REPORT

Observations of Parent-Child Co-Shoppers in

Supermarkets: Childrens Involvement in Food
Selections, Parental Yielding, and Refusal Strategies
Maureen ODougherty, PhD; Mary Story, PhD, RD; Jamie Stang, PhD, MPH, RD

ABSTRACT
The study aimed to collect descriptive information on the decision-making processes of adult
shoppers around food purchases when young children are present. Anthropological field observations
were conducted on adult-child grocery shoppers. Eleven supermarkets in the Minneapolis-St. Paul
metropolitan region. A convenience sample (n 142) of adult-child shoppers at 8 budget and 3
deluxe supermarkets located in diverse urban and suburban areas. Observations registered adult-child
interactions over food selections, including parental yielding or refusal strategies and child engage-
ment in shopping. Means and frequencies were calculated for food items considered. In 67 (50.4%)
of the total 133 observations, a child initiated a request. Half (55.2%) of the requests were for sweets
or snacks. Nearly half (47.8%) of adults yielded to the childs request. Brands and marketing
techniques appeared to be a factor in 28.6% of selections. The most frequent adult refusals either
provided an explanation or ignored the request. Adults yield to childrens requests for sweets and
snacks nearly as often as they refuse them. However, effective refusal strategies are used by many
adults. Opportunities exist in the grocery store for adults to reinforce young childrens interest in
food and nutrition.
Key Words: child nutrition, child feeding, parenting, grocery shopping
(J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006;38:183-188)

INTRODUCTION process of food selection and ultimately determines what to

The dramatic increase in childhood overweight1 calls for
better understanding of the environmental and behavioral
factors2,3 affecting childrens food preferences. One envi-
ronmental factor understood to shape childrens food pref-
erences is food advertising.4,5 Children are a sought-after
market6 estimated to bring in $300 billion in yearly sales
as direct spenders and by influencing their parents spend-
ing.7 More than half the 20,000-40,000 ads that children
may view per year are of foods.8 Of the $7.3 billion spent on
food ads in 1999, $2.5 billion were ads for breakfast cereals,
candy and gum, soft drinks, and snacks.9 Ad viewing of
foods is associated with childrens food preferences.10,11
Behavioral perspectives maintain the centrality of par-
ents in the formation of young childrens food preferences,
by exposing children to food and their modeling
practices.12-16 Indeed, the bottom line for the home food
environment is the parent or guardian who mediates the
Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, Uni-
versity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Address for correspondence: Maureen ODougherty, Postdoctoral Fellow, Division of
Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 South 2nd
Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55454; Phone: 612-626-8878; Fax: 612-624-
0315; E-mail: odougherty@epi.umn.edu
2006 SOCIETY FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION
doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2005.11.034
purchase or not. Yet children influence what food is ac-
quired in a household. Past research has shown parents
yielding to childrens food purchase requests 45% to 65% of
the time.17-20
These research findings may, in part, reflect trends in
parenting styles away from authoritarian or restrictive par-
enting. Contemporary parenting styles, both permissive and
authoritative, appear to be associated with granting requests
for food.21-23 Parents and children also spend more time
shopping. Among 3- to 5-year-olds, the amount of time
spent shopping (at any store) rose 45% from 1981-1997,
from 2.35 hours to 3.44 hours per week. For 6- to 8-year-
olds the increase was 168%, from 0.59 hours to 2.38 hours
per week.24 Carruth et al22 found that although parents
reported frequently refusing childrens requests, they also
often asked children their preferences as they co-shopped.
By the age of 2, children make consumer decisions.25 The
ways that adult coshopping practices socialize children as
consumers of food and other products remain largely
unexplored.
In a social environment where food-marketing messages
far overshadow public health messages,26 and where parent-
ing styles may favor childrens consumer decisions, parents
influence over childrens food behaviors have come into
question. Simply put, are parents a weak link in creating
184 ODougherty et al/OBSERVATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD CO-SHOPPERS IN SUPERMARKETS
a nutritious home food environment? Prior observational
research has been limited to considering childrens attempts
to influence parents food purchases,17-20 leaving unknown
what other kinds of interactions over food selections occur
between parent and child coshoppers. Notably absent from
studies on childrens food preferences and purchase requests
is an accounting of what adults actual strategies are with
children when they shop together. Qualitative field re-
search into childrens and parents actual interactions over
food selections at point of purchase offers an appropriate
starting point for the study of parental decision making over
family food purchases.
The objective of this study was to collect descriptive
information on food purchases in families with young chil-
dren by directly observing the point of purchase decision
making of adults over food items in supermarkets when
accompanied by a young child.
STUDY DESIGN
Subject population
The target population consisted of adults and children aged
approximately 8 and younger who were shopping together
at supermarkets. No recruitment took place for this obser-
vation of public behavior; therefore, the relationship be-
tween adults and children was not known except in the
frequent instances where kin terms were used. The adults
with accompanying children were presumed to be parents
or guardians. The research study received permission from
supermarket chain store managements and was approved by
the Institutional Review Board of the University of
Minnesota.
Two store chains were chosen that market their price
savings. A third chain was chosen that caters to shoppers
seeking specialty foods, such as imported cheese. Four of the
budget stores were located in low-income, racially and
ethnically diverse neighborhoods of St. Paul and Minneap-
olis, in which the population of color was 38% and 50%,
respectively, and where 12-15% of families lived below the
poverty level and median family income averaged
$38,000.27 Four other budget supermarkets were in middle-
income areas. Most deluxe supermarket observations were
conducted in a high-income Twin Cities suburb with 0.8%
of families living below poverty, median family income of
$76,000, and 10% population of color.27 In the budget
supermarkets, where we hoped to obtain at least 90 obser-
vations, we targeted equal numbers of observations of Af-
rican American, Latino, and Caucasian families. We aimed
to collect about 30 observations in the deluxe supermarkets.
Procedures
The methods employed in this study consisted of anthro-
pological field observation techniques. The specific tech-
nique used is known as spot sampling 28 through unobtru-
sive observations. During weekend visits, the field
researcher (lead author), a cultural anthropologist trained
in site observation methods and linguistics, unobtrusively
observed adult and child shoppers as they stopped to con-
sider an item in any food aisle. At each store, the researcher
began at the produce section. If a target shopper was
present, an observation took place. If not, the researcher
followed the flow of shoppers and sought out the next
available target shopper. It is important to note that the
observation did not take as starting point a childs verbal
request, but rather a moment when a shopper stopped to
look at an item. Once a selection or a rejection occurred (or
no more than 2 minutes had passed), the researcher always
moved out of the viewing range of those shoppers to record
the event. Field observations recorded what item or items
were sought or requested, and selected or rejected, and as
close as possible, a near-verbatim account of the event.
When a brand was unambiguously a criterion for selection,
this fact was noted. The field researcher also made a sub-
jective, best guess assessment of the race or ethnicity of the
adult shoppers, based on phenotype and/or language and
estimated the childs approximate age. Once an observation
was recorded, the researcher looked for the next target
shopper in the immediate area, gradually moving through
the store, then returning to the produce section for the next
round. The instrument developed for the observations is
available upon request.
Analysis of the observations
The items under consideration for selection by shoppers
were classified into the following food categories: fruits and
vegetables, dairy, meats, prepackaged meals, grains and
cereals, seasonings and condiments, oils, sweets and snacks.
The sweets and snacks category was further subclassified
into four groups: sweets and desserts; presweetened break-
fast cereals; salty snacks; soda and Kool-Aid.
Following guidelines for qualitative data analysis,28,29
the field observer (lead author) coded all observations and
found two main categories: observations in which a nego-
tiation over an item occurred between a parent or guardian
and a child, and observations in which a child did not take
part in the decision making. Under the first category, there
were 2 possible situations and 4 outcomes: a child initiated
a request for an item, and received a yes or no response;
a parent or guardian initiated a request, ie, asked if the child
wanted an item, and received a yes or no response. The
second main category of observations, in which a negotia-
tion between parent and child did not occur over a food
selection, was categorized in two ways: those observations
in which the child was engaged in the grocery shopping at
that moment, and those in which the child was not engaged
in grocery shopping. These two types of observations and
six possible subcategories accounted for all observations.
Means and frequencies were calculated. Content anal-
ysis of field notes was conducted by the field observer/lead
author, following qualitative analysis methods.28,29
 Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 38, Number 5, May/June 2006 185

Table 2. Food Items Considered for Selection During the Observation

FINDINGS
Overview Food Items Frequency
(%)
Field observations were collected at three supermarket Fruits and Vegetables 30 (22.6)
chains and 11 stores across the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul Dairy 11 (8.3)
metropolitan region. Observations took place in low- Prepackaged Meals 11 (8.3)
income areas (52 observations), middle-income areas (61 Seasonings/Condiments 8 (6.0)
observations), and high-income areas (29 observations), Meat 6 (4.5)
yielding a total of 142 observations. In 9 observations, the Grains and Cereals (nonsweet) 6 (4.5)
item of interest to the child was not food; these were Oils 2 (1.5)
excluded from analysis of negotiated foods, leaving 133 Sweets/Snacks: 59 (44.4)
coded food-related interactions. Sweets/Desserts 25 (18.8)
Table 1 presents shopper characteristics by apparent Presweetened Cereals 9 (6.8)
race or ethnicity, shopping groups (adults shopping alone Salty Snacks 11 (8.3)
with a child or children, adults in pairs) and numbers of Soda Pop/Kool-Aid 14 (10.5)
accompanying children. Approximately equal numbers of Total 133 (100.0)
shoppers appearing to be African American, Caucasian, or
Latino were observed in the budget supermarkets. The most
frequently observed combination was an adult woman
shopping with a child or children (60.6%). Of the total 210 Table 3 presents adult-child interactions during food
children observed in the shopping groups, 128 (61%) were selections. In about half (67 of the 133 observations, or
girls. 50.4%) of food selections, a child initiated the food request.
Table 2 presents food items being considered for selec- In 32 of these 67 observations, or 47.8% of the time, the
tion at the moment of observation. The largest category of adult agreed to a childs request for a food item. Eighteen of
food item observed was sweets and snacks, accounting for these 32 granted requests were for sweets and snacks. These
44.4% of all observations, followed by fruits and vegetables items included sweetened breakfast cereal, candy, Cheetos,
(22.6%). Prepackaged meals and dairy products accounted ice cream, Poptarts, cookies, crackers, popcorn with butter,
for 8.3% of observations each. and donuts. The other 14 requests granted were fruits and
vegetables, dairy (yogurt), prepackaged meals (two Lunch-
ables, one Kid Cuisine), and breads (hamburger buns and
Table 1. Observed Characteristics of Study Sample (n 142) extra rich biscuits).
In addition to adults granting requests, ten of the 77
Characteristics Frequency negotiated selections (13.0%) involved parents asking
(%) whether the child or children would like a food item, as in
Observed Race/Ethnicity the following example from field notes of a white father and
African American 33 (23.2) three sons walking by the bakery area at a deluxe super-
Latino 33 (23.2) market. Dad sees Entenmanns display and stops, saying: Do
Caucasian 60 (42.3) you guys want any of these? Dad soon reaches for Enten-
Other 16 (11.3) manns chocolate donut holes in a pink [valentines] package.
Total 142 (100.0) Eight of the ten items offered and always accepted were
Configuration of Adult Shoppers Cheetos, ice cream, cookies, sweetened cereal, candies,
Female Only 86 (60.6) waffles, and donuts (two requests). Considering the yes
Male Only 22 (15.5) category as including both the requests granted and the
Female/Male Duo 27 (19.0)
Female Duo 6 (4.2)
Table 3. Parent-Child Co-Shopping Interactions over Food [n 133]
Male Duo 1 (0.7)
Total 142 (100.0)
Negotiated Selections Frequency
Configuration of Child Co-Shoppers
(%)
One Child 85 (59.9)
Child Requests [n 67]
Two Children 48 (33.8)
Interactions where parent said yes 32 (47.8)
Three or more Children 9 (6.3)
Interactions where parent said no 35 (52.2)
Total 142 (100.0)
Parent Requests [n 10]
Total Number of Children Interactions where child said yes 10 (100)
Girls 128 (61) Nonnegotiated Selections [n 56]
Boys 82 (39) Child Engaged 40
Total 210 Child Not Engaged 16
186 ODougherty et al/OBSERVATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD CO-SHOPPERS IN SUPERMARKETS
food items parents successfully offered to children, 42
(54.5%) of the 77 total negotiated selections resulted in a
yes.
Taking all childrens requests together (ie, those receiv-
ing yes and no responses), 37 requests (55.2%) were for
sweets and snacks. Adult offers tipped the scales such that
in 63.4% of all parent-child negotiated selections, a child
received a sweet or a snack. On the other hand, in 35 other
negotiations, or 52.2% of the time, parents denied the
childs food request, and 19 (54.3%) of the food items that
parents declined to buy were sweets or snacks. The remain-
ing 16 denied requests were for prepackaged meals (two
Lunchables requests), hot dogs, cheese, chocolate milk,
fruits, and vegetables.
Were two adult shoppers together more effective as
co-shoppers with a child than a single adult? Thirty-four of
the 142 shopping groups (23%) were duo shoppers. One-
third of the interactions where adults said yes was of duo
shoppers, and one-half of observations where the child was
not engaged was of duo shoppers.
Refusal strategies
Adults were just as likely to refuse a childs request as grant
one, and did so with three main refusal strategies. In some
instances, a no response was verbal, as in this exchange at
a budget supermarket in the dairy section between a Latino
child, aged 5 or so, and her mother. Mom is looking at butter;
girl has noted Nestles chocolate milk in a plastic tubelike con-
tainer on other side of the aisle. Girl: Mami, puede comprar,
si o no? [Mommy, can you buy it, yes or no?] Mom: no. A
far more common strategy was a soft no, where the
parent gave an explanation, as in this exchange at a deluxe
supermarket between a white woman and her 4-5 year old
girl: Girl at display of individual pastries, sees cake donuts with
colorful sprinkles on them. Mom? pointing at donuts. Mom:
but we dont need any of those today. Just as often, the
parent did not say or clearly indicate the word no, but
rather appeared to ignore or be unaware of the request
sometimes indicated by walking away. The harder verbal
no was employed just three times out of 37 total refusals.
The soft no was employed 16 times; of these, 9 occurred
at a deluxe supermarket. The no via avoidance method
was used by many adults.
Encouraging childrens knowledge and
interest in food
To capture a broader array of co-shopping practices beyond
those in which a child generated a request for food, we
chose to begin observations at the point of decision making.
In 56 observations (42.1%), children were not part of the
decision making process. In just 16 of the total observations
(10%), the child exhibited lack of interest or engagement
in the family shopping. In 40 of these observations, the
child was actively engaged in grocery shopping, as the
examples below illustrate.
Selecting fruits and vegetables. Children actively
participated as parents selected produce in 14 observations,
or nearly half of the 30 observations in the produce section.
At a budget supermarket, a Latino husband, wife and chil-
dren (girl, aged 6, and boy, aged 4) revealed a somewhat
coordinated process. Dad is selecting roma tomatoes, Mom
holding plastic bag openfilling it with a good 20 tomatoes.
Mom gives girl bag to bring to cart. Dad then quickly places bag
in cart. Little boy having fun picking up tomatoes and tossing
them back onto pile.
As the next example suggests, children frequently ex-
pressed interest in identifying food. In the following exam-
ple, while an African American mother was selecting po-
tatoes in the produce section, her three children (girls, aged
5 and 7, boy aged 11) were extremely interested in the fruit:
Older girl with brother walking by apples, then pears. Boy
exclaims, ugly fruit! Littler girl touches apple and says, ap-
ple, then touches pear and says, pa-er. Similarly, a white
girl in the deluxe supermarket was curious about brussels
sprouts: Mom, whats this? A small lettuce?
It should be noted that many times, the interest was not
about food per se. Instead, a child displayed interest in
reading, spelling, or counting food. At a budget supermar-
ket, an African American grandmother gets frozen chicken
fingers, calls girl over as she goes toward dairy. Girl (aged 7-8)
happily reads out loud sign over area, Milk, eggs, and cheese!
Selecting sweets and snacks. Parents also encour-
aged children to make choices about specific criteria for
sweets and snacks. For instance, a white father at a budget
supermarket was himself searching for Goldfish crackers.
Upon reaching them, he asked his 7-year-old daughter:
Should we get the regular ones or [cant hear]. They get the
colored ones. On two occasions, parents (one African Amer-
ican, one white) were observed taking the time to allow
their toddlers to select frozen waffles by choosing from
among yellow, red, and blue packaging.
Selecting brands. Overall, in 38 of all observations
(28.6%), adults or children indicated the role of brands
and/or marketing techniques in their food selection. Of
these, in 28 observations (21.1%), a child either clearly
indicated a preference for a specific brand (eg, Mom, get
the Lunchables; Mom, can we get Jolly Ranchers?) or
appeared to respond positively to a child-directed market-
ing method (eg, colorful sprinkles on brand-name cookies).
In the other 10 instances, the adult showed brand prefer-
ence (eg, I dont see the Oscar Meyer weiners).
Because sweetened beverages are a particular pediatric
concern,30-31 we examined the 14 instances where soda pop
or Kool-Aid was under consideration and whether the child
was engaged in the decision. Four times a child unsuccess-
 Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 38, Number 5, May/June 2006
fully made a request (3 for Kool-Aid); and 4 times a parent
made the decision to select the beverage and engaged the
child by allowing him or her to select the Kool-Aid flavors.
By contrast, in the 6 instances where the parent was select-
ing soda pop, the child was not engaged.
Selecting for nutritional content. In just 4 obser-
vations, nutrional content was explicit as a criterion for
selection or rejection. All the examples occurred in budget
supermarkets. In one, a mother told her toddler that they
were going to get the low-fat yogurt. In 2 instances, it was
the grade school-aged children themselves who pointed out
nutritional content. A health-related explanation was not
explicitly given as a reason for or against purchasing an
item in any of the other 129 observations. If a reason was
given for rejection, it tended to be somewhat vague like the
statement noted earlier, but we dont need any of those
today (regarding donuts) or you dont want that stuff
(regarding candy).
DISCUSSION
This research found parents collectively responding affir-
matively to childrens requests for food items nearly half the
time and rejecting their requests slightly more than half the
time. More than half of the requests offered and granted
across shoppers were for sweets and snacks. Such findings
point to the need for parents overall to employ effective
refusal strategies and encouragement for childrens interest
in fruits and vegetables. Fortunately, this study also found
evidence of such practices. Observations showed parents
mainly employed a soft no (explaining why in a non-
confrontational way) and a nonverbal no, ignoring or
walking away. These findings suggest that parents can ef-
fectively use no sparingly.
Although parents may be shopping with their children
out of necessity owing to lack of other available
caregiverit is clear from observations that children are
generally engaged in grocery shopping, as it affords learning
opportunities beyond asking for treats. Certain foods, no-
tably fruits and vegetables, appeared to be of great interest
to children, whether as food or as an opportunity to expand
knowledge and vocabulary. Observations also showed par-
ents encouraging children to develop criteria for food se-
lection, albeit as much for sweets and snacks as for fruits
and vegetables. Observations did not show parents offering
health-related explanations for food selections or educating
children about nutritional content.
This study had limitations: the sample size was not large
enough to identify significant differences by presumed SES,
race or ethnicity, or gender. Field observations didnt track
individual shoppers. Doing so would have afforded an op-
portunity to see the total array of foods selected and types
of negotiation strategies employed by individuals. The ob-
servations and coding were conducted by a single investi-
187
gator. The observations, however, provided a cross-section
of a diverse population.
Implications for research and practice
The findings of this study underscore that parents can be
either a strong or a weak link in the food selection
process for children. The literature on child nutrition con-
tinues to emphasize the central role of parents in shaping
childrens food preferences by making foods available to
children, by meal structure, by food modeling, control, and
other food socialization practices.12-16,32-35 To date, most
attention has been to home-based food socialization prac-
tices. Because shopping is increasingly part of childrens
routine activities, more research attention is needed on
adult-child co-shopping as a space in which parental mod-
eling of food preferences also occurs. Of particular concern,
however, are single, working, and low-income parents, who
may be less likely to have the time to use shopping excur-
sions as a teaching opportunity or to be able to leave
children with a sitter while shopping, as nutrition educa-
tion variously recommends.36,37
This study illustrates how formative methodologies that
involve field observations offer a means to capture the
actual decision-making process of parents of young children
over food selections. There is a need for further research to
learn more about how diverse parents make decisions about
their childrens food requests. Although this study focused
on the individual household level, further research is
needed that examines marketing techniques directed at
children, including in the store environment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted as part of postdoctoral training
received through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute (grant #2T32HL0328).
REFERENCES
1. Ogden C, Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Johnson C. Prevalence and trends
in overweight among U.S. children and adolescents, 1999-2000.
JAMA. 2002; 288(14):1728-1732.
2. Ebbeling C, Pawlak D, Ludwig D. Childhood obesity: Public health
crisis, common sense cure. Lancet. 2000;10(9331):473.
3. Story M, Neumark-Sztainer D, French S. Individual and environmen-
tal influences on adolescent eating behaviors. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;
102(3):suppl:40-51.
4. Coon KA, Tucker KL. Television and childrens consumption pat-
terns. Minerva Pediatr. 2000;54:423-436.
5. Gamble M, Cotugna N. A quarter century of TV food advertising
targeted at children. Am J Health Behav. 1999;23(4):261-267.
6. McNeal JU. Kids as Customers: A Handbook of Marketing to Children.
New York: Lexington Books; 1992.
7. Strasburger VC. Children and TV advertising: nowhere to run, no-
where to hide. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2001;22(3):185-187.
8. Kotz K, Story M. Food Advertisements during childrens Saturday
188 ODougherty et al/OBSERVATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD CO-SHOPPERS IN SUPERMARKETS
morning television programming: are they consistent with dietary
recommendations? J Am Diet Assoc 1994;94:1296-1300.
9. Economic Research Service. USDA Web site. Harris JM, Kaufman P,
Martinez S, Price C. US Food Marketing System, 2002. Available at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer811. Accessed January 22,
2006.
10. Goldberg M, Gorn GJ, Gibson G. TV Messages for snack and break-
fast foods: do they influence childrens preferences? J Consum Res.
1976;5:73-81.
11. Borzekowski DLG, Robinson TN. The 30-second effect: an experi-
ment revealing the impact of television commercials on food prefer-
ences of preschoolers. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001;101(1):42-46.
12. Birch L, Fisher J. Eating behaviors among children and adolescents.
Pediatrics. 1998;101(suppl 3):539-549.
13. Skinner J, Carruth BR, Moran III J, et al. Toddlers food preferences:
concordance with family members preferences. J Nutr Educ. 1998;30:
17-22.
14. Wardle J, Herrera ML, Cooke L, Gibson EL. Modifying childrens food
preferences: the effects of exposure and reward on acceptance of an
unfamiliar vegetable. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003;57(2):341-348.
15. Nicklas TA, Baranowski T, Baranowski TJC, Cullen K, Rittenberry L,
Olvera N. Family and child-care provider influences on preschool
childrens fruit, juice and vegetable consumption. Nutr Rev 1999;
59(7):224-235.
16. Hill AJ. Developmental issues in attitudes to food and diet. Proc Nutr
Soc. 2000;61(2):259-266.
17. Galst JP, White MA. The unhealthy persuader: the reinforcing value
of television and childrens purchase-influencing attempts at the su-
permarket. Child Dev. 1976;47:1089-1096.
18. Atkin C. Observation of parent-child interaction in supermarket
decision-making. J Mark. 1978;42:41-45.
19. Isler L, Popper ET, Ward S. Childrens purchase requests and parental
responses: results from a diary study. J Advert Res. 1987;October/
November:28-39.
20. Rust L. Observations of parents and children shopping together: a new
approach to the qualitative analysis of observational data. J Advert Res.
1993;July/August:65-70.
21. Manchanda RV, Moore-Shay E. Mom, I want that!: the effects of
parental style, gender and materialism on childrens choice of influ-
ence strategy. American Marketing Association. 1994;Winter:81-90.
22. Carruth BR, Skinner JD, Moran JD, Coletta C. Preschoolers food
product choices at a simulated point of purchase and mothers
consumer practices. J Nutr Educ. 2000;32(3):146-151.
23. Carlson L, Grossbart S. Parental style and consumer socialization of
children. J Consum Res. 1988;15:77-94.
24. Hofferf SL, Sandberg JF. Changes in American childrens time, 1981-
1887. In: Hofferth SL, Owens TJ, eds. Children at the Millenium: Where
Have We Come From, Where Are We Going? Vol. 6. Amsterdam: JAI
Publications; 2001:193-229.
25. John DR. Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at
twenty-five years of research. J Consum Res. 1999;26:183-213.
26. Jeffery RW, Utter J. The changing environment and population
obesity in the United States. Obes Res. 2003;11(suppl, Oct.):12s-22s.
27. Fact Sheets. US Census Bureau Web site. Census 2000 Demographic
Profile Highlights for St Paul city, Minnesota, Minneapolis city,
Minnesota, and Woodbury city, Minnesota. Available at: http://
factfinder.census.gov. Accessed January 22, 2006.
28. Bernard HR. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quan-
titative Methods 2nd edition. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press; 1995.
29. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of
New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1984.
30. Harnack LJ, Stang J, Story M. The soft drink consumption among
U.S. children and adolescents: nutritional consequences. J Am Dietetic
Assoc. 1999; 99:436-441.
31. Ludwig D, Peterson KE, Gortmaker SL. Relation between consump-
tion of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective,
observational analysis. Lancet. 2001;357:505-508.
32. Nicklas T, Johnson R. Position of the American Dietetic Association:
dietary guidance for healthy children ages 2 to 11 years. J Am Diet
Assoc. 2004;104(4); 660-677.
33. Benton D. Role of parents in the determination of the food prefer-
ences of children and the development of obesity. Int J Obes Relat
Metab Disord. 2004;28(7):858-869.
34. Westenhoefer J. Establishing good dietary habits capturing the
minds of children. Public Health Nutr. 2001;4(1A):125-129.
35. Koivisto H. Factors influencing childrens food choice. Ann Med.
2001;31 (Suppl1):26-32.
36. USDA/FNS newsletter. Nibbles for health: family food shopping:
spend less, get more. Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/
resources/Nibbles/family-shop.pdf/. Accessed January 22, 2006.
37. USDA/FNS newsletter. Supermarket Sleuths. Available at: www.fns.
usda.gov/tn/Parents/sleuth.html. Accessed January 22, 2006.