‘I'm having jelly because you've been bad!’: A grounded theory study of mealtimes with siblings in Australian families

“

TL;DR

This grounded theory study of 18 Australian families with siblings aged 1–5 years found that mealtimes are shaped by five interacting processes: direct sibling interactions (e.g., imitation, competition, caregiving) and indirect influences via parents (e.g., using siblings as role models, moderating competition, adapting feeding practices, and evolving practices with family size). The findings highlight that siblings play a complex, integral role in feeding dynamics, which current interventions often overlook. Clinically, this suggests that family-based feeding interventions should address sibling dynamics and the unique practices that emerge only when multiple children are present.

Full summary

4,751 CHARS

**Background** Early childhood is a critical period for establishing eating behaviours, and parent feeding practices are modifiable targets for intervention. However, most evidence comes from first-time mothers, and little is known about how mealtimes unfold in families with multiple children. Over half of parents in Australia, the UK, and the US have two or more children, yet research on sibling feeding dynamics is scarce and relies mostly on parent-reported data. This study aimed to develop a conceptual model of how mealtimes are enacted in families with siblings aged 1–5 years, using a mixed-methods grounded theory approach.

**Methods** The study employed a qualitative mixed-methods design informed by Constructivist Grounded Theory. Participants were 18 parent–sibling triads (n=54 participants) in South East Queensland, Australia. Eligible parents were ≥18 years, spoke English as a primary language, and had ≥2 children aged 1–5 years. Data collection (August 2021–April 2022) included naturalistic mealtime observations (three per family, two weekdays and one weekend), semistructured interviews, field notes, and memos. Parents video-recorded mealtimes over a median of 1.8 weeks (IQR 1.0–2.8 weeks) and participated in an online interview approximately 1 week later (median 1.0 weeks, IQR 0.4–1.3 weeks). The sample was mostly white, two-parent families; mothers were the nominated parent in 94.4% of families. Data were analysed using initial and focused coding, constant comparison, and memo-writing. Rigour was enhanced through reflexive journaling, team discussions, and independent coding of ~10% of data by co-authors.

**Key Results** Five constructs emerged, describing direct and indirect sibling influences on mealtime socialisation: 1. **Siblings interacting**: Siblings served as companions (e.g., pretend play with food), collaborators (e.g., trading foods), role models (younger imitating older), caregivers (e.g., older siblings educating or pressuring younger), and sources of comparison and competition (e.g., comparing portion sizes, competing for attention). For example, one mother noted that her older child (5-year-old boy) refused foods her younger child (2-year-old boy) liked, illustrating differentiation. 2. **Parents using siblings as mediators of feeding practices**: Parents capitalised on sibling dynamics to influence eating, such as explicitly role-modelling (e.g., “Look what Samuel's doing”), vicarious operant conditioning (e.g., rewarding one child to motivate the other), and leveraging competition (e.g., racing to finish). One mother explained: “We say to them, ‘Everyone's got to finish the meal before we have cake.’ And they're really good at encouraging each other.” 3. **Parents moderating sibling dynamics through feeding practices**: Parents aimed to minimise conflict and competition by distributing resources fairly, feeding siblings similarly, and avoiding comparisons. For example, a mother of twins (5-year-old boys) avoided comparing them because “they're the same age… I'm saying, ‘Well, he's being the good child and you're being the bad child’.” 4. **Parents adapting feeding practices in response to siblings**: Parents differentially fed siblings based on perceived differences in developmental stage, eating behaviours, temperaments, and contextual factors. For instance, one mother prioritised feeding her younger child (2-year-old boy) over her older child (5-year-old girl): “Priority number one is to feed Harper. Two, is trying to get food into Miles over a bottle. And then three, we eat.” 5. **Parents' evolving feeding practices with sibship restructuring**: After the birth of a younger child, parents experienced resource dilution (e.g., less time per child) and learnt experience (e.g., becoming more relaxed with later-born children). One mother noted: “With the first one, I was very strict… With the second one, I'm a lot more relaxed.”

**Clinical Implications** This model reveals that siblings are not passive bystanders but active participants in mealtime dynamics, directly influencing each other and indirectly shaping parent feeding practices. Current interventions, which focus on parent–child dyads, may miss these critical processes. Clinicians should consider sibling dynamics when advising families, for example, by addressing practices like vicarious operant conditioning (rewarding one child to influence another) or the tendency to cater to a fussier child at the expense of siblings' dietary variety. The findings also suggest that transitions (e.g., birth of a sibling) may be opportune times for intervention. Future research should explore these processes in diverse populations and develop measures for sibling-mediated feeding practices.