Retrospective reports of coercive control food parenting practices during childhood are related to eating behaviors in adulthood: A latent profile analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food parenting practices are parents' actions that influence their child's eating habits and food intake. Coercive control food parenting practices are behaviors that seek to satisfy parental desires concerning their child's eating. These practices (including emotional regulation, pressure to eat, food as a reward, restriction for health, and restriction for weight) can have detrimental effects on children's eating behaviors and diet quality. Using a person-centered approach, the present study examined whether experiencing controlling food-related parenting practices as a child relates to eating behaviors, food liking, and food intake in adulthood. Participants were 441 French-Canadian adults (50.2 % female; mean age = 42.7 years). A latent profile analysis (LPA) empirically identified three subgroups of individuals based on patterns of controlling food-related practices used by their parents during childhood. The "high control" subgroup (n = 47) reported more emotional eating, cognitive restraint, and disinhibition than the "moderate control with restriction for health" subgroup (n = 200), which reported higher levels of these behaviors than the "low control" subgroup (n = 194). The "high control" subgroup also reported less intuitive eating and a higher intake frequency of both savory and sweet foods than participants of the two other profiles, which did not differ from each other on these outcomes. Interestingly, liking for savory and sweet foods did not significantly differ among the three groups. Overall, results indicate that exposure to less controlling food parenting practices during childhood is associated with more positive eating behaviors and healthier food intake in adulthood.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".