"A child’s job is to play, we should let them" - Pamela Wong, Direction First

AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE

2010

A child’s job is to play, we should let them...

Or should we?

Pamela Wong

Direction First


2010

Sensory food research on children

Little consensus in literature on the most effective research approach and question types to

use

Background

There are various techniques that have been developed for food sensory research on children, but there is little consensus on the

most effect approach and questions to use. Some examples include:

Pair-wise question approaches, where children are asked to choose a favourite between 2 options before drilling down to

more graduated questions.

Questionnaire scale lengths have been tested extensively – Should we be using 2, 3, 5, 7 or 9pt scales? Balanced or

unbalanced?

The language used on the scale points has also been debated, and whether we should label every scale point.

Picture type scales such as traffic light inspired facial scales and star scales have also been considered among others.


2010

Sensory food research on children

Consensus that children require specialised research approaches

Children respond to research in more limited ways than adults and tend

to: Have difficulty understanding and following instructions, interpreting abstract symbols and

pictures,

Have limited linguistic and numeracy skills, and shorter attention spans,

Rate new ideas or foods positively because they are excited about the novelty, or

Rate ideas or foods they know positively because they are familiar with them.

It has been suggested that by combining familiar things with new things, marketers may be

able to produce more appealing products for kids (e.g. green tomato sauce)

As a result of these limitations, researchers need to adapt ways to ask

questions

Background


2010

Today’s children live in a digital world...

Background

Multi-tasking with media technology is cognitively demanding (e.g.

driving and texting)

Children are exposure to more products, ideas and technology than

previous generations...

Average internet use 30 to 60 mins per day, less TV, radio

90% play video/computer games

Use several technologies simultaneously (e.g. Surfing & SMS)

We know children respond to research in more limited ways, but are we underestimating the digital native’s capabilities?


2010

Questionnaire scales in food sensory research

There are many different types of question scales used in food sensory research, and the standard 9pt scale (below) is the most widely used scale for measuring food liking in adults.

However, this language...“I dislike it extremely”....”I like it extremely”...”neither like nor dislike it”...is not easily understood by children, and it doesn’t label every scale point

Background

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Dislike

extremely

Neither

like nor

dislike

Like

extremely


2010


1. P&K liking scale for children

Developed by Peyram and Kroll (USA) for semi-literate children

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Super

bad

Really

bad

Bad Just a

little bad

Maybe

good or

maybe

bad

Just a

little

good

Good Really

good

Super

good

Background

Uses child-oriented

language and labels

every scale point


2010

Because language is sometimes difficult for children, researchers have ‘kidified’ words

by using scales such as the P&K scale.

The P&K scale was designed for semi-literate children (Kroll 1990)

Language is child-oriented and all the scale points are labelled for clarity.

But, is this what kids really mean in 2010?

In using this scale it would be important to adapt the language to the

vernacular.

Some kids at school today are using the word “random” to mean something is

really bad or really good, or “sick” to describe something as really cool. So we

have to be careful with language.

Background


2010


2. Facial scale for children

• Expressions represent degree of dislike or like

• Perhaps more applicable today due to widespread use of

emoticons?

Background

Angry, Sad or Dislike?


2010

Because reading or language may be a barrier, research has been conducted with the

use of picture scales, such as the facial scale.

Expressions on faces or cartoons represent the degree of like or

dislike...(Child: “Why would I be sad about chocolate?”)

The scale has a long history of use in food sensory research on children, but

has been criticised due to it’s emotional element because kids respond to the

pictures based on what they show (sad/happy), rather than what they represent

–dislike or like.

Perhaps more merits to this scale than currently recognised, however –

growing recognition of the role of emotions in decision making.

Also, the widespread use of emoticons by children might make facial scales

more relevant today. However, their meanings are open to interpretation and

would require further investigation.

Background


2010

3. Star scale for children

Number of stars represent degree of dislike or like

Dislike a lot Like a lot

Background

Rewarding

stars for more

liked products



2010

Researchers have also looked at what children do at school...

And ask them to mark how much they like things using a reward type system

(Child: “Do I still get my money if I don’t like it?)

This star scale has been recommended above others by food sensory specialists

and has been used in Australian firms for many years.

Stars represent grades/rewards, similar to those that are awarded at school for

good work.

However, we should be cautious that using this scale we don’t place children in a

school classroom where they may tend to acquiesce.

So what about what they do when at play?

Background


2010

Research Objectives

The Study

Which types of questions would perform best with

children?

Would interactive or computer/video game inspired

methods create a world that was as immersive, leading

to better quality data?

Could we make being a part of research a more fun and

enjoyable experience, like playing a game?


2010

Research Methodology Over 500 Australian children aged between 7 and 10 years old participated in the online

study (June 2010) over 3 stages:

Stage 1: N=97

Traditional

questionnaire

Essentially a plain, ‘black

& white’ questionnaire

placed online

Non-interactive, no Flash

We tested 3 different approaches and 4

questionnaire scales

All question scales were rotated within each stage to

avoid positional bias, and the questions remained

the same across the stages.

At each stage, we asked children about how much

they liked different foods and flavours, which were

also rotated.

Warm-up questions were also asked to ensure kids

had a chance to learn how to use the questionnaire

scales.


2010

Research Methodology

Stage 1: Traditional

Dislike a lot Like a lot

The traditional

questionnaire was

essentially, a plain ‘black and

white’ questionnaire placed

online.

It was non-interactive and

had no Flash elements.


2010

Stage 1: N=97

Traditional

questionnaire



placed online


Stage 2: N=167

Interactive

questionnaire

Graphically enhanced

audio-visually interactive

question scales

Flash technology on GMI

Interactive


study (June 2010):

The next was an

interactive approach,

where question scales

were enhanced by audio-

visual elements.

Each of the interactive

scales had matching

visual and sound effects.

This was designed using

Flash Technology on GMI

Interactive


2010

Stage 3: N=248

Interactive & gaming

questionnaire

Avatar-like character



question scales


Interactive

Stage 1: N=97

Traditional

questionnaire



placed online


Stage 2: N=167

Interactive

questionnaire



question scales


Interactive


study (June 2010):

And finally, an interactive and gaming approach, where kids had to create a character as they would

in a role playing computer game before being launched into an simulated world.


2010

Stage 3: Interactive & Gaming

Research Methodology

http://vimeo.com/84559582

Please Visit this link if you

would like to view an

example of the interactive

gaming!

http://vimeo.com/84559582


2010

Which scale performed the best?

Findings

All 4 question scales performed similarly in terms of discriminating power and range of

scale used: To compare the scales, we looked at the results from Stage 1, the traditional questionnaire

format, as there were no interactive or gaming elements to distract.

We thought that there would be more discrimination and range in responses on scales

adapted especially for children, such as the star, facial or P&K scales, and we thought that

these scales would perform best.

Using different measures of scale performance, we found that each question scale performed

equally in discrimination power and range, which was surprising.

Even a slight advantage to the standard liking scale for adults


2010

4

5

6

7

8

9

Ice

Cre

am

Tast

e o

f C

ho

cola

te

Do

ub

le c

ho

c h

alf

coat

Wh

ite

ch

oc

hal

f co

at

Wat

er

Bre

ad

Milk

Savo

ury

sn

ack

Gre

en C

olo

ur

Ho

ney

Tast

e o

f M

int

Ora

nge

Co

lou

r

Wh

ole

grai

n s

avo

ury

sn

ack

Gin

gerb

read

Tast

e o

f P

ean

ut

Bu

tter

Tast

e o

f C

inn

amo

n

Tast

e o

f Le

mo

n

10 14 4 3 9 11 12 7 1 8 13 2 6 5 16 15 17

Stage1Star

Stage1Smiley

Stage19pt

Stage1P&K

Findings M

ean lik

ing/9

Results shown here are the liking scores for the products in the traditional questionnaire.

We chose foods and flavours that we thought would produce a range of positive, neutral and negative responses.

Ice cream and chocolate as expected were well liked, whilst lemon and cinnamon were disliked.

These responses were similar across the 3 stages of research, indicating there was little influence from the use of different

approaches.

The interactive and gaming elements appeared to have little influence on these results, which is POSITIVE because the fun

elements didn’t affect the core results. So ice cream wasn’t liked more just because it was a question asked while their

character stood on the beach..


2010

Which approach was the easiest and most

fun?

Kids found each approach and scale

easy and fun to use

Visual scales were generally seen as

easier and even more fun to use

Findings

E

A

S

Y

P&K

P&K P&K

Standard Standard Standard

F

U

N

P&K

P&K

P&K

Standard Standard Standard


2010

Why did children rate everything as fun?

Were these results affected by the tendency for

children to acquiesce?

Were the scales in fact, not as fun as we

expected them to be for these kids?

Findings

These children spent up to an hour a day on the

internet...

What we thought was an engaging and fun

environment may not be as exciting as where

they play


2010

Findings

1. Consistency of responses

A number of consistency questions

were used to check whether children

were paying attention at different

stages during the questionnaire.

The first question was about how many

brothers and sisters they had.

Most children answered these

questions consistently at the beginning

and end of the questionnaire at every

stage.


2010

Findings 2. Ability to follow instructions

The second consistency question was to

see if they were paying attention to

instructions. We asked them to click on

a particular point on the scale....

However, the fun elements were

somewhat distracting...

When children were asked to follow

instructions in the interactive (stage 2)

and interactive-gaming stage (stage 3),

they didn’t follow instructions (more

failed this exercise) and there were

more inconsistent answers

Perhaps kids struggle with instructions

when distracted? Children appeared to

play with their answers.


2010

Type of question scales used in children’s research may be less

important...

Next steps

Perhaps we need to move beyond scale research, and explore

asking children to make choices

All scales performed as well as each other

Whilst scales have been debated extensively, they are only one

aspect of the research approach


2010

Next steps

Researchers may need to investigate other ways to gather better

quality information from children...

Technology has progressed to enable collection of better depth

of information, such as through online discussion boards and

communities

Technology is progressing to enable collection of different types

of information, such as biometric data (recognition of the role of

emotions in decision making).


2010

If a child’s job is to play, should let them?

Problem with acquiescence in children may be avoided by being

online

Next steps

But, did we introduce new research effects?

Interactive and gaming elements distracted from the main focus

Children played with their answers when we created a playful

environment, which may not be what we want in research


2010

Balogh,M., 2002.Cracking the kids marketing code, B&T, 2002 [http://www.bandt.com.au/articles/03/0C00FC03.asp,

accessed 22.01.10]

Brand, J.,Borchard, J. And Holmes, K. 2009. Interactive Australia, 2009.National Research prepared by Bond University for

the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia.

Bryant, J. A., Weinberg, L., Levine, B., Jacobs, D. and Massoudian, M., 2009. Inspiring Change: Innovative Methods and

Integrated Advertising. Online Research, Part 1, ESOMAR 2009.

Cape, P. 2009. Questionnaire Length, fatigue Effects and Response Quality Revisited. Survey Sampling International.

Chambers, E IV. 2005. Conducting Sensory Research with Children: A Commentary. J. Sensory Studies. 20: 90-92.

Cooper, H., 2002. Designing successful diagnostic scales for children. Presented at Ann. Mtg. Institute o f Food

Technologists, Anaheim, CA, June 15-19.

Covey, N., 2007. Connected Kids: Trends in Youth Gaming. ARF Youth Council, 21 August, 2007. The Nielsen Company.

Cranmer, S. and Ulicsak, M., 2010. Gaming in Families, Final Report, Futurelab, United Kingdom.

References


2010

C&R Research, 2009. YouthBeat, KidzBeat Magazine Winter.

Damasio, 1994. Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain.

Fliegelman, A., Metx, P., and McIlrath, M., 2004. The ABC’s of Conducting Effective Market Research with Kids. C&R

Research. Published in Media Research Club of Chicago (MRCC), June 2004.

Franco, C., 2010. Popular Online Games: new insight from European Research, WARC

Geraci, J.C. 2004. What Do Youth Marketers Think About Selling to Kids? Harris Interactive. Published in Media Research

Club of Chicago (MRCC), June 2004.

Gladwell, M., 2001. The Tipping Point, Abacus, London, UK.

Guinard, J.X., 2001. Sensory and consumer testing with children. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 11(8), 273–283.

Kroll, B. J., 1990. Evaluating rating scales for sensory testing with young children. Food Technology, 44, 78–86.

Nairn, A., 2009. Protection or Participation? Getting research ethics right for children in the digital age, ESOMAR

Congress.

References


2010

Lawless, H. T., Popper, R. And Kroll, B. J. 2010. A comparison of the labelled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale. Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010): 4-12.

Popper, R., & Kroll, J. J., 2005. Issues and viewpoints conducting sensory research with children. Journal of sensory studies, 20(1), 75–87. Also published in Food Technology, May 2003 Vol 57:5, 60-65.

Popper, R. And Kroll, J.J. 2003. Conducting Sensory Research with Children. Food Technology, Vol. 57:5, 60-65.

Schraidt, M.F., 2009. Testing with Children: Getting Reliable Information from Kids. Peyram & Kroll Research Corporation (http://www.pk-research.com/paper_15.html, accessed April, 2010)

Sleep, D. And Puleston, J., 2009. Leveraging interactive techniques to engage online respondents, Engage Research and GMI Interactive.

Solomon, D. and Peters, J., 2005. Resolving Issues in children’s research. Young Consumers, Quarter 4, World Advertising Research Center, 68-73.

Ubrick, B. (2002). Kids have great taste: An update to sensory work with children. Presented at Ann. Mtg. Institute of Food Technologists, Anaheim, CA, June 15-19.

Zeinstra, G.G, Koelen, M.A., Colindres, D., Kok, F.J.. de Graaf, C., 2009. Facial expressions in school-aged children are a good indicator of ‘dislikes’, but not of ‘likes’. Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009): 620–624.

References


2010

Thank You

Lets Connect!

Erica van Lieven

Managing Director

November 2013

www.directionfirst.com

Linked in: au.linkedin.com/in/ericavanlieven/

Twitter:

@erica_dfirst

Email: [email protected]

Marketing

"A child’s job is to play, we should let them" - Pamela Wong, Direction First