 18% 24% 18% 19%
My dad 4% 6% 3% 6% 1% 5% 7%
Someone else 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 5%
How often does everyone at your house eat together?
At least one meal a day 53% 58% 49% 44% 45% 58% 61%
A few meals a week 28% 24% 30% 34% 34% 26% 19%
Hardly ever or never 19% 18% 21% 22% 21% 16% 20%
How often does your parent (or parents) ask you about what is going on in your life?
A lot more than I want 38% 39% 35% 32% 36% 39% 41%
A little more than I want 17% 16% 19% 12% 15% 17% 22%
About as often as I want 31% 32% 31% 36% 34% 31% 24%
A little or a lot less than I want 14% 13% 15% 20% 15% 13% 13%
I feel that my mom loves me:
A lot 84% 84% 85% 89% 87% 85% 77%
Some 8% 7% 7% 3% 6% 9% 11%
A little or not at all 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 2% 8%
My mom is not in my life 4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4%
I feel that my dad loves me:
A lot 78% 78% 77% 74% 81% 78% 76%
Some 7% 7% 8% 9% 7% 6% 10%
A little of not at all 7% 7% 7% 8% 5% 7% 8%
My dad is not in my life 8% 8% 8% 9% 7% 9% 6%
When you are upset, who do you go to first?
My mom 49% 53% 45% 52% 55% 51% 36%
My dad 15% 20% 10% 20% 13% 14% 18%
A friend 21% 11% 31% 20% 19% 20% 25%
Someone else 15% 16% 14% 8% 13% 15% 21%
How would you like to spend time with your parents?
I like to spend time with both my mom and my dad 65% 66% 64% 66% 70% 66% 55%
I like to spend time with only my mom 11% 9% 12% 11% 12% 12% 8%
I like to spend time with only my dad 8% 9% 7% 7% 5% 11% 10%
I don’t like to spend time with either of my parents 5% 5% 5% 2% 4% 4% 10%
I don’t know 11% 11% 12% 14% 9% 8% 17%
How involved would you like your parent (or parents) to be at your school?
A lot more involved 25% 24% 26% 38% 26% 26% 14%
A little more involved 18% 17% 20% 17% 22% 19% 13%
The same amount as now 34% 36% 33% 27% 31% 37% 40%
A little or a lot less involved 23% 23% 21% 18% 21% 18% 33%
Note: shaded blocks are groups of significantly different proportions based on X 2 analysis at p < 0.05.

Adolescent perception of frequency of parent–child communication

More than half of the students sampled reported their parents talk to them more than they
wish. Another 31% said their parents talk to them about as much as they want, with 13%
reporting their parents talk with them less than they want (Table 2).
Hypothesis 1: While gender, age and family constellation had no significant effect on
desired frequency of parent–child communication, adolescents who eat occasionally
with their families desired less frequent communication than those who eat together
every day (Table 3).

Adolescent perception of feeling loved by parent/s

Most students reported at least one parent in their lives. Of those with both parents in their
lives, the large majority feel their mothers and their fathers love them a lot; 12 and 13 year
 6
S. L. BROWN ET AL.
Table 3. Logistic regression.
Parent–child Involvement at
communication Feeling loved School Go to first Like to spend time
Want parent more Either/both parents
Want more talks vs. Mom loves little/ Dad loves little/some involved vs. same/ Either parent vs. vs. neither/don’t
same/less some vs. a lot vs. a lot less others know
Variable B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B)
constant −1.64 0.20** −2.60 0.07** −1.95 0.14** 0.31 1.37 −0.95 2.56* −2.09 8.33**
Gender:
male 0.10 1.11 0.18 1.20 0.06 1.06 −0.20 0.82 0.87 2.38** 0.10 1.10
female (comparison)
Age:
12/13 −0.47 0.63 0.81 2.24* 0.01 1.01 −1.22 0.29** −0.93 0.38** −0.85 0.43*
11 −0.37 0.70 −0.10 0.90 −0.18 0.84 −0.43 0.63 −0.41 0.63 0.18 1.11
10 −0.45 0.64 −0.07 0.93 −0.72 0.47 −0.23 0.79 −0.22 0.80 0.01 1.01
9 (comparison)
Live with:
dad −0.86 0.43 0.89 2.44 0.13 1.14 0.25 1.80 −0.41 0.66 0.55 1.72
mom 0.33 1.39 0.62 1.87* 0.81 2.25** −0.27 0.76 −0.46 0.62* −0.35 0.92
neither Dropped due to small cell sizes
both (comparison)
Family meals:
hardly ever/never 0.51 1.67* 0.90 2.47** 0.81 2.25** −0.03 0.97 −0.71 0.49** −0.94 0.39**
few times a week 0.08 1.08 0.13 1.14 0.43 1.54 0.20 1.22 −0.32 0.73 −0.04 0.96
every day (comparison)
R2 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.08
Note: B and Exp(B): *=p < 0.05. **=p < 0.01.
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 7

olds were somewhat less likely to report their mothers loved them a lot than the younger
students. There were no statistical differences indicated relative to gender. Children who
lived with someone other than a parent were less likely to believe that their fathers loved
them a lot. Additionally, those who said their parents talk to them less than they would like
were also less likely to believe that their mothers and their fathers love them a lot (see
Table 2 for all proportions).
Hypothesis 2: frequency of family meals was associated with feeling loved by both
mothers and fathers. Additionally, older children and those who lived with their
mothers expressed feeling greater love from their mothers compared to those who lived
with both parents. Those who lived with their mothers felt more loved by their fathers.
There were no gender differences (Table 3).

Adolescent perception of parental involvement at school

More than two in five students surveyed reported they would like their parents to be more
involved at their school. One-third of those surveyed preferred their parents’ current level
of involvement and 23% said they would like their parents to be a little or a lot less
involved. Younger children were more likely to report they would like their parents to
be a lot more involved (Table 2).
Hypothesis 3: there were no significant differences in desire for parental involvement in
school based on frequency of family meals (Table 3).

Adolescent perception of perceived emotional support

Half of the adolescents surveyed report they go to their mother first if they are upset, fol-
lowed by ‘a friend’. Fathers tied with ‘someone else’ for the lowest response. Boys were
more likely to report they go to their mothers or fathers. Girls were more likely to
report they would seek out a friend if feeling upset. Older adolescents were more likely
to report they would go to ‘someone else’ and less likely to say they would seek out
their mother (see Table 2).
Hypothesis 4: our data indicate the less frequently a family eats together, the less likely
that the adolescent would go to either parent if feeling upset, and the more likely to go to a
friend or someone else (Table 3).

Adolescent perception of time spent with parents

When asked how they would like to spend time with their parents, two-thirds of those sur-
veyed chose both parents followed by 12% indicating only their mother, 9% indicating
only their father, and 6% reporting they don’t like to spend time with either parent. As
may be expected, larger proportions of the sample selected the choice that corresponded
to whom they live with (Table 2).
Hypothesis 5: kids who said their family rarely eats together were less likely to
want to spend time with both parents than those who eat together weekly or daily
(Table 3).
8 S. L. BROWN ET AL.

Discussion
The data obtained for this study indicates that frequency of shared family meals has a sig-
nificantly positive association with the constructs for adolescent perception of frequency
of parent–child communication, feeling love, emotional support, and spending time with
parents. Our data indicates that boys were more likely to report greater frequency of
shared family meals than girls, as were older students compared to the young students
within the sample. There was no significant influence on frequency of shared family
meals indicated for family constellation.
Interestingly, this study also showed no association with desire for more parental
involvement at school. It may be that involvement at school is a different construct.
Whereas desire for parent–child communication, time spent with parents, and
emotional support and love are related to perceptions of personal attachment to
parents, excessive parental involvement at school may be seen as infringing on feelings
of autonomy. This hypothesis has some support in the finding that the older children
(likely at more advanced stages of development) in our sample had less desire for par-
ental involvement at school.
This study was not a random sample although the data appears to be representative
for young adolescents in public schools in the United States. Additionally, the cross-sec-
tional nature of this study limits the ability to establish causal relationships and we must
acknowledge the possibility of confounding in the association between these variables
related to parent–child interaction and support. In cross-sectional studies, there is a
possibility that actual causes may be reversed. It may be that if there is good parent–
child connectedness those families eat together more often because they enjoy each
other’s company. For example, when examining the relationship between family
meals and risky adolescent behavior (alcohol/tobacco use), White and Halliwell
(2011) found the direction of causation varied by gender. In all likelihood, the associ-
ation among these variables is reciprocal. Additionally, because of concerns about the
accuracy of self-report, the investigators did not collect individual-level SES data and
therefore could not test whether SES variables are confounding factors influencing
PCC within the sample.
Another potential avenue for future research is the validation of a scale for PCC. For
this study, we treated each item as a separate construct, but factor analysis might be
used to reduce items into fewer subscales. Best practice in scale development would
require population-generated questions, expert panel feedback, pilot testing, that all
items use the same scale, that there be a minimum of three items for each construct,
split sample exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability testing (DeVellis,
2011). Based on our preliminary findings, we suspect there would be three such subscales
from the child’s perspective: current level of PCC, child’s desire for private interaction with
parents, and child’s desire for parental involvement in their public activities (e.g. school).
Triangulation would be improved by also including a concurrent parent report scale and
perhaps objective evidence.
Although the causal relationship is not clear, the results of this study add to our under-
standing of the positive association between frequency of family meals and children’s
sense of connectedness to their parental figures mentioned elsewhere (Compan et al.,
2002; Eisenberg et al., 2004; Eisenberg et al., 2008; Fiese et al., 2006; Fulkerson,
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 9

Neumark-Sztainer, et al., 2006; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2000; Neumark-Sztainer et al.,

2008), most notably, a four-year longitudinal study showing that frequency of family
meals was positively associated with adolescents’ perceptions of parent–child communi-
cation (Fulkerson et al., 2010). In other words, as they aged, adolescents from homes
that had more family meals together also had more positive feelings about talking to
their parents. Although more than one earlier study has demonstrated that frequent
meal sharing is associated with greater PCC, we cannot tell from these studies if the
current level of reported interaction is parent driven, child driven, or mutually agreed
upon. This study uniquely showed that frequency of shared meals is also associated
with child-expressed desire for private parental interaction, though not necessarily invol-
vement in public activities (i.e. school). This finding points to the need for qualitative
research to learn what efforts these adolescents made to improve PCC and to what
degree decisions affecting mealtimes, school involvement, and feelings of love and
emotional support rest primarily with the parents or are shared. Further, although no
associations were observed between meal frequency or child-expressed desire for parental
interaction and family constellation (i.e. whom a child lives with), this study also con-
firmed, as might be expected, an association between feeling loved by one or both
parents and type of family constellation. Though not directly related to our hypotheses,
an unexpected finding that may deserve future investigation is why children who live
with their mothers believe their fathers love them more than children who live with
their fathers.
It is important for those in helping professions working with adolescents, such as tea-
chers, school counselors, social workers, health educators, and dieticians, to understand
that frequent participation in family meals provides parents with an important oppor-
tunity to support PCC through modeling (Bandura, 2001, 2005), monitoring (DeVore
& Ginsberg, 2005), communication (Fiese et al., 2006), caring, and interest in activities
and problems (Ackard et al., 2006), with higher frequencies of family meals correlated
with positive health-related behaviors and health/wellness outcomes for their children
(Eisenberg et al., 2004; Fulkerson, Neumark-Sztainer, et al., 2006; Fulkerson, Story,
et al., 2006; Sen, 2010). Adolescents who feel connected to their parents and family
benefit from the protective factors associated with PCC, influencing both younger and
older adolescents toward healthy behavioral choices as opposed to engaging in poten-
tially risky, unhealthy behaviors (Blum, 1998; Blum et al., 1997; Fulkerson, Neumark-
Sztainer, et al., 2006; Fulkerson, Story, et al., 2006; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2008; Sen,
2010). Modern families routinely struggle to balance the demands on their time. As
parents struggle with work demands (Allen, Shockley, & Poteat, 2008; Offer & Schnei-
der, 2007; Tubs, Roy, & Burton, 2005) and their adolescent children become more
involved in academic and extra-curricular activities (Fulkerson, Neumark-Sztainer,
et al., 2006), shared mealtimes is often one of those family rituals first challenged and
then abandoned (Compan et al., 2002). Professionals working with families have the
opportunity to educate parents about the important benefits of shared family meals,
as well as encourage adolescents to be receptive to the supportive interactions associated
with family meals. By doing so, they will actively foster and reinforce strong parent–
child connectedness and the potential for their adolescent students to make healthier
behavioral choices.
10 S. L. BROWN ET AL.

Conclusion
Our data supports a positive association between reported frequency of family meals and
parent–child connectedness and adds to our understanding of PCC in a few unique ways.
We found PCC and the association between PCC and family meals varied based on family
constellation. Additionally, this study uniquely framed questions not about the current
pattern of parent–child interactions, but child’s satisfaction with or desire for alterations
in this interaction, generally observing that the children who eat together most frequently
with their parents are also the ones who desire the most interaction with their parents,
though additional research is needed to establish the causal direction of this association.
We also found decreasing desire for interaction with increasing age.

Funding
This work was supported by the Kids Health-Nemours.

References
Ackard, D. M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Perry, C. (2006). Parent-child connectedness
and behavioral and emotional health among adolescents. American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 30(1), 59–66.
Allen, T. D., Shockley, K. M., & Poteat, L. F. (2008). Workplace factors associated with family
dinners. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 336–342.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review Psychology, 52,
1–26.
Bandura, A. (2005). The primacy of self-regulation in health promotion. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 54(2), 245–254.
Barnett, R. C., Kibria, N., Baruch, G. K., & Peck, J. H. (1991). Adult daughter-parent relationships
and their associations with daughter’s psychological distress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53,
29–43.
Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1992). Adult son-parent relationships and their associ-
ations with son’s psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 505–525.
Blum, J. W. (1998). Adolescent health: Priorities for the next millennium. Maternal and Child
Health Journal, 2(3), 181–187.
Blum, J. W. & Rinehart, P. M., & Mann, P. (1997). Reducing the risk: Connections that make a
difference in the lives of youth. Youth Studies Australia, 16(4), 37–53.
Compan, E., Moreno, J., Ruiz, M. T., & Pascaul, E. (2002). Doing things together: Adolescent health
and family rituals. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health, 56(2), 89–94.
DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, pp. 1–216.
DeVore, E. R., & Ginsberg, K. R. (2005). The protective effects of good parenting on adolescents.
Current Opinions in Pediatrics, 17(4), 460–465.
Eisenberg, M. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Fulkerson, J. A., & Story, M. (2008). Family meals and sub-
stance use: Is there a long –term protective association? Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 151–156.
Eisenberg, M. E., Olson, R. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Bearinger, L. H. (2004).
Correlations between family meals and psychosocial well-being among adolescents. Archives
of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 158, 792–796.
Fiese, B. H., Foley, K. P., & Spagnola, M. (2006). Routine and ritual elements in family mealtimes:
Contexts for child well-being and family identity. New Directions for Child & Adolescent
Development, Spring(11), 67–89. Retrieved from http://www.interscience.wiley.com
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 11

Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L. & Williams-Wheeler, M. (2004). Parental influences on adolescent

problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin & Kerr. Child Development, 75, 781–796.
Fulkerson, J. A., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Story, M. (2006). Adolescent and parent views of family
meals. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106(4), 526–532.
Fulkerson, J. A., Pasch, K. E., Stigler, M. H., Farbakhsh, K., Perry, C. L., & Komro, K. A. (2010).
Longitudinal associations between family dinner and adolescent perceptions of parent–child
communication among racially diverse urban youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3),
261–270.
Fulkerson, J. A., Story, M., Mellin, A. Leffert, N., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & French, S. (2006). Family
dinner meal frequency and adolescent development: Relationships and developmental assets and
high-risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 337–345.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding
development in the face of risk. Annual Review Public Health, 26, 399–419.
Hardway, C., & Fuligini, A. J. (2006). Dimensions of family connectedness among adolescents of
Mexican, Chinese, and European Backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1246–1258.
Henrich, C. C., Brookmeyer, K. A., & Shahar, G. (2006). Supportive relationships and sexual risk
behavior in adolescence: An ecological-transactional approach. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
31(3), 296–297.
Hutchison, E. D., & Contributors (2011). Dimensions of human behavior: The changing life course.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kidd, S., Henrich, C. C., Brookmeyer, K. A., Davidson, L., King, R. A., & Shahar, G. (2006). The
social context of adolescent suicide attempts: Effects of parent, peer, and school social relations.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 36(4), 386–395.
Kuczynski, L. (2003). Handbook of dynamics in parent child relations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Lezin, N., Rolleri, L. & Taylor, J. (2004). Parent-child connectedness: Implications for research, inter-
ventions, and positive impacts on adolescent health. Santa Cruz, CA: ETR Associates.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child inter-
action. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality,
and social development (pp. 1–101). New York, NY: Wiley.
Markham, C. M., Lormand, D., Gloppen, K. M., Peskin, M. F., Flores, B., Low, B., & House, L. D.
(2010). Connectedness as a predictor for sexual and reproductive health outcomes for youth.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, S23–S41.
Markham, C. M., Tortolero, S. R., Escobar-Chaves, S. L., Parcel, G. S., Harrist, R., & Addy, R. C.
(2003). Family connectedness and sexual risk taking among urban youth attending alternative
high schools. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35(4), 174–179.
Meadows, S. O. (2007). Evidence of parallel pathways: Gender similarity in the impact of social
support on adolescent depression and delinquency. Social Forces, 85(3), 1143–1167.
Mueller, C. E. (2009). Protective factors as barriers to depression in gifted and non-gifted adoles-
cents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 3–14. Retrieved from http://www.sagepublications.com
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Eisenberg, M. E., Fulkerson, J. A., Story, M., & Larson, N. I. (2008). Family
meals and disordered eating in adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 162(1),
17–22.
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Ackard, D., Moe, J., & Perry, C. (2000). “The family meal”: Views
of adolescents. Journal of Nutrition Education, 32(6), 329–334.
Offer, S., & Schneider, F. (2007). The emotional dimensions of family time and their implications
for work-family balance. Conference paper, annual conference of the American Sociologic
Association.
Pearce, M. J., Jones, S. M., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Ruchkin, V. (2003). The protective effects of
religiousness and parent involvement on the development of conduct problems among youth
exposed to violence. Child Development, 74, 1682–1696.
Resnick, M. D. (2000). Protective factors, resiliency, and healthy youth development. Adolescent
Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, 11(1), 157–164.
12 S. L. BROWN ET AL.

Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. M., Jones, J., Tabor, J., … Urdry, J. R.
(1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on ado-
lescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823–832.
Resnick, M. D., Ireland, M. & Borowski, I. (2004). Youth violence perpetration: what protects?
What predicts? Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 35(5), 424.e1–424.e10.
Rew, L. & Horner, S. D. (2003). Youth resilience framework for reducing health-risk behaviors in
adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 18(6), 379–388.
Richards, M. H., Larson, R., Miller, B. V., Luo Z., Sims B., Parrella D. P., & McCauley C. (2004).
Risky and protective contexts and exposure to violence in urban African American young ado-
lescents. Journal of Clinical Adolescent Psychology, 33, 138–148.
Richaud de Minzi, M. C. (2006). Loneliness and depression in middle and late childhood: The
relationship to attachment and parental styles. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167(2), 189–
210.
Sen, B. (2010). The relationship between frequency of family dinner and adolescent problem beha-
viors after adjusting for other family characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 187–196.
Simmons-Morton, B. G., & Crump, A. D. (2003). Association of parental involvement and social
competence with school adjustment and engagement among sixth graders. Journal of School
Health, 73(3), 121–126.
Slap, G., Goodman, E., & Huang, B. (2001). Adoption as a risk factor for attempted suicide during
adolescence. Pediatrics, 108(2), 1–8. Retrieved from www.pediatrics.org
Trivette, P., & Anderson, E. (1995). The effects of four components of parental involvement on
eighth grade student achievement. School Psychology Review, 24(2), 299–317.
Tubs, C. Y., Roy, K. M., & Burton, L. M. (2005). Family ties: Constructing family time in low income
families. Family Process, 44(1), 77–91.
Ungar, M. (2004). The importance of parents and other caregivers to the resilience of high risk ado-
lescents. Family Process, 43(1), 23–41.
Van Den Bree, M. B. M., Whitmer, M. D., & Pickworth, W. B. (2004). Predictors of smoking devel-
opment in a population-based sample of adolescents: A prospective study. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 35(3), 172–181.
Waizenhofer, R. N., Buchanan, C. M. & Jackson-Newsom, J. (2004). Mothers’ and fathers’ knowl-
edge of adolescents’ daily activities: Its sources and its links with adolescent adjustment. Journal
of Family Psychology, 18, 348–360.
Wenk, D., Hardesty, C. L., Morgan, C. S. & Blair, S. I. (1994). The influence of parental involvement
on the wellbeing of sons and daughters. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 229–234.
White, J., & Halliwell, E. (2011). Family meal frequency and alcohol and tobacco use in adolescence:
Testing reciprocal effects. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 735–749.