Observing Family Mealtime
1
Observing Family Mealtime
Objectives
• To learn about techniques for observing verbal and nonverbal behavior in naturalistic
settings
• To discuss the contributions of family mealtime to children’s development, health, and well
being
• To consider contextual influences on family mealtime
• To generate research questions from observations
• To compare the strengths and weaknesses of naturalistic observation versus other
methodological approaches
Terms
Discourse (Ely et al., pp. 355-356)
Emergent literacy (Ely et al., p. 357-358)
Field notes (lab handout)
Inter-observer reliability (lab handout)
Language corpus (Ely et al., p. 359+)
Linguistic socialization (Ely et al., p. 358)
Metalinguistic (Ely et al., p. 356-357)
Naturalistic observation (lab handout)
Observational method (lab handout)
Operational definition (lab handout)
Pragmatics (Ely et al., p. 356)
Transcript (Ely et al., p. 359+)
Introduction
As the readings for this week show, family mealtime is a rich setting for learning and
development. The article by Fiese and Schwartz (2008) reviewed current research about the
benefits of shared family mealtimes for children’s health and wellbeing, including reduced risk
of childhood obesity and substance abuse, as well as increased academic achievement.
Many studies of family mealtime have demonstrated that parents encourage certain kinds of
conversations and behaviors but discourage or prohibit others. This social activity is strongly
influenced by contextual factors such as culture, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status,
historical era, family structure and size, and, last but not least, child age and gender. Systems
models, such as those articulated by Bronfenbrenner (1994) and by Birch and Anzman
(2010) highlight the influence of these factors.
The study by Ely et al. (2001) investigated parent-child discourse by creating a language
corpus consisting of audiorecordings of the dinnertime conversations of 22 families with
children between the ages of approximately 2 and 5 years. The researchers showed that
parents use mealtime conversations to teach young children about language, a phenomenon
called linguistic socialization. The lab for this week gives you a chance to use the
observational method with two families who were videotaped as unobtrusively as possible
while eating dinner (after setting up and starting the video equipment, the researcher left the
Observing Family Mealtime
2
house and did not return until the meal was over). During the lab, you have a chance to try
out Ely et al’s coding scheme to examine the families’ verbal behavior. You also have an
opportunity to pose a different question about verbal or nonverbal interactions during family
mealtime, based on the readings for this week or your own experiences and interests.
When researchers observe behavior, they try to make their observations as systematic and
objective as possible, whether they are observing behavior in a laboratory or in a naturalistic
setting, such as a family’s home. If naturalistic observations are carefully planned and
carried out, the data collected are just as valid and scientific as data collected in a laboratory.
Like all research methods, naturalistic observation has pros and cons. The biggest drawback
is that researchers often have little or no control over the situation. As a result, the setting
may change from one participant to the next, with many different variables affecting their
behavior. Without controlling and systematically varying the characteristics of the setting, as
can be done in the laboratory, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the most important
influence on behavior. The biggest advantage of naturalistic observation is that you are likely
to observe behavior as it naturally occurs in a setting that is familiar to the participants.
Whether researchers are using a naturalistic setting or working in a laboratory, they develop
operational definitions to aid them in their studies. An operational definition specifies the
criteria for the behavior being observed and allows researchers to distinguish between
relevant observations and those that should be discarded or ignored. An operational
definition is essential for communicating with other researchers and increasing the likelihood
that different observers looking at the same behavior will record it in the same way (a concept
known as inter-observer reliability).
Operational definitions should refer to observable behavior. They should avoid assumptions
or inferences on the part of the researcher, such as “I think he meant...,” as well as overly
broad terms such as “aggression,” without being very specific about the behaviors that are
evidence of aggression, such as an angry facial expression or physical contact that causes
discomfort in another person. Ely et al’s operational definitions are shown in Table 2 (pp. 361362 of their article).
Operational definitions may be used to describe ongoing, relatively long-lasting behavioral
states, such as sleeping, or to help researchers count the occurrence of briefer, more
discrete events, such as yawning or sneezing. Researchers often create a checklist of
several specific behaviors that exemplify a more general abstract category. In Ely et al’s
study of pragmatic, metalinguistic, and emergent literacy uses of language, for example,
the broader category of “pragmatic” language functions was comprised of more specific
behaviors (e.g., control, clarification, elicitation, and specification). When observing behavior
– whether in real time or from a pre-recorded video – researchers simply mark the
occurrence of each “pragmatic” or “metalinguistic” behavior on their checklist and later count
up the frequencies.
Observing Family Mealtime
3
Preparing to Observe Family Mealtime
Before Lab
Before lab, read the Ely et al. (2001) article about the ways in which parents use language to
teach young children about language. Respond in your notebook to the questions below and
come to class prepared to share your ideas:
a. What are some of the reasons for studying language within the family setting?
b. What were the four major hypotheses in this study? What were the independent
variables (IVs) and dependent variables (DVs) in this study? (see pp. 358-359).
c. Describe the method that Ely et al. used: participants, language corpus (source of the
language samples they coded), and coding scheme (pp. 360-362).
d. What is the difference between pragmatic, metalinguistic, and emergent literacy uses
of language (see pp. 360-362)?
e. Did the researchers find support for their hypotheses? Explain by referring to the
Results (pp. 362+).
f. Based on the Discussion (pp. 366-371), what does this study add to our understanding
of how parents use language to teach young children about language. Which result(s)
do you find most interesting, important, or surprising? Explain.
g. Before lab, identify one new verbal or nonverbal behavior that you would like to
explore if you were studying family mealtime. Write a paragraph explaining why this
would be an interesting or important behavior to study. Write an operational definition
for this behavior (see the examples in Table 2, pp. 361-362, and shown below).
Ely et al’s Coding Categories, Operational Definitions, and Examples
Pragmatic codes
Examples
Control: A speaker attempts to control if or when
“You can talk in just a minute.”
another person speaks or listens.
Clarification: A listener requests clarification of
“Green eggs and ham? Is that what
what has just been said.
you’re saying?”
Elicitation: A speaker elicits a narrative or other
“Did you tell Dad what we did today?”
information from another speaker.
Specification: A speaker specifies the content of
“Say ‘Please could I have some
what he or she would like another speaker to say.
ketchup.’”
Metalinguistic codes
Examples
Emphasis/formulaic: A speaker emphasizes his or
“Let me explain it to you so you know
her current speech activity; a speaker uses a
what has happened.”
language–focused term in a formulaic (unanalyzed)
form.
Comment: A speaker comments on current, future, “I love the words you’re making up
or possible speech behavior.
these days.”
Comment on past speech: A speaker comments on “I’m glad you told me.”
past speech behavior.
Labeling: A speaker makes references to names,
“That’s called smoke. You know what
what objects are “called,” as well as to what words smoke is, don’t you?”
or utterances “mean.”
Observing Family Mealtime
Reported speech: A speaker makes a reference to
past speech behavior not coded as comments
about past speech.”
Inanimate/generic: A speaker makes reference to
what has been “said” generically, or a speaker
makes reference to what an inanimate object (e.g.,
a sign) “says.”
Literacy code
Literacy: A speaker makes reference to written
language.
Your New Behavior Code and Operational
Definition
4
“She said, ‘Stop it, you guys.’”
“My tummy’s saying ‘nothing.’”
Examples
“I wrote a letter to Nicki recently,
saying what are you doing?”
Examples
During Lab
During lab, you will watch two family mealtime videos two times each, the first time to
become familiar with the interactions in each video and the second time to focus on specific
behaviors:
a. The first video features a family with two parents and two children (a 4-year-old and a
1-year-old). The preceptors will show you 15 minutes (approximately half) of this
video. In response to the video, write up a set of field notes – an objective description
of the setting, participants, and behaviors, describing everything you noticed and
observed about the family’s interaction, without selecting or focusing on specific
behaviors. Compare your notes with those of other students in your lab section. Did
you describe the setting, participants, and behaviors in similar or different ways?
Would you like to carry out observational research using only this technique. Why or
why not? What are some of the advantages and limitations of this technique?
b. The family’s dialogue appears in the video as subtitles, but you will also be given a
transcript – a word-for-word record – of their conversation. Use the transcript and Ely
et al’s coding scheme to count the number of times each type of verbal behavior
occurs during the first 11 minutes of the video. Compare your results with those of
your classmates. How easy/difficult was it to code each type of verbal behavior?
c. Before watching the same portion of the video a second time, suggest a new
behavioral code/category to measure and an operational definition for that behavior.
Work in small groups and select a single new behavior to code. The new
code/category may be verbal or nonverbal; it may be derived from your preparation for
lab, from your field notes and discussion in lab, or from one of the other readings
assigned during Developmental Week. Explain in your lab notebook the rationale for
choosing this new behavior – why is it interesting or important? After watching the
video excerpt again, and referring to the transcript, compare the results for this new
Observing Family Mealtime
5
behavior, discussing any challenges that you and your classmates had in using the
operational definition.
d. Watch the first 15 minutes of the second video of a different family, consisting of two
parents and one 4-year-old child. Write a set of field notes about this family.
e. Discuss the differences and similarities between the two families. What are some of
the ways in which developmental systems, such as those described by
Bronfenbrenner (1994) or discussed by Birch and Anzman (2010) might contribute to
the differences and similarities you noticed?
Other Points for Discussion during Lab
1) Compare your results with other students in your lab section, looking for differences and
similarities in the number of pragmatic, metalinguistic, and literacy behaviors you observed.
2) Compare your findings with those reported by Ely et al. (2001).
3) Reflect on the challenges, strengths and weaknesses of various methodological
approaches, such as using video observations versus audiorecordings; observations versus
self-report measures; naturalistic studies versus controlled experiments.
4) Discuss potential ethical issues involved in this kind of research.
Friday Class
Come to class ready to discuss the following topics:
1) The lab experience and results of the two different lab sections:
a) Comparison of quantitative results with other students in the lab section, looking for
differences and similarities between the two videos (families).
b) Comparison of your findings with those reported by Ely et al. (2001). Reflection on
the potential value of the new behavior code that you and your classmates
proposed.
c) Reflection on the challenges, strengths and weaknesses of various methodological
approaches, such as using video observations versus audiorecordings;
observations versus self-report measures; naturalistic studies versus controlled
experiments.
d) Discussion of potential ethical issues involved in observational studies of family
mealtime.
e) Discussion of differences and similarities between the two families, suggesting
some of the ways in which “developmental systems” might contribute to those
differences and similarities.
2) Questions that could be explored in future studies of family mealtime or through a Design
Your Own Lab project. What other sorts of questions could be explored in a future Psych
130 lab, using audio or video recordings of family mealtime interactions? Which
developmental topics would your proposed lab emphasize, and why?
3) The role of psychological research in policy development and evaluation, using the SRCD
reading and this lab as a starting point. What are some ways in which we (as citizens,
Observing Family Mealtime
6
future policy makers, future parents, etc.) can use the information derived from studies of
family mealtime? Explain.
References
Required Lab Reading
Ely, R., Berko Gleason, J., MacGibbon, A., & Zaretsky, E. (2001). Attention to language: Lessons
learned at the dinner table. Social Development, 10, 355-373.
Suggested Readings
Aukrust, V.G., & Snow, C.E. (1998). Narratives and explanations during mealtime
conversations in Norway and the U.S. Language in Society, 27, 221-246.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner-talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family
discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harshaw, C. (2008). Alimentary epigenetics: A developmental psychobiological systems view
of the perception of hunger, thirst, and satiety. Developmental Review, 28, 541-569.
Pan, B.A., Perlmann, R.Y., & Snow, C.E. (2000). Food for thought: Dinner table as a context
for observing parent-child discourse. In L. Menn & N. Bernstein Ratner (Eds.), Methods
for studying language production (pp. 205-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Vandewater, E.A. (2008). Linking television viewing and childhood obesity. In L. Birch & W.
Dietz (Eds.), Eating behaviors of the young child: Prenatal and postnatal influences on
healthy eating (pp. 101-121). Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics.
Wootan, M.G., Batada, A., & Marchlewicz, E. (2008). Kids’ meals: Obesity on the menu.
Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest. Retrieved August 31, 2010
from http://www.cspinet.org/kidsmeals.
Web links
http://childes.psy.cmu.edu
Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES) public data archive for studying child
language, housed at Carnegie Mellon University.
http://www.makemealtimefamilytime.com
“Make Mealtime Family Time” Kit, Community Partnership of Southern Arizona, Regional
Behavioral Health Authority.
http://www.casafamilyday.org
National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University. Information about
Family Day - A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children, a national movement to inform parents
Observing Family Mealtime
7
that the parental engagement fostered during frequent family dinners is an effective tool to
help keep America’s kids substance free. [In 2010, Family Day is September 27th!]
http://www.sph.umn.edu/epi/research/eat/index.asp
Project EAT, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota:
Project EAT was designed to investigate the factors influencing eating habits of adolescents,
to determine if youth are meeting national dietary recommendations, and to explore dieting
and physical activity patterns among youth. Through a greater understanding of the
socioenvironmental, personal, and behavioral factors associated with diet and other weightrelated behaviors during adolescence more effective nutrition interventions can be
developed.