Fathers’ Direct and Indirect Effects on Adolescent Girls’ and Boys’ Disordered Eating Behaviors

Elizabeth H. Blodgett Salafia, Ph.D., North Dakota State University Amanda E. Bulat, M.S., North Dakota State University

Abstract This study examined fathers’ direct and indirect effects on adolescent girls’ and boys’ disordered eating behaviors. Four specific paternal influences were investigated: feedback about weight, encouragement to lose weight, teasing about weight, and self dieting behaviors. Data collected from middle-school aged girls and boys indicated that both girls and boys exhibited disordered eating behaviors. Furthermore, these behaviors were significantly influenced by fathers. For girls, fathers’ encouragement to lose weight and fathers’ feedback about weight were associated with their disordered eating, with encouragement being the strongest predictor. For boys, encouragement to lose weight and teasing behaviors from fathers were associated with their disordered eating, again with encouragement being the strongest predictor. Thus, it is vital that fathers are included in the discussion, education, and research surrounding adolescents’ disordered eating. Fathers can be helpful in challenging negative behaviors, emphasizing a positive, comfortable environment for adolescents, and establishing healthy behaviors within the home and family.

Introduction Incidences of eating disorders are increasing among both adolescent girls and boys (Gross & Rosen, 1988; Hoek & van Hoeken, 2003). Studies have shown that sociocultural influences such as parents have significant effects on adolescents’ development of eating disorders, both directly through verbal comments about weight and indirectly via personal dieting behaviors (Ata et al., 2007; Stice, 1994). Previous work has often neglected fathers, instead blaming mothers for the high rates of eating disorders among girls. However, recent research has suggested that fathers may be important influences on the eating behaviors of both their daughters and sons (Dixon et al., 2003; Rodgers et al., 2009; Vincent & McCabe, 2000).

Method Self-report data were obtained from 63 girls and 62 boys in grades 7 through 9. Measures of Disordered eating

•  Children’s version of the Eating Attitudes Test (Maloney et al., 1988) •  26 items •  Sample items included, “Do you vomit after eating?” and “Have you been

dieting?” Measures of Father influences

•  Perceived Sociocultural Influences on Body Image and Body Change Questionnaire (McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2001) •  Fathers’ feedback about weight (3 items) •  Fathers’ encouragement to lose weight (2 items) •  Fathers’ teasing about weight (2 items) •  Fathers’ self dieting behaviors (1 item)

•  Sample items included, “How often does your father tease you about gaining weight?” and “How often does your father diet to lose weight?”

Results T-tests indicated no significant differences between girls and boys on any of the study variables. Correlations showed that fathers’ encouragement to lose weight (r = .42) and fathers’ feedback (r = .24) were significantly related to girls’ disordered eating. Also, fathers’ encouragement to lose weight (r = .43) and fathers’ teasing behaviors (r = .24) were significantly related to boys’ disordered eating. See Table 1. Simultaneous multiple regression analyses allowed us to determine which father behaviors were the strongest predictors of adolescents’ disordered eating. For girls, of all of the father variables, only fathers’ encouragement to lose weight was a significant predictor of disordered eating (β = .34). Similarly, for boys, only fathers’ encouragement to lose weight was a significant predictor of disordered eating (β = .48). See Table 2.

Discussion

We found that fathers’ encouragement to lose weight was the most powerful contributor to both girls’ and boys’ disordered eating behaviors. Fathers engaging in such communication with their daughters are likely providing a male viewpoint that culture values thinness. For boys, fathers’ concerns about losing weight may be closely connected to muscularity concerns. Furthermore, because encouragement to lose weight was the most direct method of communication assessed in this study, it makes sense that it would be the most influential paternal behavior. Limitations

•  Sample lacked diversity in terms of ethnicity, SES, and family structure •  Need to address the potential role of relationship factors with fathers, such as

communication style and relationship quality Strengths and Contributions

•  Focus on fathers limits “mother blaming” and highlights the important role of fathers in both girls’ and boys’ development

•  Assessment of a variety of both direct and indirect paternal influences •  Inclusion of middle-school aged girls and boys •  Implications for family therapy, further research studies, and prevention/

intervention work with young adolescents

Contact Elizabeth H. Blodgett Salafia, Ph.D. Elizabeth.Salafia@ndsu.edu Human Development and Family Science, North Dakota State University P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 1. Fathers’ feedback --- .24* .16 -.14 .24* 2. Fathers’ encouragement .23 --- .28* .33* .42* 3. Fathers’ teasing .02 .49* --- .29* .11 4. Fathers’ self dieting .08 .37* .34* --- .20 5. Adolescents’ disordered eating .14 .43* .24* -.11 ---

M Girls 3.63 1.15 .58 .87 8.6 Boys 3.86 1.52 .56 .60 7.3 SD Girls 2.49 1.57 1.26 1.02 6.57 Boys 2.91 2.47 1.51 .91 6.24

NOTES: * p < .05; girls’ correlations appear above the diagonal, and boys’ correlations appear below the diagonal.

Table 2 Separate Multiple Regression Analyses for Fathers’ Direct and Indirect Effects on Adolescents’ Disordered Eating Model Variable B Std. Error β GIRLS 1Adolescents’ Fathers’ feedback .49 .33 .19 disordered Fathers’ encouragement 1.44 .56 .34* eating Fathers’ teasing -.28 .66 -.05

Fathers’ self dieting .82 .86 .13 BOYS 2Adolescents’ Fathers’ feedback .11 .25 .05 disordered Fathers’ encouragement 1.21 .35 .48* eating Fathers’ teasing .48 .54 .12

Fathers’ self dieting -2.27 .85 -.33

NOTES: * p < .05 1R 2 = .21, p = .000 2R 2 = .28, p = .005.