FAYETTEVILLE,
Ark. — Research at the University of Arkansas shows that a year after major food
companies announced new advertising policies to combat childhood obesity, there
have been no significant changes in television food advertisements that
children view. Not only were unhealthy foods the most frequently advertised,
but child-targeted commercials continued to employ the very production
techniques and persuasive appeals that make it difficult for children to
critically evaluate advertising.
In research to
be presented Friday, May 25, at the International Communication Association
annual conference, Ron Warren, associate professor of communication, reports
the results of a study that analyzed television food advertising likely to be
viewed by children. The research team from the University of Arkansas
departments of communication and journalism compared television commercials
recorded just prior to an industry self-regulation effort announced in February
2005 with commercials recorded a year after that industry initiative.
“Our primary conclusion is that little changed
across the collection of food and beverage advertising analyzed in the two
years of our sample. It appears that many advertisers selling unhealthy foods,
at the very least, left their advertising practices unchanged despite a
potential backlash from critics or the government,” the researchers wrote.
Warren noted
that the 2005 industry initiative was confined to commercials viewed during
programming aimed at young children, such as cartoons and afternoon children’s
shows. Children typically watch television during the evening primetime slots,
Warren pointed out.
“The companies
are very carefully defining where they will make changes, and there is no
formal commitment to changing commercials offered during primetime,” Warren
said.
Warren’s team
examined commercials taped between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m., the hours school-aged
children are most available for television viewing.
“Whether we just
looked at ads targeting children or if we only looked at ads on child-friendly
shows, we weren’t seeing a lot of change,” Warren said.
In analyzing commercials,
the researchers used established findings from cognitive development research
to understand how children view commercials. Typically, young children focus on
information presented in visuals and sound effects. Until about eight or nine
years of age, children have difficulty processing information from dialogue or
voice-overs.
Thus, the
research team looked at how product advertisements used attention-getting
devices such as animation, live-action visual effects, sound effects and
musical jingles. These techniques have been shown to appeal to children and to
suit their processing skills. In addition, appeals that emphasize fun and
happiness or that offer a premium — buy the product and get a toy — have proved
effective with children. The combination of attention-getting devices and
emotional appeals tends to distract young children from processing health and
nutritional information about products.
“If the
advertising landscape confronting children is dominated by commercials with
special effects and emotional appeals for largely unhealthy products, only
older children and adolescents might be prepared to critically evaluate those
messages,” the researchers concluded.
The researchers
cited a couple of “encouraging signs of change” in food advertising. Most
significant was the increased use of nutritional claims, even in children’s
programs. Researchers also found dairy products among the most frequently
advertised products during child-rated programs, something that had not been
seen in previous research.
“If this trend
develops beyond this small beginning, especially with products higher in
recommended nutrients for children, then future content analyses will be able
to document a significant response to the criticisms of food advertising,” the
researchers concluded.
In addition to
Warren and 16 graduate students, the research team included Jan L. Wicks and
Ignatius Fosu of the Walter J. Lemke department of journalism and Robert H.
Wicks and Donghung Chung of the department of communication. Both departments
are in the J. William Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences at the University
of Arkansas. The research was conducted in the UA Center for Communication and
Media Research and received no outside funding.