Food Decisions Singapore

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Research report

‘‘Sometimes they’ll tell me what they want’’: Family andinter-generational food preferences in the food decisions ofSingaporean women q

Steve Ferzacca a,⇑, Nasheen Naidoo b, May Choo Wang c, Geetha Reddy b, Rob Martinus van Dam b

a Dept. of Anthropology, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 3M4, Canadab Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, MD3, 16 Medical Drive, Singapore 117597, Singaporec Department of Community Health Services, UCLA School of Public Health, P.O. Box 951772, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 19 June 2012Received in revised form 29 May 2013Accepted 30 May 2013Available online 11 June 2013

Keywords:SingaporeFood decisionsWomenFamily eatingGenerational differencesTheory of triadic influence

a b s t r a c t

This study examines responses to questions regarding food choices and decisions from 18 focus groups ofwomen (n = 130) age 30–55 years living in Singapore. Focusing on the responses to the questions in theinterview protocol closely associated with decision making identified several themes. Food choices andeating decisions are composite phenomenon. These composite food decisions reflect flexible, open sys-tems we refer to here as idiosyncratic regimes in which environmental, social, and intra-personal streamsof influence are prioritized as individuals generate possible food decisions. Food decisions represent theimagined and actual presence of the ‘‘family’’ and differing inter-generational food preferences. Aswomen attempt to create harmony from the diversity of food preferences they generate idiosyncraticregimes of food and eating reflecting ‘‘triadic streams of influence’’ manifest in the context of everydaycontingencies of family and individual life. Recent concern in Singapore on the part of the Health Promo-tion Board and the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health at the National University of Singapore regard-ing the increasing prevalence of diet-related diseases and obesity among Singaporeans provided theimpetus for conducting this qualitative study of food and eating among Singaporean women.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Human food preferences and patterns of eating are simulta-neously individual and social phenomenon activated in particularenvironments. Therefore, food preferences and choices always re-flect simultaneously social contexts, cultural influences, and envi-ronmental parameters. Individual decisions are formulatedwithin socially and culturally relevant ‘‘foodways’’ (Mintz & DuBois, 2002; Murcott, 1988) forged from this ‘‘triadic’’ context (Flay& Petraitis, 1994). Moreover, while food decisions and eating takeplace within a context of influences – environmental, social, cul-tural – food decisions also represent individually lived historiesof food and eating, referred to as ‘‘personal systems’’ (Sobal & Bis-ogni, 2009). Personal systems are managed by individuals ‘‘in time,in social location, and in history’’ (Devine, 2005). The combinationof the triadic influences, relevant foodways, and personal systems

result in human food decisions that Sobal and Bisogni (2009) de-scribe as ‘‘frequent, multi-faceted, situational, dynamic, and com-plex.’’ This composite, multifaceted nature of food decisionsformulated within and inflected by this complexity of influencesensures that the analysis of food and eating, and in this case deci-sions making processes associated with food and eating, using anysingle framework of theoretical orientation, or emphasizing anysingle factor from among the plurality of factors involved is insuf-ficient (Sobal & Bisogni, 2009).

Research was conducted among Singaporean women of variousethnic backgrounds in order to examine attitudes and practices rel-evant to food and eating in general. The purpose of the study wasto use qualitative methods to examine ethnic as well as any othercultural and social differences related to food and eating amongSingaporean women. In order to establish the presence of ethnicand other socially anchored differences and similarities in foodchoice and eating, the Singaporean women participating in thestudy were organized into focus groups by ethnicity and educationlevel. In addition, women were chosen as study participants basedon the assumption that women are central to family organizationsof food and eating.

Current and compelling health issues related to food and eatingare the motivating factors for this and any other investigation into

0195-6663/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.05.021

q Acknowledgements: This research received grant support from the Global AsiaInstitute (WBS no: R-608-000-036-133), National University of Singapore (NUS).The authors would also like to acknowledge the leadership from the Asia ResearchInstitute and The Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health at NUS in the formation ofour interdisciplinary research team.⇑ Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Ferzacca).

Appetite 69 (2013) 156–167

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Appetite

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /appet


food and eating from a public health perspective. Recent concern inSingapore on the part of the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and theSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health at the National Universityof Singapore (NUS) regarding the increasing prevalence of diet-re-lated diseases and obesity among Singaporeans provided the impe-tus for conducting this qualitative study of food and eating amongSingaporean women. In Singapore, a prevalence of overweight andobesity portends increasing risk among Singaporeans for varioushealth issues associated with increases in body weight and size(Health Promotion Board Singapore, 2013). One related healthproblem, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, has increased from 8.2% in2004 to 11.3% in 2011 in 18–69 year olds overall. For medicaland other health related research, insights into decision makingprocesses regarding food preferences and eating are crucial in lightof increasing prevalence worldwide of nutritional diseases, in par-ticular obesity and diabetes, that have become leading causes ofdeath worldwide (Rothman, Gillespie, & Johnson-Askew, 2009).

In particular, this study analyzes the responses to questionsspecifically targeting food choices and decisions. Singapore’s gas-tronomic history and present are characterized as an urban foodand eating environment dominated almost entirely by food im-ports, the majority of which are consumed as prepared foods andmeals. A central and visible feature in the everyday life of eatingin Singapore is the ‘‘hawker center’’ – the ubiquitous food courtslocated at or near apartment buildings, flats, sky-rises, malls andcity centers where Singaporeans can eat prepared meals at afford-able prices (Kong, 2007). The hawker center may not be the onlyoutlet Singaporeans consider in the process of making food deci-sions, but these food courts, and prepared foods in general, holdcentral positions in food and eating attitudes and practices. In1998, 37% of Singaporeans reported eating outside the home 6 ormore times per week. In 2004 and 2010 that number had increasedto 49% and 45% respectively (Health Promotion Board Singapore,2013). This gastronomic present has been characterized as an envi-ronment that is ‘‘highly urban, high income’’ within which eatersand food decision makers access food resources in a country thatis a ‘‘net-food importer country’’ importing 90% of the food re-sources that 4.9 million Singaporeans consume on a daily basis(Teng & Escaler, 2010). Singapore’s Department of Statistics re-corded that from 2007 to 2008, 63% of the ‘‘average monthlyhousehold expenditure on food’’, which was calculated as 22% ofan individual’s monthly income, went to ‘‘food serving services’’that included prepared meals in food courts, supermarkets, restau-rants, and hawker stalls (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2009).The centrality of publically available processed and prepared food,and the frequency of eating outside the home, shape attitudes andpractices related to food preparation in and outside home-basedkitchens. While Singapore’s foodways are unique in terms of his-tory, environmental and social circumstances, this Southeast Asiancity state shares commonalities with other Asian entrepots, forexample Hong Kong (Tam, 2001).

The responses of the Singaporean women participating in thefocus groups to the questions in the interview protocol closelyassociated with decision making identified several themes. First,food choices and eating decisions are composite phenomenon.Food choices and eating decisions are formulated within and re-flect necessary yet shift relations among the triadic influence of so-cial and cultural contexts, environmental parameters, and personalsystems built from individual experiences and histories of food andeating forged within the interacting triadic streams of influence(Flay & Petraitis, 1994; Sobal & Bisogni, 2009).

Secondly, these composite food decisions operate as flexible,open systems which as outcomes are described here as idiosyn-cratic regimes (Ferzacca, 2000, 2004). Idiosyncratic regimes thatany single food decision represents are forged from triadic‘‘streams of influence’’ and personal systems that are brought to

bear on food decisions formulated in response to immediate andphenomenological urgencies that characterize a person’s daily con-text surrounding food and eating. Idiosyncratic regimes are indi-vidually managed yet are formed within these broader patternsrelevant to food preferences and eating. Individuals manage thepresence of triadic streams of influence and personal systems byconstantly re-arranging these parameters in shifting hierarchicalrelationships, establishing priorities that are dependent upon theequally shifting contingencies and priorities involved in any fooddecision. Singapore’s highly pluralistic gastronomic milieu pro-vides an interesting case study to explore these concepts. In Singa-pore, idiosyncratic regimes surrounding food and eating arehistorically anchored, phenomenologically generated social con-structions in which these women play some role – sometimes cen-tral, other times at odds with the consequences of any fooddecision.

In order to illustrate the composite nature of the idiosyncraticregimes within which food decisions are formulated, the studyhighlights several factors that women respondents identified ascentral influences in their food decisions: (1) the presence and ideaof the ‘‘family’’ appeared as a majority feature in the women’s dis-cussion of food preferences and eating; and (2) generational differ-ences within and among family members plays a central role infood choices and patterns of eating that influence food decisions.

Food and eating in Singapore, while unique in terms of the his-tory of social, cultural, and environmental influences involved infood and eating in this southeast Asian city-state, also representsan increasingly common phenomenon worldwide – systems offood and eating dominated by processed and prepared foods. Thepurpose of this study is to contribute to the growing qualitative re-search in public health research on food decisions as well as pro-vide qualitative data on food and eating in Singapore forcomparative purposes. Specific health programs in Singapore canformulate more effective initiatives and interventions based upona greater understanding of the composite nature of food decisions,especially for Singaporean women. Public health programs world-wide can include these Singaporean results as a comparator for fur-ther research and policy.

Methods

The results of the research are derived from a subset of re-sponses extracted from the transcripts collected from 18 focusgroup interviews with Singaporean women (n = 130) between theages of 30 to 55 years. A focus group study design was chosen soas to take advantage of the discussion initiated by interactionamong the research participants, with the view that such interac-tion may stimulate discussion and ideas in other participants andreduce the likelihood of providing socially desirable answers (Kitz-inger, 1994; Krueger & Casey, 2009).

The women were recruited from three ethnic groups from theSingapore Consortium of Cohort Studies (SCCS) (http://www.nus-cme.org.sg/) to participate in the focus group interviews. Contactdetails were obtained from previous participation in one of thestudies that make up the SCCS. The selection of participants forthe SCCS was organized by two variables: (1) age (21–64 yearsold); and (2) country of residence (Singapore).1 The focus groupswere further stratified by their education level obtained (6O-level,PA-level). Singapore, a former British colony, provides school ageresidents with the General Certificate of Education (GCE). This aca-

1 Information regarding the SCCS study can be accessed at (http://www.p3gobser-vatory.org/catalogue.htm?studyId=22) and (http://www.nus-cme.org.sg/participant-Information.html). A more detailed Study Protocol for the SCCS can be found at:http://www.nus-cme.org.sg/pdf/Study%20Protocol,%20SCCS,%20short%20ver-sion,%20v5,%20Kaavya%20 Narasimhalu%20071129.pdf.

S. Ferzacca et al. / Appetite 69 (2013) 156–167 157


demic qualification is comprised of two levels: the Ordinary Level(O-level) and the Advanced Level (A-level) (Koh, 2004). Recruitswere briefed over the phone and were posted formal letters of invitewhich also explained the purpose of the focus group sessions. Partic-ipants were then provided with a Participant Information Sheet be-fore the start of the session which explained what would take placeduring each session and written consent was obtained. Participantswere also given the opportunity to clarify any doubts about the focusgroups at the start of their sessions.

A semi-structured interview protocol was used so as to capturea wide range of views and experiences surrounding eating prac-tices among Singaporean women (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree,2006). Existing literature informed the formulation of the inter-view questions, which were conceptualized using the theory of tri-adic influence that assumes contextual linkages in the responses tointerview questions between and among three spheres withinwhich individual decisions are situated: the biological specifics,the social situation in which biological particulars manifest, andthe cultural environment in which meaningful action takes place(Flay & Petraitis, 1994).

The interview protocol given to focus group moderators clus-tered 22 basic questions with subsets of questions into eightgroups: (a) the importance of food, (b) description of meals pre-pared at home, (c) decisions on food choice and purchasing, (d)social aspects of eating, (e) knowledge of healthy foods, (f)sources of health information, (g) perceptions on body weightand body shape and (h) perceived reasons for overweight. Ques-tions were followed by probes so that participants could elabo-rate on their ideas. The results used for analysis were from thebasic and subset questions associated with decisions on foodchoice and purchasing, which represents at the least 23% of thequestions posed to focus groups. These questions aimed to iden-tify (a) who influences food choices at home, (b) how decisionsare made regarding food purchasing, (c) where food is purchasedfrom and why, (d) who is responsible for the family eatinghealthily and (e) comparing the cooking practices of the olderand current generations.

The interview protocol was pilot tested using in-depth inter-views with nine women by a member of the research team whichallowed the team to test the clarity of the questions and theamount of information elicited. The pilot study also provided in-sight into developing probes and strategies for each group of ques-tions, to be later used by the moderators at their own discretionwhen participants deflected from the interview questions directedat them. For example, the question ‘‘Who decides what food is eatenat home?’’ was followed by the probes ‘‘Who influences what food iseaten at home: husband, children, parents, and maid?’’ and ‘‘Howimportant do you find their advice?.’’

The 18 focus group interviews were conducted by 3 culturallyappropriate moderators whom shared ethnic background and lan-guage. Moderators conducted interviews in English, however, onrequest interviews were also conducted in the language of partic-ipants, for example, in Chinese dialects, Malay, or Tamil. The otherinterviews were conducted in English with varying degrees of par-ticipants responding in their non-English first language (non-Eng-lish ‘mother tongue’ would be a more accurate representation ofthe language as we did not check fluency of the languages spokenwith the participants) in each interview. As a policy of bilingual-ism, it is also compulsory for Singaporeans to develop fluency inEnglish alongside a second language (referred to as their ‘mothertongue’), which is determined largely by the racial category ontheir identity cards (Gupta, 2008). For purposes of analysis thegroups are identified as Chinese High educated (CH), ChineseLow educated (CL), Malay High educated (MH), Malay Low edu-cated (ML), Indian High educated (IH), and Indian Low educated(IL) respectively.

Moderators were trained professionals hired by the companythat was employed by NUS. All moderators had relevant experi-ence moderating focus groups. Moderators were briefed by theNUS team ahead of the sessions and feedback was provided tothem after each session. Members of the research team were pres-ent as observers at all of the focus groups. Focus group sessionslasted approximately 90–120 min. As per the Institutional ReviewBoard (IRB) application and approval, participants were reim-bursed for their participation and transport costs.

In addition to the interview protocol on eating practices, studyparticipants provided limited demographic information as well asresponded to a structured closed ended questionnaire using bodysilhouettes in order to elicit information related to body prefer-ences and image. A photo elicitation activity was conducted atthe start of each session so as to encourage interaction withinthe group (Harper, 2002). Finally, interviews were transcribed ver-batim, after which interview responses were translated and tran-scribed into English when necessary. The transcripts werechecked for accuracy of translation by members of the researchteam who are fluent in Mandarin, Malay and Tamil, as well as ‘Sin-glish’, a form of English that is commonly spoken by Singaporeans(Deterding, 2007).

Researchers with various degrees of experience in the analysisof qualitative data developed a strategy for identifying patternsin the narratives. A pragmatic epistemological framework withcritical realism as the ontological position was adopted (Willig,1999). Qualitative methods are associated with a constructivistepistemology and an acknowledgment of multiple, constructedrealities. The connection of many ‘truths’ leads to the understand-ing of the experiences of the participants (Warren & Karner, 2005).We envisaged our research methodology and findings to be pre-sented in a manner that does justice not only to the topic but alsothe research participants’ voices by displaying sensitivity to thecontext, commitment and rigour, transparency and coherence,and impact and importance of issues discussed (Yardley, 2000).Two of the team members (G.R., M.W.) are native Singaporeansand the rest of the research team are familiar with the social con-text in Singapore, having previously carried out research withinthe Singaporean population.

Analyst triangulation was achieved through the involvement ofall members of the research team (Patton, 2002). A broad-basedreading of the interview responses as well as the organization ofdata by focus groups and subsets of interview questions was ini-tially undertaken to identify broad trends and thematic clusters.Both focus group membership and subsets of interview questionsacted as a funnel, increasing focus towards patterns in the re-sponses relevant to the topic at hand, in this case food decisions.

Coding was done by different members of the research teamusing either computer software, ATLAS ti (version 6.2.23, ATLAS.tiScientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany), or bymanually scanning the transcripts for responses to the specificquestions that probed decisions regarding food choices and eating(Basit, 2003). Both coding strategies (software aided and manual)applied at the point of analysis have been shown to be advanta-geous for the analysis. For example, the use of computer assistedqualitative data analysis software is able to provide an audit ofthe data analysis process as a whole (Welsh, 2002). Each membercoded the data and came up with themes which were reviewedand discussed within the research team at fortnightly meetings.This allowed for a number of perspectives and fostered discussionwhen analyzing the data, addressing important considerationssuch as reflexivity and credibility (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

A thematic analysis approach was used to analyze the data(Braun & Clarke, 2006). The flexibility of thematic analysis pre-sented the opportunity for a combination of both inductive anddeductive approaches in analyzing the data. Using the deductive

158 S. Ferzacca et al. / Appetite 69 (2013) 156–167


approach, a theoretical framework was used in the initial stages ofthe research. Two members of the research team were involved inthe development of the interview guide based on the theory of tri-adic influence (G.R., R.V.D.), which allowed for a priori codes to bedeveloped based on the biological, social and cultural environmen-tal domains, with additional codes added during the analysis. Thismade way for the discovery of other alternative codes and themesduring later readings. As the focus group sessions were also explor-atory in nature, the analysis was also done using a bottom up ap-proach by other members of the research team not involved in thea priori coding. In this inductive approach, themes were coded atthe semantic level and were identified within the surface meaningsof the data. Discourse that indexed the role of the environment,social life, culture, ethnic foodways and personal systemswere analyzed in order to reveal the complexity, or the compositenature of food decisions. This was a conscious effort made by theresearch team. Thus, alternative explanations were carefully con-sidered in the discussions during the regular meetings of the re-search team.

This study was approved by the NUS IRB and has therefore beenperformed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down inthe 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. All participants signed an in-formed consent form prior to their inclusion into the study.

Results

Composite food decisions

One of the women participating as a member of one of the ‘‘In-dian’’ groups comprised of individuals who had obtained ‘‘A-level’’education certificates provides some insight into the multifacetednature of food decisions for many of the Singaporean women par-ticipating in the study:

My policy. I think I’m more into healthy food as well. Once in awhile as family, we’ll go out. My husband likes to eat out attimes. Because he’ll complain at home the cooking is like everytime soup stuff. I wouldn’t want to go for too much of curry. Ican go without anything just the rice and vegetable and suchthings. My kids also love more of soup stuff so like Yong TauFoo (stuffed bean curd) soup. My husband likes it but then ifit is like everyday thing, he’ll just go mad. Maybe once a monthor once in two months, he’ll just say that complaint. Otherwise,he’ll just go with his colleagues or friends to eat out, sometimesdinner outside and so on. For me and my kids is basically I alsodon’t claim(inaudible) them to eat out too much because of weare more healthy like we use more healthy oil like that notmuch of frying such things. They do complain because the maidsometimes cooks you know. Normally weekend I cook. Week-days, I’ve no choice I’ve to leave it for the maids to do it. So ifI am around, then I’ll do the cooking. Basically is more healthconscious. Like what she says our plate is more of colours thatkind of thing.’’ (IH group participant)

Purchasing prepared foods is a dominant motif in the responsesto questions regarding food decisions. A participant in one of the‘‘Chinese’’ O-level focus group jokes about this central feature ofSingaporean eating habits:

Moderator: ‘‘The person that cooks ah? But most of you don’tcook, so who decide now?’’Respondent: ‘‘My mom.’’Respondent: ‘‘The person who buy lah.’’Moderator: ‘‘The person who buy?’’Respondent: ‘‘Whatever they want to eat, they buy.’’ (laughs)Respondent: ‘‘The person who buy will decide.’’

Both responses highlight the thematic clusters and food deci-sion patterns found throughout the data that identified eatingand food preferences in an environment dominated by the publicavailability of prepared foods and meals. It is clear that locally sig-nificant forms of social life, whether the family, the ethnic food-way, work-life and work-place relations have their place in fooddecisions. Personal systems developed out of this triadic contextare also brought to bear on food decisions as well.

A prominent bridge that organizes for each woman the variousstreams of influence identified by participants that are involved infood decisions is the ‘‘family.’’ One ‘‘Chinese’’ A-level participantdescribes the presence her children have on her mealtime deci-sions and her frustration in her attempts to satisfy her children’sfood preferences under current health regimes.

‘‘Most of the time I decide what to put on the table, but then,sometimes my children will say, please fry chicken wings, youknow. . . or can you fry the fish. There was one time where Ifry chicken wings and fried fish. Then they say, why so manyfried. . . when I fry, I fry everything!’’

A participant from the same focus group states she accounts forfood preferences even though the family members she accommo-dates may not actually be present when decisions are made.

‘‘They don’t decide, but we know what they want. So let’s say if Iwould to cook certain food, I know they won’t eat. So no pointcook that share also. Because at certain times, I would cravefor certain food. Because we are Peranakan. There are certainfoods. In the past right, we used to cook a lot and end up, wehave to throw away or give some to my mum. So now days,smarter a bit, I only cook my share. So whoever want to eat,eat. Then I just cook my share, then don’t waste the food what.’’

Fictive kin as family members may not only add opinions orfood preferences to food decision experiences, they may also addactual substance to meals.

‘‘Yah. . . I don’t know how to do the dressing and I don’t have thetime. But I hope to in the near future. But actually what Jose-phine shared, she is like my daughter. She will add somethingto whatever I am cooking. She will put tomato ketchup. She willput light soy sauce.’’ (Chinese A-level group participant)

The point is that a predominant thematic cluster appearing as acentral feature for composite food decisions is the family howeverconceived and configured by women participating in the inter-views. For many satisfying individual food choices at mealtimewas a common theme as one Chinese O-level group participantdescribes:

‘‘I have one question. I don’t know- last time I used to cook. SoI’ll remember A love what, B love what, C love what, so I’ll havedifferent dishes.’’

Another Chinese O-level group participant in response to thequestion ‘‘Who decides what to eat?’’ remarked:

‘‘For me it’s a full discussion, and then we come to an agreementtogether. There’s no who will decide. We have to agree together.So not all the time will (the decision) be mine. So sometimes wethink that ‘ok, majority wins. We follow that one.’’’

A Malay O-level participant agrees that this democratic ethosexists in food decisions at mealtimes, and the enactment of thisethos has significance in terms of family life.

‘‘We see who wants the favourite food. If we decide for them itis unkind to them. We ask around. Some do not want this foodor that, so we know. At least once a week, ask who wants to eat



what? So it’s fair. No one is fussy. We cannot be fussy. If oneperson decides, everyone must follow. We cannot have differentor split meals to have a peaceful family life. I mean everyonemust share.’’

The ‘‘Family’’

Singaporean women participating in the focus group interviewscited the family as the default organizing principle for food deci-sions. Environmental, social, and cultural parameters, ethnic food-ways, and even one’s own personal food system are organized ascomposite food decisions with the ‘‘family’’ as a further filter formanaging food decisions. All women cited an ethos of democracyin the formulation of day to day food decisions. Women remarkedthat while everyone may have their say differences among familymembers in terms of social category and status often prevail. Forsome of the women children come first while for other womenthe husband may be the determining factor in food decisions. Attimes the woman, especially when evoking the social category of‘mother’, may take the lead in deciding food bought and/or pre-pared for mealtime consumption. Finally, satisfying each individ-ual food preference at mealtime is a common method in formingcomposite food decisions.

One Chinese A-level group participant outlines her approach todemocratic fairness at mealtimes:

‘‘Well, I make it fair. One dish will be my husband’s favourite.One dish will be my daughter’s, one dish will be my son’s,you know?’’

Another from the same group reveals some difficulties inachieving such fairness:

‘‘And then I will just eat whatever. Because I make everybodyhappy. My son would say, the father would say, oh, I bought spareribs for you. I would like Chin Char Rot (pickled seafood), and thenmy son would hate Chin Char Rot. But then I would only like thegravy. And then my girl would like soup. My son never like soup.So just have one soup. Vegetables and red dates. So I can’t pleaseeverybody. So tomorrow I will please my son, but I won’t pleasemy daughter.’’

Many of the women offered that is ‘‘the mother’’ who makesfood decisions for the family. However, a respondent adds thatshe will ‘‘Tanya my husband dulu’’ (ask her husband first) beforedeciding what the family will eat.

‘‘I’ll ask my husband first. What do you want to eat? What doyou feel like eating and I’ll cook for you. Then he’ll say ‘ok cookcurry dishes.’ I’ll ask if he wants curry noodles or any otherthings, and he’ll say ‘the rest is up to you, but I just want curry.’’’

An Indian O-level group participant indicates family food pref-erences at mealtimes are determined differently across familymembers.

‘‘It’s always the children only (everyone laughs out loud).Whatever they want we cook. Sometimes my husband’spreference matters. Children’s favorites only in important.When they say they want certain food, if I can make it this weekI make.’’

Others who are not yet family members can shape family deci-sions. For example a Malay A-level group woman stated:

‘‘For me, my future husband, he is a little fussy. He is very typ-ical, so-called typical of Javanese, Malays (group laughter). Tem-peh (fermented soybean cakes) is a must which I don’t eat. Idon’t know why I don’t eat tempeh goreng (fried soybeancakes). So for him it is a must every day.’’

Relatives who may or may not live in the home with a woman’sfamily can play a role is food decisions, especially a woman’smother or mother-in-law. One Malay A-level group member de-scribes the central role ‘‘her mom’’ has in food choices and meal-time eating.

‘‘My mom lives with me so when it comes to pergi to pasar(shopping for food at the market) she will say lah. But mymom is good lah because of her overall good health she iswatching. So in a good way she’ll say you know don’t buy this,don’t buy that, buy this instead, and then cook it this wayinstead. She is the supervisor for my daily (food and eating),so she’s my mom. . . food on the table kind of thing for dinner,lunch and all that. That would be more my mom. But the otherextras, miscellaneous, would be me.’’

Just as important for some of the focus groups is the presence ofnon-family members in food decisions, especially those who eatout on a regular basis. For example many participants in the Chi-nese focus groups identified ‘‘The one who cooks’’ as central inshaping food choices. While the ‘‘one who cooks’’ can signify themember of the family who prepares food for mealtimes, this state-ment also referred to cooks in hawker stalls often frequented bySingaporeans, chefs in restaurants, but also live-in ‘‘maids.’’ In factChinese focus group participants to a greater degree compared tothe other ethnic groups participating in the study commented onthe difficulties cooking at home presents in an ethos of democracyand fairness oriented around the satisfaction of the different foodpreferences present in families. Moreover, the costs associatedwith cooking compared to eating out at hawker stalls and otherfood establishments, and the effort involved in cooking and clean-ing up after food preparation for the family were listed a majorimpediments to cooking meals at home as a common fooddecision.

‘‘Eating out’’ in Singapore is organized to a great extent aroundthe centrality family in composite food decisions. As one ChineseO-level participant stated:

‘‘If I go hawker, I will sit down and my husband will go see thefood. Then he will go pick up the food for me.’’

The same Chinese O-level focus group takes up this topic ofnegotiating mealtime foods when eating out:

Respondent: ‘‘When we go out and eat?’’Moderator: ‘‘Yeah.’’Respondent: ‘‘Most of the time my son will decide.’’Moderator: ‘‘Your son will decide. Linda?’’Respondent: ‘‘I decide.’’Moderator: ‘‘You decide? Ok.’’Respondent: ‘‘Children.’’Moderator: ‘‘The children decide? Interesting ah. . .’’Respondent: ‘‘Because they are the fussy sort.’’Respondent: ‘‘Yeah, you’re right. My son, my son will have todecide because when we say, ‘we want to eat this (thing)’, hesay, ‘Nooo!’’’Respondent: ‘‘Yeah, and sometimes they always say, ‘Anythinglor.’ But when you give them suggestion, they say, ‘Don’twant. . .’’’Respondent: (laughs) ‘‘Yeah, you’re right!’’(Group laughs)

Among the generations

As researchers examined the role of family in composite fooddecisions it became clear that intergenerational food preferenceswere common in the formulation and management of food deci-



sions. One of the Indian O-level group participants describes the ef-forts to meet these different tastes within a family composite ofdifferent tastes:

‘‘No, my children like varieties, something like western food.But I only cook Indian food, so only sometimes we argue lah.For us we’ll, our children what type of food to cook- ‘‘Ah ya,you always cook curry curry curry, told you not to cook curryalready. You don’t know how to cook other’’ pasta, lasagna. . .

they like that type. But I don’t know how to cook! I say, ‘I’m verysorry.’ Every Sunday my husband goes to market; they buyfood- fish, mutton, chicken- these only. So I only know to cookthat only, so I ‘‘am very sorry.’’ ‘‘We want to go outside and eat.’’Most of the time they very late come back. Lunch, they alwaystake, most of the time is outside.’’

One Malay A-level group participant notes similar inter-gener-ational circumstances in her eating experiences:

‘‘Ehrm. . . I do. . . I do notice that. . . I notice that in my currentworkplace, there’s. . . ehrm. . . different generations that I see.And. . . ehrm. . . I think they have different palates. My genera-tions the twenties. . . late twenties. . . they. . . they usually havea more special [inaudible] palate. Today. They know there’rehealthy food choices and know what works best for them. Ithink it’s because of education and also being aware of whatare the choices that they have. But generally, the. . . the oldergeneration, they will still tend to like the other [inaudible]and stuff like that. Ergh. It’s very hard to change their palatesto getting them to eating fresher. . . ergh. . . fresher produceand stuff like sushi and stuff like that.’’

‘‘Outside food’’ is useful for satisfying inter-generational tastes.One Chinese O-level group participant states: ‘‘We eat our threemeals outside; I buy whatever my kid wants.’’ Various membersof the ‘‘family’’ ‘‘take’’ their food ‘‘outside’’ based upon the foodavailable at home for other eaters. Outside food is often broughthome for consumption sometimes in addition to home-cookedmeals, but more often as ‘‘take away’’ meals that satisfy individualfood preferences. Such food, referred to as ta pao (bao) or ‘‘takeaway’’ food from the ‘‘outside’’ (outside the home), particularlyby Chinese Singaporean participants is a common method usedto ameliorate the problems of inter-generational tastes as theymay appear at mealtimes, once again highlighting the fact that atall times any individual decision is a relational, composite one, for-mulated in a historical context of food availability and the circula-tion of tastes at any one time in Singapore. One Indian A-levelgroup member, a school teacher, notes intergenerational differ-ences for food decisions.

‘‘Because they like junk food very much, they are given money,they are always thinking of going McDonalds and KFC. Theyenjoy eating I don’t know whether they know about it. Even ifthey know the impact, they don’t care because they enjoy itthey love it. Whenever, I want to give my students a treat, theyalways say teacher, KFC. I say it’s not healthy once in a while it’sokay. Whenever they want to go out and eat, they always goMcDonalds’. I’ve some students they must drink cold drinks,they said teacher, after eating my lunch I must have a glass ofthat. They are hooked on to that.’’

A potential source of conflict that at the very least serves as aconstant social ingredient in food decisions are the presence ofgenerations within the family that are marked by different cui-sines. The predominant cultural theme for food decisions orga-nized to meet the food desires of family members’ food andmeals marked in terms of health and the healthiness of foods. Eth-nic foods and foodways are identified as examples of generational

differences in family eating and food decisions. However, the rea-soning offered in these interviews locates ethnic foods and food-ways within a prevailing food and health discourse. One ChineseA-level group member notes the historical specificity of foodknowledge as food can shift from ‘‘good’’ to ‘‘bad’’ in terms ofhealthiness.

‘‘Because when I was young, my mum would cook fried chickenand all that. But when we get older, the food changes already. SoI know her, your food is getting from good to bad.’’

Age-old concerns for mothers that focus on insuring their chil-dren eat healthy meals highlight inter-generational differencesthat appear in the Singapore cultural environment surroundingfood decisions for study participants.

‘‘I think being mother is very hard. We just want our kids to behappy and it’s very difficult for us to say we cook something welike. But we can try and restrain them and tell them and advisethem not to take unhealthy. . .just like just now when I go downfor bubble tea, my daughter insist on 120% of sugar. I said, ‘don’tdo that in front of me. You behind me, I don’t want to know.’She said, ‘100%?’ ‘No. Your mom is taking 50%.’ ‘But 100% isthe right actual sugar level!’ ‘No, not with me.’ Then after thatwe had a long argument, the lady was like, ‘so what do youall decide?’ (Group laughs) Then I look at her, I said, ‘Who’s pay-ing?’ ‘Hmm. Okay lor, 50%. . .’ So that’s the thing.’’ (CL groupparticipant)

An Indian A-level group member explains how her son assertshis healthy food preferences that shape her food decisions.

‘‘And then, we don’t drink, no Coca Cola no, we don’t have thesegas drinks in the house. My sons’ policy is water. They don’ttake hot drinks also. I don’t why. They like green tea. Greentea is their favorite. So only my elder son go for Milo. Other thanthat, we don’t drink other drinks. No Coke, no Pepsi. Even whenguests come I also tell them I’m so sorry only water. I always tellthem because my son don’t like this Pepsi Cola or cola all. I can-not buy even how hot I want to drink also my son won’t allow.Maybe because some health reasons is it. And men, we do exer-cise. I never exercise for 2 years because I went for my legoperation.’’

A Malay A-level group participants talks about her struggles tore-shape her mother’s food decisions for health reasons:

‘‘I try to influence my mother to more of a- to adopt a morehealthy cooking, but the final decision is hers- whether shewants to cook or she’s too lazy to cook or sometimes she wantsto eat something she will cook it and we just take whatever shecooks.’’

An interchange between a focus group moderator and a ChineseA-level group participant reveals the ambiguity attached to‘‘healthy food’’ in the context of inter-generational food decisions.

Moderator: [Laughter] ‘‘So you didn’t like your mum’s cookingbecause it is too healthy?’’Respondent: ‘‘Yes. It is too healthy. And then the soup, it is likenot salty enough or. . . I can’t take it. Normally when I get a bowlfor myself, I will put soy sauce. If not I will feel tasteless.’’

A Malay O-level group member notes family and generation asfeatures of her food decisions:

‘‘My daughter is more into dieting. So when she sees me cook-ing, she will remind me of what I have learnt. (Laughing) But Itold her that your father wants to eat and I also want to eat.So no choice. And she will say, OK then you cook but don’teat.’’ (Laughing)



Discussion

Beginning with some assumptions

The theoretical orientation used to design the methodology isthat food and eating in Singapore, or anywhere for that matter,are shaped by a triangulation of streams of influence that includeenvironmental parameters that are associated with food resourcesavailable to eaters, the social milieu within which food preferencesand eating take place, and the cultural, or systems of meaning thatinform the use of foods. In order to illustrate these interactingstreams of influence in food preferences and eating patterns,researchers designing the project decided to interview Singapore-an women, since it was assumed that women play the central rolein food and eating on a day to day basis. The selection of womenwas to provide insight into the social systems and situations in-volved with food and eating as women perform the social rolesavailable to them as mothers, wives, daughter-in-law, and so on.Women participating in the study were also organized into groupsbased on education and ethnicity. Education and ethnicity were se-lected as variables due to the potential for cultural analysis eachvariable may present in everyday eating. The logic behind thesemethods was based on the fact that ethnic foodways are culturalconstructions of food and eating patterns in which group markersof identity are applied to culturally appropriate foods. Educationwas also used to sort participants based on the assumption thatdiffering degrees of education may provide insight into culturalconstructions of eating, especially in terms of the increasinglyprevalence of a nutritional science approach to eating in Singaporelikely encountered in schools.

Rightly or wrongly, the research design was based on severalassumptions that potentially bias data collection and analysis.The first assumption is that women are central to the activities sur-rounding food preferences and eating patterns as well as the expe-rience of eating. This assumption perhaps reflects a bias in theresearch that perpetuates the location of women, even eating itselfin the ‘‘domestic’’ sphere for which women are stereotyped as cen-tral participants and decision makers. The research found that thisassumption is difficult to support as food decisions are distributedamong all others identified by the participants, and food decisions,especially in the case of Singapore occur less frequently in the pri-vate, domestic spheres of households, but rather in the public‘‘domestic spheres’’ of hawker stalls, restaurants, and other publicplaces. However, nearly all of the women participating in the studygenerally identify with their familial role whether as mother,daughter, sister, wife and so forth.

The second assumption informing this research is that the cul-tural environment, manifest in the organization of the focus groupsby ‘‘ethnicity’’, is a social determinant in food preferences and eat-ing patterns. As these interviews reveal ethnic foods relevant tospecific groups, in the case of this research the location of Singap-orean women into Chinese, Malay, and Indian focus groups arequite fluid categories in terms of foods eaten and eating experi-ences. Chinese Singaporeans represent the dominant ethnic groupin Singapore. As the dominant group, Singaporeans of Chinesebackground rarely identify their food with ethnic markers. Insteadfoods are identified by manner of preparation, kind of food, nameof the meal itself, and where the food can be consumed. Malayand Indian participants were more likely to identify their food as‘‘Malay’’ or ‘‘Indian’’ often replacing the ethnic group category witha food flavor or dish, for example ‘‘curry.’’

A pointed discussion of food and ethnicity is beyond the scopeof this article. However, it is important to remember that studieson ethnic foodways in Singapore generally point to the dynamismin local cuisine (Chua & Rajah, 2001). The interviews among

women from Chinese, Malay, and Indian ethnic groups also revealthe difficulties in essentializing ethnic cuisine and meals as ownedand so eaten by any one ethnic group in Singapore. As studies inSingapore show Chinese cuisine itself is a mix of the cuisines of avariety of migrant groups from China (Hokkien 41.1%, Teochew21%, Cantonese 15.4%, Hakka 7.9%, and Hainanese 5.5%) who set-tled in Singapore (Saw, 2007). In addition, Malay cuisine has mixedwith Chinese cuisine to produce ‘‘hybrid’’ foodways (Chua & Rajah,2001). Similar historical processes have occurred among the threemajor ethnic groups and their respective cuisines participating inthis study as well as among a wide variety of other cuisines, espe-cially so-called western foods that have added to the eclectic food-ways of Singaporeans.

These assumptions that led to the organization of the ‘‘sample’’using gender and ethnicity as differentials in the very least pro-vided the opportunity to design a hypothesis to prove correct orotherwise. Researchers found that women were more likely to lo-cate their food decisions in social situational influences (Flay &Petraitis, 1994) defined by family that included inter-generationalfood preferences, with ethnicity appearing with less frequency,especially for Chinese Singaporeans.

Composite food decisions

Food decisions triangulate ‘‘streams of influence’’ from rela-tional realms that include (1) cultural–environmental influences,(2) social situational influences, and (3) intrapersonal influences(Flay & Petraitis, 1994). Food decisions formulated within streamsof influence are configured as situations dictate, therefore compos-ite food decisions operate as open-ended, flexible idiosyncratic re-gimes that are useful within the environmental, social, and culturalfacts specific to the Singaporean food and eating environment.Food decisions that include the spectrum of persons present andimagined, various and sometimes competing food knowledge andpractice, in an environment dominated by imported foods eatenby a majority as prepared foods and meals at food service outletsare necessarily open-ended and flexible, therefore, as a triangula-tions of streams of influence are always in a state of constant rein-vention. This cacophony of food and eating, not only ‘‘iconic of thepresence of different ethnic communities that make up the nation’’,but also iconic of Singapore’s current conditions of globalizationand history embodied in foodways appears throughout the inter-views of Singaporean women. As Barthes (1975) argued, food en-tails ‘‘an entire world’’ and has a historical quality that ‘‘permitsa person to partake each day in his national past’’ and as is arguedhere in one’s national present as well (Barthes, 1975).

Composite food decisions tap these streams, yet remain idio-syncratic formations reflecting the need to satisfy individuals andfamilies for whom food preference and eating are part of individuallived histories of food and eating in Singapore. People, knowledge,foods, and modes of eating are central components that transformcomposite decisions into idiosyncratic regimes. Most evident in theinterview questions specifically focusing on food decisions was thepresence of ‘‘social differentials’’ within families (Mintz, 1986).Studies on decision making in eating behavior note the influenceof the ‘‘family food decision-making system’’ as an ‘‘array of simul-taneous food activities’’ (Gillespie & Johnson-Askew, 2009). Thecomposite decisions of Singaporean women reflect and are shapedby a similar ‘‘array’’ that include the ‘‘acquisition, transformation,service, consumption and disposal off food and eating’’ immersedin each particular set of family dynamics (Gillespie & Johnson-As-kew, 2009). Singaporean womens food decisions, as other studieshave shown, are ‘‘frequent, multifacteted, situational, dynamic,and complex’’ (Sobal & Bisogni, 2009). Additionally, familydecisions incorporate and attempt to untangle ‘‘overlapping’’



contexts – for example, the streams of triadic influence as fooddecisions emerge and are made.

The majority of the participants referred to themselves as‘‘mother’’, or as ‘‘wife’’, both social categories that index the pres-ence of another social category – the ‘‘family’’. However, for Sin-gaporeans eating as a ‘family’ does not necessarily translate aseating the same foods, or necessarily eating together. A majorityof the Singaporean women participating in the focus groups canhardly be characterized as ‘‘nutritional gatekeepers’’ in terms ofhaving determining effects on family food and eating decisions(McIntosh & Zey, 1989; McIntosh et al., 2010). The data is clear thatfamily members can exert their influence on the food decisions ofthe women who participated in the focus groups. In particular,these family influences are often orchestrated by children. Malefamily members as husbands and fathers seem to play a somewhatlesser role in shaping food decisions, or perhaps the silence soundsa taken for granted feature of the status of the ‘‘father’’ or ‘‘hus-band’’ in women’s discussions of their food decisions.

In addition to eating, participants described as ‘‘family’’, several‘‘others’’ appear in the context of family eating who are non-familymembers, for example ‘‘the one who cooks.’’ The one who cookscan include maids, hawker stall and restaurant cooks, friends,and so forth. Nutritional advice and information that assume Sin-gaporeans prepare their own food when eating as a family maynot reach those who actually prepare foods. Non-family membersare important to consider since many of the instances of familyeating reported in the interviews include food that is not preparedby the family members themselves.

In order to understand why Singaporean women defer to thechildren when making food decisions, it is important to rememberthat Lupton argues that food and meals are ‘‘strong components ofaffective ties’’ and therefore, are ‘‘directly related to the construc-tion and reproduction of emotional relationships’’ (Lupton, 1996).In the 1998 large-scale study 92% stated that family membersshould make every effort to understand each other’s feelings, ideas,and views better (Tan, Kau, & Wirtz, 1998). The same study alsodocumented that 42% agree that conforming to social norms is veryimportant, and 40% believe that society should come before the self(Tan et al., 1998). With regards to the latter, 36% of Singaporeanwomen think that society should come before the self (Tan et al.,1998). This means that an overwhelming majority believe satisfy-ing the self has some priority and given the degree of agreement inthis study valuing the self over society constitutes a social norm. Aswe can see in the interviews food and eating are examples of‘‘emotion work’’ (Hochschild, 1979) as women organize food deci-sions in part around managing the emotions in the family.

These responses may aid towards understanding the women’swillingness to defer to their children’s food choices. Individualchoice and the discussion of choice may in some way articulatewith a general social value in Singapore (and other Asian locales)placed on harmony and order, rather than necessarily denotingchange in foodways (Traphagan & Brown, 2002). Avoiding conflictat dinnertime through the satisfaction of individual desires mayalso be related to the pragmatism that observers cite as anotherkey social value in Singapore (Chia, Tan, & Tyabji, 1999). Kuo(1987) argues that the ideology of socio-economic developmentin Singapore is matched in family ideology as well stressing ‘‘indi-vidualism, utilitarianism, and achievement orientations’’ as keyorganizing principles (Kuo, 1987). Nevertheless, administrationand management of diversity is required and women in this studygenerally identified themselves as ‘‘mothers’’ for whom the tasksand activities appropriate for the administration of the diversityof tastes found in families and at family mealtimes are assigned.Avoiding conflict may be fundamental to all food decisions, andespecially those made by these women regarding children’s foodpreferences. Further research is needed to identity this association.

Allowing children to orchestrate food decisions taps a social normfor valuing the self over society and is a strategy to avoid conflict inthe family especially at mealtimes.

Perhaps surprisingly, husbands and fathers rarely appear in theinterviews in terms of food decisions except as a resource mothersand wives must consider when food decisions are made. In thisway the ‘‘traditional division of home duties’’, as Quah (1999)noted in her study of the ‘‘Singapore family’’, prevail in our dataas well. Men and their food preferences shape food decisionswhether they are present or not during mealtimes. Often times itis the expectation that men will fare for themselves, in their owntime and place either with ‘‘outside foods’’ or additional foodsand dishes other than those consumed by the ‘family.’ The actualor imagined presence of family members highlights the fact wo-men’s food decisions will favor others, thus preventing womenfrom indulging their own food desires. These features of the per-sonal systems involved in food decisions play a central role inthe formation of idiosyncratic regimes of food preference and eat-ing involved at mealtimes.

Composite food decisions also reflect the social and spatial loca-tions of the family in a physical environment in which a wide vari-ety of cuisines are available at cheap prices, and a socialenvironment dominated by an ideology of harmonious relationsamong ethnic groups. Hawker centers where publically availablefood can be consumed are ubiquitous throughout Singapore. Everyplace of residence, apartment complex and neighborhood has oneor several nearby. The proximity of hawker centers and food courtsthat provide cheap varieties of food, are a crucial selling point forrealtors. There are many reasons hawker centers exist and have be-come central in the lives of nearly all Singaporeans. The 2010 Na-tional Nutrition Survey reported that 80.7% of adult Singaporeanresidents ate at hawker center/food courts/coffee stalls at leasttwice a week. Approximately 45.1% reporting eating at hawkercenters/food courts/coffee stalls six time or more a week, com-pared to 48.6% in 2004 and 37% in 1998 (Health Promotion BoardSingapore, 2013). Men prefer eating at hawker centers in greaternumbers than women, and Chinese in greater numbers than otherethnic groups. A study of the Singaporean family recorded that 59%of dual career families eat out as a ‘‘coping strategy’’ (Quah, 1999).Quah (1998) noted in a previous related study that there are an‘‘increasing proportion of married women who prefer to combinethe home and job obligations, and a corresponding decline in theproportion of women who prefer to be fulltime homemakers’’(Quah, 1998). The increasing presence of hawker centers is likelylinked to a great degree in the changes in ‘‘time discipline’’ as thelived actualities and meanings of work and leisure in terms of timeshape social life, ideas and practices associated with ‘‘craftingselves’’ (Thompson, 1967). Devine (2005) notes the negotiation in-volved in food decisions in which ‘‘time’’ is associated with the var-ious tasks involved but also operates as an overall principle fororganizing decisions (Devine, 2005).

The references, particularly by Chinese women, to their desireto avoid waste, as well as general complaints about the messinessand complications involved in cooking at home index, at least indi-rectly, the role of the time relevant food and eating activities with aphysical environment dominated by the cheap and available vari-ety of food found at hawker centers. The decision to ‘‘go hawker’’communicates this easy and available alternative to home pre-pared meals.

‘‘Fussy’’ tastes can be easily accommodated by the wide varietyof foods available at cheap prices in hawker centers. Husbands andfathers can simply resort to ‘‘go hawker’’ when food provisions athome or food decisions made in their absence to not satisfy theirtastes. The relative absence of husbands and fathers in terms offood decisions may be explained by a physical environment devel-oped out of social forces that provide opportunities for men who



are determined by values appropriate with their social categoriesin a traditional division of family duties to be associated with theoutside world; the public sphere of sociality compared to thedomestic sphere women may be associated with in terms of tasks,duties, and obligations, not necessarily in terms of physicalpresence.

Composite food decisions are also influenced by differing tastesand food ideologies associated with differing generations of Sin-gaporeans. From among all of the possible ‘‘family’’ members thereis a pattern in these interviews with Singaporean women for defer-ring to the food preferences of children. The interview protocol didnot directly address reasons why women defer to children or infewer cases to their husbands when making food decisions. Studiesof family values and child rearing in Singapore provide some in-sight. In a large-scale lifestyle study conducted in 1998, 70% of Sin-gaporeans regarded family as the single most important thing intheir lives. Malay (81%) and Indian (80%) women reported higherpercentages than Chinese (72%) women in identifying the presenceof this social value (Tan et al., 1998). In a ‘‘Study of the SingaporeanFamily’’ conducted around the same time, researchers found thatin general Singaporeans prescribed to ‘‘traditional divisions ofhome duties’’ in the establishment and maintenance of family lifewith women generally adhering to tasks and activities associatedwithin the domestic sphere while men were more involved inthe public sphere of work and providing for the family (Quah,1999).

If the results from the other large-scale surveys of Singaporeansocial and family values can be applied to this study of food deci-sions among Singaporean women, some correlations from theseprevious studies suggest that deferring to children in terms of fooddecisions is based in avoiding conflict, rearing children to valueautonomy, and negotiating individual choice as a method to reach-ing harmony and order through an inclusiveness based on diver-sity, and meeting diverse needs present at any given moment. Inthis study Singaporeans reported their ‘‘greatest worry’’ as educa-tion for their children. Only 8% of Singaporeans identified difficul-ties with discipline and a child’s obedience as a ‘‘greatest worry’’(Quah, 1999). In the same study 52% reported they were onlysometimes (34%) or never (18%) strict with their children, and73% responded that always (25%) or sometimes (48%) childrenshould make their own decisions. The study concluded that interms of child rearing a large proportion of Singaporeans are ‘‘in-clined towards autonomy’’ and ‘‘independence’’ when raising chil-dren and in terms of ‘‘regulations’’ within the family system.

In a study of parenting in bilingual households researchersfound that parents did not ‘‘stress the correctness of language tothe extent that adult models elsewhere have been found to do’’ (El-liot, 1999). Researchers argue that in part that since ‘‘multilingual-ism’’ is a reality within the family as well as outside of it thatSingaporeans find it pragmatic to allow family members as wellas members of various social groups that comprise Singaporeansociety to use ‘‘what people want and use regardless of any policy’’(Elliot, 1999). The variety of cuisines like the multiplicity of lan-guages and dialects found in Singapore operate similarly ‘‘as meansfor cultural identity and communication’’ and the diversity in thefamily along with the desire to deal with such diversity, pragmat-ically, and with little conflict in many ways mirrors at least in partthe pragmatism required to manage a harmonious multi-culturalsociety.

Watson (2006) in an influential book on the emergence of wes-tern fast foods, noted the ‘‘pivotal role’’ children play in foodchange as an artifact of the ‘‘little emperor phenomenon’’ (Watson,2006). Mintz (2001) argues that what is ‘‘new’’ is that children inAsia, like their counterparts in the ‘‘west’’ are able to make ‘‘claimsagainst their parents’ wills,’’ that perhaps points to cultural and so-cial developments in family relations where children are taught to

‘‘grow’’ into social spaces already occupied by parents as an appro-priate process of maturation (Mintz, 2001). Previously childrenwere not considered as occupying the same social space as adults.Historical forces circulating with global capitalism favor theunfolding of personalities in spaces occupied by other personalitiesin a competitive fashion, and so Mintz believes that the dominanceof children and their wills represents a process of socialization inwhich children mature by claiming social spaces occupied by adultpersonalities as their own (Mintz, 2001).

Children express their food preferences in terms of taste butalso through the use of nutritional knowledge and information.Singaporean women in the study not only defer to their children’staste but what they know; they defer to knowledge that they ex-press are held and nurtured by their children rather than them-selves. The influence of this ‘‘cultural capital’’ obtained and heldby children and others is a significant feature shaping food deci-sions as has been found in other studies previously mentioned(Warde, Cheng, Olsen, & Southerton, 2007). This phenomenon isevident as women speak about the use of ‘‘health knowledge’’ bytheir children to make food decisions. Mintz (2001) believes thatAsian parents may have always deferred to children in terms ofsatisfying their desires for whatever reason, but he believes whatis new is that parents ‘‘are now listening’’ to their children becauseAsian parents now believe ‘‘their children now know, that theythemselves do not’’ (Mintz, 2001). The prevalence of different kindsof health knowledge related to food are clearly evident in the inter-views and constitute important variables in the food decisions andeating patterns of the Singaporean women and their families.

The desire for healthy foods as well as western foods representcultural identities and forms of communication, signaling kinds ofpersons who either choose to eat or not eat such culinary distinc-tions. The inclusion of ‘‘healthy foods’’ in the food decisions of wo-men involve some inter-generational import as children chideparents for not serving up health meals. However, as other studiesindicate (Traphagan & Brown, 2002) these ‘‘intergenerational’’ dif-ferences do not necessarily disrupt group eating. Generational dif-ferences indicated by food preferences reveal the ongoing dynamicmanagement of information and knowledge by the women partic-ipants as they formulate food decisions. Both younger and olderfamily members attempt to employ knowledge and informationrelevant to food related decisions.

This social eating is referred to in this paper as idiosyncratic re-gimes in order to capture the sense of individual choice and taste –historically developed personal systems of eating – that at thesame time have been and continue to be collectively shaped andhistorically anchored in Singaporean society, in a milieu shapedby environmental, social, cultural, and intrapersonal factors. Eachgeneration is anchored in its history, its set of social circumstances,its traffic of circulating knowledge and values. Individual choiceand taste in action reproduce these already established social re-gimes of eating, as well as in the process producing alternativesthat reflect the ongoing process that individual and collective fooddecisions contribute to the dynamism of the multiple gastronomichistories in Singapore that are the heart of this city’s foodway.

Conclusion

Recent concern in Singapore regarding the increasing preva-lence of diet-related diseases and obesity among Singaporeanscompels intensive, local research into the many features that formfoodways in this Southeast Asian nation. This research conceptual-ized food and eating as influenced by and at the same time repro-ducing the physical, social, and cultural features within which foodand eating occur. The results of the study suggest that the fooddecisions of the Singaporean women who participated in the studyshould be conceptualized as composite decisions that include peo-



ple, non-human entities, food and eating knowledge, food ideolo-gies, the physical, social, and cultural environments that in the caseof Singapore manifest in a rapidly changing, globally impacted ur-ban milieu. The family and inter-generational differences werecentral to the women’s food decisions. Avoiding conflict may befundamental to all food decisions, and especially those made bythese women regarding children’s food preferences. Further re-

search is needed to identity this association. Allowing children toorchestrate food decisions taps a social norm for valuing the selfover society and is a strategy to avoid conflict in the family espe-cially at mealtimes. Food decisions represent idiosyncratic regimesof food and eating in which individual lived histories and experi-ences with food and eating in Singapore reproduce central socialvalues that circulate in Singapore society at large.

Appendix A. Focus group discussions on eating habits among Singaporean women

Discussion guide for moderators.

Introduction Remarks Time(mins)

(Introduce yourself and others with you) 5Thank you for coming down to today’s focus groupdiscussion. Throughout this session, we would like to learnmore about eating habits among Singaporean women. As amoderator, I will first ask a couple of questions. Please feelfree to answer and respond to each others’ comments.Please share with us as much as you can about your eatinghabits and diet. There are no right or wrong answers. Yourexperiences and opinions are important to usYour responses will be tape recorded and transcribed tohelp us analyse the results accurately. No names orpersonal identifiers will be used at any stage of the analysis.All information will be kept confidential and will be usedfor research purposes only. Because this is a groupdiscussion, we encourage everyone to talk and we respecteach other’s opinionsAre there any questions at this stage?

Main Discussion points Issues that require attention/Probes Time

1 Introduction participants 5NameOpening question for each participant:What is your favourite food?

2 Free listing – Participants are provided with differentimages related to food and asked to pen their one word/short phrase (not more than 3 words) responses

Moderator to set the tone for interaction in the group 10

Participants are then asked to share their responses withthe group

3 How important is food in your life? � Issue of sustenance versus taste (‘‘eat to live/live toeat’’)

20

� How would you describe your relationship to food?� Has this relationship changed during different stages in yourlife?� Does it play a major role in all aspects of your life? Happyoccasions, sad occasions?� Do you enjoy taking your time to eat?Or, do you think perhaps eating is sort of a waste of time – youcould be doing other more important things?

Describe some of the meals prepared at home Issues to surface: PreferencesWhat type of foods does a complete meal need to include? If no clear responses probe for meat or fish, rice, dessert/sweet-

dish?� How many complete meals does one have a day?What is considered a snack? How many times a day do youhave a snack?

What foods would you not be able to give up? � What are some food items that you need to have at everymeal? How about every week?

What does your religion (if any) say about food? � Is it important to follow these rules?� How is this done in everyday life?

(continued on next page)



Appendix A (continued)


� Are there moments when rules are not followed?

4 Who decides what food is eaten at home? Issues to surface: Family dynamics 10� Who influences what food is eaten at home: husband,children, parents, and maid? How important do you find theiradvice?

How do you decide what foods to buy? Issues to surface: Taste, cost, ease of preparation, access,health benefits� Do you eat differently if you can determine what you eatyourself?� In what ways is that different?

Sometimes, the places where we buy our food from also

influence the types of food we eat

Issues on convenience, availability and price should beaddressed in discussion

Where is the food for your family bought? Why is it boughtfrom there?

� Does the maid/parent do the marketing? Do they decidewhere to buy?� What about eating out or buying preparedfood?� Do you eat out? � How do you choose where to eat out?

Who is responsible for a family eating healthily?Do you think that your generation is less skilled in cookingcompared to the previous generation? What about the youngergeneration?

5 We would like to know more about the social aspects of

eating.

20

On what occasions do you eat with your family? � How often do you have social occasions during which morethan the average daily amount is eaten?

On what occasions do you eat with your extended family andfriends?

6 Some foods are seen as better for health and some foods as

worse for health

Issues to surface: concept of hot and cold foods 10

What are some examples of healthy food? � Is there a traditional way of eating healthy? What about‘‘heaty’’ and ‘‘cooling’’ foods?

What makes food healthy/unhealthy? � How important is it to eat healthily?� Expected advantages of eating healthily?� Expected consequences of eating unhealthily?

There are various sources of information on food � What sources of information do you trust?

Where do you get your information on food? � Do you use food labels?What are good sources of information on healthy food? � Are you aware of certain health campaigns or government

information on nutrition in Singapore?� Do you like these campaigns?� How much influence does the media have on your decisionmaking on eating or buying food?� What about TV ads?

7 Body weight and shape is also influenced by eating habits.

We would like to know more about your ideas on body

shape.

10

What is the ideal weight in the Chinese/Malay/Indiancommunity?

� Probe with visual cues of silhouettes

� Are these ideas different in older generations? And in youngergenerations?� How do you feel about your current weight?

Being overweight is a problem in many developed countries

including Singapore. We would like to hear your ideas

about reasons for this problem among Malays / Chinese/

Indians.Do you think being overweight or obesity is a big problem inyour community?

� Do you think overeating and eating unhealthily are causes ofoverweight and obesity? What eating habits are good or bad



References

Barthes, R. (1975). Towards a psychosociology of contemporary food consumption.In E. Forster & F. Forster (Eds.), European diet from pre-industrial to modern times(pp. 47–59). New York: Harper and Row.

Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis.Educational Research, 45, 143–154.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. QualitativeResearch in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Chia, S. Y., Tan, L. Y., & Tyabji, A. (1999). Economic development. An update. In B. H.Chua (Ed.), Singapore studies II. Critical surveys of the humanities and socialsciences (pp. 6–45). Singapore: Singapore University Press for the Centre forAdvanced Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University ofSingapore.

Chua, B. H., & Rajah, A. (2001). Hybridity, ethnicity and food in Singapore. In D. Y. H.Wu & C.-B. Tan (Eds.), Changing Chinese foodways in Asia (pp. 161–200). HongKong: The Chinese University Press.

Deterding, D. (2007). Singapore English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Devine, C. (2005). A life course perspective. Understanding food choices in time,

social location, and history. Journal of Nutrition, Education, and Behavior, 37,121–128.

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview.Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321.

Elliot, J. M. (1999). Studies in psychology. In B. H. Chua (Ed.), Singapore studies II.Critical surveys of the humanities and social sciences (pp. 182–203). Singapore:Singapore University Press for the Centre for Advanced Studies. Faculty of Artsand Social Sciences, National University of Singapore.

Ferzacca, S. (2000). ‘Actually I Don’t Feel that Bad’. Managing diabetes and theclinical encounter. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 14(1), 28–50.

Ferzacca, S. (2004). Lived food and judgments of taste at a time of disease. MedicalAnthropology. Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness, 23, 1–27.

Flay, B. R., & Petraitis, J. (1994). The theory of triadic influence. A new theory ofhealth behavior with implications for preventive interventions. In G. S. Albrecht(Ed.). Advances in medical sociology. A reconsideration of models of health behaviorchange (Vol. IV, pp. 19–44). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

Gillespie, A. M. H., & Johnson-Askew, W. L. (2009). Changing family food and eatingpractices. The family food decision-making system. Annals of BehavioralMedicine, 38, S31–S36.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions andemerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitativeresearch (3rd ed. London: Sage.

Gupta, A. F. (2008). The language ecology of Singapore. Ecology of Language, 9,99–111.

Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures. A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies,17, 13–26.

Health Promotion Board, Singapore (2013). Report of the national nutrition survey2010. Singapore. <http://www.hpb.gov.sg/HOPPortal/content/conn/HOPUCM/path/Contribution%20Folders/uploadedFiles/HPB_Online/Publications/NNS -2010.pdf>.

Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules and social structure’’. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 85, 551–575.

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups. The importance of interactionbetween research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16, 103–121.

Koh, A. (2004). Singapore education in ‘‘New Times’’. Global/local imperatives.Discourse. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(3), 335–349.

Kong, L. (2007). Singapore hawker centers. People, places, food. Singapore: NationalEnvironmental Agency.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups. A practical guide for appliedresearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuo, E. C. Y. (1987). Confucianism and the Chinese family in Singapore. Continuities andchanges. Sociology working papers no 83. Department of Sociology, NationalUniversity of Singapore.

Lupton, D. (1996). Food, the body, and the self. London: Sage Publications.McIntosh, W., Kubena, K., Tolle, G., Dean, W., Jan, J., & Anding, J. (2010). Mothers and

meals. The effects of mothers’ meal planning and shopping motivations onchildren’s participation in family meals. Appetite, 55, 623–628.

McIntosh, W., & Zey, M. (1989). Women as gatekeepers of food consumption. Asociological critique. Food and Foodways, 3, 317–332.

Mintz, S. W. (1986). Sweetness and Power. The place of sugar in modern history. NewYork: Penguin Books.

Mintz, S. W., & Du Bois, C. M. (2002). The anthropology of food and eating. AnnualReview of Anthropology, 31, 99–119.

Mintz, S. W. (2001). Concluding commentary. In D. Y. H. Wu & C.-B. Tan (Eds.),Changing Chinese foodways in Asia (pp. 271–286). Hong Kong: The ChineseUniversity Press.

Murcott, A. (1988). Sociological and social anthropological approaches to food andeating. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, 55, 1–40.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Quah, S. R. (1998). Family in Singapore. Sociological perspectives (2nd ed.). Singapore:Times Academic Press.

Quah, S. R. (1999). Study on the Singapore family. Singapore: Ministry of CommunityDevelopment.

Rothman, A., Gillespie, A. M. H., & Johnson-Askew, W. L. (2009). Decision making ineating behavior. Interacting perspectives from individual, family, andenvironment. An introduction. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38, S1–S3.

Saw, S. H. (2007). The population of Singapore (2nd ed.). Singapore: Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies.

Singapore Department of Statistics (2009). Report on the household expendituresurvey 2007/2008. Singapore: Department of Statistics.

Sobal, J., & Bisogni, C. A. (2009). Constructing food choice decisions. Annals ofBehavioral Medicine, 38, S37–S46.

Tam, S. M. (2001). Lost, and found? Reconstructing Hong Kong identity in theidiosyncrasy and syncretism of Yumcha. In D. Y. H. Wu & C.-B. Tan (Eds.),Changing Chinese foodways in Asia. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Tan, S. J., Kau, A. K., & Wirtz, J. (1998). A large-scale lifestyle study of Singaporeans.Release V. Moral standards, traditions, family and social values RPS #98-25.Singapore: Faculty of Business Administration, National University ofSingapore.

Teng, P., & Escaler, M. (2010). The case for urban food security. A Singaporeperspective. NTS Perspectives, 1–18.

Thompson, E. P. (1967). Time, discipline, and industrial capitalism. Past and Present,38, 56–97.

Traphagan, J. W., & Brown, L. K. (2002). Fast food and intergenerationalcommensality in Japan. New styles and old patterns. Ethnology, 2(Spring),119–134.

Warde, A., Cheng, S.-L., Olsen, W., & Southerton, D. (2007). Changes in the practice ofeating. Acta Sociologica, 50, 363–385.

Warren, C., & Karner, T. (2005). The interview. Discovering qualitative methods. Fieldresearch, interviews and analysis. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Watson, J. L. (2006). Golden arches east. McDonald’s in East Asia (2nd ed.). Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data. Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysisprocess. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum. Qualitative Social Research,3(2).

Willig, C. (1999). Beyond appearances. A critical realist approach to socialconstructionism. In D. J. Nightingale & J. Cromby (Eds.), Social constructionistpsychology. A critical analysis of theory and practice. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health,15(2), 215–228.

Appendix A (continued)


for this?What do you think are important reasons for being overweightamong people in your community?

8 We are now at the end of our discussion and would likeyour feedback

Each participant gets a chance to say something about theirpersonal opinion about the discussion

Considering all the issues discussed this afternoon, which doyou feel are the most important influences on your eatinghabits?

� Are there important issues regarding nutrition that were notdiscussed?

� From all the issues that we discussed which one was the mostimportant in your opinion?


Food Decisions Singapore

Documents