DUAL-MODALITY DISCLAIMERS, EMOTIONAL APPEALS,

AND PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES IN FOOD ADVERTISING

AIRING DURING PROGRAMS RATED FOR CHILDREN
Is There a Good Balance?
Jan LeBlanc Wicks, Ron Warren, Ignatius Fosu, and Robert H. Wicks
ABSTRACT: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) directed advertisers to present disclaimers in the dual-modality format more easily understood by children. A content analysis of the emotional appeals, production techniques, and types of
disclaimers appearing in over 3,800 food television advertisements was conducted. Ads appearing in child-rated programs
present significantly more of the emotional appeals and production techniques that research suggests capture the attention
of younger children. Most disclaimers in child-rated programs were not dual modality. Future research should examine
whether food advertising presents a potentially distracting mix of production techniques and emotional appeals that may
divert childrens attention from disclaimers.

Disclaimers or disclosures such as part of this nutritious

breakfast presented in television advertising have the potential to educate children about nutrition information, which
may help to stem the significant increases in child obesity
(Centers for Disease Control 2007a). A positive association
was found between the time spent viewing television and
increased prevalence of being overweight in children (Centers for Disease Control 2007b). Perhaps the content of most
concern on television is food and beverage advertising, which
the Institute of Medicine argued may contribute to childrens
increasingly poor dietary habits (McGinnis, Gootman, and
Kraak 2006).
The Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) clear and conspicuous standard (Trade Regulation Reporter 1971) directs
advertisers to present disclaimers in the dual-modality format
(or present a disclaimer simultaneously in the audio and video
portions of the ad). The Childrens Advertising Review Unit
(CARU), the advertising industrys self-regulatory body that
works to ensure truthful, nondeceptive advertising to children
under 12, notes that disclaimers should be understandable to

Jan LeBlanc Wicks (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is a professor and graduate coordinator, Lemke Journalism Department,
University of Arkansas.
Ron Warren (Ph.D., Indiana University) is an associate professor
and director of graduate studies, Department of Communication,
University of Arkansas.
Ignatius Fosu (Ph.D., University of Alabama) is an assistant professor, Lemke Journalism Department, University of Arkansas.
Robert H. Wicks (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is a professor
and director of the Center for Communication and Media Research,
Department of Communication, University of Arkansas.

children, accounting for their limited vocabularies and language skills (CARU 2009, p. 8). Dual-modality disclaimers
are more effective than text- or video- or audio-only disclaimers
in increasing awareness, comprehension, and recall (Hoy and
Andrews 2004).
Past research suggests children are less likely to understand
disclaimers that are not presented in dual modality because
youngsters can process only a small number of cues at once.
Children naturally focus on and attend to production techniques such as animation, visual effects, sound effects, and
jingles that stimulate their senses rather than a nutrition
disclaimer or product information (Calvert and Gersh 1987;
Ginsburg and Opper 1979; Maher, Hu, and Kolbe 2006;
Piaget 1970; Van Evra 2004). Emotional appeals associating
the food with fun or happiness also may distract children from
processing disclaimers (e.g., Kunkel 2001; Van Evra 2004).
Accordingly, past research suggests ads having more production techniques and emotional appeals combined may make
it difficult for children to process disclaimers.
The goal of the present study is to explore whether food ads
in programs rated for children more often contain disclaimers
that have a combination of emotional appeals and production
techniques. A current content analysis of disclaimers in food

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this manuscript. They gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the graduate student coders for this project: Kathryn Basore,
Bethany Castleberry, Aaron Cedeno, Marcella Cisneros, Rhian Drain,
Rachel Dunnahoe, Torree Dyson, Jason Edgar, Laura Grote, Freddie
Jennings, Leah King, Sarah Kresse, Crystal Lewis, Jeremy Miller,
Tamara St. Marthe, and Evease Tucker. The Fulbright College of
Arts & Sciences contributed funding to this research project.
Journal of Advertising, vol. 38, no. 4 (Winter 2009), pp. 93105.
2009 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0091-3367 / 2009 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367380407

94

The Journal of Advertising

advertising is needed because most disclaimer studies (e.g.,

Hoy and Stankey 1993; Kolbe and Muehling 1992, 1995;
Muehling and Kolbe 1998; Stern and Harmon 1984) were
conducted 10 or more years ago. The more recent disclaimer
research by Hoy and Andrews (2004, 2006) assessed whether
disclaimers in prime-time advertising adhered to the FTCs
clear and conspicuous standard. Most of these studies used
convenience samples of ads airing in one calendar year during
prime time and/or Saturday mornings on ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Yet nowadays, children are more likely to watch cable networks and broadcast television on weekdays, afternoons, early
evenings, and prime time (Connor 2006; Desrochers and Holt
2007). The present study sampled from 2:00 to 10:00 P.M.
on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Pax, UPN, WB, Nickelodeon, and
the Cartoon Network. This study used random selection of
composite weeks including weekdays and weekends covering
nine different months in three different years, resulting in a
sample of 3,893 ads2,000 more ads than in any previous
disclaimer study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
It is important to examine the incidence of disclaimers on
television because it is the primary medium used to advertise
to children. Food products account for up to half of childtargeted advertising (Desrochers and Holt 2007; Gantz et al.
2007; Harrison and Marske 2005; Warren et al. 2007, 2008).
Few ads depict healthy foods; the products most frequently
advertised to children include candy, snacks, cereal, fast food,
desserts, and soda (e.g., Desrochers and Holt 2007; Folta
et al. 2006; Gantz et al. 2007; Harrison and Marske 2005;
Henderson and Kelly 2005; Powell, Szczypka, and Chaloupka
2007). Powell, Szczypka, and Chaloupka (2007) reported
97.8% of the food ads seen by children 2 to 11 years old and
89.4% seen by 12- to 17-year-olds were for products high in
fat, sugar, or sodium.
Childrens Processing and Effects
of Televised Food Advertising
Muehling and Kolbe argued that the childrens advertising
literature has clearly demonstrated over the years that children
process . . . television advertising differently than adults. . . .
their limited vocabularies and language skills as well as their
underdeveloped cognitive abilities hinder their understanding
of messages designed for a more mature television audience
(1998, p. 37). Maher, Hu, and Kolbe said studies comparing
adults and children suggest that as individuals mature, they
process information in a more complete and thorough manner
(2006, p. 25). Phillips and Stanton (2004) reported that young
and elderly adults had greater purchase intention or persuasion
from ads having product-based appeals (such as convenience,

product performance or benefits, highlighting new product or

features, or highlighting the differences between competing
brands). Thus, it appears that product appeals, rather than
emotional appeals, may lead to greater purchase intention
among adults.
Bonifield and Cole (2007) argued that adults have developed
a complex knowledge system that they can use to mediate advertisings persuasive efforts. In contrast, children have much
less knowledge than adults, which affects their ability to learn,
problem solve, or use strategies to enhance memory. Bonifield
and Cole conclude that children may not be able to effectively
encode, store or retrieve information (2007, p. 441). Perhaps
this is why Kolbe and Muehling said, empirical studies have
shown that children are less sophisticated than adults in the
way they interact with and process advertisements, suggesting
that advertisers use of some adult-oriented ad techniques may
not be appropriate for younger audiences, and may contribute
to confusion and miscomprehension (1995, p. 78).
The CARU acknowledges that advertisers have special
responsibilities when advertising to children because of their
limited knowledge, experience and sophistication (CARU
2009, p. 5). Children less than eight years old are psychologically and cognitively defenseless against advertising, do not
understand its selling intent, and often accept ad claims at
face value (Children, Adolescents and Advertising 2006,
p. 2563). Until about age seven, children naturally attend
to perceptual cues such as animation, visual effects, sound
effects, and jingles that stimulate their senses (Calvert and
Gersh 1987). Kids more naturally focus on and attend to
these cues rather than a disclaimer or product information
(Calvert and Gersh 1987; Ginsburg and Opper 1979; Maher,
Hu, and Kolbe 2006; Piaget 1970; Van Evra 2004). Younger
children pay more attention to cues they can process quickly
and holistically, such as the McDonalds golden arches logo,
which do not overwhelm their limited linguistic skills (Van
Evra 2004).
Because younger children can only process a limited number
of cues simultaneously, information is lost when an ad contains
too many stimuli (Gunter, Oates, and Blades 2005). Cues such
as special effects or jingles can distract children from attending
to disclaimers (Roedder 1981). Children may have difficulty
switching their attention from audiovisual effects to an ads
informative elements (Oates et al. 2003; Preston 2000).
Moses and Baldwin (2005) explain how some developing
cognitive abilities of children, called executive functions (e.g.,
self-regulation or how well one controls impulses, thinking
ahead, or planning; making decisions based on analysis of
information and options; selective attention; and capacity of
working memory), may make children vulnerable to pleasing, but largely irrelevant, persuasive cues (Gunter, Oates,
and Blades 2005; Kunkel 2001). Preschoolers have the most
limited executive functioning skills, and these skills continue

Winter 2009

to develop until early adulthood. For example, Maher, Hu,

and Kolbe said, a number of studies have shown that older
children are able to recall brand names better than younger
children (2006, p. 24). A younger child with no impulse
control and inadequate memory capacity for storing multiple
stimuli appears most likely to attend to an animated character
in an ad rather than a disclaimer.
Consider how a child might process an ad including animation, an emotional appeal to fun, visual effects, a jingle, and a
disclaimer. That ad may provide information so quickly, and
through so many channels simultaneously, that kids may have
difficulty holding it all in mind (due to their limited working
memory). Younger children may not remember a disclaimer
whether or not distracting elements appear in proximity to it.
Even if teens understand a nutrition disclaimer, they may still
ask for an unhealthy product against their better judgment
(due to their still-developing impulse control and decisionmaking skills; Moses and Baldwin 2005).
Developing executive function skills may explain why
childrens short-term food preferences reflect the food ads
viewed recently, especially ads using animation and audiovisual
techniques (Goldberg, Gorn, and Gibson 1978). Television advertising can influence children to make unhealthy food choices
(Children, Adolescents, and Advertising 2006; Contributing
Factors 2007; Halford et al. 2004; ODougherty, Story, and
Stang 2006). Recent studies found a positive association between the amount of childrens exposure to food advertising on
television and their consumption of advertised foods (Buijzen,
Schuurman, and Bomhof 2008; Dixon et al. 2007).
Production Techniques and Emotional Appeals
Maher, Hu, and Kolbe said that advertisers make extensive use
of production techniques to attract and maintain childrens
interest (2006, p. 23). Animation, visual effects, sound effects,
and jingles are fully within younger childrens capacity for
holistic processing. The more such stimuli are employed in
television ads, the greater the potential for confusion in childrens minds (Van Evra 2004). Kunkel (2001) identified animation, special effects, and jingles as particularly misleading
production techniques with child audiences. Ji and Laczniak
(2007) argued that animation can generate high levels of attention and product preference among youngsters. Animation
may create unrealistic product performance expectations or
exacerbate childrens difficulties in distinguishing between
reality and fantasy.
Ads with special effects increased attention to, excitement
for, positive ratings about, and recall of peripheral product
information. Digital production techniques integrating special effects into live action may make it hard for children to
distinguish real characters or situations from imaginary ones.
Ads with such stimuli might mislead younger children who

95

cannot recognize such techniques (Oates et al. 2003; Preston

2000). The use of fast-paced production techniques makes
it difficult to recall product benefit claims in advertising for
college undergraduates (Bolls, Muehling, and Yoon 2003),
much less children.
Food advertising may also include emotional appeals that
add to childrens difficulty in processing disclaimers. Mood
alteration appeals suggest the product will create positive
feelings, make you happy, or eliminate negative feelings.
Emotional appeals can provide a strong emotional association to accompany the holistic processing of visual stimuli.
Fantasy appeals that associate a product with magic, charms,
or spells short-circuited childrens ability to assess realism in
commercials (Barcus 1980). Several content analyses (Folta
et al. 2006; Kunkel and Gantz 1992; Warren et al. 2007,
2008) identified mood alteration or fun/happiness as the most
frequently employed emotional appeal for child-targeted food
products. Connor (2006) reported that 50% of sampled foods
ads (especially fast foods) used animation and fun/happiness
appeals. These ads seldom showed food, instead depicting
children having fun to develop long-term, positive emotional
associations with food brands.
Other emotional appeals used in food ads associated the
product with athletic ability and being hip or cool (Folta et
al. 2006; Goldberg and Gunasti 2007). For example, Tony the
Tiger claims eating Frosted Flakes Gold is the long-lasting
energy part of a nutritious breakfast that helps you have
energy for sports when you need it most (Kellogg 2008,
p. 1). Or an ad may show cool skateboarders performing
tricks who then consume a food product. Due to childrens
limited processing capacity, emotional appeals represent another type of easily processed stimuli that may divert their
attention from disclaimers. Kunkel and Gantz (1992) found
that emotional appeals, more than health/nutrition appeals,
were more frequently used in food advertisements, even those
for healthy foods.
In sum, past research suggests that ads having multiple
production techniques and emotional appeals may have the
greatest potential for distracting children from attending to
disclaimers. Ads having such appeals and techniques may
make it more difficult for children to attend to or process a
disclaimer or information about product attributes such as
Kelloggs Frosted Flakes Gold has whole grains. Hoy and
Andrews (2004, 2006) argued that music, sound effects,
animation, or visual effects may distract viewers from attending to and recalling disclaimers. They found that nearly all
disclaimers are presented with distractions such as music and
moving visuals.
Consequently, it is important to examine whether food ads
having disclaimers include various types of emotional appeals
and production techniques, especially food ads appearing in
programming directed at children. Advertisers may use a

96

The Journal of Advertising

combination of production techniques and emotional appeals

to make food ads especially attention getting and persuasive to
children ages 11 and younger (Maher, Hu, and Kolbe 2006).
Certainly this study does not and cannot examine whether
children are actually distracted from processing disclaimers by
production techniques and emotional appeals. Instead, the goal
is to examine whether food ads having disclaimers that air on
child-rated programs actually do include multiple production
techniques and emotional appeals. If the results suggest childdirected food ads do have multiple techniques and appeals,
then future experimental research could examine whether,
and possibly how, these techniques and appeals may distract
children of various ages from processing disclaimers.
RQ1: Does food advertising in television programming rated
for children ages 11 or younger (who are targeted in television
programs rated TVY or TVY7) contain more emotional appeals
and production techniques combined than ads in programs rated
for general (TVG or TVPG) or mature audiences (TVPG14
or TVMA)?
Disclaimers or Disclosures
Stern and Harmon defined a disclaimer as a statement or
disclosure made with the purpose of clarifying or qualifying
potentially misleading or deceptive statements made within an
advertisement (1984, p. 13). Common examples include part
of this nutritious breakfast, and some assembly required.
Disclaimers provide consumers with information crucial to an
accurate understanding of the product, including nutritional
information in food advertising.
The FTCs clear and conspicuous standard (Trade Regulation
Reporter 1971) states that disclosures should be presented simultaneously in an ads video and audio elements. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and the FTC recommend
that advertisers not diminish the effectiveness of disclosures
by placing them in proximity to other attention-getting ad
elements (FCC and FTC 2000). Advertisers should consider the
disclosures intended audience, such as children, to ensure that
youth fully understand it. In a study of preschoolers, correct
verbal responses of the meaning of ad disclaimers increased
with age, yet correct nonverbal responses (e.g., pointing to a
picture of a toy without batteries) did not. Most preschoolers
did not understand what batteries not included and each
sold separately meant (Stutts and Hunnicutt 1987), but could
better understand some modified disclaimers (e.g., you have to
put it together instead of some assembly required; Liebert et
al. 1977). Therefore, a disclaimer directed to children should
be stated in easy-to-understand language (Liebert et al. 1977;
Stern and Resnik 1978).
The use of dual-modality balanced breakfast disclaimers
developed due to FTC efforts to counter the negative effects
of sugared breakfast products on childrens health. Present-

ing dual-modality disclaimers that educate children about

nutrition was supported by guidelines from CARU, the
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Code, and the
major television network codes (FTC 1978). For example,
ABCs Advertising Standards and Guidelines from 1986 state
that each commercial for breakfast-type products must include a simultaneous audio and video reference to the role of
the product within the framework of a balanced meal (ABC
1986, p. 6).
CARU also advised advertisers to use child-understandable
language in dual-modality disclaimers. As early as 1982,
CARU noted that the audio disclaimer part of this nutritious
breakfast was insufficient because a more focused visual
reference was needed as well to sufficiently communicate
the message (NARC 2004, p. 37). CARUs guidelines state
that food advertising should encourage responsible use of the
product with a view toward healthy development of the child
(CARU 2009, p. 7).
CARU highlighted these principles in a KFC (2003) case
involving two commercials the advertiser said it did not intend
to air on Cartoon Network between 6:00 and 7:00 P.M. One
ad claimed two pieces of its fried chicken have less fat than a
Burger King Whopper while showing a very small super
stating, Comparing edible portions. 2 Original Recipe Breasts
38G fat; Whopper 43G fat (KFC Corporation 2003, p. 2).
Other text-only supers from these two ads were A balanced
diet and exercise are necessary for good health and Not a low
sodium, low cholesterol food (KFC Corporation 2003, p. 2).
CARU noted, these disclosures, contained only in small (text)
supers seemed insufficient to counter the impression that fried
chicken is healthful food (KFC Corporation 2003, p. 3).
CARUs Self-Regulatory Guidelines to Childrens Advertising
published in 2003 stated that all material disclosures should
be in legible and prominent language that the child can
understand, preferably in both audio and video. Yet CARUs
current guidelines published in 2009 do not state as clearly
and directly that dual-modality disclaimers should be used:
All . . . disclaimers material to children should be understandable to the children in the intended audience. . . . Since
children rely more on information presented in pictures than
in words, demonstrative disclosures are encouraged. These
disclosures should be conspicuous in the advertising format
and media used . . . in television, advertisers should use audio
disclosures, unless disclosures in other formats are likely to
be seen and understood by the intended audience (CARU
2009, p. 8).
The Council of Better Business Bureaus and CARU implemented the Childrens Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) whereby 13 major food and beverage advertisers
have committed to shift the mix of advertising to children
younger than 12 to encourage healthier dietary choices and
lifestyles (Kolish and Peeler 2008). Consequently, over time,

Winter 2009

it appears that self-regulators consistently emphasized that

dual-modality disclaimers are best and advertising can help
to educate children about healthy eating habits.
Dual-modality presentation increases awareness (Morris,
Mazis, and Brinberg 1989), comprehension (Murray, Manrai,
and Manrai 1998), and recall of disclaimers (Barlow and
Wogalter 1993; Morris, Mazis, and Brinberg 1989; Smith
1990). Murray, Manrai, and Manrai (1993) reported that
college-age viewers had lower comprehension levels for disclosure information versus ad copy. Comprehension increased
from 43% when a text disclaimer was used to 73% when
a dual-modality disclaimer was used. Murray, Manrai, and
Manrai concluded, there is high noncomprehension of . . .
disclosure supers among young adults (1993, p. 163).
Yet studies reveal that most disclosures are not dual modality. Muehling and Kolbe (1998) reported that 13.7% of ads
in prime time had a dual-modality disclaimer compared with
26.4% on Saturday morning childrens programs. Stern and
Harmon (1984) reported that 9.3% of ads in programs with
significant child viewership had dual-modality disclaimers. In
earlier studies, the use of disclaimers varied from 10% with
a visual or dual-modality disclaimer (Barcus 1975), to 15%
of ads airing after school and 19% of weekend ads having a
disclaimer (Barcus 1977), up to 31% with a visual or dualmodality disclaimer (Atkin and Heald 1977).
Hoy and Stankey (1993) reported none and Hoy and
Andrews (2004) reported 8.5% of the disclosures in their
prime-time samples were dual modality. In contrast, 550 (or
83.3%) of the disclosures were print or superimposed text only,
whereas eight were audio only. Nearly all (99.5%) of the video
disclaimers and 97% of the audio disclaimers were presented
with distractions such as music or moving visuals. One-third
of the disclosures had a scene change making it difficult for
adults to attend to or process disclosures.
Muehling and Kolbe (1997) reported that advertising industry respondents agreed that fine print disclaimers should
not air in child-directed television ads because they do not
appear on the screen long enough for children to read. Indeed,
young viewers who cannot read need to have the super presented to them in audio as well, although the voice-over . . .
is competing with vivid visual content that keeps the viewer
from hearing the audio content (Maher, Hu, and Kolbe 2006,
p. 30). Hence, short disclosures using simple language that
children can easily understand may help to better inform
youngsters (Stewart and Martin 2004, p. 190).
In summary, past research suggests that advertisers may
not always follow the FTC guideline to present disclaimers
in the dual-modality format. Accordingly, it seems warranted
to examine in a large sample whether advertisers appear to be
presenting dual-modality disclaimers, especially in programs
intended for children ages 11 and younger. Research Question 2 asks:

97

RQ2: Does food advertising in television programming rated for

children ages 11 and younger (TVY and TVY7) present more
dual-modality disclaimers than all other types of disclaimers
combined (e.g., audio only, text only, visual or video only, visual
and text, audio and text)?
Past research also suggests that advertisers may distinguish
between child and adult audiences for ads with disclaimers
(Muehling and Kolbe 1998). Fewer ads with dual-modality
disclaimers aired in programs rated for general and mature
audiences. Research Question 3 asks:
RQ3: Does food advertising in television programming rated
for general (TVG or TVPG) and mature audiences (TVPG14
or TVMA) present fewer dual-modality disclaimers than all
other types of disclaimers combined?
Finally, it would be helpful to consider which emotional
appeals and production techniques are used in food advertising that includes disclaimers and airs in child-rated
programming.
RQ4: What types of emotional appeals and production techniques appear most frequently in food advertising that includes
a disclaimer and appears in programming rated for younger
children?
METHOD
A content analysis was conducted to examine the disclaimers,
production techniques, and persuasive appeals featured in U.S.
television food advertisements targeted at child, general, and
mature audiences. To maximize the possibility that children
may have viewed the analyzed ads, programming was recorded
from 2:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. (U.S. Central Time). Connor
(2006) reported Saturday morning was once the primary
period for child programs, but now children are more likely
to watch on weekdays. Desrochers and Holt (2007) reported
that children receive less than 5% of their weekly exposure to
advertising on Saturday mornings, with nearly 70% coming
on weekdays and 30% coming in prime time or evenings from
8:00 P.M. to 12:00 A.M. Large proportions of children under
age 11 view programs airing during the afternoon, early evening, and prime time (Nielsen 2000; Rideout, Vandewater,
and Wartella 2003; Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 2005). More
than 97% of exposure to food ads on childrens programs occurs
on cable networks (Desrochers and Holt 2007), with Cartoon
Network and Nickelodeon accounting for more than 60%
of the Nielsen ratings points for 2-to-11 year olds (Whitney
2005, p. S10).
A sample of programming collected from January to May
2006 for an analysis of food advertising was pooled with a
sample of programming collected from November 2004 to
February 2005. Seven U.S. broadcast television networks

98

The Journal of Advertising

(ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Pax, UPN, WB) and two cable networks (Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon) were sampled
because these outlets have the highest rated or viewed programming for children ages 2 through 11 years old (Powell,
Szczypka, and Chaloupka 2007, p. 554). A composite week
of programming was compiled for each network by randomly
selecting and taping days from each of the two television
seasons. Each year in the pooled sample included 504 hours
of programming.
Measures
Food advertisements were the coding and analytical units
for this study. The television programs television rating was
coded and divided into three categories to represent child programming (or programs rated TVY rated for children ages six
and younger and TVY7 for programs rated for children ages
seven and above such as SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly
OddParents), general audience programming (rated TVG for
general audiences and TVPG for family audiences but parental
guidance suggested), and mature programming (rated TV14
for parents strongly cautioned as material may be unsuitable
for children under 14 and TVMA, or programs designed for
adults). Therefore, the TVY and TVY7 categories combined
represent child-rated programs.
Sixteen graduate students coded the sampled advertisements. The product type was coded based on past research
and grouped into 12 categories: dairy (milk, cheese, yogurt,
eggs); meat and meat mixtures; bread/pasta (including rice
and other grains); breakfast foods (cereals, waffles/pancakes,
breakfast pastries); fruits/vegetables; snack foods (popcorn,
nuts, pretzels, chips, snack bars); sweets (candy, frozen treats,
dessert pastries); convenience entrees and meals; soft drinks
and artificially flavored beverages (sodas, Kool Aid); juices;
pizza/fast-food restaurants; and family-style restaurants. The
major product categories that appeared most frequently in the
sample were generated from this list of 12 categories.
Coders recorded up to three emphasized appeals that were
stated verbally, superimposed as text, or explicitly included
as part of a visual in each advertisement. Consequently, an
appeal that was emphasized in the ad was coded, with a total
of three possible appeals. Appeal categories were based on past
research and divided into two types: product appeals (about
inherent qualities or components of the advertised product)
and emotional appeals (suggestions of emotional benefits
directly associated with product consumption). The product
appeals were competitive/unique, premium offers, new, taste/
flavor, nutritional content, convenience, and value for money.
The emotional appeals were mood alteration (e.g., fun, happiness), health/well-being, speed/strength, action/adventure,
achievement/enablement, magic/fantasy, peer acceptance/
superiority, adult approval, appearance, and trickery/deceit.

Appeals were coded in no particular order. If coders agreed

that any specific appeal appeared in an ad, it was counted as
an agreement. If an appeal appeared on one coders data, but
not the others, it was counted as a disagreement.
A dual-modality disclaimer is defined as the first disclaimer
presented simultaneously in the ads audio and visual portions
(or saying part of this nutritious breakfast while showing a
cereal bowl with fruit and orange juice). Simultaneous audio
and text-only disclaimers are not defined as dual modality
in this study because child-rated programs are examined.
Younger children cannot read so they cannot understand a
text disclaimer. Past research also suggested many children
and adults are unlikely to understand text disclaimers (Kolbe
and Muehling 1995; Muehling and Kolbe 1997, 1998; Murray, Manrai, and Manrai 1993).
Coders recorded the presence (coded as 1) or absence (0) of
video, text, and audio in the first disclaimer presented in the
ad, with dual-modality disclaimers having both video and
audio presentation, or video, audio, and text presentation.
Coders also recorded the presence or absence of four types
of salient, sensory cues in each ad: animation, live action
visual effects, sound effects, and product jingles. The total
number of emotional appeals and production techniques
was generated by summing the number of these executional
elements presented in an ad. For example, if an ad included
two emotional appeals (such as mood alteration and magic/
fantasy) and all four production techniques, its score for the
total of emotional appeals and production techniques was six.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences
in the emotional appeals and production techniques in child,
general, and mature audience programs. 2 was used to test
the differences in the type and number of disclaimers in child
versus other programs.
Reliability Procedures
Coders received 15 hours of training to learn the coding
procedures. The initial training included instruction in the
definitions for each measure and their applications to sample
commercials. Coders then independently rated additional
commercials. Disagreements were discussed and definitions
clarified, if necessary. Once coders achieved acceptable levels
of agreement (exceeding a Scotts of .70), they were given
four hours of programming to code independently, followed by
a final reliability check. Then coders were randomly assigned
to overlapping pairs on 20% of the sample. There was total
agreement on program rating. Scotts values for the coder
pairs on other factors were: audio disclaimers ( = .92), text
disclaimers ( = .80), visual disclaimers ( = .99), product
type ( = .91), appeals ( = .90), animation ( = .93), liveaction visual effects ( = .85), sound effects ( = .71), and
jingles ( = .93).

Winter 2009

99

TABLE 1
Type of Disclaimer by Program Rating (N = 3,893 Food Advertisements)
Child program,
TVY and TVY7

Type of disclaimer

General audience,
TVG and TVPG

Mature audience,
TV14 and TVMA

Totals

Dual modality
Audio and video
Audio, video, and text

287
17

5
5

0
1

Subtotal, dual modality

304

10

Other disclaimer type

Text only
Audio only
Audio and text
Video only
Video and text

214
98
33
11
1

894
25
29
0
2

310
2
10
0
0

Subtotal, other

357

950

322

1,629 (41.8%)

491

1,148

310

1,949 (50.1%)

2,108 (54.1%)

633 (16.3%)

3,893

No disclaimer in food ad
Grand totals

1,152 (29.6%)

RESULTS
Of the 3,893 food advertisements airing in programs identified with a television rating, 1,949 (or 50.1%) had no disclaimer, while 8.1% (315) had a dual-modality disclaimer,
and 1,629 (or 41.8%) had another type of disclaimer. Of the
315 food ads including a dual-modality disclaimer, 304 (or
96.5%) aired in child-rated programming (rated TVY or
TVY7), 10 (3.2%) aired in general audience programming
(rated TVG and TVPG), and one (.3%) aired in mature audience programming (rated TV14 and TVMA; see Table 1).
The most frequently advertised food categories in the entire
sample were pizza/fast food (27.92%), sweets (15.16%),
breakfast foods (14.44%), family restaurants (9.25%), and
convenience meals/entrees (7.89%). Fruits/vegetables were
the least frequently advertised category (with only 14 ads,
or .4%).
RQ1 asked whether food ads in shows rated for children
ages 11 or younger will contain more emotional appeals and
production techniques than ads in shows rated for general
and mature audiences. An ANOVA revealed that there are
significantly more emotional appeals and production techniques in ads appearing in child-rated programs (M = 2.703,
SD = 1.20), followed by general audience (M = 1.63,
SD = 1.02) and mature audience programs (M = 1.46,
SD = 1.04), F(2, 3892) = 432.542, p = .000.
RQ2 asked whether food advertising in television shows
rated for younger children will present more dual-modality
disclaimers than all other disclaimer types combined. The
majority of sampled ads including a dual-modality disclaimer (304 of 315) appeared in child programming, 2(2,
N = 3,893) = 741.165, p = .000 (see Table 1). However, of the

315 (8.1%)

661 ads with disclaimers airing in child shows, 304 (or 46%)
were dual modality and 357 (or 54.0%) were another type of
disclaimer. (A one-way 2 of the disclaimers in child programs
only was significant [2 = 48.38, df = 2, p < .000], with more
ads than expected having a dual-modality disclaimer, and
fewer ads than expected having no disclaimer or another type
of disclaimer.) Nearly all (97%) of the dual-modality disclaimers in child shows appeared in ads for breakfast foods (295 of
304), with just seven (2.3%) in convenience meals and entrees
and two (.7%) in ads for pizza and fast-food restaurants.
Research Question 3 asked whether food ads in television programs rated for other (general and mature) audiences present all other types of disclaimers more frequently
than dual-modality disclaimers. Food ads in shows rated for
other audiences present all other types of disclaimers more
frequently, 2(2, N = 3,893) = 741.165, p = .000, with textonly disclaimers the most frequently used type (see Table 1).
(A one-way 2 for the disclaimers in other programs only was
also significant [2 = 1355.14, df = 2, p < .0001], with fewer
ads than expected including dual modality or no disclaimers
and more ads than expected having another disclaimer type.)
Most dual-modality disclaimers in general and mature rated
programming were for breakfast foods as well (10 of 11, or
90.9%).
Research Question 4 asked which emotional appeals and
production techniques in food ads having disclaimers tend to
appear in child programs. To provide a basis for comparison,
the major types of product and emotional appeals used in the
entire sample were tabulated. Five of the six most frequently
used appeals in all sampled food ads were product appeals:
taste/flavor (33.12%, or 2,030 of 6,129 appeals overall), mood
alteration (14.47% or 887; an emotional appeal), new (7.93%

100

The Journal of Advertising

or 486), nutrition (6.43% or 394), premium offer (6.13% or

376), and value (5.99% or 367) (see Table 2). In contrast, the
most frequently used appeals in ads with dual-modality disclaimers in child programs were taste/flavor (37.6%, or 189
of 503 appeals in dual-modality ads), action/adventure (53 or
10.5%), trickery/deceit (51 or 10.2%), speed/strength (46 or
9.1%), mood alteration (45 or 8.9%), and premium offers (34
or 6.8%). In other words, 37.6% of the appeals in ads having
dual-modality disclaimers in child-rated programs were taste/
flavor appeals, 38.7% were emotional appeals, and 6.8% were
premium appeals.
Food ads in child shows having dual-modality disclaimers often featured the product appeal taste/flavor and a premium offer, but varied from nonchild shows by featuring the
emotional appeals action/adventure, trickery/deceit, speed/
strength, and mood alteration. The most frequently used appeals for food ads in child-rated shows having any other type
of disclaimer were premium offers (172 of 538, or 32.0%),
taste/flavor (94 or 17.5%), mood alteration (70 or 13.0%),
and action/adventure (49 or 9.1%). These ads also tended to
feature a taste/flavor appeal, a premium offer, and the emotional
action/adventure and mood alteration appeals.
Live action visual effects (66.07%) was the only production
technique used in most food advertising (see Table 3). Most of
the sampled food ads did not use animation (25.74%), sound
effects (33.14%), or jingles (16.00%). The ads airing in childrated shows with no disclaimers used all types of production
techniques more frequently than ads with dual-modality or any
other type of disclaimer. Compared to all sampled programs,
a higher proportion of ads with dual-modality disclaimers in
child shows used animation (194 of 304 ads = 63.8% versus 25.74%) and sound effects (191 of 304 = 62.8% versus
33.14%). Ads with any other disclaimer used visual effects
(60.78%, or 217 of 357), but at a lower rate than the overall
sample (66.07%).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study extends previous research by examining the occurrence of dual-modality and other disclaimers in child, general,
and mature programming airing during several dayparts on
seven broadcast and two child-oriented cable networks. The
use of dual-modality disclaimers from past research varied
from 9.3% (Stern and Harmon 1984) to 26.4% (Muehling
and Kolbe 1998) in child or family programming and from
none (Hoy and Stankey 1993) to 8.5% (Hoy and Andrews
2004) in prime time. In our randomly selected, composite
week sample of ads in the daytime, early fringe, early news,
prime access, and prime-time dayparts, 8.1% (or 315 of 3,893)
of food advertising had a dual-modality disclaimer. Food ads
with dual-modality disclaimers comprised 26.4% (or 304 of
1,152) of the ads in child-rated shows. Thus, it appears the

use of dual-modality disclaimers has not increased over time,

despite the FTCs directive to use dual-modality disclaimers
understandable to children.
The results of this content analysis suggest that ads having
disclaimers in child-rated programs appear to include several
production techniques and emotional appeals. Future experimental or other research is warranted to determine whether
production techniques and emotional appeals, particularly in
combination, may distract children from processing disclaimers. Ideally, such research will examine which production
techniques or emotional appeals might be most beneficial for
communicating nutritional and other pertinent product information. The results might help regulators, self-regulators,
and the industry identify the most distracting techniques or
appeals, or the combination thereof, that should not be placed
in proximity to a disclaimer in food ads airing in child-rated
programming.
CARUs current guidelines state that children rely on
information presented in pictures and advertisers should use
audio disclosures for television advertising (CARU 2009). Of
the food ads airing in child shows, about 19.8% of disclaimers
were audio (or 131 audio only /audio and text) and 1.8% were
video disclaimers (or 12 video only/video and text; see Table 1).
Thus, 1 in 5 food ads in child shows had audio-only disclaimers
and about 1 in 50 had video-only disclaimers. Future studies
might examine whether audio-only disclosures are presented
in food advertising using language easily understood by youth.
Studies in realistic viewing settings should examine how well
youngsters actually understand audio disclaimers. Maher, Hu,
and Kolbe said, the comprehension and learning of younger
children was inferior to that of older children when exposed
to audio-only information regardless of multiple exposures
(2006, p. 24).
The results suggest that self-regulation could play a role
in increasing the use of dual-modality disclaimers in food
advertising to children. Ninety-seven percent of (or 295 of
304) dual-modality disclaimers were in breakfast food ads,
probably because of television network or CARU guidelines.
Presumably, if the FTC, CARU, and major broadcast and/
or cable networks directed all food advertisers to use dualmodality disclaimers, their use might increase. CARU should
reinsert specific language directing advertisers to use dualmodality disclaimers in its guidelines and state that no appeals
or production techniques may appear simultaneously with a
disclaimer. CARU should have CFBAI participants use only
dual-modality disclaimers. The major broadcast and cable networks targeting children should require food advertisers to use
dual-modality disclaimers and prohibit distracting elements
while the disclaimer is presented. These recommendations are
consistent with the call by the FTC and Institute of Medicine
to advertisers and CARU to do more to address concerns about
food advertising (Kolish and Peeler 2008).

716

Totals
11.7%

186
5
27
24
62
26
24
8
1
32
8
403
6.6%

Emotional appeals
Mood alteration
Health/well-being
Speed/strength
Achievement /enablement
Action/adventure
Magic
Peer acceptance
Adult approval/disapproval
Appearance
Trickery/deceit
Other
Subtotals
Percentage of grand total

Percentage of grand total

5
32
62
0
177
24
13
0
313
5.1%

Product appeals
Competitive/unique
Premium offer
New
Quantity
Taste/flavor/smell/texture
Nutrition
Convenience
Value
Subtotals
Percentage of grand total

No
disclaimer

8.8%

538

70
2
15
9
49
23
2
5
0
26
2
203
3.3%

0
172
33
3
94
3
1
29
335
5.5%

Other
disclaimer

Child show,
TVY and TVY7

8.2%

503

45
0
46
6
53
41
4
6
0
51
0
252
4.1%

0
34
10
0
189
14
4
0
251
4.1%

Dual
modality

28.4%

1,739

305
58
29
31
15
7
15
6
32
14
37
549
9.0%

47
7
165
18
682
137
105
29
1,190
19.4%

No
disclaimer

26.4%

1,619

158
110
7
59
11
11
8
2
12
2
6
386
6.3%

34
82
126
31
530
125
83
222
1,233
20.1%

Other
disclaimer

General,
TVG and TVPG

17
.3%

0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
.1%

0
3
0
0
7
1
0
0
11
.2%

Dual
modality

7.8%

477

79
18
13
5
6
2
0
1
7
1
7
139
2.3%

8
1
53
2
198
41
24
11
338
5.5%

No
disclaimer

8.5%

518

44
40
3
22
2
1
3
3
4
0
4
126
2.1%

9
45
37
6
153
48
18
76
392
6.4%

Other
disclaimer

Mature,
TV14 and TVMA

TABLE 2
Product and Emotional Appeals by Type of Program and Disclaimer (n = 6,129 Appeals)

2
.0%

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.0%

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
.0%

Dual
modality

6,129

887
233
142
156
202
111
56
31
56
127
64
2,065
33.7%

103
376
486
60
2,030
394
248
367
4,064
66.3%

Totals

Winter 2009
101

306
185
491
342
149
491
287
204
491
114
377
491

Visual effects
Yes
No
Totals

Sound effects
Yes
No
Totals

Musical jingle
Yes
No
Totals

No
disclaimer

Animation
Yes
No
Totals

Production
techniques

91
266
357

182
175
357

217
140
357

158
199
357

Other
disclaimer

31
273
304

191
113
304

153
151
304

194
110
304

Dual
modality

Child show,
TVY and TVY7

236
916
1,152

660
492
1,152

712
440
1,152

658
494
1,152

Child
show,
totals

155
993
1,148

275
873
1,148

746
402
1,148

164
984
1,148

No
disclaimer

134
816
950

240
710
950

700
250
950

116
834
950

Other
disclaimer

General,
TVG and TVPG

0
10
10

7
3
10

9
1
10

2
8
10

Dual
modality

49
261
310

46
264
310

182
128
310

39
271
310

No
disclaimer

49
273
322

62
260
322

223
99
322

23
299
322

Other
disclaimer

Mature,
TV14 and TVMA

0
1
1

0
1
1

0
1
1

0
1
1

Dual
modality

TABLE 3
Production Techniques by Type of Program and Disclaimer (N = 3,893 Food Advertisements)

623
3,270
3,893

1,290
2,603
3,893

2,572
1,321
3,893

1,002
2,891
3,893

Grand
totals

16.00%
84.00%

33.14%
66.86%

66.07%
33.93%

25.74%
74.26%

Percentage

102
The Journal of Advertising

Winter 2009

The self-regulatory system should first be given a chance

to implement these changes. A certain time frame, such as a
year, could be publicized to give advertisers time to respond
to the strong self-regulatory call for change. If advertisers do
not respond, the FTC should enforce the dual-modality guideline. It should also enforce the directive that no competing
visuals, special effects, animation, or material unrelated to the
disclosure should appear while the dual-modality disclosure is
disseminated. Alternatively, the guidelines could suggest that
advertisers use the potentially distracting production techniques and emotional appeals to effectively highlight pertinent
product information. Whether accomplished by regulation
or self-regulation, these measures are needed to enhance the
ability of children to understand disclaimers.
The study has several limitations. This content analysis
study cannot and does not purport to examine whether children are actually distracted from processing disclaimers due to
production techniques and emotional appeals. The occurrence
of dual-modality and other disclaimers was examined in food
advertising only; we did not examine other types of products
and services. Furthermore, this study did not code whether
the production and persuasive techniques in question appeared
simultaneously or in close proximity to disclaimers. Children
are a significant part of the prime-time television audience, so
it is important to examine this daypart when most Americans
watch. Although child exposure on Saturday mornings has
declined, future research could sample this daypart to examine whether advertisers are more likely to use dual-modality
disclaimers at that time.
The results also suggest that, if past research is accurate,
younger children may not understand some of the disclaimers
appearing in child-rated programs. Of the 661 food ads with
disclaimers airing in child-rated shows, 214 (or 32.4%) had
text-only disclaimers. Hence, almost a third of all disclaimers
in child shows may not be understood by preschool children
who cannot read or do not have more than a rudimentary ability to read (Muehling and Kolbe 1998, p. 39). Past research
suggests that small-type disclaimers (e.g., smaller than 1/25 of
screen height; see Hoy and Andrews 2004, 2006) are unlikely
to be readily processed by children. Text-only disclaimers are
difficult even for young adults to process (Murray, Manrai,
and Manrai 1993). Future research should consider how well
children of various ages can process text disclaimers.
In conclusion, it appears that the use of dual-modality
disclaimers has not increased over the last few decades. Past
research suggesting that advertisers neglect the use of dualmodality disclaimers is extended by our study to other dayparts
besides prime time and Saturday mornings, and to additional
broadcast networks and cable channels with significant child
audiences. Ironically, it appears that younger children may
potentially have the most difficulty attending to or processing
disclaimers in food advertising airing in child-rated programs.

103

It is our hope that future research will test this thesis and future food advertising will include dual-modality disclaimers
in language that is easy for children to understand.

REFERENCES
ABC (1986), Advertising Standards and Guidelines: Childrens Advertising, American Broadcasting Company Department of
Broadcast Standards and Practices.
Atkin, Charles, and Gary Heald (1977), The Content of Childrens
Toy and Food Commercials, Journal of Communication, 27
(1), 107114.
Barcus, Francis Earle (1975), Weekend Commercial Childrens Television, Newton, MA: Action for Childrens Television.
(1977), Childrens Television: An Analysis of Programming
and Advertising, New York: Praeger.
(1980), The Nature of Television Advertising to Children, in Children and the Faces of Television, Edward L.
Palmer and Aimee Dorr, eds., New York: Academic Press,
273285.
Barlow, Todd, and Michael S. Wogalter (1993), Alcoholic Beverage Warnings in Magazine and Television Advertisements,
Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 147156.
Bolls, Paul D., Darrel D. Muehling, and Kak Yoon (2003), The
Effects of Television Commercial Pacing on Viewers Attention and Memory, Journal of Marketing Communications,
9 (1), 1728.
Bonifield, Carolyn, and Catherine Cole (2007), Advertising to
Vulnerable Segments, in The Sage Handbook of Advertising,
Gerard J. Tellis and Tim Ambler, eds., Los Angeles: Sage,
430444.
Buijzen, Moniek, Joris Schuurman, and Elise Bomhof (2008),
Associations Between Childrens Television Advertising
Exposure and Their Food Consumption Patterns: A Household Diary-Survey Study, Appetite, 50 (2/3), 231239.
Calvert, Sandra L., and Tracey L. Gersh (1987), The Selective
Use of Sound Effects and Visual Inserts for Childrens Television Story Comprehension, Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 8 (4), 363374.
Centers for Disease Control (2007a), Childhood Overweight and
Obesity, available at www.cdc.gov/Nccdphp/Dnpa/Obesity/
Childhood/Index.htm (accessed March 20, 2008).
(2007b), Contributing Factors, available at www.cdc.gov/
nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/contributing_factors.htm (accessed
March 20, 2008).
Children, Adolescents and Advertising: American Academy of
Pediatrics Committee on Communications Policy Statement
(2006), Pediatrics, 118 (6), 25632569.
Childrens Advertising Review Unit (CARU) (2003), Self-Regulatory Guidelines for Childrens Advertising, 7th ed., New York.
(2009), Self-Regulatory Program for Childrens Advertising,
9th ed., New York: CARU, available at www.caru.org/
guidelines/guidelines.pdf (accessed May 21, 2009).
Connor, Susan (2006), Food-Related Advertising on Preschool
Television: Building Brand Recognition in Young Viewers,
Pediatrics, 118 (4), 14781485.

104

The Journal of Advertising

Desrochers, Debra M., and Debra J. Holt (2007), Childrens

Exposure to Television Advertising: Implications for Childhood Obesity, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26 (2),
182201.
Dixon, Helen G., Maree L. Scully, Melanie A. Wakefield, Victoria
M. White, and David A. Crawford (2007), The Effects of
Television Advertisements for Junk Food Versus Nutritious
Food on Childrens Food Attitudes and Preferences, Social
Science and Medicine, 65 (7), 13111323.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) (2000), Joint FCC/FTC Policy Statement
for the Advertising of Dial-Around and Other Long-Distance
Services to Consumers, Federal Register, 65, no. 137, 117.
Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection
(1978), FTC Staff Report on Television Advertising to Children,
Washington, DC: GPO.
Folta, Sara C., Jeanne P. Goldberg, Christina Economos, Rick Bell,
and Rachel Meltzer (2006), Food Advertising Targeted at
School-Age Children: A Content Analysis, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 38 (4), 244248.
Gantz, Walter, Nancy Schwartz, James R. Angelini, and Victoria
Rideout (2007), Food for Thought: Television Food Advertising to Children in the United States, Menlo Park, CA:
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Ginsburg, Herbert, and Sylvia Opper (1979), Piagets Theory
of Intellectual Development, 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Goldberg, Marvin E., and Kunta Gunasti (2007), Creating an
Environment in Which Youths Are Encouraged to Eat a
Healthier Diet, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26
(2), 162181.
, Gerald J. Gorn, and Wendy Gibson (1978), TV Messages
for Snack and Breakfast Foods: Do They Influence Childrens
Preferences? Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (2), 7381.
Gunter, Barrie, Caroline Oates, and Mark Blades (2005), Advertising to Children on TV: Content, Impact, and Regulation, Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Halford, Jason, Jane Gillespie, Victoria Brown, Eleanor Pontin,
and Terence Dovey (2004), Effect of Television Advertisements for Foods on Food Consumption in Children, Appetite,
42 (2), 221225.
Harrison, Kristen, and Amy L. Marske (2005), Nutritional
Content of Foods Advertised During the TV Programs
Children Watch Most, American Journal of Public Health,
95 (9), 15681574.
Henderson, Vani R., and Bridget Kelly (2005), Food Advertising
in the Age of Obesity: Content Analysis of Food Advertising
on General Market and African American Television, Journal
of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 37 (4), 191196.
Hoy, Mariea G., and John C. Andrews (2004), Adherence of
Prime-Time Televised Advertising Disclosures to the Clear
and Conspicuous Standard: 1990 Versus 2002, Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, 23 (2), 170182.
, and (2006), Entertainment Industry Ratings
Disclosures and the Clear and Conspicuous Standard, Journal
of Consumer Affairs, 40 (1), 117143.

, and Michael Stankey (1993), Structural Characteristics

of Televised Advertising Disclosures: A Comparison with
the FTC Clear and Conspicuous Standard, Journal of Advertising, 22 (2), 4758.
Ji, Mindy F., and Russel N. Laczniak (2007), Advertisers Implementation of CARU Guidelines for Advertising Targeted at
Children, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
29 (2), 2738.
Kellogg Company: Frosted Flakes Gold (2008), Childrens Advertising Review Unit (CARU) Case No. 4898 (August 11).
KFC Corporation (2003), CARU Case No. 4122 (December 4).
Kolbe, Richard H., and Darrel D. Muehling (1992), A Content
Analysis of the Fine Print in Television Advertising,
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 14 (2),
4761.
, and (1995), An Investigation of the Fine Print
in Childrens Television Advertising, Journal of Current Issues
and Research in Advertising, 17 (2), 7795.
Kolish, Elaine D., and C. Lee Peeler (2008), Changing the Landscape of Food and Beverage Advertising: The Childrens Food
and Beverage Advertising Initiative in Action. A Progress Report on the First Six Months of Implementation: JulyDecember
2007, Arlington, VA: Council of Better Business Bureaus,
available at www.bbb.org/us/storage/16/documents/
CFBAI/ChildrenF&BInit_Sept21.pdf (accessed May 21,
2009).
Kunkel, Dale (2001), Children and Television Advertising,
in Handbook of Children and the Media, Dorothy G. Singer
and Jerome L. Singer, eds., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
375393.
, and Walter Gantz (1992), Childrens Television Advertising in the Multichannel Environment, Journal of
Communication, 42 (3), 134152.
Liebert, Diane E., Joyce N. Sprafkin, Robert M. Liebert, and Eli
A. Rubinstein (1977), Effects of Television Commercial
Disclaimers on the Product Expectations of Children,
Journal of Communication, 27 (1), 118124.
Maher, Jill K., Michael Y. Hu, and Richard H. Kolbe (2006),
Childrens Recall of Television Ad Elements: An Examination of Audiovisual Effects, Journal of Advertising, 35 (1),
2333.
McGinnis, J. Michael, Jennifer Appleton Gootman, and Vivica
I. Kraak, eds. (2006), Food Marketing to Children and Youth:
Threat or Opportunity? Washington, DC: Institute of
Medicine.
Morris, Louis A., Michael B. Mazis, and David Brinberg (1989),
Risk Disclosures in Televised Prescription Drug Advertising to Consumers, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
8 (1), 6480.
Moses, Louis J., and Dare A. Baldwin (2005), What Can the
Study of Cognitive Development Reveal About Childrens
Ability to Appreciate and Cope with Advertising? Journal
of Public Policy and Marketing, 24 (2), 186201.
Muehling, Darrel D., and Richard H. Kolbe (1997), Fine Print
in Television Advertising: Views from the Top, Journal of
Advertising, 26 (3), 115.

Winter 2009

, and (1998), A Comparison of Childrens and

Prime-Time Fine-Print Advertising Disclosure Practices,
Journal of Advertising, 27 (3), 3748.
Murray, Noel M., Lalita A. Manrai, and Ajay K. Manrai (1993),
Public Policy Relating to Consumer Comprehension of
Television Commercials: A Review and Some Empirical
Results, Journal of Consumer Policy, 16 (2), 145170.
, , and (1998), How Super Are Video
Supers? A Test of Communication Efficacy, Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, 17 (1), 2434.
National Advertising Review Council (NARC) (2004), White
Paper: Guidance for Food Advertising Self-Regulation, available at www.narcpartners.org/reports/NARC_White_
Paper_6-1-04.pdf (accessed March 20, 2008).
Nielsen Media Research, Inc. (2000), 2000 Report on Television,
New York: Nielsen.
Oates, Caroline, Mark Blades, Barrie Gunter, and Jacquie Don
(2003), Childrens Understanding of Television Advertising: A Qualitative Approach, Journal of Marketing Communications, 9 (2), 5971.
ODougherty, Maureen, Mary Story, and Jamie Stang (2006),
Observations of ParentChild Co-Shoppers in Supermarkets: Childrens Involvement in Food Selections, Parental
Yielding, and Refusal Strategies, Journal of Nutritional
Education and Behavior, 38 (3), 183188.
Phillips, Diane M., and John L. Stanton (2004), Age-Related
Differences in Advertising: Recall and Persuasion, Journal
of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 13 (1),
720.
Piaget, Jean (1970), Genetic Epistemology, Eleanor Duckworth,
trans., New York: Columbia University Press.
Powell, Lisa M., Glen Szczypka, and Frank J. Chaloupka (2007),
Exposure to Food Advertising on Television Among U.S.
Children, Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 161
( June), 553560.
, , , and Carol L. Braunschweig (2007),
Nutritional Content of Television Food Advertisements
Seen by Children and Adolescents in the United States,
Pediatrics, 120 (3), 576583.
Preston, Chris (2000), Are Children Seeing Through ITC Advertising Regulations? International Journal of Advertising,
19 (1), 315.
Rideout, Victoria J., Elizabeth A. Vandewater, and Ellen A.
Wartella (2003), Zero to Six: Electronic Media in the Lives of

105

Infants, Toddlers and Preschoolers, Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser

Family Foundation.
Roberts, Donald F., Ulla G. Foehr, and Victoria J. Rideout (2005),
Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds, Menlo
Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Roedder, Deborah L. (1981), Age Differences in Childrens
Responses to Television Advertising: An InformationProcessing Approach, Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (2),
144153.
Smith, Sandra J. (1990), The Impact of Product Usage Warnings
in Alcohol Beverage Advertising, Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, 9 (1), 1629.
Stern, Bruce L., and Robert R. Harmon (1984), The Incidence
and Characteristics of Disclaimers in Childrens Television
Advertising, Journal of Advertising, 13 (2), 1216.
, and Alan J. Resnik (1978), Childrens Understanding
of a Televised Commercial Disclaimer, in Research Frontiers
in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions, Subhash C. Jain, ed.,
Chicago: American Marketing Association, 332336.
Stewart, David W., and Ingrid M. Martin (2004), Advertising Disclosures: Clear and Conspicuous or Understood
and Used? Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 23 (2),
183192.
Stutts, Mary A., and Garland G. Hunnicutt (1987), Can Young
Children Understand Disclaimers in Television Commercials? Journal of Advertising, 16 (1), 4146.
Trade Regulation Reporter (1971), Clear and Conspicuous Disclosure, Chicago: Commerce Clearing House (CCH 7569.09),
12, 166.
Van Evra, Judith (2004), Television and Child Development, 3rd ed.,
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warren, Ron, Jan LeBlanc Wicks, Robert H. Wicks, Ignatius
Fosu, and Donghung Chung (2007), Food and Beverage
Advertising to Children on U.S. Television: Did National
Food Advertisers Respond? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 84 (4), 795810.
, Robert H. Wicks, Jan LeBlanc Wicks, Ignatius Fosu, and
Donghung Chung (2008), Food and Beverage Advertising
on U.S. Television: A Comparison of Child-Targeted Versus
General Audience Commercials, Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 52 (2), 231246.
Whitney, Daisy (2005), For Kids TV, Every Day Is Saturday,
Advertising Age, 76 (8), S10.