8/8/2019 Deception Children Adv

1/9

A Framework for Ascertaining Deception in Children's Advertising

Author(s): Thomas E. BarrySource: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter, 1980), pp. 11-18Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4188288Accessed: 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 athttp://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 toJournal of

Advertising.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4188288?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=meshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=meshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4188288?origin=JSTOR-pdf

8/8/2019 Deception Children Adv

2/9

FRMEWORKO R ASCERTAININGDEPTION I N CHILDREN'SDVERTI

wu -THOMAS.BARRYThomas E. Barry is a Professor of Marketing in the Edwin L. Cox Schoolof Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. His primaryteaching and research interests are in marketing and advertising manage-ment and he has received teaching and research awards at SMU. Barry is amember of the American Marketing Association, Beta Gamma Sigma,Alpha Kappa Psi, Sigma Iota Epsilon and the American Academy of Ad-vertising.His writings have appearedin the Journal of Advertising, Journalof Advertising Research, European Journal of Marketing, CaliforniaManagementReview 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 LinesDivision 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 atSMU and Professor Keith Hunt and four anonymous reviewers for theirconstructive criticism of various drafts of this article.ABSTRACT

Criteriaare 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-examinationof questioned advertisements, sample selection to obtainrelevant and representative children, determine understanding level ofchildren, 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-rectiveadvertising.INTRODUCTION

Deceptionin advertisinghas been studiedand writtenabout extensively n the last severalyears. Criticshaveattackedadvertisingboth as being unfair and as beingmoredeceptive haninformative n manyinstances. Also,within the last severalyears, criticsand researchershave

focused on children as a special audience of advertisingmessages. 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. Thefirst 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 FTCPresiding Officer Morton Needelman, one of the disputedissues which must be given fuller attention in the secondround of hearings is the issue of the vulnerability ofchildren to television advertising. Says Needelman,I cannot, however, conceive of any rule emergingfrom 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 verynature of that audience (23).

There are two issues apparent in Needelman's statementunfairness to children and deception of children. Both is-sues are complex.Many of the arguments of the critics of advertising tochildren center around the issue of unfairness. The cri-tics argue that advertising to children is inherently unfairbecause of the vulnerability of children to adult mani-pulation through persuasive messages. This advertisingneed not be deceptive. By its very nature it is unfairand, therefore, potentially harmful to children. Propo-nents of advertising to children base their case on FirstAmendment freedoms, parental responsibilities, and thelack of evidence indicating injury to children due to ad-vertising aimed directly at them.Too little has been written which may offer suggestionsto advertisers and public policy makers interested in man-aging the issues surrounding deception. The purpose ofthis paper is to connect the literature in deception and chil-dren's advertising and to offer a conceptual framework forascertaining deception of children. Using this conceptualframework, both the marketers developing strategies topersuade children and the regulatory agencies developingpolicies 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

8/8/2019 Deception Children Adv

3/9

has been addressedby many previousauthors (1;10;13;15; 20; 21; 31; 48). Among other ssues, thesepriorstudieshave ookedat: 1) unfairness,2) reasonablemanconcepts,3) implieduniqueness,4) perceptualbias, 5) detrimentalconsumerbehavior,6) causal factors of deception, and 7)deception definitions. An attempt to summarizethesevariousdeceptioncriteriaappearsn Exhibit1.How can managers designingcampaignsand variousregulatory genciesmakedecisionsabout deceptiveand/orunfairadvertising n order o avoidit or detect t?Severalpreviousstudies have addressed this question(2;16;18;24;25;29;35;37;44). The authors of these studieshave suggestedand illustrated hat deceptiveadvertising,althoughcomplex, can be detectedandempiricallyested.Traditionally, herehas been a paucity of consumerevi-dence used by managersand regulators n detectingac-tual or potentiallydeceptiveadvertising.DECEPTION IN KID'S ADVERTISING

Eighmeymay have been the first to explore deceptionamong children and advancethe thesis that restraints nadvertisingoriented to childrenshould be differentthanthose focusedon adults (17). He calledfor a "reasonablebasis" standard to be developed in second form forchildren.ProblemareascitedbyEighmeyncluded:1. premiumdistracting ttention rom theproduct;2. brevityof commercials insufficientcompre-hension;3. comparative dvertisingmayleavedeceptive mpress-ions;4. stereotyping;5. excessiveuse of emotions;6. relianceon nonsensewithoutproduct nformation;7. similies akentoo literally;8. deceptive uxtapositionof productswithcontextsorpersons;9. unfamiliar ermsandphrases;and10. globaluniqueness laims 17).Examples of deception and unfairness in children'sadvertising reprovidedby Cohen who suggested hatadsshowing children engaging in dangerousactivities likewatching a hot pot cool off or watching a spokesmanpickand eat wild edibles can be deemedunfair. Further-more, advertisementswhich exploit children'strust rela-tionshipswith hero characters ike vitamins and Spider-manblur the distinctionbetweenprogrammingnd adver-tisingcontentand could be considereddeceptive12).Childrenare viewedas a specialmarket egmentbecauseof their lack of experienceand developmentof cognitiveabilities. Although herearedifferent heorieswithrespect

to the psychological nd intellectualdevelopmentof child-ren, most studies refer to the works of Piaget. Chil-dren are simply more susceptibleto deceptivemessagesfrom all sources. They do not have the formal opera-tional skills, in Piagetianterms, to logicallytest princi-ples (26). It should be noted at this point that Chest-nut has recentlyreviewedseveral criticismsof the Piag-etian concept of stage developmentwhich have impli-cationsfor children's onsumer esearch ndpublicpolicy.Thesecriticisms endto view "Thechild n a more complexsettingof environmentalearningandfree,to some extent,from the 'naturalorder'of development"(9).

Only a minimalamountof empiricalresearch s avail-able which pertains o deception n children'sadvertising.Bever, et. al. interviewed oungchildrenregarding dver-tising and concluded that advertisingconfrontschildrenwith a conflict between figurativeand operationalskills.This is particularly rue for qhildrenbetween the agesof 7 and 9 who are confronted with the most intenseconflict and are most vulnerableto advertisingmani-pulation. However, by the time children reach the ageof 10 they tend to overgeneralize nd evaluateall adver-tisingas being misleading 7). Haefner, LeckenbyandGoldman found that younger children are more likelyto be persuadedby deceptiveadvertisinghan older child-ren.(3,71).

Regarding isclaimers, ne study provided xperimentalevidence hatstandarddisclaimersor children's oy prod-uctswere not understoodby children. The words "Someassemblyrequired" (the standard disclaimer)were sub-stituted with "You have to put it together"and analy-Sisrevealedhighlysignificant tatisticaldifferencesn chil-dren'sabilities o understandhesimplermessage 36). Ina partial replicationof this study, the findings were sup-portedin that the replicatedresults illustrated hat moresimplifiedlanguageto young children resulted in morecomprehension4). In a third disclaimer tudy, the auth-ors called for advertisers o use pre-broadcast esearchto better determine he impactof disclaimerson youngchildren45).

ASCERTAINING DECEPTION INCHILDREN'S ADVERTISINGAlthoughmodels for detectingdeceptionhave beenad-vanced, none have specifically focused on children.Gellhornmentionedchildren n discussing he importanceof determining he level of intelligenceof the audiencewhen deceptiveadvertisingwas at issue (22). It makessense that the deceptiveadvertisingssue must be treateddifferentlywhen the audience is comprisedof children.And one cannot even look at "children" n toto. Ther

12

8/8/2019 Deception Children Adv

4/9

> CdCid.4 CdCd >1to 0cts 0C'S 0 1-4 4Cd0 (Ucd 0

CidcnCdcn (U Cld0 00 o .2 :- .-" :=Cd " >-.Z.,o4.cn 0 0 (U w0 cd 00 o C'SCd

co 4--40 U 0 cn Cdas 4-4 >-- -o4--4 Cd.,.q(u cd 'IV cd u 0Vt

CdCdCdCd Cd cdcdCdCld 11:1 (U 1:U4 w Cd oCIS 0 Cd > r.n 4) 4-iCd 0 Cd0 0> 0 Cd cdcfs 04 04 u

64IC 1-4 0 u4) cdIC cdCd Z0 cd

-4 +-b> >u cd

N4-o

0cts0 I=

(U 0 cttcd CISm Cd(U4-oCd Ct$ 0 0Cd 0 m 0 X.w O W" ucd 0 4-,:z clCS cl 0CO) = 4-i - "CIS cn a 0 =.0 "O "4-4X -.4 > cd rn U = 0 >-.o 0 0 0 4ljI'D 0-4e-, r-

13

8/8/2019 Deception Children Adv

5/9

are subsegments hat must be measureddifferently. Thisnotion is treatedin depth in the recent work of Ward,Wackman and Wartella. Their work is steeped in thePiagetianmodel of developmentandinformationprocess-ing and theirsampleof 615 mother-childpairs s the mostextensive o date (46). In delineating he realimpactof adeceptive advertisementon children, one would have toview it within the total consumer socialization contextas presentedby these authors. Thus, not only must welook at cognitivedevelopmentbut also the familycontextof thatdevelopment,whichsurely mpacts heinformationprocessing kills of children,and, ultimately, heir behav-iors includingmoney use, spending,saving and purchaserequests 46,29).The conclusion one drawsfrom the work of Ward andhis colleaguesis that deception in advertisingwill mostlikely vary among childrenby factors such as age, theextent of parentalnteractionn the home, the educationallevel of the child, the extent to which the child hasdevelopeda "cognitivefilter" and the like - in general,the informationprocessingand consumerbehaviorskillsof children. Children rom householdswhereadvertisingis explainedto them by their parents may be less sus-ceptible o deception han those who are not. In addition,it may be more difficult to ascertainwhat the impactonchildren s compared o the impacton adults. Adultscanbe more expressiveabout the behavior that deceptiveadvertisementsed them to; childrenwill have problemsexpressingresultant behaviors due to limited abstrac-tion and verbalizationkills. What, then, arethe stepsin-volved for advertisersand public policy makers in ob-jectivelydeterminingwhetherchildren anbe or havebeendeceivedby advertising ndwhetheror not thatdeceptioncanorhas had a deleteriousmpacton them?DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK

An attempt o provide hese twodecision-makingroupswith a framework s illustrated n Exhibit 2. It shouldbe noted that the procedure presented is a simplifi-cationof a very complex sequenceof events for managersand regulatorswho have the task of determiningwhetheror not deceptionmay or did take place. Nevertheless,the approachcouldverywell lead to a better understand-ingof howdeception akesplaceamongchild consumers.The frameworkadvanced n Exhibit2 presentsa seriesof seven sequentialsteps. Each of these steps is brieflydiscussed.Step One -- Pre-examination:Theobjectiveof thepre-examinations to have an inter-disciplinarypanel of judgesview the advertisingn ques-tion to determinef there s a likelihoodof deception n the

ad. It is a preliminary tep to a detailed survey and aprocedurewhich might possibly avoid all of the time andcosts that wouldbe involved n conductinga detailedsur-vey. Should the panel contend that there is a rea-sonable potential for deceptionthis does not constituteadecision that an advertisement s deceptive;rather, t is acue to continue the investigatoryprocess. Of course, inthe case of an obvious falsehood or lie the processneed go no further.The criticalaspect of Step One is that there is trulyaninterdisciplinary anelof experts uchas lawyers,mothers,fathers, educators,marketers,psychologists,consumeristsand so forth who can put aside their vested interests nthe issue of advertising o childrenand objectively udgethe advertising n question. Panels are difficult to ini-tiate and maintain. They can be expensiveand attritionrates are often high. However, this first step, if im-plementedobjectively,could be veryvaluable o managersand regulatorsconcernedabout the misrepresentationfproducts o childrenvis-a-visadvertising.The upshot for the advertiserpretestinga campaign nStepOne is that if the panelconcludes here s an obviousdeception, headvertiser implyscraps he adordeletes hedeceptive content before running it. If there is ob-viously no deception, the campaigncan be initiated. Inthe case of an on-going campaign, the panel may be ac-ting for someregulatoryagencysuch as the FTC. Again,if it is obvious that thereis deception, a cease and desistorderwould be issuedand the appropriate unitiveactionstaken. If it is concluded that there is no chance ofdeception,the FTC would inform the advertiserand thecampaignwould be allowed to continue. It should beclearherethat wearenot suggestinghatthe samepanelbeused by the advertiserand the regulator. What is beingsuggested,however, s that the sameinterdisciplinaryndobjectiveapproachbe usedbybothgroups.Step Two -- Select Sample:If thereis no obvious deceptionconclusionfrom StepOne then either advertisersor regulatorsmust set aboutdevelopinga more scientificapproach o ascertainingde-ception. The firststepis to selecta relevant ampleof thetarget audience. It seems obvious that, if deceptionislikely, hosewhoare thetargetof themessagemustprovidethe evidenceof that deception. With childrenthis is aformidable ask.In order to obtain a representative ample the relevantpopulationmustbe known. What childrenwill be or werelikely to see the campaign? Children n the sample mustrepresentall of the relevant age groups, ethnic back-grounds, educational evels, socio-economicbackgroundsand the like of the population. This is a difficult but

14

8/8/2019 Deception Children Adv

6/9

EXHIBIT 2Ascertaining Deception in Children's Advertising

Pre-Examination ofObviously ~Questioned Advertisement Obiul o] ~~~~~(Interdisciplinaryanel)

DeceptionNot Obvious lSample Selection

(Relevant and RepresentativeChildren)Dicntinue Co_n_inulCa4paign C4

Determine UnderstandingLevel 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 andDesist Order . AllowCniuto_Corrective AdvertisingofCrAssess DamageofCmag

* Actions by Advertising/Marketing Managers_________ Actions by Regulators

15

8/8/2019 Deception Children Adv

7/9

logical approach to take. At times a more homogen-eous groupof childrenmay suffice for the sample. Letussay that a campaign s to be run only duringthe weekdaymornings in the Fall. In this case only pre-schoolersneedbe sampledbecause t is unlikelythat many childrenof school agewillhavebeenhome to viewthecommercials.Those readers familiarwith samplingknow all too wellthe problems of obtainingadequatesamplesizes and re-presentation. We are facedwith adequatesampleframesand systematictechniqueswhichallow us to draw infer-ences from the sample to the population. The rigorsof scientificsamplingare cumbersome ut necessaryf thisprocedures to achieve ts objective.

Step Three -- DetermineUnderstandingLevels:Once the sample has been selected, the childrenmustbe measured n terms of their level of understanding f

concepts relevant to the message in the commercial.What are theirfamily backgrounds, ognitivecapabilities,levels of intelligence,awarenessof and understanding ftelevisioncommercials,abilitiesto verbalize hese under-standings, etc.? It has been argued by many (3,35-45;40, Chapter9) that socializationvariablesarevitalto a child's understanding nd interpretationof persua-sive communication. We must test for variancesn levelsof understanding ased on these socializationvariables.Assuggestedearlier, the lock-stepPiagetian stage develop-ment approachmayno longersuffice(9).Step Four -- Measure Responses:This step is very difficult. Those readersexperiencedin psychological measurementcertainlyunderstandtheproblemsof elicitingvalid data from respondents.Withchildren his problem s significantly ompounded. How-ever, some authors have providedresearcherswith sug-gestionson how to developvalid and reliable nstrumentsforgenerating esponses romyoungchildren 43, 47). Wemust measure the attitudes, beliefs, actual or intendedbehaviorsandexpectationsof the children f we are to be-gin to answer the questions surroundingdeception. Itmay well be that Gardnerhas providedus with the con-ceptualframeworkhrough he normativebelieftechnique(20). Although this approach would necessitate child

specificmodifications, he foundation or measurementoascertaindeceptionexists n thattechnique.Step Five -- Determine IfDeceptionExists:In order o determinef deceptiondid takeplace,we en-ter into judgment.To this point, we have measured he

responses of the children with respect to their attitudes,beliefs and expectations. These responsesprovideus witha norm. What proportion of the sample had expecta-tions whichclearly were not met by the product? Weretheir expectationsclearly developedfrom the commercialmessagewhich hey saw? Althoughwe haverecommendeda very scientific approachto the study of deception, wehave no norms for what constitutes an unacceptableamountof deception. Assumefor example hat 10 percentof the children were deceived by the advertisement. Isthat an unacceptablenumber to stop the campaign andlevy punitivemeasures? s twenty percentmore realistic?Fifty percentwould logicallybe intolerable. These normshave not been developed. It may be that the normwould be productand targetspecific. These are questionsmoreeasilyposited han answered.

Step Six -- DetermineDeception's Impact:Assuming deceptiondid exist among an unacceptablenumber of children,what are the consequencesof thisdeception? What impact could or did the ad have onchildrenmakingrequests,sufferingeconomicloss, devel-oping incorrector inappropriate eliefs, attitudes, expec-tations, etc? We are not at all sure what constitutes a"reasonabledeleterious mpact" on the childrenwho sawthe commercials, their parentsand society. Literaturediscussed arlierand summarizedn Exhibit1suggests hatthe impactcan be psychological,economical,cultural orsocial. Again, we mustrelyon the responsesof the chil-dren to ascertainsome of these impacts. Economic losscan be measured more clearly than social harm can.

Historicallywe have used the reasonablebasis argumentfor measuringoss. Is it reasonable hat deceptioncouldharm minoritychildren rom a culturalperspective?Is itreasonablefor consumersto expect $31 million for re-funds, punitivedamagesandcounteradvertising ue to theharmfulimpact that deceptiveadvertisinghad on them?The answers o thesequestionsarejudgmentalandwill bemade in the absence of norms until a framework assuggested here becomes systematic and commonplaceamongadvertisers nd regulators.Step Seven -- Make DeceptionDecision:Determine, given the objectively obtained evidence,whether enough of the sample was deceived and whetherthe impact of that deception is or could be graveenough to rule against the campaign or respondent. If ano-deception decision results, the advertisement and/orcampaign may continue. If deception is ruled to be thecase, then the campaign should be discontinued and/or

16

8/8/2019 Deception Children Adv

8/9

appropriateactionsagainstthe advertiser hould follow.These actionscould include,for example,a cease and de-sist order, an order of corrective or counter adver-tising and an assessmentof the level of damageswhichshouldbepaidandto whom.DISCUSSION

There s littlequestionthatthe approach uggestedhereinadequately epictsthe difficultiesof actualimplementa-tion. Deceptionin advertising s no simplematter;noris its detection. It seems, however,that both advertisersand publicpolicy makerswould benefit from the use ofsomesystematic ramework or, ascertainingirst,what isdeceptiveto children and second, what is the impactof that deception. This is a sensitive ssue today. It is acomplex ssue. It involvesmany kindsof costs.Theadvertiseracescosts of restrictions n freedoms opersuasivelymarket goods and servicesto membersofsociety. There are potentiallylarge out-of-pocketcoststo advertisers n legal fees which may have to be ex-pendedto provethat a campaign s not deceptive. Thereare costs of a potential erosion of image of the adver-tiser. TIiWmage erosion can become especiallyimpor-tant if consumersbelievethat advertisersake unfair ad-vantageof childrenandothervulnerable roups n society.In addition, advertisersmay well see theiragenciesliablefordeceptive dvertising.Murdockhaspresented videncethat consumersand the FTC will begin holdingagenciesresponsible or deceptiveadvertisingbecauseof the con-tent of their creative efforts. He notes that agenciesandadvertisersmarketing o childrenareparticularly ul-nerable o liabilities n the future 38).And what of the costs to society? Assume that ad-vertisingo childrenwerebanned. Thisinvolvesmorethana philosophicaldebateon restrictions f freedoms. Thisisan outrightrestrictionon the freedomof advertisers ocommunicate nformationabout their productsand ser-vices to targetcustomers. What may be next? Adver-tising to the elderly,to the minoritygroups of szciety?What product is next? Salt, beer? It is impor-tant that public policymakersdevelop policy utilizingsound data bases. This is indeed a tryingtask. If oneclosely analyzes the steps involved in the frameworkpresented n this paper, it becomesobvious that the taskis cumbersome nd expensive.There are questionsof cor-rectstatistical amplingwhichinvolve the identificationofthe correctpopulations, hesecuringof adequatesamplingframes and the developmentof viable samplesizes. Theproblemsof measurementmayappearalmostinsurmount-able to the behavioralscientistwho has studiedvalidityand reliabilityquestions of measuringhumanresponse.And there is the question of harm. How do we evenbegin to measure harm? And was that harm due toadvertisinghatwasdeceptive?

These arequestionswhichpresentmajorhurdles o theimplementationof an approachsuch as the one positedhere. However,advertisers ndpublicpolicymakersareata critical impasse in the marketplace oday. One sideclaims that it must act in the interestof the publicandpreventdeceptiveadvertising n generaland to children nparticular. The other side claims that it has the righttofairly advertise its goods and servicesto all target con-sumersand thatmost advertising o children s not decep-tive. There s someempiricalworkto support headvertis-er's position. Rossiterrecentlyreviewedthe cognitive,attitudinal and behavioraleffects of TV advertisingonchildrenand concludedthat while some TV commercialsmay deceive young children, most do not (42). SaysRossiter,

ArgumentsagainstTV advertisingo childrenbasedon charges of generalizeddeception and youthfulgullibilityare simplynot supportedby the evidence.The research uggests a more rationalmodel of thedevelopingchild vis-a-visTV advertising a modelin which the child understandswhat he or she seesand hearsin most commercials,selects those prod-ductsthat areinteresting ndattractive,andasks forthem(42, 52).We mustgo backto the earlierwordsof CommissionerNeedelmanand understandwhether or not advertisingaimedat children s unfairanddeceptive 23). We cannotdo this without research. The researchcannot be donewithoutthe high costs of humanandeconomicresources.But if advertisersand public policy makersalike do notmake this initial investment,we are not likely to evercomprehend he real impact of advertisingon children.

And inthe lastanalysis f we havenot systematically eter-minedthat impactwe cannotjustify eitheradvertisingochildrenoritssubsequent bolition!There s evidence n the world of advertisers ndregula-torsthatresearch s beingused to pretestcommercials ndto presentevidencein litigation proceedings.If adequatenormsareto be developed n the areaof childrenand de-ceptive advertisingthere must be some common andsystematicapproachused by these two groups in theircommon objectiveof benefitingsociety. This paper haspresented ne suchalternative.REFERENCES1. 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. 21-31.3. Barry, Thomas E. Children's Television Advertising: Issues, Find-ings and Needs. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1977.

17

8/8/2019 Deception Children Adv

9/9

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. "YoungViewers' Troubling Response to TV Ads," Harvard Business Review,(November-December, 1975), pp. 109-120.8. Brandt, Michael T. and 1. L. Preston. "The Federal TradeCommission's Use of Evidence to Determine Deception," Journal ofMarketing, (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 toAdvertising 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 asAction 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 ofAdvertising 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 ofMarketing, (January, 1974), pp. 48-54.17. Eighmey, John. "Deception and Unfairness in Children'sAdvertising," 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 MarketingAssociation, Chicago: 1977, pp. 493-497.19. "FTC 'Fairness' Seen As A Threat To Freedom," MarketingNews, (June 29, 1979), pp. 1,12.20. Gardner, David M. "Deception in Advertising: A ConceptualApproach," Journal of Marketing, (January, 1975), pp. 40-46.21. Gardner, David M. "Deception in Advertising: A ReceiverOriented Approach," Journal of Advertising, Fall, 1976), pp. 5-11.22. Gellhorn, Ernest. "Proof of Consumer Deception Before theFederal 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 Deceptionvs. Adults' and Students' Judgments of Deception," Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, (Summer, 1975), pp. 232-243.25. Haefner, James E. and S.D. Permut, "An Approach to theEvaluation 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 Contextof 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 ofAdvertising Research, (October, 1973), pp. 15-22.

30. Hunt, Shelby D. "Informational vs. Persuasive Advertising: AnAppraisal," Journal of Advertising, (Summer, 1976), pp. 5-8.31. Jacoby, Jacob and C. Small. "The FDA Approach to DefiningMisleading Advertising," Journal of Marketing, (October, 1975),pp. 65-68.32. Jones, Mary Gardiner. "The Consumer Interest: The Role ofPublic 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 MarketingExecutives of Dallas, Texas, April 25, 1977.35. Kuehl, Philip G. and R. F. Dyer. "Brand Belief Measuresin 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 Literatureand 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 InformationContent in Television Advertising," Journal of Marketing, (January,1977), pp. 50-53.42. Rossiter, John R. "Does TV Advertising Affect Children?," Journalof 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 ConsumerResearch, (March, 1977), pp. 179-184.44. Sawyer, Alan G. "The Need to Measure Attitudes and BeliefsOver 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, AmericanMarketing Association, Chicago: 1978, pp. 332-336.46. Ward, Scott, D.B. Wackman and E. Wartella. How ChildrenLearn to Buy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications 1937.47. Wells, William D. "Communicating with Children," Journal ofAdvertising 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.

18