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.