the effects of television advertising on materialism ... · pdf filethe effects of television...

Applied Developmental Psychology 24 (2003) 437–456

The effects of television advertising on materialism,

parent–child conflict, and unhappiness:

A review of research

Moniek Buijzen*, Patti M. Valkenburg

Amsterdam School of Communications Research ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48,

1012 CX, Amsterdam 1012, The Netherlands

Abstract

In this article, we introduce a model on the unintended effects of advertising. This model describes

the existing hypotheses about the impact of advertising on (a) materialism, (b) parent–child conflict,

and (c) unhappiness. The validity of each of these hypotheses was investigated using a vote-counting

analysis. Our analyses yielded a small to moderate effect size for the relation between advertising and

materialism as well as a small to moderate effect size for the relation between advertising and parent–

child conflict. However, support for the hypothesized relation between advertising and unhappiness

was not found. The outcome of our vote-counting analysis provided several working hypotheses for

further research as well as identified possible moderator variables that should be taken into account in

future research.

D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Advertising; Materialism; Parent–child conflict; Unhappiness; Children; Review

1. Introduction

Television advertising aimed at children has been the subject of considerable public

concern, both in the United States and in Europe. In the United States, policies restricting

advertising aimed at children were formed as early as the 1970s. Two decades later,

0193-3973/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(03)00072-8

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-20-525-2426; fax: +31-20-525-3681.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Buijzen).

M. Buijzen, P.M. Valkenburg / Applied Developmental Psychology 24 (2003) 437–456438

several European countries implemented rules or regulatory policies concerning advertis-

ing directed at children. Belgium for example, issued the Five-minute rule in 1995, a

decree which states that children’s programs may not be immediately preceded or

followed by children’s advertisements. In the same period, Greece proclaimed a partial

ban on advertising, prohibiting toy advertising between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Finally, in

1995, Norway introduced a total ban on television advertising directed at children, a

policy also adopted by Sweden in 1996.

These restrictions on television advertising directed at children are based on either

ethical concerns among parents and policymakers about the unfairness of advertising to

children or on beliefs that television advertising has harmful effects on children.

Although the possible aversive effects of advertising have been debated since television

was introduced, there is still no consensus, however, about what these effects are, and

whether they are supported by empirical research. The main aim of this review study is

to identify and analyze the existing hypotheses regarding the negative effects of television

advertising and to examine the extent to which these hypotheses are supported by

empirical research findings. Our literature review focuses on three possible harmful

effects of television advertising: the effects on materialism, parent–child conflict, and

unhappiness.

Studies on the effects of advertising directed toward children are generally based on two

paradigms: the paradigm of the empowered child and the paradigm of the vulnerable child.

In the empowered child paradigm, children are viewed as skilled consumers capable of

critically processing commercial messages. Research based on this paradigm, mostly

marketing research, generally focuses on the intended effects of advertising. Intended

advertising effects refer to children’s brand awareness, brand attitudes, and purchase

intentions.

Advertising-effects research based on the vulnerable child paradigm assumes that

children lack the cognitive skills to protect themselves against advertising messages. It is

believed that children, more than adults, are susceptible to the seductive influences of

commercials. Research within the vulnerable child paradigm usually investigates the

extent to which advertising is harmful for children and addresses issues such as whether

children should be protected from these possibly harmful effects. This research focuses

on the unintended effects of advertising, for example, on family conflict and materialistic

values. In other words, unintended effects are the secondary, usually negative, effects of

children’s exposure to advertising.

Several earlier reviews have discussed the unintended effects of advertising (Atkin,

1980; Kunkel, 2001; Young, 1990). The present review differs from these reviews in two

respects. First, unlike earlier reviews, which were narrative in nature, we conducted a vote-

counting analysis. A vote-counting analysis is a formalized count of the number of studies

that either produce or fail to produce statistically significant findings in the hypothesized

direction. A vote-counting analysis is considered the most suitable and accepted method of

research synthesis when a literature is small and heterogeneous, as in the case of the

advertising-effects literature (Bushman, 1994; Cooper, 1990). Second, unlike earlier

narrative reviews, our vote-counting analysis provides a comprehensive review of the

M. Buijzen, P.M. Valkenburg / Applied Developmental Psychology 24 (2003) 437–456 439

research literature. Earlier narrative reviews on the unintended effects of advertising have

usually discussed a selection of the research, without reporting any criteria on how they

selected the empirical studies that were included in their reviews. Nonsystematic literature

searches can easily lead to biased samples and, as a result, to biased conclusions (Davies,

2000; Johnson & Eagly, 2000).

In preparing this vote-counting analysis, we collected all relevant references from the

standard computer-searchable databases (Econlit, ERIC, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts,

and Social Sciences Citation Index), including studies published up to the fall of 2002. In

addition, references from these publications were examined to trace articles, chapters, and

unpublished reports that were not recorded in these databases.

1.1. Hypotheses about the relations between advertising, materialism, parent–child conflict,

and unhappiness

In the past four decades, several hypotheses regarding the impact of advertising on

materialism, parent–child conflict, and unhappiness have been put forward in the literature.

For reasons of clarity, we have modeled the hypothesized relations between advertising and

these three unintended effects in Fig. 1. The model describes all the advertising-effects

hypotheses with regard to materialism, parent–child conflict, and unhappiness that have

received research attention.

1.1.1. Advertising enhances materialism (path 1)

Several authors suggest that advertising stimulates materialistic values in children

(Greenberg & Brand, 1993; Liebert, 1986; Pollay, 1986; Wulfemeyer & Mueller, 1992).

According to these authors, advertising enhances materialism because it is designed to

arouse desires for products that would not otherwise be salient. Advertising propagates the

ideology that possessions are important and that desirable qualities, such as beauty, success,

Fig. 1. Model for the three unintended effects of advertising. The arrows represent the hypotheses with regard to

the effect of advertising on materialism, parent–child conflict, and unhappiness that have received research

attention. The dashed square box represents a variable that has been investigated but not explicitly operationalized.


and happiness can be obtained only by material possessions (Pollay, 1986; Wulfemeyer &

Mueller, 1992).

1.1.2. Advertising causes parent–child conflict (path 2)

A second hypothesis states that exposure to advertising leads to parent–child conflict

(see path 2; Atkin, 1980; Robertson, 1979). Although it is possible that advertising

exposure directly influences parent–child conflict, it seems more plausible that this

relation between exposure to advertising and parent–child conflict is mediated by

children’s purchase requests and parental denial of these requests. According to this

mediational hypothesis, advertising (a) leads to an increased number of requests for

advertised products on the part of children, which (b) leads to an increased number of

product denials (given that not all requests can be granted), which then (c) causes

conflict between parent and child. These mediated relations are represented by paths 2a,

2b, and 2c in Fig. 1.

The product denial variable is represented by a dashed square box in Fig. 1. This dashed

box indicates that studies investigating the relation between advertising exposure and parent–

child conflict only implicitly assume that this relation is mediated by parental denial.

However, none of these studies have actually operationalized and/or assessed product denial

as a mediating variable.

1.1.3. Advertising makes children unhappy (path 3)

Finally, several authors argue that advertising may cause unhappiness in children. Most

of these authors have investigated a direct relation between exposure to commercials and

unhappiness, represented by path 3a (e.g., Martin & Kennedy, 1993; Richins, 1991). One

explanation for this direct relation stems from social-comparison theory. Advertising is

assumed to depict a world with beautiful people and desirable products. When children

watch television advertising and compare their own situation with this idealized world in

the commercials, the discrepancy between the two worlds might cause unhappiness

(Atkin, 1980; Richins, 1991).

Another explanation for the direct advertising–unhappiness relationship has to do with

the way in which products and brands are depicted in commercials. By using special

camera and editing techniques (e.g., close-ups, moving images of toys that are unable to

move by themselves), commercials can create unrealistic expectations regarding the

performance and quality of products. It is assumed that young children are not yet capable

of seeing these techniques as representations that are not entirely consistent with reality.

After the purchase, when the product does not meet the child’s expectations, the child

becomes frustrated, dissatisfied, and unhappy (Atkin, 1980; Robertson, Rossiter, & Ward,

1985; Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977).

Finally, there are hypotheses about one or more mediated paths between advertising

exposure and unhappiness. A first mediated hypothesis is that advertising exposure (a)

leads to materialism, which (b) leads to unhappiness because materialistic people are

assumed to be less happy (path 3b). For instance, it has been argued that materialistic

people consider objects as an important means to gain happiness (Sirgy, 1998). When the


products fail to yield the promised state of happiness, disappointment, and unhappiness

will follow (Richins, 1991). A second mediated hypothesis states that parental denial of

children’s purchase requests causes unhappiness (path 3c). It is assumed that greater

exposure to advertising causes children to make more purchase requests to their parents.

When children do not receive the requested products, they may become disappointed,

dissatisfied, and hence, unhappy (Atkin, 1980; Goldberg & Gorn, 1978; Sheikh &

Moleski, 1977).

1.2. Hypotheses about developmental differences in unintended advertising effects

It is generally assumed that younger children are more susceptible to advertising

effects than older children are (Gunter & Furnham, 1998; Young, 1990). It has been

shown that children in early childhood (ages two to seven) are more vulnerable to

persuasive information, because they have less experience and domain-specific knowledge

that they can use while processing commercials (Roedder, 1981). They are, therefore, less

able to come up with critical thoughts and counterarguments while watching commercials

(Brucks, Armstrong, & Goldberg, 1988). As children mature, they develop greater

cognitive skills, which result in a better understanding of the persuasive intent of

commercials. Consequently, in middle childhood (ages 8 to 12), children become

progressively more critical about, and thereby less susceptible to advertising messages.

Although these advertising processing theories suggest that younger children are more

susceptible to unintended advertising effects than older children are, no specific

hypotheses about developmental differences in advertising-induced materialism and

unhappiness have been formulated. However, in the case of parent–child conflict,

theories of parent–child interaction do suggest that younger children more often come

into conflict with their parents about advertised products than older children do. Various

explanations can be provided to support this hypothesis. First, younger children have

been shown to make more advertising-induced purchase requests than older children do,

which increases the chance of parent–child conflict (Robertson & Rossiter, 1974; Ward

& Wackman, 1972; Ward et al., 1977). Second, younger children more often have

difficulty delaying gratifications than older children have (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). If

young children see some item as attractive, they focus all their attention on the enticing

aspects of this stimulus and find it very difficult to resist, which may also increase the

chance of parent–child conflict.

A final explanation for a stronger effect of advertising on parent–child conflict among

younger children is children’s growing ability to apply sophisticated persuasion techni-

ques on their parents. Research has shown that young children quite often ask, whine,

and show anger to persuade their parents. Older children, in contrast, tend to use more

sophisticated persuasion techniques, such as negotiation, flattery, and white lies (Williams

& Burns, 2000). Such sophisticated persuasion strategies have been shown to lead to less

parent–child conflict than the persuasion strategies of younger children do (Atkin, 1978;

Kuczynski, Kochanska, Radke-Yarrow, & Girnius-Brown, 1987; Mangleburg, 1990;

Williams & Burns, 2000).


2. Empirical evidence: Materialism

A total of eight studies examined the direct relation between television advertising and

materialism in children (path 1 in Fig. 1): Five correlational studies (Atkin, 1975a, 1975b;

Churchill &Moschis, 1979;Moschis & Churchill, 1978;Ward&Wackman, 1971), one causal-

correlational study (Moschis & Moore, 1982), one quasi-experiment (Greenberg & Brand,

1993), and one laboratory experiment (Goldberg & Gorn, 1978). Five of these eight studies

were conducted among adolescents and three among children in early and middle childhood.

2.1. Definition and operationalization of materialism

Materialism is considered as a preoccupation with money and possessions (Belk, 1985;

Rossiter, 1980) and the idea that personal wealth andmaterial possessions are the key to success

and well-being (Fournier & Richins, 1991). Most correlational studies on the relation between

advertising and materialism have used Ward and Wackman’s (1971) operationalization of

materialism (Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Moschis & Moore,

1982). In these studies, a 4- or 5-item scale was used with items such as ‘‘It is really true that

money can buy happiness,’’ and ‘‘My dream in life is to be able to own expensive things.’’ In

Goldberg and Gorn’s (1978) experiment, materialism was operationalized as a preference for

toys over friends.

2.2. Correlational studies

The specific characteristics (sample size, age of children, control variables, and moderator

variables) of the correlational studies on the relation between television advertising and

materialism are presented in Table 1. The two right-hand columns in Table 1 present the

direction and strength of the observed relations. The coefficients (r, pr, b) are included in the

table to give an indication of the effect sizes that have been found.

Four studies reported zero-order correlations (Atkin, 1975a, 1975b; Moschis & Churchill,

1978;Moschis &Moore, 1982). In each of these studies, the reported correlations were positive

and significant, ranging from r = .13 (Moschis &Churchill, 1978) to r = .32 (Moschis &Moore,

1982). In three out of the four studies, the relation between viewing frequency and materialism

was still significant when controls were added for age and sex, socioeconomic status, school

performance, ethnicity, parent and peer communication about consumption, and birth order.

The significant correlation observed by Moschis and Churchill (1978) disappeared when they

simultaneously controlled for nine variables, including family communication about con-

sumption andmotivations for watching commercials. Similarly,Ward andWackman (1971) did

not find a significant correlation between television exposure andmaterialism when controlling

for motivation for watching advertising. However, it is questionable whether exposure and

motivation variables should be included simultaneously in a regression analysis. It is possible

that motivation measures are correlated highly with exposure measures. Highly correlated

predictors can lead to serious estimation problems and spurious relations (Lewis-Beck, 1980;

Stevens, 1996), and hence may lead to questionable results.


2.3. Quasi-experimental and experimental studies

Two quasi-experimental studies investigated the relation between advertising exposure and

materialism. Greenberg and Brand (1993) studied 782 adolescents and examined differences

in materialism between teenagers enrolled in schools receiving the commercial school

program Channel One and teenagers attending schools without this program. Teenagers

attending schools with Channel One were more materialistic than teenagers from schools

without the program, r = .11.1

Goldberg and Gorn (1978) exposed 231 four- to five-year-old children to a 10-min

preschool program. The children were randomly assigned to three groups. The first group

watched a program into which two identical toy commercials were edited. A second group

was exposed to the same program and commercials on two successive days. A control

group saw the program without the commercials. After the television program, all children

were shown two photographs. The first photograph showed a boy holding the advertised

toy. The second one pictured another boy, who was not holding a toy. The children were

told that the boy who was holding the advertised toy was a ‘‘not-so-nice boy.’’ The

children were then asked whether they would like to play with the not-so-nice boy with

the toy or with the nice boy without the toy. More than half of the children who were

exposed to the commercials chose to play with the not-so-nice boy with the advertised toy,

whereas in the control group only 30% of the children chose to play with the not-so-nice

boy with the toy.

In the same experiment, Goldberg and Gorn (1978) used a second operationalization of

materialism. The children were asked whether they would like to play with the advertised

toy or with their friends in the sandbox. More than half of the children who had watched

the commercials preferred the toy over their friends, whereas only 30% of the children in

the control group preferred the toy. However, it is doubtful whether this experiment has

really demonstrated that advertising makes children materialistic. It is also conceivable that

the attractive toy commercial temporarily aroused children’s curiosity, and that it is

curiosity (or some other factor) and not materialism that caused the children to choose a

toy over a friend.

2.4. Moderator variables

With the exception of Atkin (1975b), the majority of studies that investigated

developmental differences in the effect of advertising on materialism did not yield

significant results (Atkin, 1975a; Moschis & Moore, 1982; Ward & Wackman, 1971; see

Table 1). These studies also did not find a moderating effect for sex, SES, or peer

communication.

1 Greenberg and Brand (1993) have reported t values for the differences between the two experimental groups

(t [825] = 3.1, p < .005). The correlation size reported in the present article was computed with the formula

r = M (t2/t2 + df ); see Rosenthal (1991).

Table 1

Correlational studies on the relation between advertising exposure and materialism

Study Age in

years

N Measures

of exposure

Control

variables

Moderator

variables

Direction

of relation

Strength

of relationa

Ward and

Wackman

(1971)

13–15;

15–18

1094 TV

viewing

frequency

SES, IQ,

money, family

communication,

0 Age 0 (TV

viewing

frequency)

b = � .01

ns

motivations

for watching

Younger

children

b = � .07

ns

commercials,

magazine

readership

Older children

Atkin 9–11; 775 TV None and 0 Age + (TV r = .24

(1975a) 11–13 viewing age, sex, 0 Sex viewing pr = .18

frequency SES, school

performance

0 SES frequency)

Advertising 0 Age + (Advertising r = .22

viewing 0 Sex viewing pr = .13

frequency 0 SES frequency)

Atkin 4–6; 738 Saturday None and age, +Age + (Saturday r = .25

(1975b) 6–9;

9–12

morning

viewing

frequency

sex, ethnicity,

school

performance

+ Sex morning

viewing

frequency)

+ (Only for

boys and 6+

children)

pr = .10

Moschis and

Churchill

12–18 806 TV

viewing

None and age,

sex, SES, family

None + (TV viewing

frequency)

r = .13

(1978) frequency communication,

peer

communication,

motivations for

watching

commercials and

TV programs,

newspaper

readership,

consumer

education

0 (TV viewing

frequency)

b = .07

ns

Churchill and

Moschis

(1979)

12–18 806 TV

viewing

frequency

Age, sex, SES,

family

communication,

peer

communication,

birth order

None + (TV viewing

frequency)

b = .11

Moschis and

Moore

(1982)

12–15;

15–18

211 Advertising

viewing

frequency

None 0 Age Cross-sectional

results:

+ (Advertising

viewing

frequency)

r = .32


Table 1 (continued)

Study Age in

years

N Measures

of exposure

Control

variables

Moderator

variables

Direction

of relation

Strength

of relationa

Idem Idem Idem Idem Age, sex, SES, 0 Age Longitudinal pr = .24

ethnicity, family

communication,

+Materialism

at year 0

results:

+ (Advertising

pr = .22

peer

communication,

+ Family

communication

viewing

frequency;

materialism year 0. 0 Peer

communication

only for

adolescents

initially low

on materialism)

+ (Advertising

viewing

frequency;

only for

adolescents

whose parents

do not discuss

consumption

matters)a r = product-moment correlation coefficient; pr = partial correlation coefficient, b = standardized multiple

correlation coefficient.


In the causal-correlational study of adolescents by Moschis and Moore (1982), two

moderator effects were found: The effect for advertising on materialism held only for (a)

adolescents who initially scored low on materialism, and (b) adolescents from families

who do not discuss consumption matters. The first moderator effect was probably due to

a ceiling effect. After all, when children already score high on materialism at the outset of

the study, it is less likely that advertising can still contribute to this materialistic attitude.

The second moderator effect could be attributed to the mediating role of parents. A series

of studies have shown that parents can reduce or even counteract negative television

effects (Nathanson, 1999; Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters, & Marseille, 1999). Moschis and

Moore’s (1982) findings demonstrate that this also holds true for advertising effects on

materialism.

3. Empirical evidence: Parent–child conflict

Eleven studies have examined one or more causal paths linking advertising to parent–

child conflict (see path 2, 2a, 2b, and 2c in Fig. 1): Nine correlational studies (Atkin,

1975a, 1975b; Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2000; Galst & White, 1976; Isler, Popper, & Ward,

1987; Robertson & Rossiter, 1976, 1977; Robertson, Ward, Gatignon, & Klees, 1989;

Ward & Wackman, 1972) and two experiments (Goldberg & Gorn, 1978; Stoneman &


Brody, 1981).2 All studies on the relation between advertising and parent–child conflict

were conducted among children 12 years old or younger.

3.1. Definition and operationalization of parent–child conflict

Parent–child conflict has been operationalized in two ways. In correlational research,

children or parents have been asked to indicate how often they had a conflict with the other

party about product purchases. In experimental research, diary studies, and observational

research, parent–child conflict has been indicated by children’s negative reactions to parental

denial of a purchase request.

3.2. Correlational studies

Eight studies investigated the relationship between advertising exposure and purchase

requests (path 2a; Atkin, 1975a, 1975b; Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2000; Galst & White, 1976;

Isler et al., 1987; Robertson & Rossiter, 1976, 1977; Robertson et al., 1989), four studies the

relation between purchase requests and parent–child conflict (path 2b/c; Atkin, 1975a, 1975b;

Robertson et al., 1989; Ward & Wackman, 1972), and two studies examined the direct

relation between exposure to advertising and parent–child conflict (path 2; Atkin, 1975a,

1975b).

The specific characteristics (sample size, age of children, control variables, and moderator

variables) of the correlational studies on the relations between television advertising and

parent–child conflict are presented in Table 2. The three right-hand columns of the table

represent the coefficients of the relations between exposure and purchase requests (path 2a),

between purchase requests and parent–child conflict (path 2b/c), and between advertising

exposure and parent–child conflict (path 2), respectively.

The correlational studies between advertising exposure and purchase requests show

without exception that advertising exposure is positively related to children’s purchase

requests. The zero-order correlations vary from r = .18 (Isler et al., 1987) to r = .41 (Atkin,

1975b). In the majority of studies the zero-order correlations were around r = .30.

The correlations between purchase requests and parent–child conflict (path 2b/c) were

investigated most often when possible third variables were controlled. These studies

yielded partial correlations varying from pr = .25 (Atkin, 1975b) to pr = .72 (Robertson

et al., 1989). Finally, the two studies that investigated the direct relation (path 2)

between advertising exposure and parent–child conflict reported relations of r = .08 and

r = .20.

2 Many studies refer to Sheikh and Moleski (1977) to show that advertising enhances parent–child conflict. In

our opinion, this study does not provide evidence that advertising causes conflict in the family, because (a) no

relation has been reported between exposure to advertising and conflict, and (b) no experimental comparison has

been made between children who were or were not exposed to advertising. Therefore, the study conducted by

Sheikh and Moleski (1977) has not been included in this portion of our review.

Table 2

Correlational studies on the relation between advertising exposure and parent–child conflict

Study Age in N Control Moderator Investigated relationa

years variables variables Advertising

exposure–

purchase

requests

(path 2a)

Purchase

requests–

parent–child

conflict

(path 2b/c)

Advertising

exposure–

parent–child

conflict

(path 2)

Atkin 9–11; 506 None and Age r = .32 pr = .46 r = .20

(1975a) 11–13 age, sex, Sex pr = .27 pr = .13

SES, school

performance

SES No moderator

effects

Moderator

effect sex:

boys r = .23,

girls r = .03

Atkin 4–6; 738 None and Age r = .41 pr = .25 r = .08

(1975b) 6–9; age, sex, Sex pr = .29 pr = .10

9–12 ethnicity,

school

performance

No moderator

effects

Moderator

effect sex:

boys r = .14,

girls r = .07

Moderator

effect age:

4–6 years

pr = � .02,

6–9 years

pr = .11,

9–11 years

pr = .28

Robertson

and Rossiter

(1976)

6–11 289 None None r = .24 – –

Galst and

White (1976)

4–6 41 None None r = .31 – –

Isler et al.

(1987)

3–11 250 None None r = .18 – –

Buijzen and

Valkenburg

(2000)

7–12 250 None and

age, sex

None r = .31,

pr = .29

– –

Robertson

et al. (1989)

3–10 267 Age,

demanding

behavior,

communicating

behavior,

independent

behavior

None b = .25 b = .72 –

Ward and

Wackman

(1972)

5–12 109 None None – r = .18 –

a r = product-moment correlation coefficient; pr = partial correlation coefficient, b = standardized multiple

correlation coefficient.


3.3. Experimental studies

Two experiments investigated the influence of advertising exposure on purchase

requests (path 2a; Stoneman & Brody, 1981) and parent–child conflict (path 2; Goldberg

& Gorn, 1978). Stoneman and Brody (1981) demonstrated that exposure to advertising

increased the number of children’s purchase requests. This study examined the

interaction between 36 mothers and their 3- to 5-year-old preschoolers in the store.

First, the mothers and children were shown a cartoon. Half of the mothers and children

saw just the cartoon, while the other half saw the cartoon with six commercials for

candy and chips edited into it. After exposure to the cartoon, the mothers went shopping

with their children. The children who had seen the candy and toy commercials made

approximately 50% more purchase requests than children who had not seen the

commercial. Moreover, children who had been exposed to the commercials asked for

the advertised products twice as often (M = 4.4) as the children who had not been

exposed (M = 1.9).

Goldberg and Gorn (1978) investigated the effect of advertising on parent–child conflict.

They showed 231 four- and five-year-olds a television program, either with or without

commercials. After exposure to the program, children were asked which product they

preferred, a tennis ball or the advertised toy. They were also told that their mother preferred

the tennis ball over the advertised toy. Children who had been exposed to the commercial

were significantly more often opposed to their mother’s wish (45.8%) than children who had

not seen the commercial (21.3%).

In the same experiment, Goldberg and Gorn (1978) used a second operationalization of

conflict. After exposure to the preschoolers’ program described previously, children were

told a story about a boy who asked his father for the advertised toy, but did not receive it.

Then the children were presented with pictures representing two hypothetical responses of

the boy. The first picture showed a child happily hugging his father, while the second

showed a child glumly walking away from his father. The children were asked how they

thought the boy in the story would react. The results showed that children who had seen

the commercial more often chose the picture of the boy walking away from his father,

although the differences between the two experimental groups were not statistically

significant.

3.4. Moderator variables

The moderating influence of age has been addressed in the correlational studies by Atkin

(1975a, 1975b. No moderating effect was found in the first study (Atkin, 1975a). In the

second study, the correlation between advertising exposure and parent–child conflict applied

only to 6- to 9-year-olds and 9- to 11-year-olds, and not to 4- to 6-year-olds. This greater

advertising effect on parent–child conflict for older rather than younger children was

surprising. After all, research on parent–child interaction has often found that younger

children have difficulty delaying gratifications relatively often (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999),

and are less able to apply sophisticated persuasion strategies than older children (Kuczynski



et al., 1987), which are both characteristics that easily result in parent–child conflict

(McNeal, 1992).

The moderating effect of gender has also been established in two correlational studies

(Atkin, 1975a, 1975b). In both studies, the effect of advertising on parent–child conflict held

only for boys and not for girls. This moderating influence is consistent with general theories

on gender differences in parent–child interactions (e.g., Maccoby, 1990). It has been shown

that boys are on average less compliant than girls to the requests and demands of their parents

(Cowan & Avants, 1988). Boys also rely on forceful or demanding strategies more often

when trying to persuade their parents to comply with them, whereas girls are more likely to

rely on tact and polite suggestions (Cowan & Avants, 1988). These gender differences can

explain why the relation between advertising exposure and parent–child conflict holds

mainly for boys.

4. Empirical evidence: Unhappiness

4.1. Definition and operationalization of unhappiness

Unhappiness can occur as a short-term, temporary emotional state, but it can also be a

longer term, enduring state of mind. Long-term unhappiness has been investigated in studies

on the direct effect of advertising (path 3a), and in studies on the indirect effect of advertising,

mediated through materialism (path 3b). In these two types of research, unhappiness has been

conceptualized as dissatisfaction with one’s life situation or with oneself (e.g., Richins, 1991).

Short-term unhappiness has been investigated in studies into the consequences of parental

denial of children’s purchase requests (path 3c). In these studies, unhappiness has been

operationalized as crying and being sad or disappointed (Atkin, 1975b; Goldberg & Gorn,

1978).

4.2. Evidence of path 3a: The direct relation between advertising exposure and unhappiness

Two types of studies have addressed the direct relation between exposure to advertising

and unhappiness. The first type investigated whether people become unhappy because they

compare themselves unfavorably with the beautiful world of advertising. This type of

research has not been conducted with children in early or middle childhood. The existing

research has focused on the impact of beautiful models in print advertising on the self-

perceptions of female adolescents (Durkin & Paxton, 2002; Martin & Kennedy, 1993; Stice,

Spangler, & Agras, 2001), female graduate students (Richins, 1991), and male graduate

students (Gulas & McKeage, 2000).

These studies have produced mixed results. Three experiments (Durkin & Paxton, 2002;

Gulas & McKeage, 2000; Richins, 1991) found that exposure to print advertisements

containing idealized images of physical attractiveness and financial success negatively

affected males’ and females’ self-perceptions. These findings were corroborated in a

longitudinal experiment among 13- to 17-year-old girls (Stice et al., 2001), but the

koor0ach

Highlight


advertising exposure effect held only for girls that initially scored high on perceived

pressure to be thin and body dissatisfaction. However, in an experiment among 9- to 18-

year-old girls, Martin and Kennedy (1993) did not find an effect for advertising on the self-

perception of physical attractiveness. All studies were restricted to print advertising;

therefore, the question whether television advertising negatively affects children’s or

teenagers’ self-perception is still open.

The second type of research on the direct relation between advertising and unhappiness has

concentrated on the influence of commercials on disappointment with the advertised product

after purchase. Only one correlational study has investigated this relation (Robertson et al.,

1985). In this survey, among 253 six- to eleven-year-old boys, a small though significant

negative relation was found between exposure to advertising and satisfaction with the product

(r = � .06). However, this finding applied only to the youngest children in the sample.

4.3. Evidence of path 3b: Does materialism lead to unhappiness?

One of the hypotheses modeled in Fig. 1 states that materialism mediates the relation

between advertising and unhappiness. Although there is empirical evidence to support the

relation between advertising exposure and materialism (path 1), the path between materialism

and unhappiness has never been investigated among children. There is, however, evidence for

this relation among adults. A meta-analysis on the relation between materialism and life

satisfaction has yielded a negative relation of r = � .25 (Wright & Larsen, 1993), suggesting

that adults who are more materialistic are unhappier than adults who are less materialistic.

Although it is conceivable that this finding also applies to children, no empirical evidence

exists to confirm this proposition.

4.4. Evidence of path 3c: Does product denial lead to unhappiness?

Two correlational studies have investigated the relation between purchase requests and

unhappiness. Atkin (1975b) asked 211 mothers of 3- to 11-year-old children how often

their children became unhappy after they had denied a purchase request. He found a

significant positive correlation between advertising and unhappiness after denial of

requests for cereals (r = .14) and toys (r = .20). Both correlations remained positive

when controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, and school performance. A survey by Robertson

et al. (1985) among 253 six- to eleven-year-old boys yielded a smaller, though still

significant, correlation between advertising exposure and disappointment after denial of a

purchase request (r = .08).

In Goldberg and Gorn’s (1978) experiment, 4- and 5-year-olds were exposed to a

preschoolers’ television program. One group of children watched the program with

commercials and a second group watched the same program without commercials. After

the program, the children were asked how they thought a hypothetical child would react

when a request for the advertised product had been denied. More than half of the children

who had been exposed to the commercials thought that the child would be sad, compared to

35% of the control group.


5. Discussion

The main aim of this vote-counting analysis was to evaluate the current state of the

empirical research on three unintended advertising effects among children: materialism,

parent–child conflict, and unhappiness. The impact of advertising on children is a

controversial issue, which often provokes contradictory opinions. A systematic and

integrative review of the empirical research on this topic is important, because such a

review enables us to determine the extent to which the prevailing claims and assumptions

are supported by empirical research. In this discussion, we will first evaluate the validity of

each of the different hypotheses. In the final section, we will make some suggestions for

further research.

5.1. The validity of the hypotheses

5.1.1. Advertising enhances materialism

The majority of the correlational studies presented in Table 1 showed coefficients that

Cohen (1988) would identify as small to moderate effect sizes. Relations between advertising

exposure and materialism were established among children in early and middle childhood, as

well as adolescents. Most of these studies still showed a positive relation between advertising

and materialism when the influence of possible third variables, such as age, sex, socio-

economic status, and school performance was controlled.

These correlational findings were confirmed by the experimental studies by Green-

berg and Brand (1993) and Goldberg and Gorn (1978). Finally, the causal-correlational

study conducted by Moschis and Moore (1982) suggests that the influence of ad-

vertising applies only to children who initially scored low on materialism and children

from families who do not discuss consumption matters. However, the causal-correla-

tional and experimental studies only investigated adolescents and children in early

childhood. There is as yet no evidence for a causal relation among children in middle

childhood.

Although most research is correlational and does not permit causal conclusions, the

weight of evidence is in favor of the hypothesis that advertising makes children

materialistic. The causal-correlational and experimental studies that have been conducted

are in support of the hypothesis that the causal direction points from advertising to

materialism and not the other way around. Therefore, although more research is needed to

arrive at decisive conclusions, our vote-counting analysis clearly suggests that exposure to

television advertising stimulates materialistic values in children.

5.1.2. Advertising causes parent–child conflict

All correlational studies on one or more paths between advertising and parent–child

conflict yielded small to moderate positive correlations. These correlational results were

confirmed partially by the experiment by Goldberg and Gorn (1978). The two studies that

have investigated moderator variables suggest that the relation between advertising

exposure and parent–child conflict holds only for children older than six and for boys.

koor0ach

Highlight


However, because of the paucity of studies that have investigated moderator variables,

these results can, at most, be regarded as an indication for future research.

The results of the correlational and experimental studies are in agreement with the

hypothesis that advertising enhances parent–child conflict. However, the majority of the

studies are correlational. The sole experiment that has been conducted focused exclusively on

children in early childhood, and resulted in only a partial confirmation of the hypothesis.

Therefore, the scientifically conservative conclusion is that advertising enhances parent–child

conflict, but that decisive evidence is still lacking.

5.1.3. Advertising makes children unhappy

Hypotheses on the relation between advertising and unhappiness show that there are

four ways by which exposure to advertising can lead to unhappiness: (1) via social

comparison, (2) via materialism, (3) by leading to disappointment about the quality of

the advertised product, and (4) by leading to sadness after parental denial of purchase

requests.

With regard to the first two hypotheses, there is either a lack of studies that

investigate the hypothesis among children (in the case of materialism), or the empirical

evidence does not apply to television advertising (in the case of social comparison).

However, there is some evidence to support the latter two hypotheses. The only study

on the effect of advertising on unhappiness through disappointment about the advertised

product yielded a small positive relation. The three studies on the effects of advertising

on unhappiness caused by denial of purchase requests suggest a small to moderate effect

size.

In summary, the empirical research on the advertising–unhappiness relationship is not

developed to such an extent that it allows of causal conclusions. Our analysis does

suggest, however, that each of the four hypotheses on the advertising–unhappiness

relationship that we distinguished can be used as a viable working hypothesis in future

research.

5.2. Suggestions for further research

Traditionally, most studies on the unintended effects of advertising have focused on the

direct relation between the independent variable (advertising exposure) and one of the three

dependent variables (materialism, parent–child conflict, and unhappiness). None of these

studies has explored the mechanisms underlying the relations between advertising exposure

and each of the three dependent variables. Most research investigating the unintended

advertising effects is characterized by an input–output orientation, which has neglected the

specific ways in which advertising can lead to materialism, parent–child conflict, and

unhappiness. An important aim of our review was to reveal some of these underlying

mechanisms (or mediating variables).

Our vote-counting review has yielded a number of working hypotheses for future research,

and it identified several moderator variables, such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, and

parent–child communication. In most empirical studies, these moderator variables were


included on an exploratory basis, without guidance of specific theories on the nature and

direction of the moderating influence of these variables. In our view, a choice of moderator

variables can only be valuable when a priori hypotheses are formulated about how and why

certain moderators affect the relation between advertising exposure and materialism, parent–

child conflict, and unhappiness. Although it has not been decisively established how the

moderator variables identified in this review influence advertising effects, they may serve as a

basis or guideline for future research.

Although further research is needed to arrive at decisive conclusions, our review clearly

indicates that advertising aimed at children can have certain undesirable consequences for

the family, such as increased parent–child conflict, and materialistic and disappointed

children. Even though most Western countries have tightened their rules and regulations on

child-directed advertising, the lion’s share of the responsibility of dealing with negative

advertising effects is still shouldered by parents, who are usually the first to experience

inconvenience as a result of advertising.

This review study suggests that parents are able to counteract undesired effects of

advertising by interacting with their children about advertising and consumer matters.

However, it is advisable that those working in applied fields, such as marketers and

advertisers, also take on part of the responsibility of mitigating negative effects. Responsible

advertising aimed at children does not only serve an ethical purpose, but also a commercial

one. After all, it is progressively acknowledged among child marketers that parental approval

is a necessary condition for successful marketing and advertising towards children (Del

Vecchio, 1998; Guber & Berry, 1993; McNeal, 1992, 1999). Parents are eventually the ones

who will select and buy the advertised products for their children. It is no surprise, therefore,

that the most successful children’s products in the past decades were those that met the

approval of parents (McNeal, 1999).

An important way to avoid or reduce negative advertising effects is to prevent advertising

being misleading to children. One way to accomplish this is to test a new commercial among

children in order to examine whether the product is portrayed accurately and whether the

benefits communicated are not overpromised. Another way is to test the commercial among

parents to get their opinions about a certain advertising strategy or tactic. Not only can

parents indicate how other parents will react to the commercial, but they also have a keen

sense of what their children appreciate and understand (McNeal, 1992). In sum, testing

marketing and advertising efforts among children and parents can help applied professionals

to find ways of making child-directed advertising as effective, responsible, and publicly

acceptable as possible.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the vote-counting analysis

*Atkin, C. K. (1975a). Survey of pre-adolescent’s responses to television commercials: The effects of television

advertising on children (Report No. 6). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED116820.


*Atkin, C. K. (1975b). Survey of children’s and mothers’ responses to television commercials. The effects of

television advertising on children (Report No. 8). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. ERIC Docu-

ment Reproduction Service No. ED123675.

Atkin, C. K. (1978). Observation of parent–child interaction in supermarket decision-making. Journal of Market-

ing, 42, 41–45.

Atkin, C. K. (1980). Effects of television advertising on children. In E. L. Palmer, & A. Dorr (Eds.), Children and

the faces of television: Teaching, violence, selling (pp. 287–305). New York: Academic Press.

Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12,

265–280.

Brucks, M., Armstrong, G. M., & Goldberg, M. E. (1988). Children’s use of cognitive defenses against television

advertising: A cognitive response approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 471–482.

*Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). The impact of television advertising on children’s Christmas wishes.

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 456–470.

Bushman, B. J. (1994). Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In H. M. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The

handbook of research synthesis (pp. 193–213). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

*Churchill, G. A., & Moschis, G. P. (1979). Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer

learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 23–35.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, H. M. (1990). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cowan, G., & Avants, S. K. (1988). Children’s influence strategies: Structure, sex differences, and bilateral

mother–child influence. Child Development, 59, 1303–1313.

Davies, P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of

Education, 26, 365–378.

Del Vecchio, G. (1998). Creating ever-cool: A marketer’s guide to a kid’s heart. Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing.

*Durkin, S. J., & Paxton, S. J. (2002). Predictors of vulnerability to reduced body image dissatisfaction and

psychological well being in response to exposure to idealized female images in adolescent girls. Journal of

Psychosomatic Research, 53, 995–1005.

Fournier, S., & Richins, M. L. (1991). Some theoretical and popular notions concerning materialism. Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 141–403.

*Galst, J., & White, M. (1976). The unhealthy persuader: The reinforcing value of television and children’s

purchase—influencing attempts at the supermarket. Child Development, 47, 1089–1096.

*Goldberg, M. E., & Gorn, G. J. (1978). Some unintended consequences of TVadvertising to children. Journal of

Consumer Research, 5(1), 22–29.

*Greenberg, B. S., & Brand, J. E. (1993). Television news and advertising in schools: The ‘‘Channel One’’

controversy. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 143–151.

Guber, S. S., & Berry, J. (1993). Marketing to and through kids. New York: McGraw-Hill.

*Gulas, C. S., & McKeage, K. (2000). Extending social comparison: An examination of the unintended con-

sequences of idealized advertising imagery. Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 17–28.

Gunter, B., & Furnham, A. (1998). Children as consumers: A psychological analysis of the young people’s market.

London: Routledge.

*Isler, L., Popper, E. T., & Ward, S. (1987). Children’s purchase requests and parental responses: Results from a

diary study. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(5), 29–39.

Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Quantitative synthesis of social psychological research. In H. T. Reis, &

C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 496–528). London: Cambridge

University Press.

Kuczynski, L., Kochanska, G., Radke-Yarrow, M., & Girnius-Brown, O. (1987). A developmental interpretation

of young children’s noncompliance. Developmental Psychology, 23, 799–806.

Kunkel, D. (2001). Children and television advertising. In D. Singer, & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and

the media (pp. 375–394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1980). Applied regression: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Liebert, R. M. (1986). Effects of television on children and adolescents. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral

Pediatrics, 7, 43–48.

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.

Mangleburg, T. F. (1990). Children’s influence in purchase decisions: A review and critique. Advances in Con-

sumer Research, 17, 813–825.

*Martin, M. C., & Kennedy, P. F. (1993). Advertising and social consequences for female preadolescents and

adolescents. Psychology & Marketing, 10, 513–530.

McNeal, J. U. (1992). Kids as customers: A handbook of marketing to children. New York: Lexington Books.

McNeal, J. U. (1999). The kids market: Myths and realities. New York: Paramount Market Publishing.

Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower.

Psychological Review, 106, 3–19.

*Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal

of Marketing Research, 15, 599–609.

*Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. L. (1982). A longitudinal study of television advertising effects. Journal of

Consumer Research, 9, 279–286.

Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying the relationship between parental mediation and children’s aggression.

Communication Research, 26, 124–144.

Pollay, R. W. (1986). The distorted mirror: Reflections on the unintended consequences of advertising. Journal of

Marketing, 50(2), 18–36.

*Richins, M. L. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising. Journal of Consumer Re-

search, 18, 71–83.

Robertson, T. S. (1979). Parental mediation of television advertising effects. Journal of Communication, 29(1),

12–25.

Robertson, T. S., & Rossiter, J. R. (1974). Children and commercial persuasion: An attribution theory analysis.

Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 13–20.

*Robertson, T. S., & Rossiter, J. R. (1976). Short-run advertising effects on children: A field study. Journal of

Marketing Research, 13, 68–70.

*Robertson, T. S., & Rossiter, J. R. (1977). Children’s responsiveness to commercials. Journal of Communication,

27(1), 101–106.

*Robertson, T. S., Rossiter, J. R., & Ward, S. (1985). Consumer satisfaction among children. Advances in

Consumer Research, 12, 279–284.

*Robertson, T. S., Ward, S., Gatignon, H., & Klees, D. M. (1989). Advertising and children: A cross-cultural

study. Communication Research, 16, 459–485.

Roedder, D. L. (1981). Age differences in children’s responses to television advertising: An information-process-

ing approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 144–153.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rossiter, J. R. (1980). The effects of volume and repetition of television commercials. In R. P. Adler, G. S. Lesser,

L. K. Meringoff, T. S. Robertson, J. R. Rossiter, & S. Ward (Eds.), The effects of television advertising on

children (pp. 153–183). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Sheikh, A. A., & Moleski, L. M. (1977). Conflict in the family over commercials. Journal of Communication,

27(1), 152–157.

Sirgy, M. J. (1998). Materialism and quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 43, 227–260.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Stice, E., Spangler, D., & Agras, W. S. (2001). Exposure to media-portrayed thin-ideal images adversely affects

vulnerable girls: A longitudinal experiment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 270–288.

*Stoneman, Z., & Brody, G. H. (1981). The indirect impact of child-oriented advertisements on mother–child

interactions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 369–376.

Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. (1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles

of television mediation: ‘‘Instructive mediation,’’ ‘‘restrictive mediation,’’ and ‘‘social coviewing’’. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 52–66.


*Ward, S., & Wackman, D. (1971). Family and media influences on adolescent consumer learning. American

Behavioral Scientist, 14, 415–427.

*Ward, S., & Wackman, D. (1972). Television advertising and intrafamily influence: Children’s purchase attempts

and parental yielding. In E. A. Rubinstein, G. A. Comstock, & J. P. Murray (Eds.), Television in day-to-day

life: Patterns of use. Television and social behavior, vol. 4 (pp. 516–525). Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Ward, S., Wackman, D. B., & Wartella, E. (1977). How children learn to buy: The development of consumer-

processing skills. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Williams, L. A., & Burns, A. C. (2000). Exploring the dimensionality of children’s direct influence attempts.

Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 64–71.

Wright, N. D., & Larsen, V. (1993). Materialism and life satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer

Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 6, 158–165.

Wulfemeyer, K. T., & Mueller, B. (1992). Channel One and commercials in classrooms: Advertising content

aimed at students. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 724–742.

Young, B. M. (1990). Television advertising and children. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

the effects of television advertising on materialism ... · pdf filethe effects of television...

Documents