A Framework for Ascertaining Deception in Children's Advertising

Author(s): Thomas E. Barry

Source: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter, 1980), pp. 11-18
Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4188288
Accessed: 14/12/2009 03:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Advertising.

http://www.jstor.org
 A FRMEWORKFOR
DEPTION IN ADVERTI
CHILDREN'S
wu -
E.BARRY
THOMAS
Thomas E. Barry is a Professor of Marketing in the Edwin L. Cox School
of Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. His primary
teaching and research interests are in marketing and advertising manage-
ment and he has received teaching and research awards at SMU. Barry is a
member of the American Marketing Association, Beta Gamma Sigma,
Alpha Kappa Psi, Sigma Iota Epsilon and the American Academy of Ad-
vertising. His writings have appeared in the Journal of Advertising, Journal
of Advertising Research, European Journal of Marketing, California
Management Review and Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences,
among others. His present research interest is children's television adver-
tising. He received his Ph.D. from North Texas State Univeristy in 1971.
He has consulted for the Dallas-Ft. Worth Regional Airport, Long Lines
Division of AT&T, University Computing Company, Neiman-Marcus,
the Dr Pepper Company and other Dallas area organizations.
The author wishes to thank Professors Mike Harvey, and Michael Levy at
SMU and Professor Keith Hunt and four anonymous reviewers for their
constructive criticism of various drafts of this article.
ABSTRACT
Criteria are explained for judging deceptive or unfair advertising, es-
pecially when directed toward children. A model is presented for ascer-
taining deception in children's advertising, including the following steps:
pre-examination of questioned advertisements, sample selection to obtain
relevant and representative children, determine understanding level of
children, measure appropriate responses, determine if deception exists,
determine deception's impact, and make a final decision regarding con-
tinuation of the campaign or a cease and desist order with or without cor-
rective advertising.
INTRODUCTION
Deception in advertisinghas been studied and written
about extensivelyin the last several years. Critics have
attacked advertisingboth as being unfair and as being
moredeceptivethan informativein many instances. Also,
within the last several years, critics and researchershave
ASCERTAINING
focused on children as a special audience of advertising
messages. In February, 1978, the FTC proposed a chil-
dren's television advertising rule including in its alter-
natives a ban on all advertising to young children. The
first round of hearings was held in February, 1979,
with the second round scheduled as soon as disputed is-
sues within the FTC can be settled (23). According to FTC
Presiding Officer Morton Needelman, one of the disputed
issues which must be given fuller attention in the second
round of hearings is the issue of the vulnerability of
children to television advertising. Says Needelman,
I cannot, however, conceive of any rule emerging
from this proceeding unless it is proven that es-
sentially all television advertising directed to child-
ren is aimed at an audience which has been unfair-
ly and deceptively treated because of the very
nature of that audience (23).
There are two issues apparent in Needelman's statement
unfairness to children and deception of children. Both is-
sues are complex.
Many of the arguments of the critics of advertising to
children center around the issue of unfairness. The cri-
tics argue that advertising to children is inherently unfair
because of the vulnerability of children to adult mani-
pulation through persuasive messages. This advertising
need not be deceptive. By its very nature it is unfair
and, therefore, potentially harmful to children. Propo-
nents of advertising to children base their case on First
Amendment freedoms, parental responsibilities, and the
lack of evidence indicating injury to children due to ad-
vertising aimed directly at them.
Too little has been written which may offer suggestions
to advertisers and public policy makers interested in man-
aging the issues surrounding deception. The purpose of
this paper is to connect the literature in deception and chil-
dren's advertising and to offer a conceptual framework for
ascertaining deception of children. Using this conceptual
framework, both the marketers developing strategies to
persuade children and the regulatory agencies developing
policies to protect children may better understand what de-
ception is in their attempts to detect and avoid it.
DECEPTION CRITERIA
One of the most complex aspects of deception in ad-
vertising is determining what is deceptive. This problem
11
has been addressedby many previous authors (1;10;13;
15; 20; 21; 31; 48). Among other issues, these priorstudies
havelooked at: 1) unfairness,2) reasonableman concepts,
3) implied uniqueness,4) perceptualbias, 5) detrimental
consumerbehavior,6) causal factors of deception,and 7)
deception definitions. An attempt to summarizethese
variousdeceptioncriteriaappearsin Exhibit1.
How can managersdesigning campaigns and various
regulatoryagenciesmakedecisionsabout deceptiveand/or
unfairadvertisingin orderto avoid it or detectit?
Several previous studies have addressed this question
(2;16;18;24;25;29;35;37;44). The authors of these studies
have suggestedand illustratedthat deceptiveadvertising,
althoughcomplex, can be detectedand empiricallytested.
Traditionally,there has been a paucity of consumerevi-
dence used by managersand regulatorsin detecting ac-
tual or potentiallydeceptiveadvertising.
DECEPTION IN KID'S ADVERTISING
Eighmey may have been the first to explore deception
among childrenand advance the thesis that restraintsin
advertisingoriented to childrenshould be different than
those focused on adults (17). He called for a "reasonable
basis" standard to be developed in second form for
children. Problemareascited by Eighmeyincluded:
1. premiumdistractingattentionfromthe product;
2. brevityof commercials- insufficientcompre-
hension;
3. comparativeadvertisingmay leavedeceptiveimpress-
ions;
4. stereotyping;
5. excessiveuse of emotions;
6. relianceon nonsensewithoutproductinformation;
7. similiestakentoo literally;
8. deceptivejuxtapositionof productswith contexts
or persons;
9. unfamiliartermsand phrases;and
10. global uniquenessclaims(17).
Examples of deception and unfairness in children's
advertisingare providedby Cohen who suggestedthat ads
showing children engaging in dangerous activities like
watching a hot pot cool off or watching a spokesman
pick and eat wild edibles can be deemedunfair. Further-
more, advertisementswhich exploit children'strust rela-
tionships with hero characterslike vitamins and Spider-
man blur the distinctionbetweenprogrammingand adver-
tisingcontentand could be considereddeceptive(12).
Childrenare viewedas a specialmarketsegmentbecause
of their lack of experienceand developmentof cognitive
abilities. Althoughthereare differenttheorieswith respect
12
to the psychologicaland intellectualdevelopmentof child-
ren, most studies refer to the works of Piaget. Chil-
dren are simply more susceptibleto deceptive messages
from all sources. They do not have the formal opera-
tional skills, in Piagetian terms, to logically test princi-
ples (26). It should be noted at this point that Chest-
nut has recentlyreviewedseveral criticismsof the Piag-
etian concept of stage development which have impli-
cationsfor children'sconsumerresearchand publicpolicy.
Thesecriticismstend to view "The child in a morecomplex
settingof environmentallearningand free, to some extent,
fromthe 'naturalorder'of development"(9).
Only a minimalamount of empiricalresearchis avail-
able which pertainsto deceptionin children'sadvertising.
Bever,et. al. interviewedyoung childrenregardingadver-
tising and concluded that advertisingconfronts children
with a conflict between figurativeand operationalskills.
This is particularlytrue for qhildrenbetween the ages
of 7 and 9 who are confronted with the most intense
conflict and are most vulnerable to advertising mani-
pulation. However, by the time children reach the age
of 10 they tend to overgeneralizeand evaluateall adver-
tising as being misleading(7). Haefner, Leckenbyand
Goldman found that younger children are more likely
to be persuadedby deceptiveadvertisingthan older child-
ren. (3,71).
Regardingdisclaimers,one studyprovidedexperimental
evidencethat standarddisclaimersfor children'stoy prod-
ucts were not understoodby children. The words "Some
assembly required" (the standarddisclaimer)were sub-
stituted with "You have to put it together" and analy-
Sisrevealedhighlysignificantstatisticaldifferencesin chil-
dren'sabilitiesto understandthe simplermessage(36). In
a partial replicationof this study, the findings were sup-
ported in that the replicatedresults illustratedthat more
simplified language to young children resulted in more
comprehension(4). In a third disclaimerstudy, the auth-
ors called for advertisersto use pre-broadcastresearch
to better determinethe impact of disclaimerson young
children(45).
ASCERTAINING DECEPTION IN
CHILDREN'S ADVERTISING
Althoughmodels for detectingdeceptionhave been ad-
vanced, none have specifically focused on children.
Gellhornmentionedchildrenin discussingthe importance
of determiningthe level of intelligenceof the audience
when deceptive advertisingwas at issue (22). It makes
sense that the deceptiveadvertisingissue must be treated
differently when the audience is comprised of children.
And one cannot even look at "children"in toto. Ther
 > Cd
Cid

Cd .4 Cd
>1
to 0
cts 0
C'S 0 1-4
Cd 4
0 (U
cd 0

Cid
cn
Cd Cld
cn (U
0
0 o .2 :- .-" :=
Cd " >-.Z.,o
0

4.
cn 0 0 w
0 (U
cd 0
0 o
C'S
Cd
co 4--4
0 U 0 >-- cn Cd
4-4
as
4--4
-o Cd
.,.q
(u cd 'IV cd u 0
V

Cd Cd

Cd Cd
Cd cd
cd

Cld 11:1
(U (U 1:
Cd
4 w Cd
0 Cd o
CIS cn
0
>
4) r. 4-i Cd
Cd 0 0
> 0 Cd cd
cfs 04 04 u
64
IC 1-4 0 u
4) cd
IC cd
Cd Z
0 cd

-4 +-b> >

u cd

N
4-o
0
cts

0 I=
(U 0
ctt
cd
CIS
m (U Cd
4-o
Cd Ct$
Cd 0 m 0 0 0
X.w O,W
" u
cd
:z cl 0 4-,

4-4X -.4 >

CIS
-.0
CS CO)
cd
= 4-i
cl
cn "O "
rn U = 0
0 -
a 0>-. =
"

o
0 0 0
4lj
I'D 0-4
e-, r-

13
 are subsegmentsthat must be measureddifferently. This
notion is treated in depth in the recent work of Ward,
Wackman and Wartella. Their work is steeped in the
Piagetianmodel of developmentand informationprocess-
ing and their sampleof 615 mother-childpairs is the most
extensiveto date (46). In delineatingthe real impact of a
deceptive advertisementon children, one would have to
view it within the total consumer socialization context
as presentedby these authors. Thus, not only must we
look at cognitivedevelopmentbut also the family context
of that development,whichsurelyimpactsthe information
processingskills of children,and, ultimately,their behav-
iors includingmoney use, spending, saving and purchase
requests(46,29).
The conclusionone draws from the work of Ward and
his colleagues is that deception in advertisingwill most
likely vary among children by factors such as age, the
extentof parentalinteractionin the home, the educational
level of the child, the extent to which the child has
developeda "cognitive filter" and the like - in general,
the informationprocessingand consumerbehavior skills
of children. Childrenfrom householdswhere advertising
is explained to them by their parents may be less sus-
ceptibleto deceptionthan those who are not. In addition,
it may be more difficult to ascertainwhat the impact on
childrenis comparedto the impact on adults. Adults can
be more expressive about the behavior that deceptive
advertisementsled them to; children will have problems
expressing resultant behaviors due to limited abstrac-
tion and verbalizationskills. What, then, are the steps in-
volved for advertisersand public policy makers in ob-
jectively determiningwhetherchildrencan be or have been
deceivedby advertisingand whetheror not that deception
can or has had a deleteriousimpacton them?
DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK
An attemptto providethesetwo decision-makinggroups
with a frameworkis illustratedin Exhibit 2. It should
be noted that the procedure presented is a simplifi-
cation of a very complex sequenceof events for managers
and regulatorswho have the task of determiningwhether
or not deception may or did take place. Nevertheless,
the approachcould very well lead to a better understand-
ing of how deceptiontakesplaceamongchildconsumers.
The frameworkadvancedin Exhibit 2 presentsa series
of seven sequentialsteps. Each of these steps is briefly
discussed.
Step One -- Pre-examination:
The objectiveof the pre-examinationis to have an inter-
disciplinarypanel of judges view the advertisingin ques-
tion to determineif thereis a likelihoodof deceptionin the
14
ad. It is a preliminarystep to a detailed survey and a
procedurewhich might possibly avoid all of the time and
costs that would be involvedin conductinga detailedsur-
vey. Should the panel contend that there is a rea-
sonable potential for deceptionthis does not constitutea
decision that an advertisementis deceptive;rather,it is a
cue to continue the investigatoryprocess. Of course, in
the case of an obvious falsehood or lie the process
needgo no further.
The criticalaspect of Step One is that there is truly an
interdisciplinarypanelof expertssuchas lawyers,mothers,
fathers,educators,marketers,psychologists,consumerists
and so forth who can put aside their vested interestsin
the issue of advertisingto childrenand objectivelyjudge
the advertisingin question. Panels are difficult to ini-
tiate and maintain. They can be expensive and attrition
rates are often high. However, this first step, if im-
plementedobjectively,could be veryvaluableto managers
and regulatorsconcernedabout the misrepresentationof
productsto childrenvis-a-visadvertising.
The upshot for the advertiserpretestinga campaignin
Step One is that if the panel concludesthereis an obvious
deception,the advertisersimplyscrapsthe ad or deletesthe
deceptive content before running it. If there is ob-
viously no deception, the campaigncan be initiated. In
the case of an on-going campaign, the panel may be ac-
ting for some regulatoryagencysuch as the FTC. Again,
if it is obvious that there is deception, a cease and desist
orderwould be issuedand the appropriatepunitiveactions
taken. If it is concluded that there is no chance of
deception, the FTC would inform the advertiserand the
campaign would be allowed to continue. It should be
clearherethat we are not suggestingthat the samepanelbe
used by the advertiserand the regulator. What is being
suggested,however,is that the same interdisciplinaryand
objectiveapproachbe usedby both groups.
Step Two -- Select Sample:
If there is no obvious deception conclusion from Step
One then either advertisersor regulatorsmust set about
developinga more scientific approachto ascertainingde-
ception. The first step is to select a relevantsampleof the
target audience. It seems obvious that, if deception is
likely,those who are the targetof the messagemust provide
the evidence of that deception. With children this is a
formidabletask.
In order to obtain a representativesample the relevant
populationmust be known. What childrenwill be or were
likely to see the campaign? Childrenin the sample must
represent all of the relevant age groups, ethnic back-
grounds, educationallevels, socio-economicbackgrounds
and the like of the population. This is a difficult but
 EXHIBIT 2

Ascertaining Deception in Children's Advertising

Pre-Examination of
Obviously ~Questioned Advertisement Obiul o

] Panel)
~~~~~(Interdisciplinary

DeceptionNot Obvious 4 l

Sample Selection
(Relevant and Representative Children)
Dicntinue Co_n_inul
Ca4paign 4 C
Determine Understanding
Level of Children
(Intelligence, Cognitive Ability, Demographics)

Measure Appropriate Responses

(Attention, Recall, Attitudes, Beliefs)

Determine if Deception Exists

(Expectations vs. Reality)

Determine Deception's Impact

(Economics,Psychological,AttitudeChange)

Make Decision
(Objective Interpretation of Data)

-~ Yes Nl___

iCease and DesistOrder . Allow Cniuto

_Corrective AdvertisingofCr
Assess DamageofCmag

* Actions by Advertising/Marketing Managers

_________ Actions by Regulators

15
logical approach to take. At times a more homogen-
eous group of childrenmay suffice for the sample. Let us
say that a campaignis to be run only duringthe weekday
mornings in the Fall. In this case only pre-schoolers
need be sampledbecauseit is unlikelythat many children
of school age will have been home to view the commercials.
Those readers familiar with sampling know all too well
the problemsof obtaining adequatesample sizes and re-
presentation. We are faced with adequatesample frames
and systematictechniqueswhich allow us to draw infer-
ences from the sample to the population. The rigors
of scientificsamplingare cumbersomebut necessaryif this
procedureis to achieveits objective.
Step Three -- Determine
UnderstandingLevels:
Once the sample has been selected, the children must
be measuredin terms of their level of understandingof
concepts relevant to the message in the commercial.
What are their family backgrounds,cognitivecapabilities,
levels of intelligence,awarenessof and understandingof
television commercials,abilities to verbalizethese under-
standings, etc.? It has been argued by many (3,
35-45; 40, Chapter9) that socializationvariablesare vital
to a child's understandingand interpretationof persua-
sive communication. We must test for variancesin levels
of understandingbasedon thesesocializationvariables.As
suggested earlier, the lock-step Piagetian stage develop-
mentapproachmay no longersuffice (9).
Step Four -- Measure Responses:
This step is very difficult. Those readersexperienced
in psychological measurementcertainly understand the
problems of elicitingvalid data from respondents.With
childrenthis problemis significantlycompounded. How-
ever, some authors have provided researcherswith sug-
gestions on how to develop valid and reliableinstruments
for generatingresponsesfrom youngchildren(43, 47). We
must measure the attitudes, beliefs, actual or intended
behaviorsand expectationsof the childrenif we are to be-
gin to answer the questions surroundingdeception. It
may well be that Gardnerhas providedus with the con-
ceptualframeworkthroughthe normativebelief technique
(20). Although this approach would necessitate child
specificmodifications,the foundationfor measurementto
ascertaindeceptionexistsin that technique.
Step Five -- Determine If
DeceptionExists:
In orderto determineif deceptiondid take place, we en-
ter into judgment. To this point, we have measuredthe
16
responsesof the childrenwith respect to their attitudes,
beliefs and expectations. These responsesprovideus with
a norm. What proportion of the sample had expecta-
tions which clearly were not met by the product? Were
their expectationsclearlydevelopedfrom the commercial
messagewhichthey saw? Althoughwe haverecommended
a very scientific approachto the study of deception, we
have no norms for what constitutes an unacceptable
amountof deception. Assumefor examplethat 10 percent
of the children were deceived by the advertisement. Is
that an unacceptablenumberto stop the campaignand
levy punitivemeasures?Is twenty percentmore realistic?
Fifty percentwould logicallybe intolerable. These norms
have not been developed. It may be that the norm
would be productand targetspecific. Theseare questions
moreeasilypositedthananswered.
Step Six -- Determine
Deception's Impact:
Assuming deception did exist among an unacceptable
number of children, what are the consequencesof this
deception? What impact could or did the ad have on
childrenmakingrequests,sufferingeconomic loss, devel-
oping incorrector inappropriatebeliefs, attitudes, expec-
tations, etc? We are not at all sure what constitutes a
"reasonabledeleteriousimpact" on the childrenwho saw
the commercials, their parents and society. Literature
discussedearlierand summarizedin Exhibit1 suggeststhat
the impact can be psychological,economical, culturalor
social. Again, we must rely on the responsesof the chil-
dren to ascertainsome of these impacts. Economic loss
can be measured more clearly than social harm can.
Historicallywe have used the reasonablebasis argument
for measuringloss. Is it reasonablethat deceptioncould
harmminoritychildrenfrom a culturalperspective? Is it
reasonable for consumersto expect $31 million for re-
funds, punitivedamagesand counteradvertisingdue to the
harmful impact that deceptiveadvertisinghad on them?
The answersto these questionsare judgmentaland will be
made in the absence of norms until a framework as
suggested here becomes systematic and commonplace
amongadvertisersand regulators.
Step Seven -- Make Deception
Decision:
Determine, given the objectively obtained evidence,
whether enough of the sample was deceived and whether
the impact of that deception is or could be grave
enough to rule against the campaign or respondent. If a
no-deception decision results, the advertisement and/or
campaign may continue. If deception is ruled to be the
case, then the campaign should be discontinued and/or
appropriateactions against the advertisershould follow.
These actions could include, for example,a cease and de-
sist order, an order of corrective or counter adver-
tising and an assessmentof the level of damages which
shouldbe paidand to whom.
DISCUSSION
Thereis little questionthat the approachsuggestedhere
inadequatelydepictsthe difficultiesof actual implementa-
tion. Deception in advertisingis no simple matter; nor
is its detection. It seems, however, that both advertisers
and public policy makers would benefit from the use of
some systematicframeworkfor, ascertainingfirst, what is
deceptive to children and second, what is the impact
of that deception. This is a sensitiveissue today. It is a
complexissue. It involvesmanykindsof costs.
The advertiserfaces costs of restrictionson freedomsto
persuasivelymarket goods and services to members of
society. There are potentially large out-of-pocket costs
to advertisersin legal fees which may have to be ex-
pendedto prove that a campaignis not deceptive. There
are costs of a potential erosion of image of the adver-
tiser. TIiWimage erosion can become especially impor-
tant if consumersbelieve that advertiserstake unfair ad-
vantageof childrenand othervulnerablegroupsin society.
In addition, advertisersmay well see their agencies liable
for deceptiveadvertising.Murdockhas presentedevidence
that consumersand the FTC will begin holding agencies
responsiblefor deceptiveadvertisingbecause of the con-
tent of their creative efforts. He notes that agencies
and advertisersmarketingto childrenare particularlyvul-
nerableto liabilitiesin the future(38).
And what of the costs to society? Assume that ad-
vertisingto childrenwerebanned. This involvesmorethan
a philosophicaldebateon restrictionsof freedoms. This is
an outright restrictionon the freedom of advertisersto
communicateinformation about their products and ser-
vices to target customers. What may be next? Adver-
tising to the elderly, to the minority groups of szciety?
What product is next? Salt, beer? It is impor-
tant that public policymakers develop policy utilizing
sound data bases. This is indeed a trying task. If one
closely analyzes the steps involved in the framework
presentedin this paper, it becomes obvious that the task
is cumbersomeand expensive.Thereare questionsof cor-
rect statisticalsamplingwhich involvethe identificationof
the correctpopulations,the securingof adequatesampling
framesand the developmentof viable sample sizes. The
problemsof measurementmay appearalmost insurmount-
able to the behavioralscientist who has studied validity
and reliabilityquestions of measuringhuman response.
And there is the question of harm. How do we even
begin to measure harm? And was that harm due to
advertisingthat was deceptive?
17
These are questionswhich presentmajor hurdlesto the
implementationof an approach such as the one posited
here. However,advertisersand publicpolicy makersare at
a critical impasse in the marketplacetoday. One side
claims that it must act in the interest of the public and
preventdeceptiveadvertisingin generaland to childrenin
particular. The other side claims that it has the right to
fairly advertise its goods and services to all target con-
sumersand that most advertisingto childrenis not decep-
tive. Thereis some empiricalwork to supportthe advertis-
er's position. Rossiter recently reviewed the cognitive,
attitudinal and behavioral effects of TV advertisingon
childrenand concluded that while some TV commercials
may deceive young children, most do not (42). Says
Rossiter,
Argumentsagainst TV advertisingto childrenbased
on charges of generalized deception and youthful
gullibilityare simply not supportedby the evidence.
The researchsuggests a more rational model of the
developingchild vis-a-visTV advertising- a model
in which the child understandswhat he or she sees
and hears in most commercials,selects those prod-
ducts that are interestingand attractive,and asks for
them(42, 52).
We must go back to the earlierwords of Commissioner
Needelman and understand whether or not advertising
aimed at childrenis unfair and deceptive(23). We cannot
do this without research. The researchcannot be done
without the high costs of human and economic resources.
But if advertisersand public policy makers alike do not
make this initial investment, we are not likely to ever
comprehendthe real impact of advertisingon children.
And in the last analysisif we have not systematicallydeter-
mined that impact we cannot justify either advertisingto
childrenor its subsequentabolition!
Thereis evidencein the world of advertisersand regula-
tors that researchis being used to pretestcommercialsand
to presentevidence in litigation proceedings.If adequate
norms are to be developedin the area of childrenand de-
ceptive advertising there must be some common and
systematic approach used by these two groups in their
common objective of benefiting society. This paper has
presentedone such alternative.
REFERENCES
1. Aaker, David A. "Deceptive Advertising," in George S. Day (ed.)
Consumerism: Searchfor the Consumer Interest, 2nd edition, New York:
Free Press, 1974, pp. 137-156.
2. Armstrong, Gary M. and F.A. Russ. "Detecting Deception in Ad-
vertising," MSU Business Topics, (Spring, 1975), pp. 21-3 1.
3. Barry, Thomas E. Children's Television Advertising: Issues, Find-
ings and Needs. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1977.
4. Barry, Thomas E. "The Effect of a Modified Disclaimer on Inner-
City vs. Suburban Children," Proceedings, American Marketing Asso-
ciation, Chicago (August, 1978), pp. 337-340.
5. Baumwoll, Joel P. "Three Research Pitfalls in Fighting FTC Com-
plaints," Advertising Age, (July 11, 1977), pp. 141.
6. Becker, Boris W. "The Image of Advertising Truth: Is Being Truth-
ful Enough?", Journal of Marketing, (July, 1970), pp. 67-70.
7. Bever, T. G., M.L. Smith, B. Bengen and T.G. Johnson. "Young
Viewers' Troubling Response to TV Ads," Harvard Business Review,
(November-December, 1975), pp. 109-120.
8. Brandt, Michael T. and 1. L. Preston. "The Federal Trade
Commission's Use of Evidence to Determine Deception," Journal of
Marketing, (January, 1977), pp. 54-62.
9. Chestnut, Robert W. "Television Advertising and Young Children:
Piaget Reconsidered," Current Issues and Research in Advertising 1979,
edited by James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin, Jr., p. 5-15.
10. Cohen, Dorothy. "The Concept of Unfairness as It Relates to
Advertising Legislation," Journal of Marketing, (July, 1974), pp. 8-13.
11. Cohen, Dorothy. "The Federal Trade Commission and the Reg-
ulaion of Advertising in the Consumer Interest," Journal of Marketing,
(January, 1969), pp. 40-44.
12. Cohen, Dorothy. "FTC Adding 'Unfairness' to Illegality as
Action Criterion," Marketing News, (July 15, 1977), p. 12.
13. Cohen, Dorothy. "Surrogate Indicators and Deception in Advertis-
ing," Journal of Marketing, (July, 1972), pp. 10-15.
14. "Consumerist Suit Charges Mattel with False Toy Ads," Ad-
vertising Age, (December 13, 1976), pp. 2.
15. Dillon, Tom. "What is Deceptive Advertising?," Journal of
Advertising Research, (October, 1973), pp. 9-12.
16. Dyer, Robert F. and P.G. Kuehl. "The 'Corrective Adver-
tising'Remedy fo the FTC: An Experimental Evaluation," Journal of
Marketing, (January, 1974), pp. 48-54.
17. Eighmey, John. "Deception and Unfairness in Children's
Advertising," Proceedings, American Academy of Advertising (April,
1975), pp. 69-7 1.
18. Ford, Gary T., P. G. Kuehl and 0. Reksten. "Classifying and Measur-
ing Deceptive Advertising: An Experimental Approach,"Proceedings,
American Marketing Association, Chicago: 1977, pp. 493-497.
19. "FTC 'Fairness' Seen As A Threat To Freedom," Marketing
News, (June 29, 1979), pp. 1, 12.
20. Gardner, David M. "Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual
Approach," Journal of Marketing, (January, 1975), pp. 40-46.
21. Gardner, David M. "Deception in Advertising: A Receiver
Oriented Approach," Journal of Advertising, Fall, 1976), pp. 5-1 1.
22. Gellhorn, Ernest. "Proof of Consumer Deception Before the
Federal Trade Commission," Kansas Law Review, (1969), pp. 559-572.
23. Gordon, Richard L. "Kid Ad Probe Down to 7 Questions,"
Advertising Age, (August 6, 1979), pp. 2, 67.
24. Haefner, James E. "Unofficial FTC Judgments of Deception
vs. Adults' and Students' Judgments of Deception," Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, (Summer, 1975), pp. 232-243.
25. Haefner, James E. and S.D. Permut, "An Approach to the
Evaluation of Deception in Television Advertising," Journal of Adver-
tising,Vol. 3 (1974), pp. 40-45.
26. Henderson, Ronald W. and J. R. Bergan. The Cultural Context
of Childhood. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Com-
pany, 1976, Chapter 2.
27. Howard, John A. and S. F. Tinkham. "A Framework for Under-
standing Social Criticism of Advertising," Journal of Marketing,
(October, 1971), pp. 2-7.
28. Hunt, H. Keith. "Decision Points in FTC Deceptive Advertis-
ing Matters," Journal of Advertising, (Spring, 1977), pp. 28-31.
29. Hunt, H. Keith. "Effects of Corrective Advertising," Journal of
Advertising Research, (October, 1973), pp. 15-22.
18
30. Hunt, Shelby D. "Informational vs. Persuasive Advertising: An
Appraisal, " Journal of Advertising, (Summer, 1976), pp. 5-8.
31. Jacoby, Jacob and C. Small. "The FDA Approach to Defining
Misleading Advertising," Journal of Marketing, (October, 1975),
pp. 65-68.
32. Jones, Mary Gardiner. "The Consumer Interest: The Role of
Public Policy," California Management Review, (Fall, 1973), pp. 17-24.
33. Kottman, E. John "Truth and the Images of Advertising,"
Journal of Marketing, (October, 1969), pp. 64-75.
34. Kroll, Alexander. "The Truth About the Truth About Adver-
tising," From the text of a speech presented to Sales and Marketing
Executives of Dallas, Texas, April 25, 1977.
35. Kuehl, Philip G. and R. F. Dyer. "Brand Belief Measures
in Deceptive-Corrective Advertising: An Experimental Assessment,"
Proceedings American Marketing Association, Chicago: 1976, pp.
373-379.
36. Liebert, Diane, J. N. Sprafkin, R.M. Liebert and E.A. Rubin-
stein. "Effects of Television Commercial Disclaimers on the Pro-
duct Expectations of Children," Journal of Communication, (Winter,
1977), pp. 118-124.
37. Miller, John A. "Are Mandated Disclosures Deceptive Ad-
vertising?" Journal of Advertising, (Winter, 1977), pp. 4-9.
38. Murdock, Gene W. "Liability of Advertising Agencies for Dec-
eptive Advertising," Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chi-
cago: 1977, pp. 203-207.
39. Preston, Ivan L. "A Comment on 'Defining Misleading Advertising'
and 'Deception in Advertising'," Journal of Marketing, (July, 1976),
pp. 54-59.
40. Research on the Effects of Television Advertising on Children:
A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research.
Report prepared for the National Science Foundation, Washington,
D.C.: 1978.
41. Resnik, Alan and Bruce L. Stern. "An Analysis of Information
Content in Television Advertising," Journal of Marketing, (January,
1977), pp. 50-53.
42. Rossiter, John R. "Does TV Advertising Affect Children?," Journal
of Advertising Research, Vol. 19 (February, 1979), pp. 49-53.
43. Rossiter, John R. "Reliability of a Short Test Measuring Chil-
dren's Attitudes Toward TV Commercials," Journal of Consumer
Research, (March, 1977), pp. 179-184.
44. Sawyer, Alan G. "The Need to Measure Attitudes and Beliefs
Over Time: The Case of Deceptive and Corrective Advertising,"
Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago: 1976, pp.
380-385.
45. Stern, Bruce L. and A. J. Resnik. "Children's Understand-
ing of a Televised Commercial Disclaimer," Proceedings, American
Marketing Association, Chicago: 1978, pp. 332-336.
46. Ward, Scott, D.B. Wackman and E. Wartella. How Children
Learn to Buy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications 1937.
47. Wells, William D. "Communicating with Children," Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 5 (June, 1965), pp. 2-14.
48. Wilkes, Robert E. and J. B. Wilcox. "Recent FTC Actions:
Implications for the Advertising Strategist," Journal of Marketing,
(January, 1974), pp. 55-61.