You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
  • Review
  • Open Access

5 March 2021

Assessing Commensality in Research

,
and
1
School of Hospitality, Culinary Arts and Meal Science, Örebro University, 712 02 Grythyttan, Sweden
2
Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food Studies, Uppsala University, 751 22 Uppsala, Sweden
3
School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, 702 81 Örebro, Sweden
4
Department of Public Health and Sports Science, University of Gävle, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden
This article belongs to the Collection Food, Nutrition and Health with Focus on Eating Together

Abstract

This scoping review focuses on the assessment of commensality in research and attempts to identify used methods for performing research on commensality. It reflects a multidisciplinary research field and draws on findings from Web of Science Core Collection, up to April 2019. The empirical material consisted of 61 studies, whereof most were qualitative research, and some were of quantitative character, including very few dietary surveys. The findings show nine papers categorized as using quantitative approaches, 52 papers were categorized as qualitative. The results show a wide variety of different ways to try to find and understand how commensality can be understood and identified. There seems to be a shift in the very concept of commensality as well as some variations around the concept. This paper argues the need to further investigate the importance of commensality for health and wellbeing, as well as the need to gather data on health and health-related behaviors, living conditions and sociodemographic data in parallel. The review shows the broad-ranging areas where commensality is researched, from cultural and historical areas to ethnographic or anthropological areas over to dietary assessment. To complement large dietary surveys with methods of assessing who you are eating with in what environment should be a simple way to further our knowledge on the circumstances of meal intake and the importance of commensality. To add 24-h dietary recall to any study of commensality is another way of identifying the importance of commensality for dietary quality. The use of mixed methods research was encouraged by several authors as a good way forward in the assessment of commensality and its importance.

1. Introduction

Researchers that find an interest in commensality research will discover that there is no easily identified common research methodology. A number of studies dealing with family meals or social eating, studied as a background for this scoping review revealed that the overlap of studies using the search term “family meal” or “eating together” with the term “commensality” was often inclusive. A recent meta-analysis of family meals and health showed that there is convincing evidence showing that family meals have an important impact on the future meal frequency and nutritional health of children [1]. The definitions of “family meals” has, however, been shown to be inconsistent and concentrating on number of family meals per week [2]. Furthermore, a systematic review could identify the term “eating together” as being important for metabolic indices for nutritional health [3], even though the number of studies was too small for any sensible detailed analysis to be made.
For the nutritionally interested—data on commensality are almost never gathered in connection with large dietary surveys. In dietary assessment tool portals like the Diet, Anthropometry, Physical Activity (DAPA) Measurement Toolkit from the Medical Research Council in the UK, all different types of dietary assessment, subjective and objective methods, are listed for easy access. However, the only reference given to commensality is the following: “Individuals can record the time, location and whether they consumed meals alone or with others for each eating occasion, providing information on eating patterns and the eating environment” [4]. No additional information is available in this otherwise very well-equipped resource. Large studies such as NHANES in the United States [5] have not studied eating together and the latest Swedish dietary surveys [6,7] did not include any angle on commensality, just to mention a few. Commensality seems not to be assessed in dietary surveys performed on population level or representative parts thereof, such as different types of registrations or records of food intake, at least not using the word “commensality.” This means that the importance of commensality for a healthy diet cannot easily be studied from already existing data from dietary intake studies. The type of venue where food is eaten is more often recorded than whether eaten alone or accompanied by others.
In sociological or anthropological studies of eating situations, commensality is sometimes more thoroughly discussed and assessed [8]. In this regard, assessment of eating together can be studied for example using observations, interviews, or questionnaires.
A reasonable way forward, for the scholar with an interest in how eating together affects our wellbeing as well as what we eat, with whom, where, and how, would be to try to identify different ways of assessment of commensality. This could possibly lead to a broader understanding of the level of importance of eating together over research boundaries and lead to an increased comparability of studies [9].
The aim of this paper is to make a scoping review of quantitative as well as qualitative methods of studying commensality, in nutritional surveys as well as in surveys of other character, such as cultural, sociological, or anthropological studies. We also wanted to identify in which disciplines papers were published in the area as well as how the number of papers using the term commensality has evolved over time.

2. Materials and Methods

A scoping review mapping the body of a specific topic was used to summarize and disseminate relevant literature [10]. This scoping review followed the steps suggested by Arksey and O’Malley [11]: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant literature, (3) selecting the studies, (4) charting the data and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The research questions were: How has commensality been assessed in research studies? Which disciplines and which affiliations do researchers have who have published papers using the term commensality? Finally, how has the number of papers evolved over time?

Literature Search, Database, and Search Terms

The database searched was Web of Science Core Collection, up to April 2019. Search term used: commensality. The following criteria had to be met for a study to be included:
  • Published up to April 2019.
  • Published in English.
  • Somehow assessing commensality
  • Describing commensality among humans.
We included 61 studies, whereof most used qualitative research methods and some were of quantitative character, including very few dietary surveys.
In the following, we have gone through the quantitative as well as the qualitative papers in some detail, and we produced a number of tables including all papers, listed under six categories.

3. Results

The papers we identified were roughly categorized into quantitative and different categories of qualitative papers, such as observations, interviews, and field studies.

3.1. Quantitative Research Studies

Nine papers (Table 1) [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20] were identified, which used quantitative approaches of some sort to assess commensality, sometimes in combination with qualitative methods and common dietary survey methodology. One paper described a new questionnaire, Well-Being related to Food Questionnaire (Well-BFQ), which is waiting to be validated [14]. Most of the studies using questionnaires were cross-sectional studies [12,13,15,16,17,18,19], some of them performed at two different time points, describing development over time [12,15]. One study looked at only breakfast habits [13]. Two of the papers described the same data [15,16]. Finally, two studies, described in three papers, were using a common dietary survey technique (24-h recall) to collect high-quality data of actual intake rather than “usual” intake [15,16,19].
Table 1. Quantitative studies: Summary of the reviewed studies (n = 9).
A common problem in most studies was that the response rates were low and in some cases clearly skewed, with non-responders of lower education level. Some suggestions that could be read out from the scoping review regarding the use of quantitative methods to assess commensality were recommending the use of mixed methods approaches, applying rigorous sampling techniques, including type of venue in the investigation (lowbrow, highbrow) and whether the venue facilitated commensality or not. Mailed or online questionnaires were used in several studies. Many authors suggested inclusion of with whom, where, how, when, questions. In all studies using questionnaires, socio-demographic characteristics were collected, in a more or less rigorous fashion and of course, ethical approval was sought, with informed consent collected from participants as soon as issues of sensitive nature were collected.

3.2. Qualitative Research Studies

Qualitative studies are described as those involving the systematic collection, organization, and interpretation of textual material derived from talk or observation [9]. Qualitative studies are used in the exploration of meanings of social phenomena as experienced by individuals themselves, in their natural context [21]. Among the identified papers on commensality assessment, 51 papers were categorized as qualitative. These were put into subcategories, such as qualitative interviews (Table 2) [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41] and ethnological studies (Table 3) [42,43,44,45,46,47], log book plus interview (Table 4) [48,49,50,51] case studies (Table 5) [52,53] and diverse methods (Table 6) [54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73].
Table 2. Interviews: summary of the reviewed studies (n = 20).
Table 3. Ethnology: summary of the reviewed studies (n = 6).
Table 4. Log book plus interview: summary of the reviewed studies (n = 4).
Table 5. Case studies: Summary of the reviewed studies (n = 2).
Table 6. Diverse methods: summary of the reviewed studies (n = 21).
Among these qualitative papers, two approaches were identified. The first one studying commensality to understand a phenomenon within meals, and the second to examine how to understand commensality from a meal point of view. Several papers revealed aspects of different social meanings attached to food and commensality, as well as how meaning seems to have changed over time [27,36,51]. There was also some variations around the concept, such as; commensal space, meal, eating practice, conviviality, convivial dining [18,45,68].
Moreover, the diversity of the applicability of the method differed within qualitative methods, ranging from more or less rather standardized questionnaires [14,26], with specific open questions, to collections of life stories [27,34]. We could also see the same variation in how data have been analyzed ranging from statistical analysis such as regression analysis [50] content analysis [65] or using grounded theory [35,41].
According to different application of theories, theories surrounding “practices” were observed as the most commonly used in interview studies [24,27,30,34], within ethnographic methodology [31] as well as in questionnaires [26]. As commensality was seen as an important practice that appears in different settings and contexts, we thereby identified a perception of the importance of commensality research for more theoretical approaches on meal and food studies.
One of the most common themes on the qualitative papers was in regards to family eating [35,37,44,48,56,57,62]. None of these papers investigated how to implement commensality in research, but still discussed how to understand commensality in the use of technology during meals, family rites, parents/mothers and, family activities and class. All papers emphasized the importance of the use of commensality in research as a notion for bringing new light to the understanding of meals. Another interesting finding in the analysis of the papers was in regards to pleasure and health aspects of eating together. Here in the qualitative part of our results, the identified commensality papers seemed to concentrate on enjoyment or pleasure of eating together. This was most obvious in Phull et al. [45], discussing that overall economic, time and social pressures may inhibit pleasurable family dining.

3.3. Disciplines Identified in This Scoping Review and Number of Papers over Time

The final papers showing up in our review turned out to be mostly from the nutrition area (28 papers); 20 of them were published in Appetite. Clinical or medical journals including pediatrics published another large part (6 papers), social science (20 papers), ethnology, anthropology (6 papers), tourism studies (1 paper), urban studies (1 paper). It seems as if the search term commensality was used in several disciplines. We did not put a limit on how old the paper in WoS could be, yet the first paper using the term commensality and fitting the inclusion criteria was identified in the year 2000. From 2000–2014, the number of papers was fairly low, only ten papers were found during this fourteen year time span. In 2015, 7 papers were found, 2016 14 papers, 2017 17 papers, 2018 10 papers and 2019 up to April 4 papers all including some type of description of assessment of commensality. Countries involved in commensality studies according to our search were mostly European, with some originating from New Zealand, Japan, Korea, African countries, USA, Canada and South America. Sometimes authors studied other cultures than their own.

4. Discussion

The diversity of disciplines identified in this review is broad and the methods used to describe or to assess commensality show the true multidisciplinarity of the subject. An important result is also that the term commensality as search term seems to be widely spread over disciplines over the last five years, while earlier research is scarce. A large proportion of the commensality research identified in this review was European, possibly indicating that the term commensality has been more used in the European arena.
A great deal of the identified research is focused on health and nutrition, aiming to investigate the importance of commensality for health and wellbeing [12,13,14,15,16,18,20,22,24,26,30,33,39,46,58,65,67,69]. This means that data on health and health related behaviors, living conditions and sociodemographic data, need to accompany the data on commensality. To gather valid data on dietary intake, solid dietary survey methodology should be used. 24-h recall in questionnaire format, with at least 2 24-h recalls per individual is suggested as a good way to assess dietary quality [4,12,15,16,19]. Since 24-h recall is a type of diary, it can easily be connected to questions on with whom, where, type of venue, time of day, and type of meal consumed (breakfast, lunch, dinner, other). Furthermore, several nutritionally oriented authors expressed the need for including qualitative measures to complement the traditional quantitative data gathering [15,16,19], such as open-ended questions or combining questionnaires/diaries with interviews or observations for example.
There are a couple of questionnaires that could be used for authors only interested in commensality as such [18,19], while one is under development [14]. These questionnaires seem very comprehensive and describe wellbeing related to food, with commensality as a small part. Several authors underline the importance of employing proper sampling methods and techniques to reduce non-response or at least to try to identify a sample that finally provides you with a representative proportion of the population under investigation.
It is very surprising that so few of regular dietary surveys that are undertaken actually look at commensality, venue or eating alone [13,16,17]. Considering how often a stressful working life hinders commensality at the work place or at home, it is also important to assess time and place for working meals, which we decided to address in a separate paper.
The identified qualitative studies showed that the notion of commensality to a great deal had raised interest among researchers studying meals as a central part of health or wellbeing [23,24,25,26,27,28,31,33,36,37,39,41,45,50,54,55,65,67]. Meal studies are an important part of the analysis of food and eating [74,75], as meals contribute to social life as well as impact individual behavior [8,76]. This was shown by the identification of different norms regarding how certain meals ought to be shared and eaten together, using different qualitative research approaches. We identified suggestions for longitudinal study designs for cohorts over an extended period of time, in order to provide a higher degree of understanding of, for example routinization of eating behavior in regards to commensality. Furthermore, to reach a broader understanding of commensality as such over research boundaries and an increased comparability of studies, a need was identified to find ways to agree on how to interpret research findings, and make them compatible especially between qualitative and quantitative methodology, as suggested by Malterud [9]. This by applying terms such as reflexivity and transferability applicable for both qualitative and quantitative methodology. This would also gain further possibility for inter/multidisciplinary studies, improving our understanding of commensal meals for wellbeing as well as in cultural/social studies. As in Phull et al. [45], discussing that economic, time and social pressures may inhibit pleasurable family dining, we see an importance of combining qualitative results with quantitative “dependent variables” for further investigating the relations between healthy and pleasurable eating patterns, as suggested by Scander [77], as a gap between “good taste” and “good health” were identified. This was partly observed by interdisciplinary studies between Nutrition, Sociology and Culinary Arts and Meal Science, using both quantitative and qualitative methodology.
We could not identify any particular differences in assessment methods between western and eastern studies. Differences in methodology between studies of elderly and the general population could not be established.

Strengths and Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This scoping review used only one database (Web of Science Core Collection) and did not include other search terms than commensality. It could certainly have been made more comprehensive by using other search terms such as eating together, family meal, or other terms and using several databases. The concept of commensality seemed to have been more used over time, especially during the last five years. This could also mean that we missed some early studies performed with a different choice of words for commensal eating, such as “family meals,” “eating together,” or “social eating”. A full systematic review should include more complete search terms and other databases [10,11]. However, it seems clear from previous systematic reviews that the definitions for these terms are often vague [2] and that the area of research is not sufficiently studied to be able to identify and disentangle relationships between eating together and metabolic indices of health [3]. We found it important to further explore aspects of timing when eating took place, why we extracted a small number of papers that concentrated on this topic and wrote a more in-depth paper on timing.
The strengths were that the high-quality database Web of Science Core Collection was used, which only includes papers published in peer-reviewed journals. The results of the search were of a magnitude that made it possible to review in a relatively rapid manner and the papers identified represented widely different disciplines. We wanted to highlight the multidisciplinary character of commensality and the included papers point at the developing field of commensality research, with commonalities and diversities in research methods. Using a quick and easy method of a scoping review provided us with a good overview of the papers using the specific term “commensality,” as a part of a project collection on diet, nutrition, and health with a focus on eating together [78]. Learning from each other on how to perform high-quality research on commensality has become even more important in this era of COVID-19, when commensality is challenged.

5. Conclusions

We conclude that in order to gather information on the importance of commensality for health and wellbeing, we should combine valid dietary survey methodology with valid estimates of commensality. Adding simple questions on where and with whom should be easy to integrate to large-scale dietary surveys. For all studies of commensality, a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods is recommended. Use of the term commensality in research papers should be encouraged, as well as providing more solid definitions of commensality and other search terms of eating together.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.S., A.Y. and M.L.W. Methodology, H.S. and A.Y. Formal analysis, H.S. and A.Y. Writing—original draft preparation, H.S., writing—review and editing, H.S., A.Y. and M.L.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The publication fee of this open access paper was funded by a generous contribution from the Centre for Integrated Research on Culture and Society (CIRCUS), Uppsala University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dallacker, M.; Hertwig, R.; Mata, J. The frequency of family meals and nutritional health in children: A meta-analysis. Obes. Rev. 2018, 19, 638–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. McCullough, M.B.; Robson, S.M.; Stark, L.J. A Review of the Structural Characteristics of Family Meals with Children in the United States. Adv. Nutr. 2016, 7, 627–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nouriyengejeh, S.; Seyedhoseini, B.; Kordestani-Moghadam, P.; Pourabbasi, A. The study of relationship between nutritional behaviors and metabolic indices: A systematic review. Adv. Biomed. Res. 2020, 9, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Medical Research Center. Estimated Food Diaries. Available online: https://www.measurement-toolkit.mrc.ac.uk/diet/subjective-methods/estimated-food-diaries (accessed on 30 November 2020).
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Analytic and Reporting Guidelines: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_03_04/nhanes_analytic_guidelines_dec_2005.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2018).
  6. Moraeus, L.; Lemming, E.W.; Hursti, U.-K.K.; Arnemo, M.; Sipinen, J.P.; Lindroos, A.-K. Riksmaten Adolescents 2016–17: A national dietary survey in Sweden–design, methods, and participation. Food Nutr. Res. 2018, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Swedish National Food Agency. Riksmaten–Vuxna 2010–11; Swedish National Food Agency: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012.
  8. Fischler, C. Commensality, society and culture. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2011, 50, 528–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Malterud, K. Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 2001, 358, 483–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. De Backer, C.J. Family meal traditions. Comparing reported childhood food habits to current food habits among university students. Appetite 2013, 69, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Gotthelf, S.J.; Tempestti, C.P. Breakfast, nutritional status, and socioeconomic outcome measures among primary school students from the City of Salta: A cross-sectional study. Arch. Argic. Pediatr. 2017, 115, 424–431. [Google Scholar]
  14. Guillemin, I.; Marrel, A.; Arnould, B.; Capuron, L.; Dupuy, A.; Ginon, E.; Laye, S.; Lecerf, J.-M.; Prost, M.; Rogeaux, M. How French subjects describe well-being from food and eating habits? Development, item reduction and scoring definition of the Well-Being related to Food Questionnaire (Well-BFQ©). Appetite 2016, 96, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Holm, L.; Lauridsen, D.; Lund, T.B.; Gronow, J.; Niva, M.; Makela, J. Changes in the social context and conduct of eating in four Nordic countries between 1997 and 2012. Appetite 2016, 103, 358–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lund, T.B.; Kjaernes, U.; Holm, L. Eating out in four Nordic countries: National patterns and social stratification. Appetite 2017, 119, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Marquis, M.; Talbot, A.; Sabourin, A.; Riopel, C. Exploring the environmental, personal and behavioural factors as determinants for university students’ food behaviour. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sobal, J.; Nelson, M.K. Commensal eating patterns: A community study. Appetite 2003, 41, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yates, L.; Warde, A. Eating together and eating alone: Meal arrangements in British households. Br. J. Sociol. 2017, 68, 97–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. De Morais Sato, P.; Lourenço, B.H.; Trude, A.C.B.; Unsain, R.F.; Pereira, P.R.; Martins, P.A.; Scagliusi, F.B. Family meals and eating practices among mothers in Santos, Brazil: A population-based study. Appetite 2016, 103, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Guba, E.G. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ 1981, 29, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Andersen, S.S.; Holm, L.; Baarts, C. School meal sociality or lunch pack individualism? Using an intervention study to compare the social impacts of school meals and packed lunches from home. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2015, 54, 394–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Backett-Milburn, K.C.; Wills, W.J.; Roberts, M.-L.; Lawton, J. Food, eating and taste: Parents’ perspectives on the making of the middle class teenager. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 71, 1316–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bailey, A. The migrant suitcase: Food, belonging and commensality among Indian migrants in the Netherlands. Appetite 2017, 110, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Belon, A.P.; Nieuwendyk, L.M.; Vallianatos, H.; Nykiforuk, C.I. Perceived community environmental influences on eating behaviors: A Photovoice analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 2016, 171, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cho, W.; Takeda, W.; Oh, Y.; Aiba, N.; Lee, Y. Perceptions and practices of commensality and solo-eating among Korean and Japanese university students: A cross-cultural analysis. Nutr. Res. Pract. 2015, 9, 523–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Danesi, G. A cross-cultural approach to eating together: Practices of commensality among French, German and Spanish young adults. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2018, 57, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dodds, A.; Chamberlain, K. The problematic messages of nutritional discourse: A case-based critical media analysis. Appetite 2017, 108, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fossgard, E.; Wergedahl, H.; Bjørkkjær, T.; Holthe, A. School lunch—Children’s space or teachers’ governmentality? A study of 11-year olds’ experiences with and perceptions of packed lunches and lunch breaks in Norwegian primary schools. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 218–226. [Google Scholar]
  30. Giacoman, C. The dimensions and role of commensality: A theoretical model drawn from the significance of communal eating among adults in Santiago, Chile. Appetite 2016, 107, 460–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Neely, E.; Walton, M.; Stephens, C. Building school connectedness through shared lunches. Health Educ. 2015, 115, 554–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Neuman, N.; Gottzén, L.; Fjellström, C. Masculinity and the sociality of cooking in men’s everyday lives. Sociol. Rev. 2017, 65, 816–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nyberg, M.; Lennernäs Wiklund, M. Impossible meals? The food and meal situation of flight attendants in Scandinavia–A qualitative interview study. Appetite 2017, 113, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Scagliusi, F.B.; Da Rocha Pereira, P.; Unsain, R.F.; De Morais Sato, P. Eating at the table, on the couch and in bed: An exploration of different locus of commensality in the discourses of Brazilian working mothers. Appetite 2016, 103, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Schänzel, H.A.; Lynch, P.A. Family perspectives on social hospitality dimensions while on holiday. Tour. Stud. 2016, 16, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sidenvall, B.; Nydahl, M.; Fjellström, C. The meal as a gift—the meaning of cooking among retired women. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2000, 19, 405–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Skafida, V. The family meal panacea: Exploring how different aspects of family meal occurrence, meal habits and meal enjoyment relate to young children’s diets. Sociol. Health Illn. 2013, 35, 906–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sobal, J.; Bove, C.F.; Rauschenbach, B.S. Commensal careers at entry into marriage: Establishing commensal units and managing commensal circles. Sociol. Rev. 2002, 50, 378–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tessier, S.; Gerber, M. Comparison between Sardinia and Malta: The Mediterranean diet revisited. Appetite 2005, 45, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Traphagan, J.W.; Brown, L.K. Fast food and intergenerational commensality in Japan: New styles and old patterns. Ethnology 2002, 2, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vesnaver, E.; Keller, H.H.; Sutherland, O.; Maitland, S.B.; Locher, J.L. Alone at the table: Food behavior and the loss of commensality in widowhood. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2016, 71, 1059–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ahn, R.; Nelson, M.R. Observations of food consumption in a daycare setting. Young Consum. 2015, 16, 420–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Benbow, H.M. Commensality and Conflict: Food, Drink and Intercultural Encounters in the Battle of Timor. J. Intercult. Stud. 2018, 39, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Persson Osowski, C.; Mattsson Sydner, Y. The family meal as an ideal: Children’s perceptions of foodwork and commensality in everyday life and feasts. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Phull, S.; Wills, W.; Dickinson, A. Is it a pleasure to eat together? Theoretical reflections on conviviality and the Mediterranean diet. Sociol. Compass 2015, 9, 977–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sabatini, F.; Da Rocha Pereira, P.; Devincenzi, M.U.; Aburad, L.; Scagliusi, F.B. Nutrition students’ experiences with constructing a portfolio about food and culture. Nutr. Diet. 2016, 73, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Woolley, K.; Fishbach, A. A recipe for friendship: Similar food consumption promotes trust and cooperation. J. Consum. Psychol. 2017, 27, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jarosz, E. Class and eating: Family meals in Britain. Appetite 2017, 116, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kniffin, K.M.; Wansink, B.; Devine, C.M.; Sobal, J. Eating together at the firehouse: How workplace commensality relates to the performance of firefighters. Hum. Perform. 2015, 28, 281–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Kwon, A.R.; Yoon, Y.S.; Min, K.P.; Lee, Y.K.; Jeon, J.H. Eating alone and metabolic syndrome: A population-based Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013–2014. Obes. Res. Clin. Pract. 2018, 12, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Paddock, J.; Warde, A.; Whillans, J. The changing meaning of eating out in three English cities 1995–2015. Appetite 2017, 119, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Bardone, E.; Kannike, A. Creating spaces of food experience: Pop-up restaurants in Estonia. Body Pers. Priv. Perspect. Cult. Other Hum. Exp. Tartu 2017, 7, 217–244. [Google Scholar]
  53. Marovelli, B. Cooking and eating together in London: Food sharing initiatives as collective spaces of encounter. Geoforum 2019, 99, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ares, G.; De Saldamando, L.; Giménez, A.; Deliza, R. Food and wellbeing. Towards a consumer-based approach. Appetite 2014, 74, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Boulos, C.; Salameh, P.; Barberger-Gateau, P. Social isolation and risk for malnutrition among older people. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2017, 17, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ferdous, H.S.; Ploderer, B.; Davis, H.; Vetere, F.; O’Hara, K.; Farr-Wharton, G.; Comber, R. TableTalk: Integrating personal devices and content for commensal experiences at the family dinner table. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Heidelberg, Germany, 12–16 September 2016; pp. 132–143. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ferdous, H.S.; Ploderer, B.; Davis, H.; Vetere, F.; O’hara, K. Commensality and the social use of technology during family mealtime. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2016, 23, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Giacoman, C.; Leal, D.; Rivera, V. Daily rhythms of eating in Santiago, Chile. Br. Food J. 2017, 6, 1189–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gorman-Murray, A.; Nash, C. Transformations in LGBT consumer landscapes and leisure spaces in the neoliberal city. Urban. Stud. 2017, 54, 786–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Swensen, S.; Gorringe, G.; Caviness, J.; Peters, D. Leadership by design: Intentional organization development of physician leaders. J. Manag. Dev. 2016, 39, 549–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Henig, D. Hospitality as Diplomacy in Post-Cosmopolitan Urban Spaces Dervish Lodges and Sofra-Diplomacy in Post-War Bosnia-Herzegovina. Camb. J. Anthropol. 2016, 34, 76–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hopkins, N.S. Family rites in Testour, Tunisia, in the 1970s. J. N. Afr. Stud. 2018, 23, 694–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lawson, J. The Gift of Cake: Baking together in performance. Perform. Res. 2018, 23, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Madden, E.M. Eating Ideally: Visions of Production, Consumption, Commensality, and Cleanup. Utop. Stud. 2015, 26, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Masson, E.; Bubendorff, S.; Fraïssé, C. Toward new forms of meal sharing? Collective habits and personal diets. Appetite 2018, 123, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. O’Connor, K.; Kerner, S.; Cynthia, C.; Morten, W. (Eds.) Commensality: From Everyday Food to Feast; Bloomsbury: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  67. Pachucki, M.C.; Karter, A.J.; Adler, N.E.; Moffet, H.H.; Warton, E.M.; Schillinger, D.; O’Connell, B.H.; Laraia, B. Eating with others and meal location are differentially associated with nutrient intake by sex: The Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE). Appetite 2018, 127, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Ray, K. Street-food, class, and memories of masculinity: An exploratory essay in three acts. FoodCult. Soc. 2018, 21, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rozin, P.; Fischler, C.; Shields, C.; Masson, E. Attitudes towards large numbers of choices in the food domain: A cross-cultural study of five countries in Europe and the USA. Appetite 2006, 46, 304–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Rozin, P.; Remick, A.K.; Fischler, C. Broad themes of difference between French and Americans in attitudes to food and other life domains: Personal versus communal values, quantity versus quality, and comforts versus joys. Front. Psychol. 2011, 2, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Soulaimani, D. Embodiment in Moroccan Arabic storytelling: Language, stance and discourse analysis. Text. Talk 2017, 37, 335–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Warde, A.; Yates, L. Understanding eating events: Snacks and meal patterns in Great Britain. Food Cult. Soc. 2017, 20, 15–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yount-André, C. Empire’s leftovers: Eating to integrate in secular Paris. Food Foodways 2018, 26, 124–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mäkelä, J. Meals: The social perspective. In Meals in Science and Practice; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 37–49. [Google Scholar]
  75. Holm, L.; Kjærnes, U.; Niva, M. Eating and Drinking in Four Nordic Countries: Recent Changes. In Handbook of Eating and Drinking. Interdisciplinary Perspectives; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1323–1341. [Google Scholar]
  76. Fischler, C. Food, self and identity. Inf. (Int. Soc. Sci. Counc.) 1988, 27, 275–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Scander, H. Food and Beverage Combinations: Sommeliers’ Perspectives and Consumer Patterns in Sweden. Ph.D. Thesis, Comprehensive Summary, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  78. Yngve, A.; Neuman, N.; Haapala, I.; Scander, H. The Project Collection Food, Nutrition and Health, with a Focus on Eating Together. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.