Family social norms and expectations of others are an important factor in explaining intention and behaviour in different social contexts, including family meal social interaction behaviour (Cong et al, 2013; Prochaska, 2013; and Tyler and Blader, 2013). Cong et al (2013); and Kagitcibasi (2013) suggested that family social norms at meal times, measures the influence of the family social environment, and are often operationalised as perceived social pressure or
97
expectations of other family members in general (subjective norms) or from specific groups or individuals (normative beliefs). A study conducted by Herman (2014) found that subjective norms influenced restaurant eating decisions only for the case of eating with friends, and not when eating alone. Yi et al. (2013) noted that within the family, expectations and pressure from the parents is more significant or vital; stressing that parents generally and mothers particularly, seem to be most influential concerning children’s food attitudes, choices and healthy eating behaviour at family meal times. Research conducted by Barnes et al (2012) found that attitudes towards and consumption of fruit at family meal times were most favourable among children who were being raised with an authoritative parenting style than those brought up in authoritarian and neglectful homes. The views of Yi et al. (2013) that mothers’ pressure influences children food attitudes are too generic as in some societies, where food scarcity is eminent, such pressures are absolutely unnecessary. A number of studies have suggested that families based on the social groups and even religious norms may manifest different approaches as to who should serve as the arbiter at the dinner table (Rockwell, 2011; Cohn, 2013; and Weinberg and Newmahr, 2014).
Fairclough (2013); and Prochaska (2013) pointed out that the family norm construct may also include descriptive elements of other preferences, attitudes or behaviour. Prochaska (2013) noted that, though social norms deal with others’ social approval or disapproval (‘the norms of ought’), descriptive norms deals with perceptions of what others do, think or feel about a specific behavioural phenomena such as eating, drinking, buying, or driving (‘the norm of is’). Prochaska stressed that people may experience social pressure from other family members at the dinner table to perform certain behaviour because they believe that it is important that others also see them performing the same behaviour and have a positive attitude toward it. Consequently, descriptive norms are considered to influence family members’ intention and behaviour at meal times in several areas including family meal social interaction behaviour (Cong et al, 2013; McKenzie-Mohr, 2013; and Prochaska, 2013). The notion that certain family members may face pressure from others can be true for certain social groups, but generalisation may tamper with the validity of the argument. Consequently, undertaken a study that critically looks at the impact of social pressure at the dinner table is essential.
Lineburg and Gearheart (2013); Maholmes (2014); and Merrill et al (2014) suggested that family mealtimes are critically important for creating familial bonds, socialisation of
98
behavioural norms and teaching life skills. Merrill et al (2014) reiterated that family meal social interaction behaviour at dinnertime is a cornerstone of family life across multiple cultures. A number of researchers have examined family meal social interaction behaviour at mealtimes and posited that most families focuses on a variety of conversational goals and child outcomes, including emotion regulation, well-being, and narrative skills (Oades-Sese et al, 2013; Armstrong et al, 2014; and De Backer et al, 2015). Merrill et al (2014) noted that one of the most evident goals of family meal social interaction at dinnertimes involves socialisation of politeness routines and behavioural norms. This view is also supported by Koh and Wang (2013); Merrill et al (2014); and Segrin and Flora (2014), who suggested that family meal social interaction behaviour at dinnertime is an important site for the sharing of stories of one's day and the shared family past. In comparison, other researchers have pointed out that family mealtimes are a site for teaching children general knowledge about the world around them and inculcating basic family norms into them (Edwards and Mercer, 2013; and Zbenovich and Lerner, 2013). It is evident that only a few studies, including: Brewer (2013); Lindon (2013); and Lindon (2014) have explicitly examined family meal social interaction behaviour in a group context, although there are good reasons to speculate that family meal social interaction behaviour may differ from social group to social group based on their group norms and traditions.
Rhodes et al (2014); and Turner et al (2014) viewed the descriptive norm construct as the children’s perception of preferences (as liking in the attitude construct) of their parents in the same way as group norms within the theory of planned behaviour. A study of meta-analysis by Cairns et al (2013) demonstrated that a small but significant correlation exists between parents’ and their children’s food preferences. Cairns et al noted that parents or the person in the family responsible for family meals often prefer healthy and nutritional food. However, taste seems to be preferential for children than nutrition when making food choices (Shutts et al, 2013; Standen-Holmes and Liem, 2013; and Nestle, 2014). Consequently, discrepancies exists in preferences and the norms established by the family in their meal social interaction behaviour, and between parents and their children (Baird et al, 2014; Berlin et al, 2014; and Bott and Spillius, 2014). Therefore, this study will unravel these discrepancies.
3.6 The importance of meal sharing in families and associated groups
Whitehead (2014) defined meal sharing as any food consumption event where an individual is observed eating food in a household in which he or she can either be a member of the
99
family or not a member. Helman (2014) viewed meal sharing as the practice of sharing food and eating together in a social group such as a family and/or other social relations. Helman emphasised that meal sharing is central to defining and sustaining the family as a social unit. Willetts (2014) referenced ancient Greece as a social setting that viewed meal sharing as
oikos (family), meaning those who feed together. In another study of families’ meal socialisation processes in the Micronesian island of Fais, De Backer et al (2015) concluded that family roles of father and mother are rooted in the mealtime functions of provider and preparer of food, and extended family relationships are maintained through redistribution of important food items, for example, yams. De Backer et al (2015) emphasised that the children in such social settings are socialised into the importance of food sharing in the family unit through accompanying others in continuous cross-household visits that involve preparing, offering, and consuming food. Tustin (2013) emphasised that children are also warned to eat only with close relatives or face dire consequences. It is important to emphasise that though meal sharing is considered essential for socialisation values in many social groups or families, everyday realities indicate that members are not always eager to share their food items (Anderson, 2013; and Cohen, 2013). The proposition of the theorist that extended family relations are maintained only through the re-distribution of food items is too simplistic and parochial as a number of studies have shown that extended families live with and share the meals of other family members, who are the prime providers and preparers of the food they eat (Menon, 2013; Bogenschneider, 2014; and Abarca and Salas, 2015).
In a study conducted by Cohen (2013) among the Kaluli people of Papua New Guinea established that, young children are socialised through prompting to obtain food from another person either by issuing a demand or by appealing to the person to feel sorry for them. In a similar study, Holmes (2013) based on children in different Samoan families, found that, one of the first words that young Samoan children pronounce is the affect-marked first-person pronoun ita (poor me), which they use to beg for food. Holmes emphasised that Samoan children acquire this word before the neutral form of the first-person pronoun, indicating the pragmatic role of food sharing in language development. Mercado (2013) noted that children who fail to notice when food is ready for eating may be taunted and find nothing left to eat. Holmes (2013) pointed out that Samoan families become wary of how food is distributed and display a pattern of covert grumbling and gossip over others’ stinginess or greed. In a study conducted in Northern Vietnam, Barkan and Bryjak (2013) found that as in other patriarchal societies, gender plays a role in food distribution as girls are reprimanded for their greed,
100
while boys come to expect prime selections of food. These studies though provides a paradigm of how food is shared in different social settings and among different social groups, it does not provide a detailed analysis of the impact of food sharing would have on a family’s socialisation process (Cohen, 2013; Holmes, 2013; and Barkan and Bryjak, 2013).
Larson et al (2013) noted that in many communities, meal sharing involves eating together at the same time. Skocpol (2013); Spigel (2013); and Melton (2014) suggested that for at least the past three decades, the ideal in the United States and Western Europe has been for family members to come together for the evening meal. Spigel (2013); and Melton (2014) stressed that when children violate this ideal by beginning to eat before all family members are seated at the dinner table, they may be explicitly reprimanded. However, Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik (2013); and Santorum (2014) noted that dinnertime where everyone sits at a common table is a vanishing ideal for many families in the United States, in the face of busy schedules of working parents and highly engaged children involved in a plethora of extracurricular activities that leave little room for meal sharing. In their study of American family dinnertimes, Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik (2013) found that mothers and children sometimes dined before the father returned home, or that children ate before their parents, often while watching television. Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik stressed that even when families managed to eat together, children often sought to leave the dinner table as soon as possible rather than linger and interact with their parents, leading to extended negotiations about commitments to remain together at the meal. The arguments of the theorists is too parochial as their entire study is based on United States and proper review of meal sharing among families in other social groups and setting is necessary to show a clearer picture of the meal situations in other families and cultures (Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik, 2013; Spigel, 2013; and Melton, 2014). Ferzacca et al (2013) pointed out that in certain social settings, the ideal is not for family members to always eat together, but rather for the children to be socialised into meal sharing that involves a social order, whereby certain members of the family eat before others, according to generation, gender, or social rank. A study conducted in China by Ching (2013) showed that older-generation family members take food before the younger generation, and on formal occasions when guests are present, he reiterated that the children may even be excluded from the dining table until the adults are finished, or are seated at a table separate from the adults. In another study conducted by Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik (2013) among Samoan families found that, older children are expected to help young untitled adults to
101
prepare and serve meals, pointing out that during important meals, older, titled adults generally eat the main meal before untitled adults and children, although they may bring a very young child next to them to share their food. Nonetheless, Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik suggested that during more intimate family mealtimes, adults and children may eat at the same time. A similar study conducted by Tate (2013) indicated that the same pattern holds for the egalitarian “Matsingenka” living in the Peruvian Amazon, who expects the men to eat before women and children when several family units assemble together, but in smaller nuclear family unit, the entire family eats their meal at the same time. The argument proposed by the theorists is similar to what is obtained in Sierra Leone. Consequently, unravelling these discrepancies is germane to providing a broader picture of family meal sharing in the Sierra Leonean context (Ching, 2013; Ferzacca et al, 2013; and Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik, 2013).
Rice and Prince (2013); and Lyson (2014) suggested that families and communities differ in moral and social priorities surrounding food quality and amount of food according to generation, gender, and social rank. A study conducted by Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik (2013) found that at Italian family mealtimes, parents favoured children over themselves in the distribution of food. In another study conducted (Ogbu, 2013) in the United States showed that parents emphasise that children should not take food at the expense of other family members but rather should leave enough for all. Spigel (2013) reiterated that socialisation into meal sharing is also socialisation into socio-cultural embodiments of generation, gender, and other social positionings, emphasising that embedded in the socialisation of meal sharing are messages regarding the morality of food distribution and consumption and the rights of adults and children to determine how, when, and how much family members will eat. The notion of the theorists that families differ in their moral and social priorities when sharing meal at the dinner table reflects the Sierra Leonean society, where different researchers have purported that the head of the family, usually the husband, is given the lion share of the meal (Folsom, 2013; Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik, 2013; and Gilbert, 2014).