young Children's Perceptions of Cigarette Brand Advertising Symbols Awaren.pdf

Young Children's Perceptions of Cigarette BrandAdvertising Symbols: Awareness, Affect, and TargetMarket IdentificationLucy L. Henke

The author assesses young children's abilities to recognize cigarette brand advertising symbols and to identifyadults as the appropriate target market for cigarettes. She used nonverbal measures in interviews withchildren three to eight years of age to assess how recognition of cigarette brand advertising symbols is relatedto age, cognitive developmental level, children's affect toward cigarettes, children's evaluation of cigarettes,and children's ability to identify adults as the appropriate target market for cigarettes. The results show thatrecognition of cigarette brand advertising symbols increases with age, as does overall recognition of brandadvertising symbols in general. Regardless of age, cognitive developmental level, or recognition scores, chil-dren reported not liking cigarettes, believing cigarettes are "bad for you," and finding children to be aninappropriate target market for cigarettes. Findings are discussed in terms of social science and public policy,and in terms of the implications for cognitive development.

Lucy L. Henke, (Ph.D. University ofMassachusetts, Amherst) is anAssociate Professor of Marketing atthe Whittemore School of Businessand Economics, University of NewHampshire.

Journal of Advertising,Volume XXIV, Number 4Winter 1995

Background and Study Focus

Since the publication of the December 1991 issue of the Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, "Old Joe" the camel has come to symbolizethe ongoing controversy about the appropriateness of using trade charac-ters that appeal to children to advertise adult products. The issue of JAMAcontained three studies examining the impact of Joe Camel and other ciga-rette brand advertising on children from three to 17 years of age. Thestudies collectively formed an indictment of cigarette advertising and indi-vidually concluded that "cigarette advertising may be an important healthrisk for children" (Fischer et al. 1991), public policy should ban all forms ofcigarette advertising and promotion (Pierce et al. 1991), and "a total ban oftobacco advertising and promotion, as part of an effort to protect childrenfrom the dangers of tobacco, can be based on sound scientific reasoning"(DiFranza et al. 1991).

Partly on the basis of the conclusions of the three studies, the staff of theFederal Trade Commission (FTC) initially recommended, in August of 1993,that ads featuring Joe Camel be barred as a health hazard because theyencourage minors to smoke (Teinowitz and Colford 1993). However, per-haps because of misgivings about evidence of the negative impact of JoeCamel, the FTC ultimately decided not to ban the cartoon character (Colfordand Teinowitz 1994).

Disagreement on the validity and interpretation of the three studies'findings continues. Some researchers suggest that methodological problemsin the studies make the findings suspect (Boddewyn 1993; Martin 1994;Mizerski, Sonner, and Straughn 1993). Fischer and his colleagues, in par-ticular, sought to measure brand logo recognition among young children,but their conclusions are based on assumptions about behavior rather thanrecognition. Finding high levels of awareness of Joe Camel among youngchildren, Fischer and his colleagues assumed a link between logo recogni-tion and intended use, and concluded that cigarette advertising may be animportant health risk for children. They did not, however, measure product-

14 Journal of Advertising

related affect or intentions. Measures of awarenessalone may not justify conclusions about affect, behav-ior, or behavioral intent.

Specifically, the high awareness of Joe Camel foundamong young children does not provide evidence thatchildren like cigarettes, intend to use cigarettes, oraccept cigarette smoking as appropriate behavior. Astudy was therefore designed to address this gap inthe literature by assessing the relationship betweenawareness of brand advertising symbols (trade char-acters and trademarks) and attitudes toward adver-tised products among young children. The study in-vestigated the role of variables tbat intervene be-tween stimulus recognition and actual behavior, animportant issue not addressed by previous researcbfor the study's age group and product category. Thestudy sought to determine how recognition of ciga-rette brand advertising symbols is related to age,cognitive developmental level, children's affect towardcigarettes, children's evaluation of cigarettes, andchildren's ability to identify adults as the appropriatetarget market for cigarettes.

The scope of the investigation was limited to per-ceptions of children between the ages of three andeight, a period of significant growth and change inthe cognitive development of young children. Betweenthose ages, children acquire and demonstrate the abil-ity to perform increasingly complex cognitive tasks.Piagetian cognitive developmental theory was usedas a framework for understanding the changes thatoccur in young children's information-processing abili-ties during that period.

Previous Research and Hypotheses

Age and Recognition of BrandAdvertising Symbols

Several early studies of children and their percep-tions of advertising are relevant to the investigation.Previous research has shown that children's under-standing of advertising complexities increases withage and is related positively to other factors, includ-ing cognitive development, socioeconomic status, andadult-child interaction (Belk, Bahn, and Mayer 1982;Meyer, Donohue, and Henke 1978; Ward, Reale, andLevinson 1972).

Recent research from both social science and indus-try finds that awareness of cigarette trade charactersis related to age, and is either unrelated or negativelyrelated to affect for the trade character and for theproduct category. Mizerski (1992) found that positive

affect toward cigarettes was related negatively to ageamong children three to six years of age, whereasawareness of Joe Camel was related positively to age.Levin (1993) reported a positive relationship betweenage and awareness of Joe Camel among children fromsix to 17, but reported that the character's likabilityremained low across age groups among the same chil-dren. A national poll conducted by Roper Starch World-wide found that although 73% of young people 10 to17 years of age recognized Joe Camel, only 3% ofthose youths had a positive attitude toward smoking(Teinowitz 1994).

Cognitive developmental theory suggests thatawareness of brands increases with age and is notnecessarily related to positive attitude toward thebrands or the product category. As children develop,their ability to identify, categorize, store, and retrieveinformation increases. Piagetian theory, for example,argues that children progress through a series ofstages marked by qualitative changes in their infor-mation processing abilities. As age and stage evolve,so do memory and the ability to perform more com-plex cognitive tasks (Piaget 1955; Piaget and Inhelder1969).

Previous research on age and awareness suggestedthe following hypotheses.

HI: Age is related positively to overall recog-nition of brand advertising symbols.

H2: Age is related positively to recognition ofcigarette brand advertising symbols.

Age and Identification of AppropriateTarget Audience

Previous studies of children's perceptions of adver-tising suggest that the ability to identify adults astbe appropriate target market for cigarettes increaseswith age. Specifically, research has shown that as ageand understanding increase, so does ability to sepa-rate advertisements from editorial or program con-tent (Donohue, Henke, and Meyer 1983), understand-ing of the persuasive intent of ads and the concept ofsponsorship (Meyer, Donohue, and Henke 1978; Ward,Reale, and Levinson 1972), skepticism about adver-tising claims (Bever et al. 1975), and understandingof the concept of market segmentation—^that someproducts and ads are intended for some audience mem-bers and not for others (Belk, Bahn, and Mayer 1982;Donohue, Henke, and Donohue 1980; Henke 1980).Those findings have important implications. Theydemonstrate that, in fact, at the same time aschildren's ability to recognize brand logos is increas-ing, they are also developing skills of discrimination

Winter 1995 15

and perspective-taking that would perhaps mitigatethe potential influential effects of increased recogni-tion.

Findings about age and increased understanding ofadvertising are not surprising in light of Piagetiandevelopmental theory, which argues that the abilityto engage in abstract thinking, perspective-taking,critical thinking, and the making of moral judgmentsincreases with age and developmental stage (Flavell1963; Ginsberg and Opper 1969; Piaget 1955; Piagetand Inhelder 1969). Hence, one would expect that asa child's ability to remember brand advertising sym-bols increases with an increase in cognitive develop-ment, so does the ability to evaluate the brand andproduct category within an increasingly complex con-textual framework. Children in the pre-operationalstage, which begins around the age of two followingthe sensorimotor period and ends around the age ofseven with entry into the concrete operational stage,would be expected to have difficulty with the conceptthat some television programs, products, or ads arenot designed for them, and would therefore be ex-pected to have little ability to identify adults as thetarget market for adult products.

Previous findings suggested the following hypoth-eses.

H3: Age is related positively to ability to iden-tify adults as the appropriate target mar-ket for cigarettes.

H4:The relationship between recognition ofbrand advertising symbols and ability toidentify adults as the appropriate targetmarket for cigarettes is positive.

Age and Cognitive DevelopmentalStage

Piaget (1955; Piaget and Inhelder 1969) asserts inhis cognitive developmental stage theory that chil-dren in the pre-operational stage are characterizedby egocentrism, inability to engage in perspective-taking, and a tendency to make judgments on thebasis of appearances or perceptual attributes. A pre-operational child, for example, judges five penniesthat are spread far apart from each other to be "more"than five pennies that are lying side by side. To a pre-operational child, three ounces of water in a large,shallow container becomes "more" when poured intoa tall, narrow container.

Following the pre-operational stage is the stage ofconcrete operations. Children in the concrete opera-tional stage can perform mental manipulations, en-

gage in perspective-taking, and make judgments onthe basis of information processing on both percep-tual and deeper cognitive levels. They would be ex-pected to understand target market segmentation andto identify the appropriate targets for products notintended for children.

Transition to Concrete Operations. It is not clear atwhat age the pre-operational stage ends and the con-crete operational stage begins, but standard Piagetiantests of cognitive development generally place chil-dren younger than five or six years of age in the pre-operational stage and children older than seven inthe concrete operational stage (Flavell 1963; Ginsbergand Opper 1969; Sigel and Hooper 1968). However,the age of concrete operations is not fixed. First, somechildren enter the concrete operational stage soonerthan others. Second, there appears to be a transitionperiod between the pre-operational and concrete op-erational stages during which a child demonstratessome, but not all, abilities associated with concreteoperations.

Abilities During Transition. There is evidence thatthe shift to concrete operations does not result inacross-the-board development of abilities, but thatsome concrete operational skills develop earlier thanothers. For example, when nonverbal measures areused, some children demonstrate empathy and per-spective-taking—skills attributed to the stage of con-crete operations—as early as three years of age (Borke1971; Donohue, Henke, and Donohue 1980; Henke1980). Whether the ability to empathize develops priorto other concrete operational abilities or the nonverbalmeasures simply allow the skill to be demonstratedat an earlier age is not clear. The findings suggest,nevertheless, that each child undergoes a period oftransition between the fully pre-operational and fullyconcrete operational stages, during which variousskills are acquired and demonstrated. Thus, althoughcognitive development is related to age, age is not apredictor of developmental stage. The study there-fore was designed to assess the relationship betweenthe independent measures of both age and cognitivedevelopmental level and the dependent measures ofawareness of brand symbols and identification of tar-get market. Specifically, the study addressed the fol-lowing research questions.

Ql How is age related to:

(a) awareness of brand advertising symbols,a function of attention and memory, and


(b) the ability to identify the appropriate tar-get market for cigarettes, a function ofthe concrete operational skill of perspec-tive-taking?

Q2 How is cognitive developmental level re-lated to:

(a) awareness of brand advertising symbols,a function of attention and memory, and

(b) the ability to identify the appropriate tar-get market for cigarettes, a function ofthe concrete operational skill of perspec-tive-taking?

Method

ProcedureInterviews. Interviews with children in preschool

through second grade were conducted by five under-graduate students and one child care professional.The interviewers participated in a training session tofamiliarize them with the study materials and to pre-pare them to conduct the interviews. Five of the sixinterviewers were unaware of the research questionsbeing examined in the study. Interviewing took anaverage of 20 minutes per subject and was completedin three days.

Subject Assent and Parental Consent. Assent wasobtained from each child before his or her interviewtook place. Children in classrooms were invited toparticipate in the interviewing session, which theywere told included playing games and looking at pic-tures. Children who were interested were removedfrom the classroom one at a time and taken to aseparate room where individual interviews were con-ducted. Interviewers were instructed to terminate theinterview if visual and verbal cues indicated a subject'sdiscomfort with the interview or unwillingness to con-tinue. The children understood they were not requiredto participate in the interviewing. Only one child de-clined to be interviewed and one child terminated theinterview before completion.

Parental consent forms were distributed during theweek prior to interviewing. The consent form re-quested permission for the children to participate ina study of their perceptions of advertising. The formsgave the parents the option of receiving a summary ofstudy results. One parent asked that her child not beinterviewed. Five requested a summary of results.

Sample

The 83 subjects who participated in the study rangedin age from three to eight years. The children werefrom middle-class neighborhoods in and around asmall coastal town in southern Maine. Fifty-four per-cent were boys.

Variables

Cognitive Developmental Level. In the first part ofthe interview, three tests of cognitive developmentwere administered. As described previously, two testsof conservation of number (with pennies) and one testof conservation of liquid (witb water) examined thechildren's abilities to separate appearance from real-ity and to make judgments on the basis of mentalmanipulations rather than perceptual attributes. Asummary score was calculated for each child by add-ing the number of correct responses; possible result-ing values were 0, 1,2, or 3.

Recognition of Brand Advertising Symbols. The sec-ond part of the interview tested the subjects' abilityto match brand advertising symbols to the productcategory represented by the brand. A 16" by 16" lami-nated board, consisting of photographs of variousadults' and children's products, was introduced as agameboard. There were 16 photographs representing16 different product categories. To ensure that theyunderstood the stimulus materials, the children wereasked to point to various products on the gameboardas the interviewer named them in random order. Theorder in which products were named was not fixed,but varied across subjects. Because identification ofthe product categories on the gameboard was centralto the study, the interviewer named any product cat-egories that a subject could not recognize before con-tinuing with the intei^'iew.

After identification of the 16 products, the inter-viewer introduced a packet of cards, each featuring abrand advertising symbol. The deck contained 23cards. Twenty-two cards were used in the recognitiontest and one card was used in a practice match toensure that the subjects had an understanding of thetask. The twenty-two cards included one brand sym-bol for each of 11 product categories and two or threedifferent brand symbols for each of the five othercategories.

A summary score of overall identification of brandsymbols was calculated for each child by adding thenumber of correct responses given in recognition tests

Winter 1995 17

with the 22 brand cards. Possible values of the sum-mary score ranged from 0 to 22.

Eleven of the cards portrayed trade characters rep-resenting adult and child product categories: batter-ies, beer, books, cereal, cigarettes, dairy products,dishwashing liquid, fast food, snack food, and tires.One card, featuring a logo without a trade character,was used in the practice match. The other 11 cardsfeatured logos without trade characters, represent-ing airlines, automobiles, beer, cigarettes, coffee, dairyproducts, electrical products, gasoline, and telephones.Table 1 reports the complete list of brand symbols.

A siunmary score of identification of cigarette brandsymbols was calculated for each child by adding thenumber of correct matches made in recognition testsusing the two cigarette brand symbols that hadachieved highest recognition rates in the study byFischer et al. (1991)—Ceunel's Old Joe and Marlboro's"red roof." Possible values of the score ranged from 0to 2.

All visual references to the product category wereremoved from the logo cards for testing; the cigarette,for example, was masked on tbe Joe Camel card andthe beer mugs were masked on the card for St. PauliGirl. In addition, because many of the children beinginterviewed were learning to read or to "sound out"words, the brand signatures were masked to preventinternal verbalization from serving as a memory cue.

In the practice match, the interviewer presented apicture of the McDonald's arches and asked, "What isthis a picture of? What does it go with on thegameboard?" Interviewing proceeded after the childdemonstrated an understanding of the task.

For the recognition test, the interviewer presentedthe brand symbol cards one at a time in random orderand the child placed the card on a product square.Each card was removed before the next card waspresented. The deck of cards was shuffied betweensubjects.

Identification of Target Market. After the tests ofrecognition, the interviewer produced a packet of lami-nated cutout figures of young boys and girls and ofmen and women. Together, the interviewer and thechild selected a set of cutouts to represent adults andchildren in the subject's family.

For each of a subset of six product categories theinterviewer pointed to the photo on the gameboardand asked the child, "Who is this product for—is it forchildren or adults?" The child responded either ver-bally or nonverbally by using the cutouts. Responseswere categorized as "adults," "children," or "don'tknow/no answer." The product categories used in the

target identification questions represented bothchildren's and adults' products, including beer, books,cereal, cigarettes, hamburgers, and snack food. Inter-viewers rerandomized tbe tasks for each subject.

Affect for Product Categories. The ssime subset ofproducts as were used in the target identificationmeasure were used to assess affect. For each of thesix product categories, the interviewer pointed to itsphoto on the gameboard and asked, "Do you like thisproduct or do you not like this product?" The order inwhich products were tested was randomized acrosssubjects. Responses were divided into categories of"like," "don't like," or "don't know/no answer."

Evaluation of Product Categories. In the final partof the interview, the same subset of six product cat-egories was used to assess perceptions of the value ofthe product. Pointing in random order to photos ofeach of the six products, the interviewer asked, "Isthis product good for you or bad for you?" Possibleresponse categories were "good for you," "bad for you,""don't know/no answer."

After the child answered questions about the valueof the six product categories, the interviewer thankedthe child, commended him or her on a job well done,and terminated the interview.

Analyses

A series of analyses were performed on the data.Responses were cross-tabulated and subjected to chi-square analyses to identify age-related differences inrecognition of brand advertising symbols and in iden-tification of target audiences for brand advertisingsymbols. Chi-square analyses were also performed toassess the relationship between symbol recognitionand target market identification measures for ciga-rette brands. Pearson product-moment correlationswere conducted to assess the relationship of age inmonths to overall recognition of brand advertisingsymbols and to recognition of cigarette advertisingsjnnbols. Finally, a discriminant analysis was per-formed to identify which variables were the best pre-dictors of children's ability to identify cigarette ad-vertising symbols.

Results

Two of the four hypotheses are supported: HI, thatoverall recognition of brand advertising symbols in-creases with age, and H2, that recognition of ciga-rette brand advertising symbols increases with age.H3, that the ability to identify the appropriate target


H

1

2

3

4

HypothesizedOutcome

Significant positiverelationshipbetween age andoverall recognitionof brand advertisingsymbols

Significant positiverelationshipbetween age andrecognition ofcigarette brandadvertising symbols

Significant positiverelationshipbetween age andability to recognizeadults asappropriate targetmarket forcigarettes

Significant positiverelationshipbetweenrecognition andtarget marketidentification scores

Table 1Summary of Hypothesis -

Analyses

• I between age andsummary score for overaiiidentification of brandsymbols =.5921• x^ for summary score ofoveraii identification ofbrand symbols byage=20.44,d.f.=4

•J: between age andsummary score foridentification of cigarettebrand symbols = .4240•J: between age and abilityto identify Joe Camel =.3581• x' for summary score foridentification of cigarettebrand symbols byage=14.56,d.f.=4

•z^ for ability to identifyadults as the appropriatetarget market forcigarettes by age =4.41,d.f.=6

• x^ for ability to identifyadults as the appropriatetarget market forcigarettes by:• summary score foridentification of cigarettebrandsymbols=4.73,d.f.=6• ability to identify JoeCamel=2.54,d.f.=3• ability to identify theMarlboro "red roof"=1.48,d.f.=3

Testing Results

TableNumber

2

3

2

2

4

6

7

8

8

Signifi-cance

fi <.OO1

C <.0004

C<.001

C <.OO1

E <.006

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Outcome

Supported

Supported

Not supported:regardless ofage, childrenidentified adultsas theappropriatetarget market forcigarettes

Not supported:regardless ofability to identifycigarette brandsymbols.childrenidentified adultsas theappropriatetarget market forcigarettes

Winter 1995 19

Brand Name

McDonald'sFrosted FlakesFroot LoopsBudweiserChee-tosLite BeerOakhurst DairyLocust Farm DairyEnergizerDr. SeussChevyCamelFolger'sBellCitgoTexacoSt. PauliMichelinMarlboroDeltaGEDove

Recognition

Brand Symbol

Ronald McDonaldTony the TigerToucan SamRed logoChester CheetahBlue logoAcorn symbolLocust CowEnergizer BunnyCat In the HatChevy logoJoe CamelMountainBell symbolTriangleStarPauli GirlMichelin ManRed roofTriangleGE circleDove symbol

Table 2of Brand Symbols by Age

TotalSample(N=83)

%

9595949489898784828275737155484534302723128

Under 6(41-72

Months)(n=28)

%

938686827975867561615054643943292132

71275

Age Group

6-7(73-87

Months)(n=27)

%

93100100100939685898593858159595559412626331513

Over 7(88-103Months)(n=28)

%

10010096

10096968989

1009389868968464639324625148

market for cigarettes increases with age, and H4,that it increases with recognition, are not supported.None of the children in the study identified childrenas the appropriate target audience for cigarettes; onlyone said that cigarettes were for both children andadults. Therefore, because of the lack of variability inresponse, no correlations resulted for the measure oftarget market identification. Table 1 is a summary offindings for the four hypotheses. Specific findings fol-low.

Age and Recognition of BrandAdvertising Symbols

Recognition of cigarette brand symbols increaseswith age, as does overall recognition of brand symbols

in general. Table 2 gives results of recognition testsfor the three age groups that correspond to the pre-operational (younger than six years), transitional (be-tween six years and seven years), and concrete opera-tional (older than seven years) developmental levels.Age in months was used for the analyses.

Pearson's product-moment correlations reveal sig-nificant positive relationships between age in monthsand ability to identify Joe Camel (r = .3581, E < .01),summary score for identification of cigarette brandsymbols (x = .4240, E < .01), and summary score foroverall identification of brand symbols (r = .5921, £ <.01). Table 3 reports tbe results of the correlationanalysis.

Chi-square analyses also show a clear age effect inrecognition of cigarette brand symbols as well as in


Table 3Correlation Between Age and Identification of Brand Symbols

(N=83)

Identification Variables

Pearson's Product-MomentCorrelation

With Age in Months

Summary score of overallidentification of brand symbols

Summary score of identification ofcigarette brand symbols

Ability to identify Joe Camel

.5921

.4240

.3581

Table 4Overall Recognition of Brand Advertising Symbols by Age

Summary Score

Age Group

TotalSample(N=83)

Under 6(41-72

Months)(n=28)

6-7(73-87

Months)(n=27)


3-1213-1516-21

244729

13.941.41

63316

304525

95338

Chi-square test on frequencies, 20.44, d.f. = 4, g < .01

overall recognition of brand symbols in general. (S\im-mary score for overall identification of brand symbolsby age: x̂ = 20.44, d.f. = 4, E < .01. Summary score foridentification of cigarette brand symbols by age: x̂ =14.56, d.f. = 4, E< .01). Tables 4 and 5 report overallrecognition and cigarette recognition scores by age.

Comparison of Recognition Findingswith Those of Previous Research

The findings on recognition of brand advertisingsymbols are not dissimilar to those of previous stud-

ies. As reported by Fischer et al. (1991) and Mizerski(1992), recognition rates for both children's and adults'product symbols show an increase with age. In addi-tion, recognition rates specifically for Joe Camelamong the youngest children in the study (54%) re-flect the rates reported by Fischer (51%) and Mizerski(33% to 78% rates weighted by ages three to six).

Unlike Fischer's, however, the present study showsvery high recognition rates for several adult productsymbols besides Joe Camel. Recognition of the Ener-gizer Bunny, for example, ranges from 61% to 100%for the three- to eight-year-olds tested. As shown in

Winter 1995 21

Table 5Recognition of Cigarette Brand Advertising Symbols by Age

Age Group

Under 6(41-72

Months)(n=28)

6-7(73-87

Months)(n=27)


Summary Score

012

%

43544

%

185626

%

115039

Chi-square test performed on frequencies: y^ = 14.56, d.f. = 4, E < .01

Table 1, other adult products with symbols recog-nized by at least half of the sample are Budweiser,Lite Beer, Oakh\arst and Locust Farm (regional dair-ies), Chevrolet, Folger's, and Bell Telephone.

Recognition of Cigarette BrandAdvertising Symbols: DiscriminantAnalysis

Discriminant analysis was conducted to answer theresearcb questions and to determine which variablesbest predict children's ability to matcb cigarette brandadvertising symbols with the cigarette product cat-egory. The analysis revealed that children who cor-rectly matched the Camel trade character and theMarlboro "red rooP trademark and children who wereunable to identify those cigarette brand symbols dif-fered on three dimensions: cognitive development,overall brand-to-product matching ability, and gen-der. Age was not a predictor of ability to identifycigarette brand advertising symbols. Specifically:

1. Children with higher summary scores on tbetests of cognitive development made correctmatches for cigarette brands significantlymore often than children with lower cognitivedevelopment scores.

2. Children with higher overall brand-to-prod-uct matching scores made correct cigarettematches significantly more often than chil-dren with lower overall matching scores.

3. Boys made correct matches of cigarette brandssignificantly more often than girls.

Three discriminant groups were used in the analy-sis. Group 1 consisted of children who correctlymatched neither Joe Camel nor the Marlboro "redroof." Group 2 consisted of children who correctlymatched only one of the cigarette brands. Children ingroup 3 correctly matched both of the cigarette brands.

Four variables were included as predictor variablesand were considered in the solution. A forwardstepwise discriminant analysis revealed the subset ofthree variables that met tbe criterion level (via Wilks'lambda) necessary for inclusion in the model.

The linear discriminant analysis produced one func-tion that was statistically significant beyond the .01level. (Fbetween group 1 {no correct cigarette matches)and group 2 {one correct cigarette match} = 14.546;d.f. = 3, 78; E < -01. F between group 2 {one correctcigarette match} and group 3 {two correct cigarettematches} = 6.9077; d.f. = 3, 78; E < -01. F betweengroup 1 {no correct cigarette matches} and group 3{two correct cigarette matches} = 25.152; d.f. = 3, 78;E < .01.) The function is composed of three predictorvariables of ability to match cigarette brand advertis-ing symbols with tbe cigarette product category. Eachvariable made a statistically significant (E < .01) con-tribution to the function's discriminant ability.

The predictor variables and their classification func-tion coefficients, listed in order of their relative con-tribution to the overall solution, are overall matchingscore (.51206), cognitive developmental score (.47424),and gender (.45939). Age did not meet the criterionlevel necessary for inclusion in the model. Table 6reports predictor variables and their coefficients.

When the resulting discriminant function was ap-


Table 6Predictors of Recognition of Cigarette Brand Symbols

(N = 83)

Predictor VariablesStandardized Canonical Discriminant

Function Coefficients

Summary score for overallidentification of brandadvertising symbols .51206

Cognitive developmental Score .47424

Gender .45939

Comparisons BetweenDiscriminant Groups d.f. 2

Group 1 (0 correct) vs.group 2 (1 correct)



14.546

6.9077

25.152

3,78

3,78

3,78

plied to the dataset to test its classification power,the overall figure for correct classification was 71%,which may be somewhat inflated because the samesubjects were used for both classifying observationsand calculating the predictive function (Klecka 1980).Eighty-five percent of group 1, 64% of group 2, and74% of group 3 were correctly classified by the model.

The discriminant analysis thus revealed thatchildren's ability to match cigarette brand trademarksor trade characters to the correct product category isrelated to their overall ability to match brands toproduct categories, their cognitive developmentallevel, and their gender. Therefore, cognitive develop-mental level, and not age, is a predictor of overallrecognition of cigarette brand advertising symbols.

Affect for Cigarettes

For a subset of six product categories, the childrenwere asked whether they liked the product or dis-liked the product. Ninety-six percent of the childrenreported that they disliked cigarettes. Therefore, af-

fect is unrelated to age, cognitive level, recognitionscore, or target market identification score.

Perceptions of the Value of Cigarettes

Asked whether cigarettes were "good for you" or"bad for you," 97% of the children reported that ciga-rettes are "bad for you." Lack of variability resultedin no correlations between the evaluation meas\ireand age, cognitive level, recognition score, or targetmarket identification score.

Identification of Appropriate TargetMarket for Cigarettes

The children were asked to identify the appropriatetarget market for cigarettes and five other productcategories. None of them reported that cigarettes areappropriate for children. A majority (70%) reportedthat cigarettes are for adults; 27% volunteered theresponse that cigarettes are appropriate for "nobody."

Winter 1995 23

Table 7Identification of Target Market for Cigarettes by Age

Identified as AppropriateTarget Market for Cigarettes

NobodyAdultsBoth adults and childrenNo answer/don't know

Under 6(41-72

Months)(n=28)

%

1875

33

Age Group

6-7(73-87

Months)(n=27)

%

3367

00


%

2968

03

Chi-square test on frequencies: x^ ° 4.41, d.f. - 6, e "

Table 8Identification of Target Market for Cigarettes by

Recognition of Cigarette Brand Symbols

Identified as the AppropriateTarget Market for Cigarettes


Summary

0(n=20)

%

4055

05

Score of IdentificationBrand Symbols

1(n=44)

%

2175

22

of Cigarette

2(n=19)

%

2674

00

Chi-square test on frequencies: y^ - 4.73, d.f. - 6, E = n.s.

Only one of the 83 children interviewed respondedthat cigarettes are for both children and adults.

Chi-square analyses were conducted to determinewhether the ability to identify the target market forcigarettes is related to age or to recognition of ciga-rette brand symbols. The ability to identify adults asthe appropriate target market for cigarettes is unre-lated to age (x̂ = 4.41, d.f. = 6, E = n.s.). Children inevery age category identified adults with greatestfrequency as the appropriate target market for ciga-rettes. Table 7 reports cigarette target market identi-fication by age.

Recognition of cigarette brand symbols—specificallyJoe Camel or the Marlboro "red rooF—is unrelated tothe ability to identify adults as the appropriate targetmarket for cigarettes, (x̂ for identification of ciga-rette target audience by summary score for cigarettebrand matching = 4.73, d.f. = 6, E = n.s.). Table 8reports the findings for cigarette target markets byoverall recognition of cigarette brand symbols.

There is no relationship between recognition of spe-cific cigarette brand symbols and ability to identifyadults as the appropriate market for cigarettes. Chil-dren who correctly matched the Joe Camel trade char-


Table 9Identification of Target Market for Cigarettes

by Recognition of Joe Camel and Marlboro "Red Roof

Identified as AppropriateTarget Mari<et for

Cigarettes

Correctly IdentifiedJoe Camel

(n=61)

2374

22

2.543n.s.

Correctly IdentifiedMarlboro Symbol

(n=22)

2377

00

1.483n.s.


Chi-square Test onFrequencies

X'd.f.

Q.

acter did not differ from others in their identificationof the target market for cigarettes (x̂ = 2.54, d.f. = 3,£ = n.s.). Similarly, children who recognized theMarlboro "red rooP did not differ from others in theiridentification of the target market for cigarettes (x^ =1.48, d.f. = 3, E = n.s.). Table 9 reports findings foridentification of cigarette target markets by recogni-tion of Joe Camel and by recognition of the Marlboro"red roof."

Summary of Findings for Target Market Identifica-tion. Neither age nor awareness of the advertisedcigarette brands had any impact on judgments ofwhether cigarettes were appropriate products for chil-dren to consume. Regardless of their age or theirfamiliarity with the specific cigarette brand symbols,children reported themselves to be an inappropriatetarget market for consumption of cigarettes. Table 10siimmarizes findings for the two research questions.

Discussion and Implications

Children^ Social Science, andPolicymaking

The study findings suggest that, for young chil-dren, recognition of brand advertising symbols doesnot necessarily result in positive affect for a productcategory or in belief in the appropriateness of theproducts for children. Specifically, the findings con-

firm the results of previous studies showing highawareness of Joe Camel, which increases with age,among young children. From 54% to 86% of childrenthree to eight years of age correctly matched Joe Camelto a picture of a cigarette.

The increase in ability to recognize Joe Camel shouldbe viewed within the broader context, however. Over-all recognition of more than 20 other brand advertis-ing symbols also increases with age among childrenin the study, and the awareness extends to a widerange of children's and adults' products. These find-ings are not surprising when one considers the growthin cognitive development and the enhancement ofattention skills and memory capacity that occur amongchildren from three to eight years of age. The in-crease in the ability to recognize Joe Camel is only afraction ofthe total increase in awareness of externalenvironmental stimuli among developing children.

To equate high awareness with positive attitudesor the intent to consimie the product may underesti-mate the abilities of young children to think criti-cally, engage in perspective-taking, and make valuejudgments. Children in the study, regardless of theirrecognition of Joe Camel, indicated that they dislikecigarettes, believe cigarettes are "bad for you," andfind cigarettes to be inappropriate for children.

The implications of these findings are twofold. First,to gain insights about children and their capabilities,researchers must not view children as imidimensional.

Winter 1995 25

Table 10Findings Related to Research Questions

Question Analysis Table Number Finding

1. How is age related to:

• awareness of brandadvertising symbols

• ability to identifyadults as theappropriate targetmarket for cigarettes

2. How is cognitivedevelopmental levelrelated to:

• awareness of brandadvertising symbols

• ability to identifyadults as theappropriate targetmarket for cigarettes

Discriminant analysis

Dependent variable =ability to identifycigarette brandadvertising symbols

No variability amongresponses; thereforeno analysis conducted

Discriminant analysis

Dependent variable =ability to identifycigarette brandadvertising symbols

No variability amongresponses; thereforeno analysis conducted

Not a predictor

Age did not meetthe criterion levelnecessary forinclusion in themodel

Cognitivedevelopmentallevel is asignificantpredictor ofrecognition ofcigarette brandadvertisingsymbols

but must design studies that recognize the complexnature of the developing child. Second, when socialscience research is used to guide policy decisions,researchers must accept the additional responsibilityof interpreting and identifying the implications oftheir findings with precision.

Cognitive Development

The findings have implications for the cognitivedevelopment of young children. Although previousresearch suggests a high understanding of the appro-priate target market among three-year-olds, the uni-formity of response in the study was somewhat unex-

pected. Specifically, because recognition of Joe Camelis a function of a lower-level skill of memory capacity,one would expect recognition scores to increase withage and cognitive development as they did in thestudy. However, standard interpretation of Piagetiantheory would suggest that unlike recognition, identi-fication of the target audience—which is a function ofthe higher-level skill of perspective-taking—would below for younger (pre-operational) children and highfor older (concrete operational) children. Althoughprevious studies have found that younger childrendemonstrate some perspective-taking skills when anonverbal measure is used, the uniformly high scoresachieved by even the youngest children in the study


were somewhat unexpected. Virtually all the chil-dren, regardless of age or cognitive development, in-dicated that children are not an appropriate targetmarket for cigarettes.

Several alternative explanations can be offered forthe findings: (1) ability to empathize may developprior to other concrete operational abilities, (2) thenonverbal method might allow measurement of theability at an earlier age than standard Piagetian tests,or (3) the identification score may be a measure ofattention and memory rather than perspective-tak-ing. The last suggestion implies that children aresimply "parroting," repeating what they have heardwithout making genuine inferences on their own(Bryant 1974; Smedslund 1963).

Young children can be effective supporters of publicawareness campaigns. Some mothers refer to theiroffspring as the environmental police who admonishhousehold members to "reduce, reuse, recycle," to turnoff lights and appliances to save energy, and to takeshorter showers to conserve water. There is a verylow probability that children will encounter individu-als who advise them not to reduce, reuse, and recycle,who advocate pollution as a sound practice, or whoencourage them to waste resources. Reinforcement ofthe same message from several sources would facili-tate low-level memorization and playback of the mes-sages.

Although memory may play a major role in facili-tating a child's recitation of a public awareness cam-paign script, the Joe Camel campaign is different in asignificant way: because of the controversy surround-ing Joe Camel, confiicting perspectives are presented.The cigarette manufactvirers suggest that cool dudessmoke, whereas a public awareness campaign thatreaches schools, parents, and mass media teacheschildren that drugs are for losers and that cigarettesare drugs. How is a developing child to resolve thedissonant cognitions?

The Role of Environmental Challenge. External en-vironmental variables appear to facilitate the acqui-sition and demonstration of skills during the transi-tion from the pre-operational to the concrete opera-tional stage. Piagetian theory holds that a child whosebiological structvires are ready to perform concreteoperations can do so only when the appropriate chal-lenges are encountered in the external environment.Children from households in higher socioeconomiclevels enter the concrete operational stage at a youngerbiological age than others, in part because they en-counter a more varied environment that provides thesituations necessary to complete the shift to concrete

operations (Bryant 1974; Klahr and Wallace 1976).The public debate over smoking and cigarettes,

which presents at least two opposing viewpoints, mayconstitute a significant developmental opportimityfor children who are making the transition to thestage of concrete operations. Forming an opinion aboutthe controversy—choosing sides—requires the abil-ity to empathize, engage in perspective-taking, andmake value judgments. Some researchers concludethat cigarette advertising may pose an importanthealth risk for children. On the contrary, characterssuch as Joe Camel, by attracting the attention ofyoung children, may make the product category andthe surrounding controversy more salient and therebyfacilitate the acquisition of perspective-taking skillsand increase understanding of the health risks asso-ciated with smoking.

Summary and Conclusions

The study was a preliminary investigation of youngchildren's perceptions of cigarette advertising. Find-ings should be interpreted within the limited scope ofthe study, which sought to determine how recogni-tion of brand advertising symbols is related to atti-tudes toward advertised products among childrenthree to eight years of age.

Previously, researchers have assumed a link be-tween young children's high awareness of cigarettebrand logos and intention to smoke. The study re-ported here examined the processes that intervenebetween stimulus recognition and actual behavior andassessed the relationship between children's recogni-tion of cigarette brand advertising symbols and theiraffect toward cigarettes, evaluation of cigarettes, andability to understand that cigarettes and cigaretteads are intended for adult consvimption. It also inves-tigated how age and cognitive development are re-lated to perceptual variables.

Interviews were conducted with children to deter-mine their relative cognitive developmental level andtheir ability to match brand advertising symbols tothe correct product category. The children were alsoasked a series of questions to assess their attitudestoward the advertised products. As expected, a sig-nificant positive relationship was found between ageand recognition of cigarette brand advertising sym-bols, and of Joe Camel specifically. As in previousstudies, recognition of Joe Camel was relatively high.However, the children were also able to match a largenumber of adult brand symbols to the correct productcategory at rates equal to or higher than the recogni-

Winter 1995 27

tion rates for Joe Camel. The significant positive re-lationship between age and overall recognition ofbrand advertising symbols in general for 22 adults'and children's products is not surprising in light ofthe increases in memory capacity and cognitive skillsthat occur between the ages of three and eight.

Somewhat more surprising are the findings onchildren's attitudes toward cigarettes. Regardless ofage, cognitive developmental level, or recognition ofJoe Camel, virtually all the children reported thatthey dislike cigarettes and believe cigarettes are "badfor you." None reported that cigarettes are appropri-ate for children, and 27% volunteered that cigarettesare in fact appropriate for "nobody."

The study demonstrates that high awareness ofbrand advertising symbols among young children isnot necessarily linked to positive attitudes toward orintent to use the advertised product. As a cross-sec-tional investigation, the study did not examine thecumulative impact of exposure to product-related in-formation from parents, teachers, siblings, peers, orthe mass media over time, nor do the findings sup-port inferences about age or cognitive development ascausal factors in creating perceptions of advertising.The study is also limited in its generalizability; thesample consisted of children from middle-class house-holds in a rural school district. Children from inner-city schools or from lower socioeconomic backgroundsmay have different perceptions or levels of aware-ness. Hence, the study provides a narrowly focused"snapshot" of the veiriables that intervene betweenstimulus recognition and behavior, at a single pointin time, for a convenience sample of young children.

The study did not measure the potential impact ofseveral sources of infiuence on children's perceptionsof cigarette advertising. Future research could assesswhether the child lives in a smoking or a nonsmokinghousehold, the extent to which teachers, parents, sib-lings, peers, or television role models are perceived tohave positive or negative attitudes toward smoking,perceptions of antismoking public service announce-ments and promotional materials, and the role ofcigarette advertising in facilitating an understand-ing of the health risks associated with smoking. Col-lection of those types of covariate data would enablethe researcher to assess the effects of other sources ofinfluence on children's perceptions, thus enhancingunderstanding ofthe relationship between awarenessand behavior.

References

Belk. Russell W., Kenneth D. Bahn, and Robert N. Mayer (1982),"Developmental Recognition of Consumption Symbolism,"Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June) 4-17.

Bever, T., M. Smith, B. Bengen, and T. Johnson (1975), "YoungViewers' Troubling Response to TV Ads," Harvard BusinessReview, 53 (November-December) 109-120.

Boddewyn, Jean J. (1993), "Where Should Articles on the LinkBetween Tobacco Advertising and Consximption Be Published?"Journal of Advertising, 22 (4), 105-107.

Borke, Helene (1971), "Interpersonal Perception of Young Chil-dren: Egocentrism or Empathy?" Developmental Psychology,5 (2), 263-269.

Bryant, Peter (1974), Perception and Understanding in Young Chil-dren, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Colford, Steven W. and Ira Teinowitz (1994), "Joe Camel GetsReprieve, for Now," Advertising Age (June 6), 52.

DiFranza, Joseph R., John W. Richards, Jr., Paul H. Paulman,Nancy Wolf-Gillespie, Christopher Fletcher, Robert D. Jaffe,and David Murray (1991), "RJR Nabisco's Cartoon CamelFVomotes Camel Cigarettes to Children," Journal ofthe Ameri-can Medical Association, 266 (22), 3149-3153.

Donohue, Thomas R., Lucy L. Henke, and William A. Donohue(1980), "Do Kids Know What TV Commercials Intend?" Jour-nal of Advertising Research, 20, 3, 51-58.

, , and Timothy P. Meyer (1983),"Learning About Television Commercials: The Impact of In-structional Units on Children's Perceptions of Motive andIntent," Journal of Broadcasting, 27 (3), 261-261.

Fischer, Paul M., Meyer P. Schwartz, John W. Richards, Jr., AdamO. Goldstein, and Tina H. Rojas (1991), "Brand Logo Recogni-tion by Children Aged 3 to 6 Years," Journal ofthe AmericanMedical Association, 266 (22), 3145-3148.

Flavell, J.H. (1963), The Developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget,Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Ginsberg, H. and S. Opper (1969), Piagefs Theory of IntellectualDevelopment, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Henke, Lucy L. (1980), "A Nonverbal Assessment of Children'sPerceptions of Television Advertising," unpublished doctoraldissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Klahr, David and J. G. Wallace (1976), Cognitive Development: AnInformation-Processing View, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Klecka, W. R., (1980) Discriminant Analysis, Sage University Se-ries on Quantitiative Applications in the Social Sciences,Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Levin, Gary (1993), "Joe Camel Can't Light Up Children in "Q'Ratings," Advertising Age (March 1), 8.

Martin, Claude (1994), "Guest Editorial: PoUay's Pertinent andImpertinent Opinions: 'Good' versus "Bad' Research," Jour-nal of Advertising, 23 (1), 117-122.

Meyer, Timothy P., Thomas R. Donohue, and Lucy L. Henke (1978),"How Black Children See TV Commercials," Journal of Ad-vertising Research, 18 (5), 51-58.

Mizerski, Richard (1992), "Trade Character Recognition and Atti-tude Toward the Product by 3-to-6-Year-Old Children," work-ing paper, Florida State University.

, Brenda S. Sonner, and Katherine Straughn (1993),"A Re-evaluation of the Reported Influence of the Joe CamelTrade Character on Cigarette Trial and Use by Minors," Pro-ceedings of the 1993 Conference of the American Academy ofAdvertising, Esther Thorson, ed.. School of Journalism, Uni-versity of Missouri-Columbia, 1.


Piaget, Jean (1955), The Language and Thought ofthe Child, NewYork: World Publishing Company.

and Barbel Inhelder (1969), The Psychology of theChild, New York: Basic Books.

Pierce, John P., Elizabeth Gilpin, David M. Bums, ElizabethWhalen, Bradley Rosbrook, Donald Shoplfind, and MichaelJohnson (1991), 'Does Tobacco Advertising Target YoungPeople to Sttirt Smoking?" Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, 266 (December 11), 3154-3158.

Sigel, I.E. and F.H. Hooper, eds. (1968), Logical Thinking in Chil-dren, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Smedslund, J. (1963), "The Development of Concrete Transitivityof Length in Children," Child Development, 34, 3, 389-405.

Teinowitz, Ira (1994), "Joe Camel Is No Tony Tiger to Kids," Adver-tising Age (February 21), 36.

and Steven W. Colford (1993), "Old Joe a WinnerEven With Ad Ban," Advertising Age {August 16), 1, 37.

Ward, S., G. Reale, and D. Levinson (1972), 'Children's Percep-tions, Explanations, and Judgments of Television Advertis-ing: A Further Exploration," Television and Social Behavior,Vol. 4, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Documents

young Children's Perceptions of Cigarette Brand Advertising Symbols Awaren.pdf