Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 137–151 | Cite as

Is there an “ideal feeder”? How healthy and eco-friendly food consumption choices impact judgments of parents

  • Emily Huddart KennedyEmail author
  • Julie A. Kmec
Article

Abstract

On top of working longer hours in paid employment and spending more time actively caring for children, parents, especially mothers, also feel pressured to safeguard the health of their children and the planet through their food consumption choices. Surprisingly, little evidence identifies whether the health value and environmental impact of food consumption choices impact judgments of parents’ abilities, morality, or general worth. We address this gap by drawing on an experiment administered to an online convenience sample of the United States adult population (n = 1603). We find that the health value of a parent’s consumption choices only influences judgments of mothers, not fathers. Judgments of mothers and fathers are influenced by the environmental impact of their consumption choices. To add depth to these findings, we draw on supplementary interview data collected from 63 socioeconomically diverse residents of Washington State. The qualitative data demonstrate that people tend to ascribe the responsibility to make consumption choices to mothers, not fathers, and that participants value eco-friendly consumption because it represents a substantial commitment to a healthy lifestyle. These findings demonstrate that in the parenting context, consumption decisions influence social judgments and that food’s presumed health and environmental impact shape “feeding ideals” in gendered ways. Our evidence suggests the social costs for not meeting these ideals are more severe for mothers than for fathers.

Keywords

Green consumption Health Food Parenting Judgments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Emily Huddart Kennedy’s New Faculty Seed Grant from Washington State University. Jacobs Hammond, Darcy Hauslik, and Jesse Mendiola provided research assistance for the interview portion of this study. Finally, we thank Josée Johnston who offered valuable commentary on the survey portion of this study.

References

  1. Aarseth, H., and B. M. Olsen. 2008. Food and masculinity in dual-career couples. Journal of Gender Studies 17 (4): 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, M., and J. Raisborough. 2010. Making a difference: ethical consumption and the everyday. The British Journal of Sociology 61 (2): 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blum, L. M. 2007. Mother-blame in the Prozac nation: raising kids with invisible disabilities. Gender and Society 21 (2): 202–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bowen, S., S. Elliott, and J. Brenton. 2014. The joy of cooking? Contexts 13(3): 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenton, J. 2017. The limits of intensive feeding: maternal foodwork at the intersections of race, class, and gender. Sociology of Health & Illness 39 (6): 863–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brough, A. R., J. E. Wilkie, J. Ma, S. M. Isaac, and D. Gal. 2016. Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 43 (4): 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burningham, K. 2017. Understanding and practising sustainable consumption in early motherhood. Journal of Consumer Ethics 1 (2): 1–16.Google Scholar
  9. Baumann, S., A. Engman, E. Huddart-Kennedy, and J. Johnston. 2017. Organic vs. local: Comparing individualist and collectivist motivations for “ethical” food consumption. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des études sur l'alimentation 4 (1): 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cairns, K., and J. Johnston. 2015. Food and femininity. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cairns, K., and J. Johnston. 2018. On (not) knowing where your food comes from: meat, mothering and ethical eating. Agriculture and Human Values 35 (3): 569–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cairns, K., J. Johnston, and N. MacKendrick. 2013. Feeding the ‘organic child’: mothering through ethical consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture 13 (2): 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cairns, K., K. de Laat, J. Johnston, and S. Baumann. 2014. The caring, committed eco-mom: consumption ideals and lived realities of Toronto mothers. In Green consumption: the global rise of eco-chic, eds. B. Barendregt, and R. Jaffe, 100–114. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Carfagna, L. B., E. A. Dubois, C. Fitzmaurice, M. Y. Ouimette, J. B. Schor, M. Willis, and T. Laidley. 2014. An emerging eco-habitus: the reconfiguration of high cultural capital practices among ethical consumers. Journal of Consumer Culture 14 (2): 158–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castellano, R. L. S. 2015. Alternative food networks and food provisioning as a gendered act. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (3): 461–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castellano, R. L. S. 2016a. Alternative food networks and the labor of food provisioning: a third shift? Rural Sociology 81 (3): 445–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castellano, R. L. S. 2016b. Emotional labor, food provisioning and local food system engagement. Gender and food: from production to consumption and after, eds. Vasililkie Demos, and Marcia Segal, 193–215. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Coffey, A., and P. Atkinson. 1996. Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Correll, S., S. Benard, and I. Paik. 2007. Getting a job: is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology 112: 1297–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dombroski, K. 2016. Hybrid activist collectives: reframing mothers’ environmental and caring labour. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 36 (9/10): 629–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dotti Sani, G., and J. Treas. 2016. Educational gradients in parents’ child-care time across countries, 1965–2012. Journal of Marriage and Family 78 (4): 1083–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elliott, S., and S. Bowen. 2018. Defending motherhood: morality, responsibility, and double binds in feeding children. Journal of Marriage and Family 80 (2): 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. England, P., M. Budig, and N. Folbre. 2002. Wages of virtue: the relative pay of care work. Social Problems 49 (4): 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fielding-Singh, P. 2017. Dining with dad: fathers’ influences on family food practices. Appetite 117: 98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grønhøj, A. 2006. Communication about consumption: a family process perspective on ‘green’ consumer practices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review 5 (6): 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hays, S. 1996. The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jamieson, L. 2016. Families, relationships and environment’: (un)sustainability, climate change and biodiversity loss. Families, Relationships and Societies 5 (3): 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnston, J. 2008. The citizen-consumer hybrid: ideological tensions and the case of Whole Foods Market. Theory and Society 37 (3): 229–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Julier, A. P. 2005. Hiding gender and race in the discourse of commercial food consumption. In From Betty Crocker to feminist food studies: critical perspectives on women and food, eds. A. V. Avakian, and B. Haber, 163–184. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy, E. H., and J. Kmec. 2018. Reinterpreting the gender gap in household pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Sociology 4 (3): 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kennedy, E. H., H. Krahn, and N. T. Krogman. 2014. Egregious emitters: Disproportionality in household carbon footprints. Environment and Behavior 46 (5): 535–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lamont, M., and V. Molnár. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28 (1): 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacKendrick, N. 2014. More work for mother: chemical body burdens as a maternal responsibility. Gender and Society 28 (5): 705–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacKendrick, N. 2018. Better safe than sorry: how consumers navigate exposure to everyday toxics. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mares, T. M. 2017. Navigating gendered labor and local food: a tale of working mothers in Vermont. Food and Foodways 25 (3): 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCright, A. M., and C. Xiao. 2014. Gender and environmental concern: insights from recent work and for future research. Society & Natural Resources 27 (10): 1109–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGill, B. 2014. Employment, fathering attitudes, and father involvement. Journal of Family Issues 35 (8): 1089–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parker, B., and O. Morrow. 2017. Urban homesteading and intensive mothering:(re) gendering care and environmental responsibility in Boston and Chicago. Gender, Place and Culture 24 (2): 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peer, E., L. Brandimarte, S. Samat, and A. Acquisti. 2017. Beyond the Turk: alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 70: 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Richardson, S. S., C. R. Daniels, M. W. Gillman, J. Golden, R. Kukla, C. Kuzawa, and J. Rich-Edwards. 2014. Society: don’t blame the mothers. Nature News 512 (7513): 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Szabo, M. 2014. Men nurturing through food: challenging gender dichotomies around domestic cooking. Journal of Gender Studies 23 (1): 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Warde, A. 1997. Consumption, food and taste. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Williams, J. 2001. Unbending gender: why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Williams, R. 2006. Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata Journal 6: 58–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. York, R. 2018. Control variables and causal inference: a question of balance. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21 (6): 675–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of SociologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations