CHILDREN AS CONSUMERS: INFLUENCING PARENTAL

PRODUCT-PURCHASING AND THE INFLUENTIAL

ROLE OF LICENSED PROGRAMMING CHARACTERS

by

RATHNA BROOKE SENGHEU, B.A.

A THESIS

IN

MASS COMMUNICATIONS

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

4VA7c

^ ^ f ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my committee chair. Dr. Keith Johnson and Dr. Roger

Saathoff for their time, commitment, and contributions to my research project. I

would also like to thank Dr. Sabrina Neeley for her help and input.

First and foremost, I would like to attribute the completion of this thesis to

my faith in God and the strength He granted me when the going got rough.

To my mother and father, thank you for all your love and support. I could

not have made it this far without your inspiration and example. To my sister and

brother, thanks for listening and understanding.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the Gray Family for their

constant support and endless words of encouragement.

Thanks to all my friends, especially THE CIRCLE, who put up with my

endless thesis traumas. Remember there are two new Barbies: Master's Barbie

and PhD Barbie.

Lastly, to my husband-to-be, Lawrence Wayne Gray, words cannot

articulate what your support and love has meant to me. I will always be grateful

to have someone like you in my corner. With all my love, thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES vi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

History of Children's Media and Product Consumption 1

1900-1940 1

1940S-1950S 2

1960s 4

1970s 6

1980s-1990s 7

Purpose of Study 11

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 12

Children as a Market 12

Children's Influence on Parental Purchases 14

Information Sources 16

Content of Children's Commercials 17

Saturday Morning Commercials 22

Licensed Programming Characters 23

Influence of Licensed Character 26

Children's Research Studies and Issues 29

Advantages of Interviewing Parents 30

Problems Surveying Children 31

Theoretical Framework: Consumer Socialization 31

Summary 36

III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 38

Research Questions and Hypotheses 40

IV. METHODOLOGY 42

Methods Used In Children's Research 42

Method Selection 45

Telephone Survey Overview 46

Sample 46

Instruments 47

Measures 48

V. DATA ANALYSIS 53

Demographics: Parents 53

Demographics: Children 54

Licensed Characters: Product Demand Influence 55

Influence on Parental Product Purchasing 62

VI. CONCLUSIONS 98

Review 98

Children As A Market 98

Influence of Licensed Character 99

IV

Theoretical Framework 99

Research Questions and Findings 100

Research Question 1 100

Hypothesis 1 100

Hypothesis 2 102

Hypothesis 3 103

Research Question 2 104

Analysis of Findings 106

Future Implications and Research 113

Limitations 114

REFERENCES 116

APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE 120

LIST OF TABLES

1. Respondent Marital Status 66

2. Respondent Education Level 66

3. Respondent Income 66

4. Respondent Gender by Age 67

5. Number Of Children Between Ages 6-11 67

6. Gender of Child 67

7. Age of Child 68

8. Birth Order of Children 68

9. Commercials Make My Child Want Advertised Items 68

10. Commercials Make My Child Want Advertised Items by Gender 69

11. Commercials Make My Child Want Advertised Items by Age 69

12. Child Television Viewing 70

13. Child Television Viewing by Gender 70

14. Child Television Viewing by Age 71

15. Recall of Television Program Characters 71

16. Watches Television Programs with Licensed Characters 72

17. Watches Television Programs with Licensed Characters by Gender 72

18. Watches Television Programs with Licensed Characters by Age 73

19. Child Asks For Licensed-Character Toys 73

VI

20. Child Asks For Licensed-Character Toys by Gender 74

21. Child Asks For Licensed-Character Toys by Age 74

22. Child Owns Licensed-Character Toys 74

23. Child Owns Licensed-Character Toys by Gender 75

24. Child Owns Licensed-Character Toys by Age 76

25. Parental Recall of Licensed-Character Toys Owned by Child 77

26. Advertised Items Perceived as More Desirable 77

27. Advertised Items Perceived as More Desirable by Gender 77

28. Advertised Items Perceived as More Desirable by Age 78

29. Advertised Items Perceived as More Desirable By Parent's Gender 79

30. Level of Difficulty of Playing with Other Children Without Advertised Toys 79

31. Level of Difficulty of Playing with Other Children Without Advertised Toys by Gender 79

32. Level of Difficulty of Playing with Other Children

Without Advertised Toys by Age 80

33. Purchasing Products with a Friend 80

34. Purchasing Products with a Friend by Gender 81

35. Purchasing Products with a Friend by Age 82

36. Friend Influence on Purchase 82

37. Friend Influence on Purchase by Gender 83

38. Friend Influence on Purchase by Age 83

39. Child Understands Intent of Commercials 84

VII

40. Child Understands Intent of Commercials by Gender 84

41. Child Understands Intent of Commercials by Age 85

42. Child Happier Owning Advertised Items 85

43. Child Happier Owning Advertised Items by Gender 86

44. Child Happier Owning Advertised Items by Age 87

45. Parent Asks Child's Product Preference 87

46. Asking Child's Product Preference by Parent's Gender 88

47. Store Trips 88

48. Store Trips by Gender 88

49. Product Selections 89

50. Product Selections by Gender 89

51. Product Selections by Age 90

52. Parental Recall of Product Selections Made by Child 90

53. Product Suggestions 91

54. Product Suggestions by Gender 91

55. Product Suggestions by Age 92

56. Parental Recall of Product Suggestions Made by Child 92

57. Buying the 'Right' Things 93

58. Buying the 'Right' Things by Parent's Gender 93

59. Causes of Wrong Product Purchase 93

60. Asking Child's Opinion 93

61. Asking Child's Opinion by Parent's Gender 94

VIII

62. Child Prefers to Purchase Products 94

63. Child Prefers to Purchase Products by Gender 94

64. Child Prefers to Purchase Products by Age 95

65. Parental Recall of Child's Desire to Purchase Products 95

66. Child Asks to Purchase Advertised Items 96

67. Child Asks to Purchase Advertised Items by Gender 96

68. Child Asks to Purchase Advertised Items by Age 97

IX

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

History of Children's Media and Product Consumption

Regarding children as consumers is a post-WWll concept (McNeal, 1992).

From a market-place perspective, children must have desires and wants, cash to

spend, and a significant population base to be considered consumers (McNeal,

1992). Children have since been defined as a specialized consumer market due

to their growing population, expanse of market research, and creation of a niche

within a profit-driven media atmosphere (Pecora, 1998).

1900-1940

Between 1900 and 1940, children either influenced family purchases or

were advised to spend their money with caution. Advertisers in the 1920s and

1930s established two major consumerism trends. Through the use of media

outlets, advertisers attempted to reach and influence parents through their

children. Radio advertisers specifically developed this strategy of using children

to influence purchases of their mothers. Advertisers also targeted household and

food product advertisements to children (Pecora, 1998).

In the 1930s, radio advertisers arranged dramas and adventure shows to

be played in the early afternoon to create product demand by children. National

corporations such as Kellogg, General Mills, Campbell Soup, and Quaker Oats

used radio to advertise household goods and products. Children's purchasing

power had been considered restricted to only disposable goods, which satisfied

their consumption and immediate wants (Pecora, 1998).

1940s-1950s

Interest in the youth market increased with the onset of the 1946 baby

boom and the introduction of television (Pecora, 1998). The number of children

in the U.S. doubled over a five-year period and the estimated population reached

10 million. Therefore, marketers took notice when the number of children and

money increased (McNeal, 1992). This ushered in a more aggressive approach

in marketing to youngsters (Pecora, 1998). Researchers wanted to examine

children's "understanding of money and their influence on parental purchasing"

(Pecora, 1995, p. 355).

Alexander, Benjamin, Hoerrner, and Roe (1998) conducted a content

analysis of television commercial advertisements from the 1950s. The

researchers provided a description of television advertisements seen in children's

shows and explored the events surrounding the 1950s when television

advertising to children began. The results indicated advertisements in the 1950s

are significantly different from subsequent decades due to the development of a

child audience and the acknowledgment from advertisers that children were a

promising market. For example, standardized time slots used in today's

programming and commercials did not exist in the 1950s. Television

programming ranged fi-om a quarter hour, to a half hour, to a full hour.

Commercials, station identifications, and public service announcements filled in

programming time when shows ran short. Also, commercial advertisements

ranged from 11 seconds to 3 minutes and 24 seconds (Alexander et al., 1998).

Yet advertisements in the fifties did have three main commonalities with

present-day ads: (1) Promotional content remains relatively the same;

advertisers sfill use fun appeals to attract children to products; (2) selling

strategies are no more controversial today than they were in the fifties; and (3) a

preponderance of commercials have been, and continues to be, live action

(Alexander etal., 1998).

During the late 1940s and early 1950s, creating an audience for television

shows and a market for television sets became television's top priority

(Signorielli, 1991). With the birth of television, children became consumers and

an audience by their own merit (Pecora, 1995; Alexander et al., 1998). Kids

were presented with desired products such as Big Wheels, Barbie dolls, and

sugared cereals through this new technological innovafion and, consequently,

had a positive effect in the growth of television (McNeal, 1992). Customary

products such as snacks, cereals, candy, and toys appeared only 44 percent of

the time in children's programming (Alexander et al., 1998).

The 1950s brought about distinct classifications in the toy market with the

development of television. Toys were licensed to represent a television or film

icon and then advertised to parents or children (Seiter, 1993).

Marketers motivated families to acquire television sets by producing

appealing shows aimed at children, as well as viewers of all age groups

(Signorielli, 1991; Alexander et al., 1998). Also, families with children were more

apt to want televisions first because television provided mothers a respite firom

their children (Seiter, 1993).

When the public purchased television sets and a disfinct television

audience emerged, programming was developed mainly to enfice sponsors and

to provide efficient avenues for advertising. The field of advertising grew due to

television (Alexander et al., 1998). By the late 1950s, Saturday morning became

a niche for children's programming (Signorielli, 1991).

The fifties also brought about product expansion and different child-rearing

ideas. Child experts such as Dr. Spock encouraged parents to let their kids take

on more responsibility and freedom. Increased responsibility and freedom

translated to more input in the decision-making process of family purchases.

Advertisers began to increase and enlarge the children's market to promote

brand loyalty and to establish a future market. Due to the expanding market of

the 1950s and the baby boom, children and teenagers were seen as a viable

consumer market (Pecora, 1998).

1960s

An important period for children's marketing emerged during the 1960s.

The birthrate of children and family income steadily increased and families

accrued more discretionary income (Pecora, 1998). Kids spent over $2 billion a

year of their own money on desired products and infiuenced billions of dollars

more of their parents' purchases. The money power children held gained

attenfion (McNeal, 1992). According to Pecora, "As children's discretionary

income rose, they no longer were regarded as peripheral to the consumer market

or merely as a conduit to parental habits" (1995, p. 354).

McNeal (1992) indicates the first publication noting children as a distinct

market surfaced during the sixties. He also asserts two events affirmed children

as a consumer market. First, the Federal Trade Commission became more

observant of advertising towards children and, secondly, academic institutions

such as Harvard University took notice of children's consumer behavior (McNeal,

1987).

Children's television programming also experienced changes during the

1960s. Once thought of as a financial drain, children's programming became a

profitable business. The majority of children's commercial programming in the

mid-sixties appeared on Saturday morning, a poor time to reach adults, but not

children. Kids between the ages of two and five were normally targeted during

the early morning hours from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Re-runs were usually shown in the

early morning time slot, while programs aired following 9 a.m. were generally

new shows produced to appeal to six to eleven-year-old kids. Cartoon shows

such as BUGS BUNNY. JOHNNY QUEST. PORKY PIG and BULLWINKLE aired during

the early sixties (Signorielli, 1991).

The National Association of Broadcasters allowed up to sixteen minutes

per hour commercial time during Saturday morning programming. Advertisers

used the minutes as effecfively as possible, offering toys and sugar-coated

treats. The spokespersons for many of the advertised products were cartoon

characters (Signorielli, 1991).

1970s

The 1970s likewise became a sanctioned time for children as consumers.

The first generafion of baby boomer kids obtained parental blessings to be

consumers and marketers regarded them as an individual market of buyers and

influencers. Subsequently, marketers created an abundance of new products

and services for children to want and purchase. Kids underwent a marketing blitz

of new products urging them to buy or have their parents buy (McNeal, 1992).

The seventies also brought about a new concept for toy merchandising

which introduced itself through Geoffrey Giraffe, a spokescharacter for the now

popular Toys 'R' Us stores. Parents and children shopped for toys like they

shopped for groceries (McNeal, 1992).

Kids commercial programming for Saturday morning in the 1970s still

aired action-packed cartoons, but brief commercial segments concentrated on

prosocial messages and education-based information. For example, commercial

segments such as ABC's SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK and IN THE NEWS on CBS

encompassed informational material. Children's television became proacfive

during the seventies (Signorielli, 1991).

Yet business regulators and consumer advocates tried to remove

television advertisements aimed at children because ads were viewed as

manipulative (McNeal, 1992). John (1999) reports the controversy surrounding

children's advertising centered on the unfair nature of advertisements.

Consumer researchers and child psychologists formed theories discovered

through exploratory research suggesfing children have little comprehension of

the influential nature of advertising. They view advertising as, "informative,

truthful, and entertaining" (John, 1999, p. 3). Furthermore, pressure groups

during the 1970s received support for suggested changes in children's

advertising (Signorielli, 1991). Advocates viewed children as consumers, but

strived to implement consumer education to protect them (McNeal, 1992).

1980s-1990s

With the number of children and products increasing, the 1980s created a

more market-sawy child (McNeal, 1992). In 1987, the population of children

aged 15 and under reached 52.5 million and the number of kids between the

ages of 4 and 12 in 1990 reached 32 million. By the year 2000, the populafion of

kids 15 and under was estimated to peak at 55.9 million (Wartella, 1995) and in

2005, children between the ages of 3 and 17 are esfimated to be 60.4 percent of

the American population (Sabir, 1996).

During this time, parents placed their children in the consumer role and

marketers supplied them with additional market information through more

innovative promotions. The eighties also bestowed upon kids more market

validity. They were almost on equal par with adults (McNeal, 1992).

McNeal offers a sociological perspective which partially credits children's

new economic standing to social changes in the eighties (1992). These social

changes occurred within the family unit directly. During this decade family

structures underwent several changes (McNeal, 1992).

Parents had fewer children due to active careers and strenuous

schedules. Economic strain also caused families to decrease the number of kids

for each household. The children of baby boomers had approximately less than

two kids per family. Parents felt better equipped to provide their children with

more if they had fewer kids (McNeal, 1992).

Also, more parents raised their children alone (McNeal, 1992; Stoltman,

1999). One-parent homes increased due to unwed mothers and divorces.

Children assumed additional consumer responsibility in these households and

became a partner in household duties. Kids cleaned, shopped, prepared meals

and dealt with money at an earlier age. They learned to buy not only for

themselves, but also for the household (McNeal, 1992).

Furthermore, people waited to have children later in life. Some people

delayed having children to enhance flnancial stability, while others were more

8

career-oriented. Older parents cherished their children and valued the

anticipation of having a baby (McNeal, 1992).

Moreover, a rise in two-income households (McNeal, 1992; Guber &

Berry, 1993; Wright-lsak, 1999) occurred in the eighties (McNeal, 1992). Both

mom and dad worked to earn more money, but spent less time with the kids

(McNeal, 1992; Stoltman, 1999). The longer the hours parents spent at work the

more children influenced consumption decisions (Jenkins, 1979). The extra

income allowed parents to spend more money on their children, which alleviated

some guilt of not spending as much time with them (McNeal, 1992). Children in

two-income homes took on more household responsibility (McNeal, 1992; Guber

& Berry, 1993), which led to a higher degree of independence and consumerism

at an earlier age (McNeal, 1992).

Kids were regarded as a principal consumer for many different products

(Pecora, 1998). Children's products were no longer limited to food products, fast

food, or toys, but spread to other types of retail. Kids had their own clothing line

at Gap Kids, books at Walden Kids, and their own checking account at First

Children's Bank (McNeal, 1992). Children were encouraged to think in terms of

brand labels (Pecora, 1998). Expensive items ranging from phones, brand name

shoes, and cameras were targeted to children. Prior to the eighties these items

were viewed as adult products (McNeal, 1992).

Due to character licensing and the rapid growth of specialty stores such as

Toys 'R' Us, development of products made available to children also increased.

Children bought products because of recognizable characters, not because of

quality or expense. Identifiable figures such as Ronald McDonald cultivated

brand loyalty and launched associations between media characters and product

merchandising (Pecora, 1998).

Media for children has grown astronomically. Children not only have their

own television shows, but entire television networks (such as NICKELODEON) are

designed for them (McNeal, 1992; Wartella, 1995). Kids also had access to their

own magazines such as Sports Illustrated for Kids. Children could also become

members of the many new clubs intended for their membership such as the Kraft

Cheese and Macaroni Club, Fox Kids Club and Burger King Kids Club (McNeal,

1992).

Research regarding children increased due to changes in advertising and,

perhaps, in children. Scholars assert a new social and economic order has

developed because of technological advancement (Stoltman, 1999). Children

are learning new technologies at a younger age (Wright-lsak, 1999). The

computer and the internet have changed the parameters between children and

advertising (Stoltman, 1999). The internet pemnits children to have more social

contact with the outside world on a global level (Wright-lsak, 1999). Social

changes in lifestyles and demographics from the past 25 years may affect

knowledge and information known about children (Stoltman, 1999).

10

Purpose of Study

This research project surveyed parents of children between the ages of 6

to 11, examining the relationship between licensed characters and their influence

on children's desire for endorsed merchandised products, and explores the

degree of influence children have on the parental decision-making process for

products purchased for them.

11

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Children as a Market

Children are seen as a primary market, a market of influencers, and a

future market. Kids have a distinct niche with money, wants and needs (McNeal,

1992). They are considered a primary market with many products created for

them and targeted to them by numerous businesses (Stoltman, 1999). The

advertising and television industries view kids as a potentially profitable market

with ever-changing trends, remaining perpetually unpredictable (Seiter, 1993).

McNeal (1999) indicated that during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s,

children's spending almost doubled. During the 1990s, spending tripled

(McNeal, 1999). Children have an estimated $7.3 billion to spend in the market

place (Guber & Berry, 1993). Additional figures estimate children actually have

$8 billion of their own money and they spend $6 billion on clothes, candy, toys,

and various other products, while saving the rest (McNeal, 1992). Snyder

(1995) supports these estimates with a range indicating children spend between

$7.2 to $8.8 billion of their own money on products. Wolf (1998) provides other

figures, which revealed that children will spend $11 billion each year on food,

beverages, clothes, games, and toys. A more recent statistic estimated kids

spend approximately $20 billion yearly and the number continues to increase

12

(Stoltman, 1999; McGrath, 1998). In 1997, children spent roughly $24.4 billion

and it is estimated by 2001 children will spend $35 billion on products (McNeal,

1999).

Children have both direct and indirect influence on billions of dollars

annually (Stoltman, 1999). Kids directly influence more than $130 billion in

purchasing household items and indirectly influence much more (McNeal, 1992).

McNeal defines direct influence as, "children making requests for goods and

services, suggesting where to eat out, telling mom to buy a certain brand or

flavor of ice cream, or making a selection when the family is shopping" (p. 15).

Indirect influence refers to a parent's consideration of their child's preferences

when buying products (McNeal, 1992).

The market with the greatest potential is the future market. Children, as

they mature, will become consumers over a broad range of goods and services.

Many companies and businesses invest up to 20 years in the children's market

for the opportunity to convert them into adult customers (McNeal, 1992).

Marketers have the chance to instill brand loyalty in young children early,

consequently guaranteeing future buyers (Seiter, 1993).

McNeal found corporations in America are generating new products for

children (1999). Children have computer technology, food items, cosmetics, and

licensed-cartoon characters designed especially for them. Many products made

for adults now have a child's version (McNeal, 1999).

13

Children's Influence on Parental Purchases

Kids learn to acquire products by asking their parents. As stated earlier,

with children's influence parents spend approximately $130 billion on products

requested by their kids (McNeal, 1992). Other figures suggest parents actually

spent $160 billion (Wolf, 1998) to $200 billion on merchandise requested by

their children (McGrath, 1998). Advertising agencies and retailers examine this

relationship due to the significant amount of money children influence (McNeal,

1992).

Children ask their parents for products approximately 15 times during a

shopping trip. Children also influence where their family shops, which indirectly

affects the number and types of products purchased during a store visit.

Children make requests for products at home, in the car, watching television and

at dinner. They are most likely to ask for products when they see commercial

advertisements (McNeal, 1992).

McNeal (1964) found independent purchasing became more prominent

about age seven and increased with age. As children became older, parents

also allowed more independent shopping. Also, the majority of kids age five,

seven, and nine made independent selections when they did shop with their

parents. By age nine, children were active consumers. They participated in

purchasing in part because they observed materialism through advertisements,

peers, and business (McNeal, 1964).

14

Kids have influence on toys, snacks, clothing and electronics (McNeal,

1992; Heubusch, 1997). Eighty-seven percent of boys between the ages of 6

and 14 request and influence the purchase of action figures. Eighty percent of

girls attempt to influence the purchase of dolls and stuffed animals (Guber and

Berry, 1993).

They also influence household and non-household products. Household

products range from furniture and electronic equipment to mealtime groceries

(McNeal, 1992). Children influence 78 percent of cereal purchases and 57

percent of activity drinks (Guber and Berry, 1993). Non-household products

include cars, restaurants, and vacation or recreation items (McNeal, 1992).

Jenkins (1979) conducted an exploratory study which examined parents'

perceptions of their children's function in the family decision-making process

over a variety of different product lines. These include high-ticket items such as

cars, furniture, family vacations, life insurance and savings, to basic family

decisions on groceries. Jenkins addressed children's patterns of influence

pertaining to demographic, socio-economic, personality, and attitudinal variables

(1979).

Yet these results indicate children yield little influence in areas such as

choosing a family doctor or life insurance, keeping up with bills, money, and

savings. Kids also have little effect on decisions concerning groceries, cars,

furniture, and major appliances (Jenkins, 1979).

15

Information Sources

Information sources for children have increased significantly in the 1990s.

Children can be reached by marketers in school or through media

advertisements and catalogs. A company often sponsors education materials

and programs and then a company representative may be sent to make a

classroom visit. Television advertisements appear in the classroom and posters

are hung in school hallways to promote and provide product information. Kids

also make store visits to check out new and different products. Children receive

information through direct mail, advertisements on rental videos, and product

placements within movies (McNeal, 1992).

Ward, Wackman, and Wartella (1977) discovered children's awareness of

television as a product information source increased with age. They also found

as children became older they were more conscious of the purpose of

commercials and were more likely to choose more practical and useful elements

of products when deliberating about product purchases. Children's brand recall

also increased with age, as well as their awareness of advertising as an

information source (1977). John indicated children utilize television as an

information source for items such as "toys, candy, food products, and

restaurants" (1999, p. 21).

Children are significantly influenced by their own peer group (McNeal,

1987; Guber & Berry, 1993). Kids regard their friends as an information source

in areas from styles and entertainment to language, popular trends, and

16

activities. They use clothes, toys, and food to identify themselves and their

relationship with peers (Guber & Berry, 1993).

While children use friends, television commercials, or other media outlets

as information sources, they are also seen as an information source for parents.

Nelson (1979) investigated the role children play as an information source in the

family decision-making process of eating out-of-home meals across six

dimensions: "recognition, providing information, deciding on restaurant type,

deciding on a particular restaurant, deciding how much money will be spent, and

making the final decision" (1979, p. 419). The research focused on whether

children were important information sources, if demographic differences within a

family affected influence, and if the influence children exert has some bearing on

the family decision process. The study revealed parents ultimately "reserve the

right" to have the final say in decisions and determine the amount of money to

spend when eating out (Nelson, 1979, p. 419). Yet both parents and children

over the age of five were equally involved in choosing the type and specific

restaurant and were capable of identifying the problem and offering information

about the eating out process (Nelson, 1979).

Content of Children's Commercials

Ward, Wackman, and Wartella determined children generally want what

they see advertised on television (1977). Stipp and Goerlich reported young

consumers especially "are more likely to consume products heavily advertised

17

on network TV" (1995, p. 31). Advertisers consider children a major target

market (Snyder, 1995) and are continuously bombarding them with television,

newspaper, magazine, and radio advertisements promoting products from

clothing and fast foods to toiletries (McNeal, 1992). Commercials targeting kids

explicitly influence types of products children want, request and eat (Ward,

Wackman, & Wartella, 1977). Advertisers attract consumer dollars by using

children to compel their parents to purchase advertised items (Van Evra, 1990;

McNeal, 1992).

Kids watch a significant amount of television, which makes them an

important audience who influences and makes purchasing decisions.

Commercials aired during children's shows undergo extensive research to

maximize their effect. Television's key objective is to attract an audience

essentially for the commercials (Signorielli, 1991).

Advertisers allocate many dollars to the children's market. In 1987,

advertisers spent about $325 million on commercials during children's television

programming (Snyder, 1995). Advertising made networks $180 million in 1989

and syndication revenues from advertising accrued $160 million. By 1990,

network revenues increased to $500 million due to advertising (Seiter, 1993) and

climbed to $575 million in 1992 (Snyder, 1995). McGrath (1998) states that

according to Competitive Media Reporting, between 1993 and 1996, advertising

to children increased 50 percent to $1.5 billion.

18

Networks catering to children compete for a portion of the $1 billion

advertisers spend yearly on television. NICKELODEON ranks as the leading

network for children between the ages of 6 and 11. The network attracts

approximately 642,000 child viewers daily and secured $300 million of

"advertising inventory" in the "upfront market" in 1999 (Flint, 2000, p. B18).

Seiter said the network has "extolled the appetites of children, as well as their

influence over parents on consumer purchases from dog food to cars" (1993, p.

103). In 1999, the CARTOON NETWORK sold approximately $130 million of

advertising. Fox KIDS earned $70 million, while the Fox FAMILY CHANNEL only

obtained $20 million. KIDS W B acquired approximately $75 million and ABC

earned $60 million in advertising dollars in 1999 (Flint, 2000).

Advertisements targeting children contain several similar commercial

themes. Commercials advertising toys contain live action scenes, which show

different aspects of the toy (Signorielli, 1991). Animated characters often appear

in food commercials interacting with real children. Jingles play an integral part

in commercials because the music allows children to aurally recognize the

product (Signorielli, 1991).

Van Evra indicated the special effects in children's commercials are made

to generate "moods, images and impressions" not necessarily to communicate

pertinent information regarding a product (1990, p. 137). Jingles, slogans, visual

effects, animation, and repetition are advertising tools used to catch the viewer's

attention (Van Evra, 1990; Seiter, 1993). Young children often depend on these

19

tools to understand a commercial's meaning or gain information. Appealing

commercials are more likely to induce buying behavior, while products

represented by less attractive commercials may receive little attention and

product recall (Van Evra, 1990). Commercials correspond well with young

children's capabilities. Television advertisements are energetic, brief, and shown

over and over again (Seiter, 1993). Heubusch (1997) found that children like to

watch television advertisements because they think the ad is funny and they

"like to see the toys and things" (p. 55).

Ellen Seiter (1993), author of Sold Separately, differentiates between toy

advertisements designed for parents and toy advertisements made for kids.

Seiter states three main points are stressed in advertisements produced for

parents: Advertisers appeal to parents to buy products to please the child; to

facilitate the child's social advancement; or to educate the child.

Advertisements created for children do not contain these points and

different messages are used within the ad to motivate the selection of a toy.

Advertisements made for kids usually do not give children reasons to buy a

product or toy. Ads are more entertaining and as pleasant as the program within

which the ad appears (Seiter, 1993). Seiter developed a list of commercial types

advertisers often use (1993). These include: "musicals, animals and magic

helpers (fantasy/animation); explorers (adventure); boy genius (science fiction);

girls at home (soap opera); boys' toys (westerns and crime films); and slice of

life (realist drama)" (Seiter, 1993, p. 121).

20

Klines (1993) results about child development and toy consumption from

parents revealed that character-toy commercials differentiate themselves from

other toy advertisements on television. This was due to the portrayals of

interactive play among children (peers) in the commercials, allusions to

imaginative interaction with the toys, and the production costs (Kline, 1993).

Kline also indicated children are able to gain insight into their peers when

they watch commercials of child actors interacting with one another (1993).

These child actors represent themselves as real kids with which child viewers

can relate. These scenes within commercials give child viewers an avenue to

observe what play means to their peers. Most character-toy commercials are

usually child-oriented without the presence of an adult, revealing children

playing with one another. Nine percent of commercials with non-character toys

show children in a family setting. Toy commercials also infer that pretending

and make believe play is more stimulating with the right toy. A common premise

of character-advertisements suggests that toy features will create more

interesting recreational play for children. Also, commercials created for children

are compact with various styles to attract the child viewer. Action sequences,

slogans, along with music and graphics are used to gain the child's attention

(Kline, 1993).

Children's commercials also sell more than products. They sell lifestyles

and social messages (Ward, Wackman & Wartella, 1977; Signorielli, 1991).

Commercials emphasize how much fun children can have with ownership of the

21

particular product. Kid commercials center on popular child-related products

such as snacks, cereals, sweets, and toys (Signorielli, 1991).

Saturday Morning Commercials

Commercials on Saturday morning symbolize the most rigorous

advertising time for children (Seiter, 1993). Snyder (1995) reports on the effects

the 1990 Children's Television Act had on Saturday morning commercials. The

study found that during the first year of the Children's Television Act, children

saw one less 30-second commercial per hour in 1992 than in 1991 (Snyder,

1995).

Swan (1998) conducted a content and critical analysis of Saturday

morning programming from three television networks on September 15, 1990,

and June 9, 1992, from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. Although the Commercial Television

Act restricted commercial time to two minutes per half-hour during Saturday

morning programming by 1994 children were seeing, on average, the same

minutes and commercials per hour they had seen before the Act (Snyder, 1995;

Swan, 1998).

Swan found 40 percent of commercials aired during Saturday morning in

1990 promoted toys, while more than half of the total number of commercials

aired promoted food and beverage products (1998). By 1992, 80 percent of

Saturday morning commercials advertised food and beverage products. Toy

commercials decreased by 10 percent from the overall total commercials

22

broadcasted (Swan, 1998). According to researchers from the University of

Minnesota, approximately half of the food products advertised on Saturday

morning were, "candy, soft drinks, syrups, dessert toppings, cookies, chips,

cakes, and other desserts" (Current Health. 1995, p. 2).

Between 1990 and 1992, commercials stayed relatively the same in terms

of images and transitions. Yet commercial message length decreased from 30

seconds to 15 seconds (Swan, 1998).

Every cartoon show broadcast on Saturday morning in 1990 and 1992,

excluding one, offered product merchandising ranging from clothes and games

to books. These cartoon series also carry action figures and accessories

marketed for and to children. New cartoons are created along with character

toys. Though toy commercials decreased by 20 minutes from 1990 to 1992,

cartoon shows themselves convey hours of advertising (Swan, 1998).

Licensed Programming Characters

The toy industry's most important change involved the increased number

of characters available. The industry created product lines instead of individual

toys to compensate for uncertainties of the business (Pecora, 1998). To ensure

the success of product lines, multiple characters were introduced with

accessories (Pecora, 1998; Seiter, 1993). Line extensions allowed new

accessories and characters to supplement already profitable toys (Seiter, 1993).

Children could purchase wedding cakes for Barbie or a comb and brush set for

23

MY LITTLE PONY and enjoy the MUPPETS and MUPPET BABIES or the CARE BEARS

and their Cousins (Pecora, 1998).

The concept of licensing has existed for over 100 years. The Disney

dynasty introduced characters such as Mickey Mouse in the 1930s, but licensing

became more prevalent and legitimate in the late 1970s. Early licensed

characters include the CARE BEARS. GUMMI BEARS, and SMURFS in the 1980s.

The LooNEY TUNES group was introduced during the late 1980s and the1990s

introduced characters such as DOUG, the RUGRATS. and REN AND STIMPY. The

Disney dynasty has also expanded its repetoire of licensed characters to include

the LITTLE MERMAID and MY LITTLE PONY, as well as the continued use of Mickey,

Minnie, Goofy, Donald Duck, and Winnie-the-Pooh (Pecora, 1998). According

to Seiter, character licensing is defined as, "the use of popular fictional

characters for a fee or share of the profits as the design or decoration on toys"

(1993, p. 194).

Licensed spokescharacters profited toys in several ways. Characters

presented recognizable toys and story lines (Pecora, 1998). Providing the

product with an identifiable spokescharacter could elevate the product above its

competitors (Seiter, 1993). For instance, action-figures from movies and

television animated series such as BATMAN. SUPERMAN, and STARS WARS have

experienced a long product lifespan (Guber & Berry, 1993).

As stated earlier, licensed characters also offer a line of accessories and

collectible items (Pecora, 1998). Seiter reports characters lengthen their shelf-

24

life through "lunchboxes, clothing, school supplies, and home decorations"

(1993, p. 198).

Furthermore, royalties from the character toys also became a secondary

source of income (Pecora, 1998). For example, toy companies such as

Playmates and Mattel created a TV program. SWANS CROSSING, during the fall of

1992 to promote character dolls. Federal advertising rules prevented the

advertising of the dolls and accessories during the show, but Playmates and

Mattel hoped the program's potential success would attract children to want the

dolls. Donna Gibbs, media relations director of Mattel, said, "Our goal in using

TV programs is to help build a story and a theme around these dolls, so little

girls get a good idea of the product and its character. TV brings the toys to life"

(Fitzgerald, 1992).

Marketers also altered advertising through merchandising and

promotions. The CARTOON NETWORK, NICKELODEON, and Fox KIDS are cable

channels devoted completely to the children's market. The youth market has

expanded beyond Saturday morning cartoons (Stoltman, 1999).

Business giants such as Disney and the CHILDREN'S TELEVISION

WORKSHOP reach children through their merchandising of goods and services.

Disney created a licensing unit through the success of Mickey Mouse in the

1930s (Pecora, 1998) and became a power-house due to prudent management

of these character licenses (Seiter, 1993). Children now have their choice of

licensed toys, theme parks, and school supplies (Stoltman, 1999).

25

Licensing has become a distinct business with marketers,

representatives, and trade shows (Seiter, 1993). During the late 1970s,

licensing received industry recognition and status. Prior to the 1980s,

agreements occurred between media producers and/or creators for the use of

characters intended for product manufacturing (Pecora, 1998). Toy producers

currently have 15 percent of the licensing market. This covers sports

organizations, television shows, logos, trade names, and the fictional characters

(Seiter, 1993).

Influence of Licensed Character

Licensed characters are created and shown in abundance on television

(Acuff & Reiher, 1997; Guber & Berry, 1993). Statistics indicate that from 1977

to 1987 toy advertisements increased from 20 percent to 70 percent in its use of

cartoon characters to sell toy products (Economist. 1996).

The entertainment industry has been accused of using cartoon characters

to simply sell an assortment of goods and products to children during recent

years (Pecora, 1998). The products advertisers promoted (such as, G.l. Joe and

Barbie) and the place where messages were conveyed (Saturday morning

programming) were questioned by critics in the eighties (Wright-lsak, 1999).

Other issues arose regarding licensed toy-lines and action figures associated

with television programs. Critics considered these television shows program-

length advertisements (John, 1999). Pecora indicates products such as

26

clothing, cereals, and vitamins made especially for kids are peddled by

"anthropomorphic animals and cartoon characters" (1998, p. 7).

These characters are not only utilized to solicit products, but are an

integral part of the product. The media character evolves into the brand name

(Pecora, 1998). Children observe and admire movie and television characters

displayed on lunchboxes and t-shirts around the snack table. When young kids

become devoted to a specific toy, mothers are asked to purchase the toys, rent

the videos, and go to the movies (Seiter, 1993). Alexander and Morrison (1995)

wrote, "During the 1980s, the licensing of the characters meant that personas

crafted for television became the predominant social identities children played

with and wore" (p. 347).

Kids favor characters to whom they can relate (Guber & Berry, 1993;

Acuff & Reiher, 1997). Children's reactions to a television advertisements are

shaped by who is conveying the message. A character representing a product

can considerably influence the assessment of a product based on the child's

opinion of the character (Van Evra, 1990).

Schneider (1987) indicates licensed cartoon characters are not

originating from television shows as in the past, but from toy manufacturers. The

toy companies create these toy products first and then create television shows

based on the toys. For example, toy products of years past (such as. HE-MAN.

SHE-RA. G.l. JOE. TRANSFORMERS, and GOBOTS) were converted into cartoon

shows for children. The thought behind creating television shows is if children

27

like the toys, they will like the show. In 1986, it was estimated licensing

increased to over $40 billion in sales (Schneider, 1987).

Kideo Productions patented the technology of specializing in a

personalized Barney video made for a specific child. Barney will say the child's

name throughout the video and the video cover will include the child's name on

the label. The president of Kideo Productions, Richard Bulman, said such

product and promotion strategies, "provide higher [profit] margins for

companies...[to] sell a video for $34.95 as opposed $9.95. But most important,

kids love it. It is something special and meaningful for them, and it's different

than what their friends have" (Schroeder, 1997, p. 72).

McDonald's and Kraft Foods teamed up for an approximate $50 million

promotional blitz on DISNEY'S ABC. ONE SATURDAY MORNING, time slot. The

campaign focused on the block of animated programming aired on Saturday

mornings. McDonalds specifically targeted the animated series. RECESS, for

February sweepstakes. McDonald's produced 50 million action figures

representing RECESS characters to be placed in Happy Meals. The marketing

stint also included a licensing line and Mattel toy line created to promote the

RECESS characters for a limited time. Other promotional tools included Kraft's

packaged instant-win game, which offered 15, 000 prizes from the animated

DOUG cartoon show (Stanley, 1998).

28

Children's Research Studies and Issues

An estimated 1400 citations on children's research and media of which

approximately 143 advertising studies are on children appeared between 1900

to 1990 (Pecora, 1998). Very little academic research on children's advertising

existed before 1970 (McNeal, 1987). Following 1970, advertising research

claimed a larger proportion of children's media research (Pecora, 1998).

Research studies explored topics such as social effects, media content,

and consumer behavior (Pecora, 1998). During the seventies, researchers

frequently investigated the role of media and children as consumers (Pecora,

1998; McNeal, 1992), revealing a more in-depth understanding of children's

consumerism (Pecora, 1998). Other studies investigated aspects of

consumption behavior and how the function of advertising and media affect

consumer socialization (Ward, 1976; Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977;

Arnett, 1995; Bush, Smith, & Martin 1999; Stoltman, 1999; Wright-lsak, 1999).

Researchers have also examined the role parents and family communication

patterns play in consumer socialization of children (Moschis, 1985; Carlson &

Grossbart, 1988; Carlson, Walsh, Laczniak, & Grossbart, 1994; Rose, Bush &

Kahle, 1998; Bush, Smith, & Martin 1999).

Fields such as marketing and communications, as well as sociology and

psychology, have conducted many studies on the cognitive (Stoltman, 1999;

Wright-lsak, 1999), emotional, social, and behavioral effects of advertising on

children (Stoltman, 1999; Ward, 1976; Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977). Most

29

of these studies concentrated on children's comprehension of the nature of

advertising (Stoltman, 1999). Academics also explored how children process

commercial information (Wright-lsak, 1999).

Studies involving children have widened, but objectives have stayed

constant: Researchers study children to measure economic behavior, brand

awareness and its effect. They investigate kids to evaluate media tendencies, to

review responses to new products and services, and to analyze reactions to

marketing promotions (McNeal, 1992). Researchers also explore children's

influence on parental purchases (McNeal, 1992; Ward, 1976).

Advantages of Interviewing Parents

When research involves children and estimates of how much or how

many, parents are a more ideal candidate to question. Acquiring information

about kids through parents occurs commonly in several areas. These areas

include information pertaining to children's economic behavior, media habits,

and product use by children (McNeal, 1992).

Researchers also utilize parents when pursuing information on children's

influence on parental purchases. Parents are customarily questioned about their

children's direct influence on parental purchases and other product requests.

Children are also asked about influence and purchase requests, but parental

assessment and memory appear more accurate, though both are subjective

(McNeal, 1992).

30

Problems Surveying Children

Using children for research brings up several issues. Adults may have

difficulty communicating efficiently with children. Kids often view adults as

authority figures and may have a hard time maintaining a conversation with them

(McNeal, 1992). Also, discriminating between what a child is really thinking and

what he or she says to please the researcher is difficult (Seiter, 1993). Children

also have language barriers. They have trouble articulating themselves and

what they know, especially about personal matters. Kids have a hard time

understanding research measurements and abstractions (McNeal, 1992).

Furthermore, children are difficult to reach. Children are either sleeping,

eating at daycare, or in school. Likewise, some people think children should be

protected from research. Due to these problems many businesses choose to

conduct more research with parents and minimal research with children.

Parents can be used for research for their kids and are often utilized (McNeal,

1992).

Theoretical Framework: Consumer Socialization

Consumer socialization is defined as "the gradual development of a broad

range of attitudes, knowledge, and skills which are related to consumption"

(Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977, p.18). Sociologists define socialization as

a "process in which individuals are prepared to enter and play acceptable parts

in various kinds of groups. They learn norms, roles, systems of ranking, and

31

procedures of social control" (Lowery & DeFleur, 1983, p. 458). Socialization

involves a learning and teaching process where socialization agents such as

parents, peers, teachers, schools, and media (Ward, Wackman, & Wartella,

1977; Lowery & DeFleur, 1983; Carlson & Grossbart, 1988; McNeal, 1987; Bush,

Smith, & Martin, 1999) play a part in conveying various aspects of society or

conventional behaviors to other individuals who then become altered in some

way (Lowery & DeFleur, 1983).

Consumer socialization theory is a sociological idea which predominantly

concentrates on the effects of social agents on children's learning of consumer

behavior, as well as where and what kids are able to learn (McNeal, 1987).

Consumer socialization theory has been employed in many research studies

which focused on how the role of parents and family communication patterns

affect consumer socialization of children and their attitudes toward advertising

(Moschis, 1985; Carlson & Grossbart, 1988; Carlson, Walsh, Laczniak, &

Grossbart, 1994; Rose, Bush, & Kahle, 1998; Bush, Smith, & Martin, 1999).

Other research studies concentrated on how television advertising and media

influences the consumer socialization process of children (Ward, 1976; Ward,

Wackman, & Wartella, 1977; Arnett, 1995; Bush, Smith, & Martin, 1999).

Carlson and Grossbart (1988) explored the differences of parental

tendencies and how they can be predicted from socialization techniques used by

parents. The study revealed wide-ranging patterns of parent-child interactions to

several particular practices, consisting of the restriction and supervising of

32

children's media use and consumption, and the development of autonomous

consumption (Carlson & Grossbart, 1988).

Rose, Bush, and Kahle (1998) used consumer socialization as the

theoretical framework to investigate family communication patterns and attitudes

towards television advertising between U.S. and Japanese mothers with children

between the ages of three and eight. They applied a four-category typology to

categorize U.S and Japanese mothers as having a laissez-faire, protective,

pluralistic, or consensual outlook based on concept and socio-orientation.

Laissez-faire refers to a parental approach which demonstrates little

communication between parent and child, thus exhibiting the smallest amount of

influence in forming children's consumption behavior. Parents who use the

protective approach insist on peace and obedience. They have high levels of

communication with their children and restrict other information sources from

their kids. Pluralistic parents are inclined to emphasize issue-oriented

communication and uphold a horizontal relationship with their children. Parents

employing the consensual approach tend to also exercise issue-oriented

communication, but have parental control. The researchers found that U.S.

mothers were evenly spread among the four parental approaches, while

Japanese mothers were either laissez-faire or protective (Rose, Bush, & Kahle

1998).

Moschis (1985) investigated how the family communication process

influences children and adolescents' consumer learning. He also refers to the

33

four-category typology in his research. He found that parents do play an integral

part in children's consumer socialization directly and indirectly, but noted that

influence is situational. Parents' influence on children's socialization differs

across product categories and varies with consumer personality (Moschis,

1985).

Carlson, Walsh, Laczniak, and Grossbart (1994) studied the association

between "family communication patterns (FCP) and mothers' marketplace

motivations, attitudes, and behaviors (MAB) and examined adolescents'

prediction accuracy of mothers' consumption motivations" (Carlson et al., 1994,

p. 25). Results revealed family communication patterns are tied to shopping

habits and materialistic attitudes of mothers. Family communication patterns

also affect attitudes toward advertising, the use of information, and consumption

motivations. The data proposes family communication patterns may be included

in acquiring marketplace motivations, attitudes, and behaviors (Carlson, Walsh,

Laczniak, & Grossbart 1994).

Bush, Smith, and Martin (1999) examined how consumer socialization

variables affected the attitudes of African-Americans and Caucasians toward

advertising. The study used race, gender, peer/parental communication, and

mass media as socialization agents. They determined African-Americans view

advertising more positively and watch television more than Caucasians. The

researchers discovered a strong association between socialization agents and

attitudes toward advertising. Their research also supported previous findings

34

that children learn consumer skills from parents, mass media, and peers (Bush,

Smith, and Martin, 1999).

Researchers suggest kids learn consumer skills from various sources,

which include the mass media, peers, and parents (Carlson & Grossbart, 1988,

Ward et al., 1977). Companies and producers of children's products use

television advertising as the principal channel to influence children's consumer

behavior (McNeal, 1987).

The current study focuses on television advertising, specifically licensed

programming characters, as the socialization agent which may influence children

in their consumer socialization and product requests of their parents. This study

posits that children use licensed programming characters as a socialization

agent (information source), which influences them through television

commercials to want and desire character products or endorsed products

represented by licensed characters. Once the licensed character has influenced

the child to desire the product, children then attempt to exert influence on their

parents to purchase the item (Figure 1).

35

Child i=:I> Method of cz=^ Medium forizzv'Socialization cz:^ Outcomes Consumer Learning Learning Agent

Child 1^^Watch TV (-—KTelevision |—-KLicensed |-—»vChild Influenced: Consumer Commercials Programming Makes Purchase

Character Request/Influences Parent.

Figure 1. Consumer Socialization Process (Incidental Learning Model: McNeal, p. 13, 1987)

Summary

Kids commonly want what they view on television. Advertisers

appropriate a substantial amount of dollars to children's advertising. They use

television commercials as an avenue to sell products to kids, as well as to their

parents. Advertisers specifically use licensed characters as an advertising tool

within commercials to attract and influence children to want advertised products.

The evaluation of a product can be considerably affected based on the child's

opinion of the character representing it. The use of animated characters in

commercials has increased in children's advertisements over the last 30 years

due to its effect on the sale of products.

Children have also established themselves as a viable market. They

have wants, needs, and money. Advertisers and marketers continue to create

products specifically for kids to want and buy. They also attempt to utilize

children to influence their parents to purchase advertised products. Children's

36

influence on products range from toys to restaurant choice. Advertisers and

marketers alike realize the potential of sales of products if they can reach both

child and parent.

37

CHAPTER 111

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

According to Ward, Wackman, and Wartella (1977), children's confinual

contact with television commercials and programs make television

advertisements a principal information source. They also determined children

usually want what they see advertised on television (1977). Advertising tools

used to gain the attenfion of young viewers consist of visual effects, jingles,

repetifion, slogans and animation (Van Evra, 1990; Seiter, 1993). Animated

licensed characters are used to embody and solicit the product (Pecora, 1998).

The literature review revealed most children favor licensed characters with whom

they can identify (Guber & Berry, 1993; Acuff & Reiher, 1997) and the judgment

of a product can largely be affected by the child's opinion of the character (Van

Evra, 1990), therefore indicating the possibility that children desire products more

when a licensed character they like represents the product.

McNeal (1964), in his study of children aged five, seven, and nine, found

that when children seek out self-reliance and freedom from their parents, kids

tend to give more authority and area of influence to their peers pertaining to

preferences and mannerisms. Kline indicates more specifically that children are

attracted to toys based on their assessments and views of their peers. He also

reports social judgment of peers performs a vital funcfion in affecfing children's

38

preferences for a product (1993), which implies kids are more likely to want

licensed character products if their peers own them as well.

In addifion, Kline said, "children's preferences in toys and computer

games and their access to television guides most of their free-fime activifies and

these acfivifies are profoundly linked to their sense of happiness" (1993, p. 15).

Children like to observe other kids achieving happiness. Most advertisements

have the underlying theme of happy kids within the commercial scenes. These

scenes are frequent among cereal, snack, soft-drink, and toy advertisements

(Kline, 1993). Kline found 43% of commercial scenes displayed the portrayal of

real kids, to which young viewers relate, within the advertisement (1993). Ninety-

eight percent of scenes in toy advertisements show children playing with toys or

observing the toys. These scenes give children (viewers) insight into the world of

their peers, as well as express the emotional states associated with toys or

illustrated through toys in make believe play (Kline, 1993), consequenfly

suggesfing children think owning licensed character products will bring them

happiness.

Kids learn to obtain products by asking their parents (McNeal, 1992).

Children's earliest consumer behavior occurs when they attempt to influence

parental purchases (Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977).

Parents are an acfive part of their children's lives. They observe their

children at rest and at play. Through purchase requests made by their children,

parents can assess the types of products their children want and desire. They

39

are better able to determine and remember how often and what types of products

their child requests, especially in the various shopping environments, than young

children.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions and hypotheses will be used to gather

data for this research study.

RQi: Do parents of 6-11-year-old children feel the use of licensed characters

from television advertising and programming (i.e., animated or fictional

characters such as Rugrats) have a product demand influence on their

children's consumption desires?

Hi: Parents will report that their 6-11-year-olds perceive licensed

character products (or products advertised using such characters)

as more desirable.

H2: Parents will report their 6-11 -year-old children are more likely to

want licensed character products (or products advertised using

such characters) if their children's peers have the product.

H3: Parents of 6-11-year-olds will report their children think having

licensed character products (or products advertised using such

characters) will bring great happiness by ownership of such

products.

40

RQ2: Do parents of 6-11-year-olds feel their children exert a major

influence on the parental decision-making process for products

purchased speciflcally for the child's consumption.

41

CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

Methods Used in Children's Research

Most methods employed in children's studies seldom deviate from the

survey research and experimental approaches (Stoltman, 1999). Quantitative

research supplies the researcher with quantity and a knowledge base. Guber

and Berry said the size of study is contingent upon "project needs, regional

variations, age differences, and cost" (1993, p. 57). Interviewing 300 to 400 kids

allows a margin of error of 3 to 5 percent, which indicates 95 percent accuracy in

the study's conclusions (Guber & Berry, 1993, p.57).

Marketers apply the quantitative research approach in many areas. The

approach can be used to examine product assumptions or children's

comprehension of essential product elements. Quantitative research can also

supply data results that could induce new thoughts about a product line (Guber &

Berry, 1993).

Kline (1993) used the telephone survey methodology and content

analysis of toy advertisements to collect data about child development and toy

consumption from parents. Kline presents a description of children's cultural

industries to contest the idea that socialization lies completely on the shoulders

of parents and school. He believes an invisible hand within the market affects

children's formative years by determining what they use and the media through

42

which they learn about products. Kline also reasons that market strategies are

determined by economic gain to influence the characteristics of children's culture

(Kline, 1993).

Rossiter and Robertson (1976) also conducted a telephone survey with

parents of first-, third-, and fifth-grade children who participated in an open-

ended, personal interview. The researchers examined Piaget's theory to

determine the effects of "developmental, social, and experiential factors" on

children's understanding of television advertisements using canonical correlation

analysis (Rossiter & Roberson, 1976, p. 317).

McNeal (1964) examined children's knowledge, attitudes, and participation

in specific elements of the consumer role, and attempted to determine the degree

to which these factors differ with age and sex roles, by interviewing children aged

five, seven, and nine.

Ward, Wackman and Wartella (1977) examined the norms and patterns of

children's spending behavior through interviewing 615 mother-child sets.

Mothers also completed a separate questionnaire after being interviewed in the

home and interviewers left a second questionnaire for fathers to complete. The

researchers proposed advertising yields substantial influence on consumer

learning. They determined children's information processing in reference to

product-purchase circumstances became more involved and complex as children

age (Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977).

43

Alexander (1979) conducted a convenience sample study of 32

Columbus, Ohio, kindergarteners and third graders, as well as their mothers.

The study investigated persuasive techniques children employ in consumer

request circumstances and the relationship between these techniques.

Examining the child' s cognitive development and interaction within the home

served as two other focal points of the study. Both mother and child were

interviewed and audio taped for the study. Mothers also completed an additional

paper questionnaire (Alexander, 1979).

Ward (1976) presents an overview of research, methodologies, and

signiflcant findings discovered in his research project investigating the effects of

television advertising on children and teenagers between the ages of 5 to 18

years old. The research project examined what children and teenagers learn

from advertisements on television and attempted to correlate television

advertisements to various levels of learning pertaining to age groups (Ward,

1976).

The research project applied three surveys and one clinical exploration.

The first questionnaire surveyed 1,094 high school juniors and seniors in April

1970 to collect information about advertising and commercial attitudes, level of

family interaction concerning consumption issues, commercial effects on buying

behavior, and attitudes about materialism. The second questionnaire,

administered in the spring of 1974, involved 134 mothers of children between the

ages of 5 to 12. Mothers observed the television and commercial viewing of one

44

of their children for 6 to 10 hours during customary viewing periods over a course

of 10 days (Ward, 1976). In the third survey, 134 mothers were sent a mail

questionnaire concerning their perspective of commercial influence on their

child's behavior in regards to influencing purchases and how often parents

concede to these requests (Ward, 1976). The exploratory research comprised of

four groups of five children from kindergarten, second, fourth, and sixth grade.

The research gauged the effects of commercials on young children and linked

these effects to the various levels of cognitive development (Ward, 1976).

The three areas of major research exploring children ages 5 to 12

included: commercial watching behavior, effects on cognitive development, and

effects on interpersonal relationships. The third area of research regarding

interpersonal relationships targeted the degree to which children try to influence

their parents' purchases of goods.

Method Selection

The telephone survey method was employed in the current study. This

research design was selected because of several factors. The survey method

provides more control for the researcher. The researcher, through simple

observation, can monitor phone calls made by interviewers and can instruct

interviewers how to approach participants on the phone to limit bias. Bias can

also be reduced through carefully worded, detailed questions. Additionally, the

45

method is economical, minimal and inexpensive and allows the use of many

people to gather data in a short amount of time.

Telephone Survey Overview

A telephone survey was conducted at the Institute for Communications

Research at Texas Tech University in the School of Mass Communications.

Callers consisted of undergraduate Mass Communications summer school

students and Texas Tech alumnus. Callers attended a training session 30

minutes before the survey began each night. The sessions provided pertinent

information to help callers understand how to conduct the survey, code the call

sheet, deal with potential problems from respondents, and address any

unanswered questions. The telephone survey began on Monday, June 12, 2000

and ended Friday, June 23, 2000. Phone calls were made from June 12 to June

15 and from June 19 to June 23 starting at 6 p.m. and ending at 9 p.m. Phone

calls made on Saturday. June 17 started at 12 p.m. and ended at 3 p.m. Two

Sunday sessions occurred on June 18 from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 9

p.m.

Sample

Parents with elementary aged children between 6 and 11 were selected

randomly from the Lubbock population to participate in the phone survey. Maritz

Marketing Research, a third-party research sampling service, provided random

46

phone numbers. The computer generated phone numbers had an approximate

90 percent working number rate. Maritz Marketing Research provided 2000

phone numbers. Callers attempted to reach 1,225 phone numbers, but 905

phone numbers resulted in a busy signal or no answer, an answering machine, a

refusal, a terminated or disconnected number, an accidental business number, a

language barrier, or no children in the household. Callers completed 320

questionnaires, but 20 were only partially completed. Callers collected 300

usable, completed questionnaires (15% completion rate). The margin of error

was +/- 2.9 percent.

The purpose of the study was to identify parental responses of children

between the ages of 6-11 on the use of licensed characters from television

advertising and programming, to determine if these characters influence their

children's product consumption desires, and to identify how much influence

children have over the parental-decision making process for products purchased

speciflcally for children.

Instruments

Each question in the telephone survey related to the research questions or

the hypotheses. The survey examined how parents perceive their children's

influence on product purchases and how influential, if at all, licensed characters

are on children's product demand.

47

Most questions originated from published research using: Ward,

Wackman, and Wartella (1977, pp. 221-222), Kline (1993, pp. 354-367), and

McNeal's (1964) Marketing study series no. 9 in Children as Consumers.

McNeal's questions were reworded by the researcher from the child's

perspective to the parent's perspective. Added to this survey were demographic

questions and instructions. See complete questionnaire. Appendix A.

The following questions listed below were used within the survey. The

research questions, hypotheses, and specific questions used to measure the

hypotheses are listed and presented in the subsequent paragraphs.

Research Question 1, Hypotheses 1 and 3 are worded in the form of a

question to ask respondents directly about the issue.

1. Does your child perceive advertised items they see on TV as more

desirable?

2. Does your child think owning advertised items on TV will make them

happier?

Measures

The specific questions listed below were used within the survey. The

research questions, hypotheses, and questions used to measure the hypotheses

are presented in the following paragraphs.

48

RQi: Do parents of 6-11-year-old children feel the use of licensed characters

from television advertising and programming (i.e., animated or fictional

characters such as Rugrats) have a product demand influence on their

children's consumption desires?

Hi: Parents will report that their 6-11 year-olds will perceive licensed

character products (or products advertised using such characters) as

more desirable.

Questions used to measure RQi Hi:

1. Commercials often make my child want the thing advertised.

(Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977)

2. Does you child watch television? (Adapted from Kline, 1993)

3. Some recent television programs have toys based on the show's

characters which you can buy in stores. What are some names of

character toys associated with recent television programmes?

(Adapted ft"om Kline, 1993)

4. Does your child watch any of these programs? (Kline, 1993)

5. Does your child ask for any of these toys? (Kline, 1993)

6. Does your child have any of these toys? If yes, which? (Adapted from

Kline, 1993)

7. Does your child perceive advertised items they see on TV as more

desirable? (Hypothesis.)

49

Questions used to measure RQi H2:

H2: A majority of parents will report their 6-11-year-old children are more likely

to want licensed character products (or products advertised using such

characters) if their children's peers have the product.

1. Do you feel that if your child does not have popular toys he/she will

experience many, some, few or no difficulties in playing with other

children? (Adapted from Kline, 1993.)

2. Does your child ever go buy things with a friend? (Adapted from

McNeal, 1964)

3. If yes, does your child's friend help your child decide on things?

(Adapted from McNeal, 1964)

Questions used to measure RQi H3:

H3: Parents of 6-11-year-olds will report their children will think having

licensed character products (or products advertised using such

characters) will bring greater happiness by ownership of such products.

1. My child understands what commercials on children's shows are trying

to do. (Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977)

2. Does your child think owning advertised items on TV will make them

happier? (Hypothesis)

RQ2: Do parents of 6-11-year-olds feel their children exert a major influence on

the parental decision-making process for products purchased specifically for the

child's consumption?

50

Questions used to measure RQ2:

1. Do you ask your child what their preference is when you are buying

something for them? (Adapted from: Ward, Wackman, & Wartella,

1977)

2. When you go to the store, does your child wish to go with you or stay

at home? (Adapted from McNeal, 1964)

3. Does your child make certain selections? If yes, for which products?

(Adapted from McNeal, 1964)

4. Does your child make various suggestions? If so, for what products?

(Adapted from McNeal, 1964)

5. Do you ask for your child's opinion about purchases you make?

(Adapted from McNeal, 1964)

6. When you buy things for your child, do you usually get the 'right'

things? If no, why? (Adapted from McNeal, 1964)

7. Would your child like to do the buying of the items for themselves? If

yes, why? (Adapted from McNeal, 1964)

8. Does your child ask you to buy many of the things they see advertised

on television? (Adapted from McNeal, 1964)

51

The alpha level for accepting or rejecting hypotheses was determined at

.05. The majority of questions used to measure the hypotheses must be

statistically significant to accept the hypothesis. Hypotheses directiy asked must

also be tested for statistical significance to be accepted. OthenA ise, the

hypothesis will be rejected, though there may be other statistically significant

data.

52

CHAPTER V

DATA ANALYSIS

Demographics: Parents

The questionnaire addressed two issues: parental views on licensed

characters from television advertising and programming and their product

demand influence on children's consumption desires. It also examined the

influence children exerted on the parental-decision making process for products

bought specifically for them.

The majority of survey respondents were female and between the ages of

31 and 45 (Table 4). The survey was administered during the evenings from

June 12, 2000, to June 15, 2000, and from June 19, 2000, to June 23, 2000.

The time of year and different time periods the survey was administered may

have resulted in more females participating in the survey than males.

A total of 300 Lubbock County residents (Table 1) participated in the

telephone survey. The questionnaire provided demographic information

regarding the respondent's gender, age, marital status, education, and income

level.

The demographic information presented in Tables 1-4 represents

respondent attributes. A total of 300 respondents identified their gender and age

bracket (Table 4). The largest proportion of respondents were married (92%,

276, Table 1). The largest percentage of respondents who reported their

education level indicated they had received a Bachelor's Degree (Table 2). The

53

majority of respondents reported an annual income of $50,000 and above (Table

3). Nineteen respondents (6%) did not disclose their annual income.

Demographics: Children

The survey respondents were parents who had children between the ages

of 6-11 (Table 7). An alternating pattern was established to keep the birth order

distribution of children between the ages of 6-11 as equal as possible. When a

family had more than one child in the 6-to-11 age group, each interviewer was

assigned to inquire about either the oldest or youngest child. The majority of

respondents indicated having only one child between the ages of 6-11 to

represent in the survey (65%, 195, Table 5). Twenty percent (59) of respondents

represented their oldest child and 22% (66) represented their youngest child.

The largest percentage of respondents (65%) indicated having only one child

between the ages of 6-11 in the household.

The demographic attributes of children are shown in Table 6-8. A total of

300 respondents indicated their child's gender (Table 6). A slightiy higher

percentage of male children were represented (51%).

A total of 287 respondents clearly reported their child's age (Table 7).

While the largest proportion of respondents reported having a 10-year-old in their

household (20%), the ages of the children represented are from 6-11.

The chi-square test was used to assess ordinal and nominal level data; an

alpha of .05 was set. After chi-square tests were performed, some survey

54

questions yielded low responses with less than five observations in each cell.

(The percentage of cells without five observations are noted under each table).

In some measures, five-point scales were collapsed to three-point scales and re-

tested to provide the minimum observations in each cell.

Licensed Characters: Product Demand Influence

Research question one addresses whether or not parents believe licensed

characters used in advertisements influence their child to desire products

endorsed by such characters.

RQi: Do parents of 6-11-year-old children feel the use of licensed

characters from television advertising and programming (i.e.,

animated or fictional characters such as Rugrats) have a product

demand influence on their children's consumption desires?

Hi: Parents will report their 6-11 year-olds perceive licensed

character products (or products advertised using such

characters) as more desirable.

Commercials influenced the majority of parents to report their children

want advertised products (Table 9); 67% (N=255) strongly agreed or agreed; only

8% (N=26) responded in the negative. When comparing the results to child's

gender (Table 10), the five-point scale used to measure the variable was

collapsed to a three-point scale. No statistically significant differences due to

gender were found. It was not statistically significant that the majority of

55

respondents who reported they agreed commercials made their child want

advertised items had a male child.

A total of 287 respondents indicated their child's age (Table 11). Thirty-

two percent (N=91) of respondents had a 6- or 7-year-old child in their

household. Thirty-four percent (N=97) of respondents had an 8- or 9-year-old

child in their home and 34% percent (N=99) of respondents reported they had a

10- or 11-year-old child in their household.

Children's age groups were originally divided into six categories, but were

collapsed to three categories to meet assumptions of the Chi-square test. The

age categories were grouped as: 6- and 7-year-olds, 8- and 9-year-olds, and 10-

and 11-year-olds. Also, the five-point scale used to measure responses was

collapsed to a three-point scale. Both scales were collapsed because the

variables yielded less than 5 observations in each cell.

A statistically significant percentage of respondents (85%, N=242)

indicated they agreed or strongly agreed commercials made their child desire

advertised products (X^= 10.2, df=4, p=.04), although two cells still had less than

five observations each. Only 9% (N=26) of respondents disagreed or strongly

disagreed.

The majority of respondents (54%) reported their child watches television

often (Table 13); 5% (N=14) of respondents reported their child rarely watches

television. There was no statistically significant difference in the amount of

viewing by gender.

56

While not statistically significant, more parents of 6-7 and 10-11-year-olds

reported their children watch television often; parents report 8-9-year-olds watch

television sometimes. The highest percentage of respondents who reported their

child often watches television had a 10- or 11-year-old in their household.

Though the age groups were collapsed, 3 cells had less than 5 expected

observations.

Almost all (293) parent respondents could name a television program

offering merchandised toys centered on the show's characters (Table 15). The

majority of respondents indicated their child watches Pokemon (33%, N=98); 8%

(N=23) of the respondents reported their child watches Rugrats and 7% percent

said their child watches Power Rangers (N=21). Television shows with few

responses were collapsed to a new category of other. Twenty percent (N=58) of

the respondents' answers fell into this category.

A majority (67%) of parents indicated their child watches television

programs with merchandised products often or sometimes (Table 16). Only 40

parents (13%) reported their children never watched such shows. There was no

statistically significant difference in exposure to these shows by gender (Table

17). A statistically significant difference occurs when comparing the frequency of

watching such shows by age (Table 18). It appears that, as children get older,

viewership of such programs declines (X^=22, df=8, p= .005).

A majority of respondents reported their child asks for character toys often

(27%) or sometimes (30%), a total of 57% (Table 19). Only 18% (N=55) of the

57

respondents said their child never asks for character toys. Ten percent (N=29) of

the respondents did not know or refused to answer the question.

It was statistically significant that the majority of respondents (Table 20)

reported male children sometimes ask for toys more frequentiy than female

children (X^=^S, df=4, p= .001)

The distribution of collapsed age categories in Table 21 from six age

brackets to three age brackets was due to cells having less than five

observations when tested using six categories. Table 21 shows a significant

relationship between age and children asking for television-based character toys

(X^=21, df=8, p= .007). Fewer requests for such toys are reported as children

age.

A majority of parents (65%) reported their children owned merchandise

items from television programs (Table 22). And it was statistically significant that

male children tend to have more of such toys than female children (Table 23;

X2=7.6, df=1,p=.006).

There was a statistically significant difference between age and child

ownership of such toys (65%, N=187, Table 24). As with other variables in the

current study, ownership of such toys declined with age.

When respondents indicated their child did own television-based character

toys, they were asked to name the character toy associated with the television

program (see Table 25). The highest proportion of respondents indicated their

child owned Pokemon toys (39%, N=77). Six percent (N=12) of respondents

58

reported their child had Power Rangers toys and 6% (N=12) of respondents said

their child had Rugrats toys.

Of the 300 respondents, 65% disclosed they believed their child thought

advertised items were more desirable (Table 26). Both male and female

children, as reported by their parents, believed advertised items were more

desirable by a 2-to-1 margin; however, the distribution was not statistically

significant (Table 27). Nor was there statistically significant differences of the

perceived desirability of advertised items in terms of age (Table 28).

The highest percentage of respondents who indicated their child perceived

advertised items as more desirable were female parents (Table 29). Female

parents were more likely to report their children perceived advertised items as

more desirable than male parents (68% of females versus 56% of males; X^=3.6,

df=1,p=.06).

Hypothesis 1 was partially supported, but was rejected. The data yielded

results which were both statistically and not statistically significant. The

hypothesis was directiy asked in the form of a question and though the majority

of parents reported their child viewed products represented by licensed

characters as more desirable, it was not statistically significant. Therefore the

hypothesis must be rejected.

However, it was statistically significant that 85% (N=242) of parents

indicated they agreed or strongly agreed commercials made their child desire

advertised products. Also, a statistically significant difference occurs when

59

measuring the frequency of watching licensed character shows by age. It seems

as children get older, viewership of such programs decline. It was statistically

significant as well, that the majority of parents reported male children sometimes

ask for toys more often than female children. Though a statistically significant

relationship between age and children asking for television-based character toys

exists, requests for characters toys lessens as children grow older. It was also

found that a larger percentage of parents (65%) indicated their children owned

merchandise items from television shows, and it was statistically significant that

male children were more apt to have more of such toys than female children.

H2: Parents will report their 6-11-year-old children are more likely to

want licensed character products (or products advertised using

such characters) if their children's peers have the product.

A total of 300 respondents reported the level of difficulty their child may or

may not have due to popular toys (Table 30). The four-point scale used to test

the variable was collapsed to a three-point scale due to results yielding less than

five observations per cell.

The majority of respondents (59%) reported their child would have no

difficulties playing with other children if their kids did not own popular toys (Table

31). While not statistically significant, parents also reported these difficulties

were not gender-specific nor age-specific (see Tables 31 and 32).

A majority of respondents (78%) indicated their child does not go and buy

products with a friend (Table 34). While there was no statistically significance in

60

buying with a friend by child gender (Table 34), it was statistically significant by

age (Table 35). Again, as age increases, children are more likely to shop in the

presence of peers (X^=25.8, df=5, p= .00).

A total of 65 respondents reported their child does go shop and buy

products with a friend (Table 36). A majority. 69% (N=45) indicated their child's

friend had an influence on purchases. This influence was not gender-specific

(Table 37) nor age-specific (Table 38).

Hypothesis 2 is not supported. Due to the lack of measures, hypothesis 2

could not be accurately determined.

Hs: Parents of 6-11-year-olds will report their children will think having

licensed character products (or products advertised using such

characters) will bring great happiness by ownership of such

products.

A majority of parents (77%) indicated their child understands the intent of

commercials (Table 39). There was no statistical significance of this

understanding by child's gender (Table 40) nor age (Table 41). However, a

majority (57%) indicated their children do not think owning advertised items will

make them happier (Table 42). Female children are more likely to not think such

toys will make them happier than are male children (Table 43), but not at the .05

alpha level (X^= 3.3, df=1, p=. 07). There was no statistical significant difference

of this happiness by age (Table 41).

Hypothesis three is partially supported.

61

Influence on Parental Product Purchasing

Research question two focuses on whether or not parents feel their child

influences their purchase decisions for child-related products.

RQ2: Do parents of 6-11-year-olds feel their children exert a major

influence on the parental decision-making process for products

purchased specifically for the child's consumption.

A total of 300 respondents reported whether they asked their child for their

product preference (Table 45). Sixty-eight percent (N=204) of parents ask their

child often, 26% (N=77) of parents ask their child sometimes, 5% rarely asks

their child and 2% (N=5) never asks their child for their product preferences. The

4-point scale was collapsed to a 2-point scale due to too few observations per

cell when the variable was tested using the 4-point scale. Asking for preferences

by parent gender was not statistically significant (Table 46).

A majority of parents (71%) take their children shopping with them (Table

47) and 94% ask their child's preference in selecting products (Table 46). While

there was no statistical difference in asking children's preference by gender of

the parent (Table 46), there was somewhat of a difference in store trips by child's

gender (Table 48; X^=3.5, df=1, p=.06).

A total of 300 respondents reported whether or not they allowed their child

to make product selections. Eighty-four percent of parents (N=252) allow their

child to make their own product selections (Table 49). It was found to be

significant that more female children were allowed to make their own product

62

selections than were male children (X^=5.38, df=7, p=.02); Table 50). There was

no significance in self-product selection by age (Table 51).

Respondents who allowed their child to make product selections listed the

types of products their child could select (Table 52). Forty-eight percent (N=119)

of respondents allowed their child to select grocery store products, 26% (N=64)

allowed their child to make toy selections and 12% let their child choose clothing

items.

The majority of respondents (86%) reported their child makes product

suggestions (Table 53). While it was not found to be statistically significant that

child product suggestions were gender specific (Table 54), product suggestions

as a factor of age was found to be statistically significant (X^=12.8, df=5, p= .03;

Table 55).

Forty-two percent of parents indicated their child made product

suggestions regarding grocery items; 23% of respondents reported their child

makes suggestions concerning toy products, while 11% of respondents said their

child makes suggestions about clothes (Table 56).

The majority of parents (91%) indicated they buy the "right" things for their

child (Table 57). There was no statistically significant difference of parent gender

and the purchase of "right" products (Table 58; an operational definition of the

term "right" was not supplied, likewise, it was not defined in the original study;

McNeal, 1964).

63

A total of 26 respondents reported why they felt they did not purchase the

"right things" for their child (Table 59). Respondents presented various answers.

Eleven percent (N=3) of respondents simply stated they buy the wrong products

for their child, 11% (N=3) reported that their child has different tastes in products

and another 11% (N=3) of respondents indicated they search for bargain

products which do not coincide with the child's expectations.

Table 60 reveals that the highest proportion of respondents (66%) ask

their child's opinion about purchases they make. Female parents are more likely

to ask for their child's opinions than male parents (X^=10.6, df=1, p= .001; Table

61).

Table 62 shows a higher proportion of respondents (67%) reported their

child preferred to buy products for themselves. Preferring to buy products for

themselves was not significant when looked at by child gender (Table 63) or child

age (Table 64).

A total of 199 respondents reported why their child prefers to buy products

for themselves (Table 65). The majority of the answers could not be categorized

and fell into a mixed category (40%). Sixteen percent (N=31) of respondents

indicated children would prefer to shop for themselves so they can get exactly

what they want, 11% (N=22) reported their child feels a sense of independence

when they shop for themselves, and 9% each (N=17) of respondents said either

their child feels in control when they get to purchase items for themselves or their

child feels more adult when they do so.

64

The majority of respondents (57%) indicated their child asks to buy

advertised items (Table 66). While there was no difference in children asking for

advertised products based on the child's gender (Table 67), the distribution by

age was statistically significant (Table 68). Children tend to ask for advertised

items less as they grow older (X^=14, df=5, p= .02).

Research question two examines whether parents of 6- to 11-year-old

children feel their children exert a major influence on the parental decision­

making process for products purchased specifically for the child's consumption.

Several of the results were not statistically significant, but several of the results

were statistically significant.

It was statistically significant that the majority of respondents allowed their

child to make product selections (X^=5.4, df=1, p= .02) when shopping. During

these shopping trips to the store, children also made product suggestions. And it

was determined to be statistically significant that children in these age groups

participate in making suggestions (X^=12.8, df=5, p= .03). Furthermore, it was

statistically significant that the majority of respondents ask their child's opinion

about product purchases (X^=10.6, df=1, p= .001). ft was also statistically

significant that the majority of respondents reported their child, ages 6 to 11, asks

for advertised products (X^=14, df=5, p= .02). Though influence exerted on

parents cannot be measured numerically, the data indicates children do exert

some influence on parental purchases.

65

Table 1: Respondent Marital Status

Marital Status F3 %" Single 24 8" Married 276 92 Total 300 100

Table 2: Respondent Education Level

Education Level GED High school diploma Some college Bachelors degree Masters degree PhD Vocation training Other Total

N 8

43 94

111 31 4

CO C

D

300

%

3 14 31 37 10

1 1 2

100

'Does not add up to 100% due to rounding

Table 3: Respondent Income

Income Under 10,000 10,000-14,000 15,000-19,000 20,000-24,000 25,000-34,000 35,000-39,000 40,000-44,000 45,000-49,000 50,000 and above Refused Total

N 2 5 2

13 16 27 24 17

175 19

300

%

1 2 1 4 5 9 8 6

58 6

100

66

Table 4: Respondent Gender by Age

Parent Age Under 21 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 Over 50 Total

Parent Gender

Male Female N 0 2 3

12 25 19 8 4

73

% N 0 2 1 1 1 13 4 62 8 82 6 47 3 17 1 3

24 227

%

1 0 4

21 27 16 6 1

76

Total N 2 3

16 74

107 66 25 7

300

%

1 1 5

25 36 22 8 2

100

Table 5: Number Children between Ages 6-11

Number Children 6-11 N %

One Two Three Four Five Total

195 90 13

1 1

300

65 30

4 0 0

100

*Does not add up to 100% due to rounding

Table 6: Gender Child

Child Gender N %

Male Female Total

154 146 300

51 49

100

67

Table 7: Age Child

Child Age 6 7 8 9

10 11 Total Missing Total

N 48 43 46 51 59 40

287 13

300

%

16 14 15 17 20 13 96 4

100

'Does not add up to 100% due to rounding

Table 8: Birth Order Children

Birth Order Children Ages 6 to 11 Oldest Youngest Only Total

N

59 66

175 300

%

20 22 58

100

Table 9: Commercials Make My Child Want Advertised Products

Scale N % 44 43

6 8 0

100

*Does not add up to 100% due to rounding

strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree strongly Disagree Total

125 130

19 25 1

300

68

Table 10: Commercials Make My Child Want Advertised Products by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Commercials % Total N % Child Gender % Commercials % Total N % Child Gender % Commercials % Total

strongly Agree/Agree

134 87 53 45

121 83 47 40

255 85

100 85

Neutral

9 6

47 3

10 4

53 3

19 6

100 6

Strongly Disagree/Agree

11 7

42 4 15 10 58 5

26 9

100 9

Total

154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=1.1,df=2, p=.57)

Table 11: Commercials Make My Child Want Advertised Products by Age

Child Age

6/7

8/9

10/11

Total

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

Child Gender Commercials Total

Child Gender Commercials Total

Child Gender Commercials Total

Child Gender Commercials Total

Strongly Agree/Agree

79 87 33 28 83 86 34 29 80 81 33 28

242 85

100 85

Neutral

9 10 47 3 6 6

32 2 4 4

21 1

19 6

100 6

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

3 3

12 1 8 8

31 3

15 15 58 5

26 9

100 9

Total

91 100 32 32 97

100 34 34 99

100 34 34

287 100 100 100

(X2=10.2, df=4, p=.04)

69

Table 12: Child Television Viewing

Scale Often Sometimes Rarely Total

N 161 125

14 300

%

54 42

5 100

'Does not add up to 100% due to rounding

Table 13: Child Television Viewing by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

Child Gender Child Total

Child Gender Commercials Total

Child Gender Commercials Total

Often

85 55 53 28 76 52 47 25

161 54

100 54

Sometimes

61 40 49 20 64 44 51 21

125 42

100 42

Rarely

8 5

57 3 6 4

43 2

14 5

100 5

Total

154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=.65, df=2, p= .72)

70

Table 14: Children Television Viewing By Age

Child Age 6/7

8/9

10/11

Total

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

Child's Age Child Watches TV Total

Child's Age Child Watches TV Total

Child's Age Child Watches TV Total

Child's Age Child Watches TV Total

Often

48 53 32 17 43 44 29 15 59 60 39 21

150 52

100 52

Sometimes

41 45 33 14 46 47 37 16 36 36 29 13

123 43

100 43

Rarely

2 2

14 1 8 8

57 3 4 4

29 1

14 5

100 5

Total

91 100 32 32 97

100 34 34 99

100 34 34

287 100 100 100

(X2=7.5, df=4, p=.11)

A. 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5.

Table 15: Recall of Television Program Characters

Television Program Names Barney Blues Clues Digimon Pokemon Power Puff Girls Power Rangers Rugrats Teletubbies Other None Total

N 9 12 8 98 7 21 23 12 58 45 293

_ % _

3 4 3 33 2 7 8 4 20 15 100

71

Table 16: Watches Television Programs with Licensed Characters

Scale N _ % _ Often ~ 87 ~29~ Sometimes 114 38 Rarely 29 io Never 40 13 DK/Refused 30 10 Total 300 100

Table 17: Watches Television Programs with Licensed Characters by Gender

Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Programs % of Total N % Child Gender % Programs % of Total N % Child Gender % Programs % of Total

Often 48 31 55 16 39 27 45 13 87 29

100 29

Sometimes 64 42 56 21 50 34 44 17

114 38

100 38

Rarely 14 9

48 5

15 10 52 5

29 10

100 10

Never 16 10 40 5

24 16 60 8

40 13

100 13

DK/Refused 12 8

40 4

18 12 60 6

30 10

100 10

Total 154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=5.26, df=4, p= .26)

72

Table 18: Watches Television Programs with Licensed Characters by Age

6/7

8/9

10/11

Total

N % Child Age % Programs % of Total N % Child Age % Programs % of Total N % Child Age % Programs % of Total N % Child Age % Programs % of Total

Often 33 36 41 12 21 22 26 7

26 26 33 9

80 28

100 28

Sometimes 39 43 35 14 41 42 37 14 31 31 28 11

111 39

100 39

Rarely 11 12 41 4 9 9

33 3 7 7

26 2

27 9

100 9

Never 4 4 10 1

14 14 36 5

21 21 54 7

39 14

100 14

DK/Refused 4 4

13 1

12 12 40 4

14 14 47 5

30 10

100 10

Total 91

100 32 32 97

100 34 33 99

100 34 34

287 100 100 100

(X2=22, df=8, p= .005)

*Does not add up to 100% due to rounding

Table 19: Child Asks For Licensed-Character Toys

Scale N Often Sometimes Rarely Never DK/Refused Total

82 89 45 55 29

300

%

27 30 15 18 10

100

73

Table 20: Child Asks For Licensed-Character Toys by Gender

Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Asks For Toys % of Total N % Child Gender % Asks For Toys % of Total N % Child Gender % Asks For Toys % of Total

Often 56 36 68 19 26 18 32 9

82 27

100 27

Sometimes 48 31 54 16 41 28 46 14 89 30

100 30

Rarely 17 11 38 6

28 19 62 9

45 15

100 15

Never 21 14 38 7

34 23 62 11 55 18

100 18

DK/Refused 12 8

41 4

17 12 59 6

29 10

100 10

Total 154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=18, df=4, p=.001)

Table 21: Child Asks For Licensed-Character Toys by Age

6/7

8/9

10/11

Total

N % Child Age % Asks for toys % of Total N % Child Age % Asks for toys % of Total N % Child Age % Asks for toys % of Total N % Child Age % Asks for toys % of Total

Often 34 37 43 12 23 24 29 8

22 22 28

8 79 28

100 28

Sometimes 29 32 35 10 34 35 41 12 20 20 24 7

83 29

100 29

Rarely 14 15 33 5

12 12 28 4

17 17 40 6

43 15

100 15

Never 10 11 19 3

16 16 30 6

27 27 51 9

53 18

100 18

DK/Refused 4 4

14 1

12 12 41 4

13 13 45 5

29 10

100 10

Total 91

100 32 32 97

100 34 34 99

100 34 34

287 100 100 100

(X2=21,df=8, p=.007)

Table 22: Child Owns Licensed-Character Toys

Yes No Total

N 196 104

% 65 35

74

Table 23: Child Owns Licensed-Character Toys by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Child Own Toys % of Total N % Child Gender % Child Own Toys % of Total N % Child Gender % Child Own Toys % of Total

Yes 112 73 57 37 84 58 43 28

196 65

100 65

No 42 27 40 14 62 42 60 21

104 35

100 35

Total 154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=7.64, df=1,p=.006)

75

Table 24: Child Owns Licensed-Character Toys by Age

Child Age 6

7

8

9

10

11

Total

N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys

% of Total

Yes 39 81 21 14 31 72 17 11 28 61 15 10 33 65 18 11 41 69 22 14 15 38 8 5

187 65

100 65

No 9

19 9 3 12 28 12 4 18 39 18 6 18 35 18 6 18 31 18 6

25 63 25 9

100 35

100 35

Total 48

100 17 17 43

100 15 15 46

100 16 16 51

100 18 18 59

100 21 21 40

100 14 14

287 100 100 100

(X2=20.73, df=5, p= .001)

76

Table 25: Parental Recall of Licensed-Character Toys Owned by Child

Toys

Barbie Barney Batman Blues Clues Digimon Pokemon Power Rangers Rugrats Scooby Winnie the Pooh Other Total

N 4 6 5 5 4 77 12 12 4 6

61 196

%

2 3 3 3 2 39 6 6 2 3

31 100

Table 26: Advertised Items Perceived as More Desirable

N %

Yes No Total

196 104 300

65 35

100

Table 27: Advertised Items Perceived as More Desirable by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Gender % Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Gender % Advertised Items % of Total

Yes 100 65 51 33 96 66 49 32

196 65

100 65

No 54 35 52 18 50 34 48 17

104 35

100 35

Total 154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=.02, df=1,p=.88)

77

Table 28: Advertised Items Perceived as More Desirable by Age

Child Age Yes No Total 6

7

8

9

10

11

Total

N % Child Age % Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Advertised Items % of Total

29 60 16 10 34 79 18 12 28 61 15 10 35 69 19 12 38 64 20 13 23 58 12 8

187 65

100 65

(X2=5.8, df=5, p= .32)

19 40 19 7 9

21 9 3

18 39 18 6

16 31 16 6

21 36 21 7

17 43 17 6

100 35

100 35

48 100

17 17 43

100 15 15 46

100 16 16 51

100 18 18 59

100 21 21 40

100 14 14

287 100 100 100

78

Table 29: Advertised Items Perceived as More Desirable by Parent's Gender

Parent Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Parent Gender % Advertised Items % of Total N % Parent Gender % Advertised Items % of Total N % Advertised Items % Child Own Toys % of Total

Yes 41 56 21 14

155 68 79 52

196 65

100 65

No 32 44 31 11 72 32 69 24

104 35

100 35

Total 73

100 24 24

227 100 76 76

300 100 100 100

(X2=3.6, df=1,p=.06)

Table 30: Level of Difficulty Playing with Other Children Without Advertised Toys

Scale N %

Many Difficulties Some Difficulties Few Difficulties No Difficulties Total

4 44 76

176 300

1 15 25 59

100

Table 31: Level of Difficulty Playing with Other Children Without Advertised Toys by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Level of Difficulty % of Total N % Child Gender % Level of Difl iculty % of Total N % Child Gender % Level of Difficulty % of Total

Many/Few Difficulties

28 18 58 9

20 14 42 7

48 16

100 16

Some Difficulties

37 24 49 12 39 27 51 13 76 25

100 25

No Difficulties

89 58 51 30 87 60 49 29

176 59

100 59

Total

154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=1.2, df=2, p=.55)

79

Table 32: Level of Difficulty Playing with Other Children Without Advertised Toys bv A n ^ ' by Age

Child Age Yii "6 • N

0

7 N

8 N

0

No Total

% Child Age 19 25 % Level of Difficulty 20 16

9 12 27 56 16

4 9 % of Total 3

8 9 26 % Child Age 19 21 60 % Level of Difficulty 18 12 15 % of Total 3 3 9

6 12 28 % Child Age 13 26 61 % Level of Difficulty 14 16 16 % of Total 2 4 10

9 N 6 18 27 % Child Age 12 35 53 % Level of Difficulty 14 25 16 % of Total 2 6 9

10 N 10 13 36 % Child Age 17 22 61 % Level of Difficulty 23 18 21 % of Total 3 5 13

11 N 5 9 26 % Child Age 13 23 65 % Level of Difficulty 11 12 15 % of Total 2 3 9

Total N 44 73 170 % Child Age 15 25 59 % Level of Difficulty 100 100 100 % of Total 15 25 59_

(X2=4.97, df=10, p=.89)

Table 33: Purchasing Products with a Friend

N ~%" Yes 65 22 No 235 78 Total 300 100

80

Table 34: Purchasing products with a Friend by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Buys Products % of Total N % Child Gender % Buys Products % of Total N % Child Gender % Buys Products % of Total

Yes 34 22 52 11 31 21 48 10 65 22

100 22

No 120 78 51 40

115 79 49 38

235 78

100 78

Total 154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=.03, df=1,p=.86)

81

Table 35; Purchasing Products with a Friend by Age

Child Age Yes No Total

8

10

11

Total

N % Child Age % Buys Products % of Total N % Child Age % Buys Products % of Total N % Child Age % Buys Products % of Total N % Child Age % Buys Products % of Total N % Child Age % Buys Products % of Total N % Child Age % Buys Products % of Total N % Child Age % Buys Products % of Total

4 8 6 1

12 28 19 4 4 9 6 1

12 24 19 4

13 22 20 5

19 48 30 7

64 22

100 22

44 92 20 15 31 72 14 11 42 91 19 15 39 76 17 14 46 78 21 16 21 53 9 7

223 78

100 78

48 100

17 17 43

100 15 15 46

100 16 16 51

100 18 18 59

100 21 21 40

100 14 14

287 100 100 100

(X2=25.8, df=5, p= .00)

Table 36: Friend Influence on Purchase

' "M ~ y^ ' 45 69" No 20 31 Total 65 100.

82

Table 37: Friend Influence on Purchase by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Friend Influence % of Total N % Child Gender % Friend Influence % of Total N % Child Gender % Friend Influence % of Total

Yes 21 62 47 32 24 77 53 37 45 69

100 69

No 13 38 65 20 7

23 35 11 20 31

100 31

Total 34

100 52 52 31

100 48 48 65

100 100 100

(X2=1.87, df=1,p=.17)

Table 38: Friend Influence on Purchase by Age

Child Age 6/7

8/9

10/11

Total

N % Child Age % Friend Influence % of Total N % Child Age % Friend Influence % of Total N % Child Age % Friend Influence % of Total N % Child Age % Friend Influence % of Total

Yes 11 69 25 17 9

56 20 14 24 75 55 38 44 69

100 69

No 5

31 25 8 7

44 35 11 8

25 40 13 20 31

100 31

Total 16

100 25 25 16

100 25 25 32

100 50 50 64

100 100 100

(X2=1.75, df=2, p=.42)

83

Table 39: Child Understands Intent of Commercials

Scale Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

N 75

156 19 43 7

300

%

25 52 6

14 2

100

Table 40: Child Understands Intent of Commercials by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Commercials % Total N % Child Gender % Commercials % Total N % Child Gender % Commercials % Total

Strongly Agree/Agree

125 81 54 42

106 73 46 35

231 77

100 77

Neutral

7 5

37 2

12 8

63 4

19 6

100 6

Strongly Disagree/Agree

22 14 44 7

28 19 56 9

50 17

100 17

Total

154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=3.39, df=2, p=.18)

84

Table 41: Child Understands Intent Commercials By Age

Child Age 6/7

8/9

10/11

Total

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

N %

%

%

Child Gender Commercials Total

Child Gender Commercials Total

Child Gender Commercials Total

Child Gender Commercials Total

Strongly Agree/Agree

60 66 27 21 78 80 35 27 85 86 38 30

223 78

100 78

Neutral

9 10 50 3 5 5

28 2 4 4

22 1

18 6

100 6

Strongly Disagree/Disagree

22 24 48 8

14 14 30 5

10 10 22 3

46 16

100 16

Total

91 100 32 32 97

100 34 34 99

100 34 34

287 100 100 100

(X2=11.5, df=4, p=.02)

Table 42: Child Happier Owning Advertised Items

Yes No Total

N 129 171 300

%

43 57

100

85

Table 43: Child Happier Owning Advertised Items by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Own Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Gender % Own Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Gender % Own Advertised Items % of Total

Yes 74 48 57 25 55 38 43 18

129 43

100 43

No 80 52 47 27 91 62 53 30

171 57

100 57

Total 154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=3.3, df=1,p=.07)

86

Table 44: Child Happier Owning Advertised Items by Age

Child Age 6

7

8

9

10

11

Total

N % Child Age % Own Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Own Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Own Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Own Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Own Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Own Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Own Advertised Items % of Total

Yes 27 56 22 9

19 44 15 7

18 39 15 6

23 45 19 8

22 37 18 8

15 38 12

5 124 43

100 43

No 21 44 13 7

24 56 15 8

28 61 17 10 28 55 17 10 37 63 23 13 25 63 15 9

163 57

100 57

Total 48

100 17 17 43

100 15 15 46

100 16 16 51

100 18 18 59

100 21 21 40

100 14 14

287 100 100 100

(X2=5.1,df=5, p=.4)

Table 45: Parent Asks Child's Product Preference

Scale Often Sometimes Rarely Never Total

N 204

77 14 5

300

%

68 26 5 2

100

87

Table 46: Asking Child's Product Preference by Parent's Gender

Parent Gender

Male

Female

Total

N % Parent Gender % Product Preference % of Total N % Parent Gender % Product Preference % of Total N % Parent Gender % Product Preference % of Total

Yes 68 93 24 23

213 94 76 71

281 94

100 94

No 5 7

26 2

14 6

74 5

19 6

100 6

Total 73

100 24 24

227 100 76 76

300 100 100 100

(X2=.04, df=1,p=.84)

A. 1 cell (25.0%) had expected count less than 5.

Table 47: Store Trips

N %

Stay at Home Go with You Total

87 213 300

29 71

100

Table 48: Store Trips By Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Store/Home % of Total N % Child Gender % Store/Home % of Total N % Child Gender % Store/Home % of Total

Stay at Home 52 34 60 17 35 24 40 12 87 29

100 29

Go with You 102 66 48 34

111 76 52 37

213 71

100 71

Total 154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=3.5, df=1,p=.06)

88

Table 49: Product Selections

N %

Yes No Total

252 48

300

84 16

100

Table 50: Product Selections by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Product Selections % of Total N % Child Gender % Product Selections % of Total N % Child Gender % Product Selections % of Total

Yes 122 79 48 41

130 89 52 43

252 84

100 84

No 32 21 67 11 16 11 33 5

48 16

100 16

Total 154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=5.38, df=1,p=.02)

89

Table 51: Product Selections By Age

Child Age 6

7

8

9

10

11

Total

N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total N % Child Age % Own Toys % of Total

Yes 40 83 17 14 38 88 16 13 35 76 15 12 47 92 20 16 48 81 20 17 32 80 13 11

240 84

100 84

No 8

17 17 3 5

12 11 2

11 24 23 4 4 8 9 1

11 19 23 4 8

20 17 3

47 16

100 16

Total 48

100 17 17 43

100 15 15 46

100 16 16 51

100 18 18 59

100 21 21 40

100 14 14

287 100 100 100

(X2=5.9, df=5, p=.31)

Table 52: Parental Recall of Product Selections Made By Child

Products N ^ %_ 12 4

48 3

26 8

100

Clothes Entertainment Grocery Item Sports Related Toys Other Total

30 9

119 7

64 20

249

90

Table 53: Product Suggestions

N %

Yes No Total

258 42

300

86 14

100

Table 54: Product Suggestions by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Product Suggestion % of Total N % Child Gender % Product Suggestion % of Total N % Child Gender % Product Suggestion % of Total

Yes 135 88 52 45

123 84 48 41

258 86

100 86

No 19 12 45 6

23 16 55 8

42 14

100 14

Total 154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=.73, df=1,p=.39)

91

Table 55: Product Suggestions by Age

Child Age 6

7

8

9

10

11

Total

N % Child Age % Product Suggestion % of Total N % Child Age % Product Suggestion % of Total N % Child Age % Product Suggestion % of Total N % Child Age % Product Suggestion % of Total N % Child Age % Product Suggestion % of Total N % Child Age % Product Suggestion % of Total N % Child Age % Product Suggestion % of Total

Yes 45 94 18 16 38 88 15 13 36 78 15 13 42 82 17 15 46 78 19 16 39 98 16 14

246 86

100 86

No 3 6 7 1 5

12 12 2

10 22 24 3 9

18 22 3

13 22 32 5 1 3 2 0

41 14

100 14

Total 48

100 17 17 43

100 15 15 46

100 16 16 51

100 18 18 59

100 21 21 40

100 14 14

287 100 100 100

(X2=12.77, df=5, p= .03)

Table 56: Parental Recall of Product Suggestions Made By Child

Products N % Beauty Items 6 2 Clothing 28 11 Entertainment 16 6 Grocery Item 106 42 Sports Items 6 2 Toys 58 23 Other 32 13 Total 252 100

92

Table 57: Buying the 'Right' Things

N %

Yes No Total

273 27

300

91 9

100

Table 58: Buying the 'Right' Things by Parent's Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Parent Gender % Buys the Right things % of Total N % Parent Gender % Buys the Right things % of Total N % Parent Gender % Buys the Right things % of Total

Yes 67 92 25 22

206 91 75 69

273 91

100 91

No 6 8

22 2

21 9

78 7

27 9

100 9

Total 73

100 24 24

227 100 76 76

300 100 100 100

(X2=.07, df=1,p=.79)

Table 59: Causes of Wrong Product Purchase

N %

Other Wrong Product Different Tastes Dislikes Bargain Product Different Desires Product Failure Total

11 3 3 2 3 2 2

26

42 12 12 8

12 8 8

100

Table 60: Asking Child's Opinion

Yes No Total

N 199 101 300

_ % _ 66 34

100

93

Table 61: Asking Child's Opinion By Parent's Gender

Parent Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Parent Gender % Opinion. % of Total N % Parent Gender % Opinion. % of Total N % Parent Gender % Opinion. % of Total

Yes 37 51 19 12

162 71 81 54

199 66

100 66

No 36 49 36 12 65 29 64 22

101 34

100 34

Total 73

100 24 24

227 100 76 76

300 100 100 100

(X2=10.6, df=1,p=.001)

Table 62: Child Prefers to Purchase Products

Yes No Total

N 201

99 300

%

67 33

100

Table 63: Child Prefers to Purchase Products by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Buy for Themselves % of Total N % Child Gender % Buy for Themselves % of Total N % Child Gender % Buy for Themselves % of Total

Yes 108 70 54 36 93 64 46 31

201 67

100 67

No 46 30 46 15 53 36 54 18 99 33

100 33

Total 154 100

51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=1.4, df=1,p=.24)

94

Table 64: Child Prefers to Purchase Products by Age

Child Age

8

10

11

Total

N % Child Age % Buy for Themselves % of Total N % Child Age % Buy for Themselves % of Total N % Child Age % Buy for Themselves % of Total N % Child Age % Buy for Themselves % of Total N % Child Age % Buy for Themselves % of Total N % Child Age % Buy for Themselves % of Total N % Child Age % Buy for Themselves % of Total

Yes 33 69 17 11 24 56 13 8

26 57 14 9

38 75 20 13 40 68 21 14 29 73 15 10

190 66

100 66

No 15 31 15 5

19 44 20 7

20 43 21 7

13 25 13 5

19 32 20 7

11 28 11 4

97 34

100 34

Total 48

100 17 17 43

100 15 15 46

100 16 16 51

100 18 18 59

100 21 21 40

100 14 14

287 100 100 100

(X2=6.49, df=5, p= .26)

Table 65: Parental Recall of Child's Desire to Purchase Products

N % Adult 17 9 Choice 12 6 Control 17 9 Get what they Want 31 16 Independent 22 11 Input 6 3 Preference 8 4 Responsible 6 3 Other 80 40 Total 199 100

95

Table 66: Child Asks to Purchase Advertised Items

Yes No Total

N 171 129 300

%

57 43

100

Table 67: Child Asks to Purchase Advertised Items by Gender

Child Gender Male

Female

Total

N % Child Gender % Buy Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Gender % Buy Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Gender % Buy Advertised Items % of Total

Yes 89 58 52 30 82 56 48 27

171 57

100 57

No 65 42 50 22 64 44 50 21

129 43

100 43

Total 154 100 51 51

146 100 49 49

300 100 100 100

(X2=.08, df=1,p=.78)

96

Table 68: Child Asks to Purchase Advertised Items by Age

Child Age 6

7

8

9

10

11

Total

N % Child Age % Buy Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Buy Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Buy Advertised Items 7o of Total N % Child Age % Buy Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Buy Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Buy Advertised Items % of Total N % Child Age % Buy Advertised Items % of Total

Yes 33 69 20 11 31 72 19 11 24 52 15 8

26 51 16 9

33 56 20 11 15 38 9 5

162 56

100 56

No 15 31 12 5

12 28 10 4

22 48 18 8

25 49 20 9

26 44 21 9

25 63 20 9

125 44

100 44

Total 48

100 17 17 43

100 15 15 46

100 16 16 51

100 18 18 59

100 21 21 40

100 14 14

287 100 100 100

(X2=14, df=5, p= .02)

97

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS

Review

Parents of children between the ages of 6-11 were surveyed to examine

the relationship between licensed characters and the influence of characters on

children's desire for endorsed merchandised products. The survey also explored

the degree of influence children have over the parental decision-making process

for products purchased speciflcally for them.

Children as a Market

The advertising and television industries perceive children as a potentially

profitable market (Seiter, 1993). Countiess products are created for them and

targeted to them by many businesses (Stoltman, 1999). They are viewed as a

primary market, a market of influencers, and a future market (McNeal, 1992).

Kids directly and indirectly influence billions of dollars annually (Stoltman, 1999).

McNeal (1992) estimates children directiy influence more than $130 billion in

household items and indirectly influence much more.

Children's spending doubled during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. During

the 1990s, spending tripled (McNeal, 1999). Guber and Berry (1993) indicated

kids had an estimated $7.3 billion to spend in the market place during the early

1990s. Kids spent their money on clothes, candy, toys, and various other

98

products (McNeal, 1992). By 1997, children spent approximately $24.4 billion

and it is estimated by 2001 children will spend $35 billion on products (McNeal,

1999).

Influence of Licensed Character

The use of cartoon characters to sell toy products increased from 20

percent to 70 percent from 1977 to 1987 (Economist, 1996). Licensed

characters are not only used to solicit products, but also are a fundamental part

of the product (Pecora, 1998). Cartoon characters are created to sell products

such as clothing, cereals, and vitamins (Pecora, 1998). Children's reactions to a

television advertisement can be shaped by who is conveying the message. A

character representing a product can considerably influence the assessment of a

product based on the child's opinion of the character (Van Evra, 1990).

Theoretical Framework

Consumer socialization is deflned as "the gradual development of a broad

range of attitudes, knowledge, and skills which are related to consumption"

(Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977, p. 18). Consumer socialization theory is a

sociological concept which focuses on the effects of social agents on children's

learning of consumer behavior, as well as where and what kids are able to learn

(McNeal, 1987).

99

This study speculated children used licensed programming characters as

a socialization agent (information source), which influenced them through

television commercials to want and desire character products or endorsed

products represented by licensed characters. Once the licensed character

influenced the child to desire the product, children then attempt to exert influence

on their parents to purchase the item.

Research Questions and Findings

Research Question 1

The first research question addressed whether parents of 6-to-11-year-old

children felt licensed characters from television advertising and programming had

a product demand influence on their children's consumption desires. This was

partially supported, but must be rejected due to lack of substantiating data.

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis one indicated parents would report their child viewed products

advertised by licensed characters as more desirable. Four of seven questions

were statistically signiflcant. Yet when the hypothesis was asked directly, it was

not statistically significant the majority of parents reported their child perceived

advertised products as more desirable (Table 27; Table 28). The majority of

respondents agreed commercials made their 6 to 11-year-old child want

advertised items (X^=10.2, df=4, p= .04). Thirty-nine percent (n=111) of

100

respondents reported their child sometimes watches television programs

containing characters with merchandise toys and it was found statistically

significant that the majority of respondents reported their child, by age, watches

television shows with character toys some of the time (X^=22, df=8, p= .005). Of

those who reported their child sometimes watches shows with character toys, the

highest percentage had children between the ages of 6 and 9 (28%, n=80) in the

household.

The highest proportion, 39% (n=89) of respondents reported their child

sometimes asks for character toys. In relation to the child's gender and age, it

was statistically significant that the majority of respondents reported their child

sometimes asks for toys that are based on television show characters. A higher

percentage of parents had a male child in the household (16%, n=48) and

households with an 8- or 9-year-old had a child more likely to make requests for

such toys.

Sixty-five percent (n=196) of respondents indicated their child owns

licensed-character toys. According to the child's gender and age, it was

statistically significant that the majority of respondents indicated their child owns

toys related to television program characters.

The majority of respondents reported their child perceived advertised

items as more desirable (65%, n=196). Nonetheless, it was not statistically

significant that the majority of respondents reported their child perceived

advertised items as more desirable

101

The highest proportion of respondents who reported their child perceived

advertised items as more desirable were female parents (79%, n=155). Although

very close, it was not considered statistically significant (X^=3.6, df=1, p= .06).

Hypothesis one is partially supported, but overall, was rejected.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis two suggested parents would report their 6-11-year-old

children were more likely to want licensed character products if their children's

peers had the product. One of three questions was found to be statistically

significant.

The majority of respondents reported their kids would have no difficulties

playing with other children if their child did not have popular toys (59%, n=176).

However, it was not statistically significant in terms of gender or age.

The largest percentage of respondents (78%, n=235) reported their child

did not shop with a friend. However, it was not statistically significant in terms of

gender of child. Yet it was statistically significant that the majority of respondents

indicated their child, by age, does not shop and buy products with a friend

(X^=25.8, df=5, p= .00). Of the respondents who indicated their child did shop

with a friend, the majority reported their child allowed their friend to help decide

on types of products and what products to buy on a shopping trip (gender: 69%,

n=45; age: 65%, n=64 ). Nonetheless, gender and age was not statistically

significant.

102

The data showed that it was statistically significant that children between

the ages of 6-and-11 do not shop and buy products with a friend (X^=25.8, df=5,

p= .00), which does not support the hypothesis. The majority of data produced

results which were not statistically significant. As a result, hypothesis 2 is

rejected.

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis three indicated parents would report their children would think

having licensed character products would bring great happiness to them through

ownership of such products. One out of 2 questions was found to be statistically

significant.

The majority or respondents indicated their child understood the content of

commercials (77%, n=231). By child's gender, it was not statistically significant

(X^= ZA, df=2, p= .18). Yet according to child's age, it was statistically significant

the majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed their child understands the

intent of commercials (X^=11.5, df=4, p= .02).

The highest proportion of respondents indicated their child did not think

owning advertised items would make them happier (57%, n=171). In relation to

the child's age, it was not statistically significant that respondents indicated their

child did not think owning advertised items would make their child happier. It was

also not statistically significant that the of majority respondents with children ages

103

6-to-11 indicated their child did not think owning advertised items would make

them happier.

It was statistically significant that respondents reported they agreed or

strongly agreed their child understood the intent of commercials with their child's

age as a factor (X^=11.5, df=4, p= .02). Though close, it was not statistically

significant that respondents reported their child did not think owning advertised

items would make them happier (X2=3.3, df=1, p= .07), which does not support

the hypothesis. Hypothesis three is partially supported.

Research Question 2

Research question two addressed whether or not parents of 6-to-11-year-

olds felt their children exerted a major influence on the parental decision-making

process for products purchased speciflcally for their child's consumption.

The highest percentage of respondents indicated they asked their child

what their product preferences were when purchasing items (94%, n=281). Of

those who asked their child what their preferences were, 68% (n=204) asked

their child often and 26% (n=77) asked their child sometimes. However, it was

not statistically significant that the majority of respondents asked their child what

their product preferences were when purchasing something for them by gender.

The largest percentage of respondents indicated their child accompanied

them to the store instead of staying home (71%, n=213). Though close, it was

104

not statistically significant that the majority of respondents reported their child

went with them to the store as opposed to staying home by gender (X^=3.5, df=5,

p= .06).

In relation to child's gender, it was statistically significant that the majority

of respondents allowed their child to make product selections (X^=5.4, df=1, p=

.02). Of those respondents who let their child make product selections, 48%

(n=122) had a male child and 52% (n=130) had a female child. However, it was

not statistically significant according to the child's age.

The majority of respondents reported their child makes product

suggestions during store trips (86%, n=258). It was statistically significant that

the majority of respondents reported their child, by age, does make product

suggestions when they go to the store (X^=12.8, df=5, p= .03). Yet it was not

statistically significant according to child's gender.

The majority of respondents reported they purchased the "right" products

for their child, but it was not statistically significant (K^= .07, df=1, p= .79). Of

those respondents who bought the "right" items, 22% (n=67) were male and 69%

(n=206) were female.

The highest proportion of respondents indicated they asked their child's

opinion about product purchases (66%, n=199). Of those respondents who

asked their child's opinion, 54% (n=162) were female parents and 12% (n=37)

105

were male parents. It was statistically significant that the majority of respondents

asked their child's opinion about product purchases by gender (X^=10.6, df=1, p=

.001).

The majority of respondents reported their child preferred to buy products

for themselves (67%, n=201), but it was not statistically significant by gender and

age.

The highest proportion of respondents reported their child asks them to

buy advertised items (57%, n=171). In relation to child's gender, it was not

statistically significant that the majority of respondents indicated their child asks

them to buy advertised items. However, it was statistically significant that the

majority of respondents reported their child, ages 6-to-11, asks for advertised

products (X^=14, df=5, p= .02). The data yielded results which were both

statistically significant and not statistically significant.

Analysis of Findings

Testing of hypothesis one produced several statistically significant results

and was partially supported. The majority of parents agreed commercials made

their child want advertised items. Parents also reported their child sometimes

watches television programs featuring licensed characters, which have

character-related merchandise. Respondents also indicated their child

sometimes asks for toys related to the television program and 65% (n=196)

reported their child already owned television-based character toys. Though not

106

statistically significant, 65% (n=196) of parents also reported their child does

perceive advertised items as more desirable by gender.

The results support the idea that children generally want items advertised

in television commercials, which Ward, Wackman, and Wartella determined in

their study of children's spending behavior in 1977. Stipp and Goerlich (1995)

also said kids were more likely to consume products heavily advertised on

television.

Ward, Wackman, and Wartella (1977) also established commercials

targeted at children influenced what products they wanted, requested and ate.

The content of most television commercials targeted to children use animation,

jingles, slogans, visual effects or repetition to attract their attention (Van Evra,

1990; Seiter 1993). The use of animation within commercials infers licensed

characters' yield some influence on children's desires to own the endorsed

product or character toy.

This influence was not proven statistically and was not directiy measured,

but it also cannot be discounted. Though their effects on children's learning of

consumer behavior has not been directiy linked, licensed characters cannot be

ruled out as a socialization agent or information source for children. John said

children use television commercials as an information source for products such

as food, toys, and candy (1999). It cannot be said that children do not extend the

role of information source to licensed characters.

107

Hypothesis two testing suggested parents felt their child would have no

difficulty playing with other children if their child did not own popular toys. The

results also indicated the majority of children in this age group do not shop with

friends. Of those children who did shop with their friends, parents reported their

friends did influence their product choices. However, none of these were

statistically signiflcant. Hypothesis two was not supported. Parents did not

indicate their child was more likely to want licensed character products if their

peers had the product.

Yet children are said to be significantiy influenced by their own peer group

(Guber and Berry, 1993; McNeal, 1987). Guber and Berry (1993) also assert

kids use friends for information in areas from styles and entertainment to popular

trends and activities. Kids use products such as clothes, food, and toys to

identify themselves and their relationship with their peers (Guber and Berry,

1993).

The majority of children in this age group did not shop with friends, which

decreased the likelihood of influence of point-of-purchase product choices. This

obviously changes as children grow older and become more accessible to each

other and interested in spending time with one another at places such as a

shopping mall, movies, or restaurants. Parents also felt their child could interact

easily with other children without the aid of popular toys. Most of the toys listed in

the survey were merchandise products endorsed by licensed characters of

television shows or movies, but parents felt their child could interact fine with

108

other children with or without the toys. Of those who did shop with friends in this

age group, parents did indicate they felt their child let their friends affect their

product choices, which suggests the possibility of influence or a greater degree

of influence in the years to come. Neither the influence of licensed characters on

product choices or the influence of peers on product choices could be

established.

Hypothesis three revealed parents felt their child understood the intent of

commercials. Yet parents did not feel their child would think owning advertised

items would make them happier.

This infers parents believe their child understands commercials are used

to sell products. Van Evra (1990) said young kids use advertising tools such as

animation, jingles and repetition to gather information or meaning from

commercials, once again drawing a relationship between animated characters

and their possible role as an information source.

Advertisers place licensed characters in commercials to create a face for

the product, as well as positioning them as a source of information. As an

information source, licensed characters send the message to buy whatever

product they represent, in effect, teaching the child consumer to desire the

advertised item. Assuming children essentially understand commercials are

used to sell products, it could also be assumed that children use licensed

characters to gather information about the product, which could eventually lead

to influence over product decisions.

109

Commercials created for children attempt to produce impressions, moods,

or images. Relevant information concerning the product at times is regarded as

unnecessary. These commercials try to sell more than the product.

Commercials try to sell lifestyles and social messages (Van Evra, 1990). Often

commercials will emphasize how much fun kids are having through the

ownership of the particular product (Signorielli, 1991). Showing kids having fun

with the product also indicates that kids are expressing positive emotions such as

happiness. This may influence the child to desire the advertised product to

achieve happiness. Yet the current study found parents did not feel their child

would think owning advertised items would make them happier. The majority of

parents in the study seem to assume their child was mature enough and

conscientious enough to realize happiness cannot be found through material

objects, which may or may not be accurate. Hypothesis three was not supported

in this instance. The majority of parents did not report their child thought owning

licensed character products would bring them great happiness.

Research question two did not offer hypotheses due to the inability to

attach a speciflc percent or number, if any, to a child's influence over his or her

parents' decision-making process concerning the purchasing of products.

Instead the survey was used as an instrument to gauge the parents' opinions of

their child's influence over product-purchasing decisions in their household.

Several results were found to be statistically significant. The majority of

parents allowed their child to make product selections. Most parents also

110

reported their child did make product suggestions when they shopped at a store.

Parents' also asked their child for their opinion concerning product purchases

and they indicated their child asked for advertised products.

There are several reasons why parents ask their child for input regarding

product purchases and why they allow their child to make product selections.

Due to the change in family dynamics and increased media targeted to children,

the 21st century has a more knowledgeable child consumer.

As stated earlier in the literature review, both two-parent and single-parent

homes place children in the consumerism role. Each type of household places

responsibilities on the child. Two-parent homes often have both parents in the

workforce. Though the family has more income, parents have less time with their

children. Parents then tend to spend more money on their children to alleviate

guilt (McNeal, 1992). Single parents are also faced with the issue of less time

with children due to increased workloads.

As parents have less time in the home, children become more of a partner

in the household, assigned chores to help around the house, which exposes

them to more responsibility, typical household products, and increased decision­

making. This creates a more independent and media-savvy child.

The majority of parents may have allowed their child to make product

selections and asked their child's opinion about product purchases because their

child is now more capable of making purchase decisions, due to the change and

shift in family dynamics.

I l l

Parents also reported their kids make products suggestions when they

shop and indicated their child generally asks for advertised products. With both

parents at work or the only parent at work, children are now left alone more at

home. This increases their time with the television set, the radio, or the

computer. Increased media intake leads to more outside forces becoming

influential information sources. Children can use licensed characters from

commercials as an information source to tell them what to want and what to buy.

Licensed characters can become an intricate part of what they learn about

consumerism because they spend more time watching them.

Kids may make product suggestions because they are at home being

exposed to television and the plethora of commercials targeted to them. They

are aware of what brands and products are offered to them. Children not only

watch hours of programming, but they can now flip to their own networks created

to cater to them, where they are bombarded with commercials selling them snack

foods, toys and games. Today's kids are also exposed to family calling plans

and cell phones for kids. They are constantiy seeing products created for them.

The parents in the survey established their child influences their purchase

decisions by simply stating they asked their child's opinions about product

purchases. This was reinforced when the majority of parents indicated they allow

their child to make product selections. The degree of the influence is unknown

as the degree to which parents accepted their child's opinion was not measured.

112

but parents ask their child what they want and what they think, ultimately having

an affect on the final household purchase-decision.

This study posited children used licensed programming characters as a

socialization agent (information source), which influenced them through television

commercials to want and desire character products or endorsed products

represented by licensed characters. Once the licensed character influenced the

child to desire the product, children then attempted to exert influence on their

parents to purchase the item. However, it was not proven that children use

licensed characters as a socialization agent.

Future Implications and Research

This research project was based upon three previous research endeavors.

The project tied in different aspects of the previous research projects to update

previous information and produce new information within the fleld of children's

consumer research. Numerous research studies over the last 25 years have

investigated many topics involving children and advertising.

With the continued growth of technology and media in today's world,

children's research cannot help but to expand and continue investigating the role

children play in product purchase decisions within a family household or what

types of social agents or information sources can or could influence children to

desire particular products. As long as animated characters or licensed

characters appear in commercials and are used frequentiy to target children.

113

research must continue to explore the character's role in selling products.

Further research projects should also investigate their role as a conceivable

information source with the power to influence children to desire and buy

products, ultimately leading children to make product purchase requests of their

parents. Future research studies should focus on ways to measure the

influence of the licensed character and the influence children may have over theii

parents.

Limitations

The results of the study cannot be generalized to the population. A total of

300 respondents participated in the study. A larger number of respondents may

add more external validity to the study. The questionnaire was administered

during the summer and may have contributed to the low response rate. People

during the summer tend to be on vacation, outdoors, or at their children's sports

games instead of being at home in the evening.

Several scales used in the survey were collapsed in order to have the

minimum amount of observations in each cell. Increasing the number of

respondents interviewed in the survey may produce enough responses in each

cell so the scales would not need to be collapsed and their magnitude

diminished.

The survey itself was too broad. The two research questions, though

related to children's consumerism, were two completely different issues.

114

Focusing on one issue could have yielded more uniform and concise data. Also,

narrowing the focus may have produced more statistically significant data.

The open-ended questions yielded a large amount of information.

Creating and pre-determining categories for each question would have produced

more consistent data. A large number of respondents were alone in their

responses. Therefore, their responses were coded into a new category, other.

Also, including additional questions to measure Hypotheses 2 and 3 may have

also produced more relevant and accurate data.

Parents were used as proxies to represent their child's viewpoints. There

are many advantages to using parents instead of children but, nonetheless,

responses may not have accurately portrayed their child's opinion.

115

REFERENCES

Acuff, Dan S. & Reiher, Robert H. (1997). What Kids Buy and Why. New York: The Free Press.

Alexander, Alison Fae. (1979). Children's Consumer-Reguest Persuasive Strategies and Their Relationship to Social Cognitive Development and Interactional Environment. Unpublished dissertation, Ohio State University.

Alexander, Alison & Morrison, Margaret A. (1995). Electronic toyland and the structures of power: An analysis of critical studies on children as consumers. Critical Studies in Mass Communications, 12(3), 344-353.

Alexander, Alison, Benjamin, Louise M., Hoerrner, Keisha, & Roe, Darrell. (1998). We'll be back in a Moment: A Content Analysis of Advertisements in Children's Television in the 1950s. Journal of Advertising. 27(3). 1-9.

Arnett, Jeffrey Jenson. (1995). Adolescents' uses of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth & Adolescence. 24(5). 519-533.

Bush, Alan J., Smith, Rachel, & Martin, Craig. (1999). The Influence of Consumer Socialization Variables on Attitude Toward Advertising: A Comparison of African-Americans and Caucasians. Journal of Advertising. 28(3). 13-24.

Carlson, Les & Grossbart, Sanford. (1988, June). Parental Style and Consumer Socialization of Children. Journal of Consumer Research. 15. 77-94.

Carlson, Les, Walsh, Ann, Laczniak, Russell N., & Grossbart, Sanford. (1994). Family Communication Patterns and Marketplace Motivations, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Children and Mothers. The Journal of Consumer Affairs. 28(1), 25-53.

Current Health. (1995, May). Saturday morning pyramid, p.2.

Economist. (1996, May 18). The power of suggestion, pp. S4-S5.

Fitzgerald, Kate. (1992, July 20). Toy Characters Starring on TV. Advertising Age. 63(29). 17.

116

Flint, Joe. (2000, March 2). Upfront Market for Kids' Programs softens Wall Street Journal. B18.

Guber, Selina S. and Berry, Jon. (1993). Marketing to and through Kids New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Heubusch, Kevin. (1997). Is it ok to sell to kids? American Demographics. 19(1V 55.

Jenkins, Roger L. (1979). The Influence of Children in Family Decision-Making: Parents' Perceptions. ACR. 6. 413-418. William L. Wilkie. (Ed).

John, Deborah Roedder. (1999). Through the Eyes of a Child. In M. Carole Macklin & Les Carlson. (Eds.), Advertising to Children: Concepts & Controversies (pp. 3-23). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Kline, Stephen. (1993). Out of the Garden. New York: Verso.

Lowery, Sharon A. & De Fleur, Melvin L (Eds.). (1983). Milestones in Mass Communication Research: Media Effects (2"^ ed.). New York: Longman.

McGrath, Emily M. (1998). Marketing to children: Where does your money go? Nutrition Health Review. 78. 17.

McNeal, James U. (1964). Children as Consumers. Marketing Study Series (no.9). Austin: Bureau of Business Research.

McNeal, James U. (1987). Children as Consumers: Insights and Implications. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

McNeal, James U. (1992). Kids as Consumers: A handbook of Marketing to Children. New York: Lexington Books.

McNeal, James U. (1999). Tapping the Three Kids' Markets. Marketing. 118-121. Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.

Moschis, George P. (1985, March). The Role of Family Communication in Consumer Socialization of Children and Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research. 11. 898-913.

Nelson, James E. (1979). Children as Information Sources in the Family Decision to Eat Out. ACR. 6. 419-423. William L. Wilkie. (Ed).

117

Pecora, Norma. (1995). Children and television advertising from a social science perspective. Critical Studies in Mass Communication. 12(3), 354-354.

Pecora, Norma Odom. (1998). The Business of Children's Entertainment. New York: The Guilford Press.

Rose, Gregory M., Bush, Victoria D., Kahle, Lynn. (1998). The Influence of Family Communication Patterns on Parental Reactions Toward Advertising: A Cross-National Examination. Journal of Advertising. 27(4). 71-85.

Rossiter, John R. & Robertson, Thomas S. (1976). Canonical Analysis of Developmental, Social, and Experiential Factors in Children's Comprehension of Television Advertising. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 129. 317-327.

Sabir, Nadirah Z. (1996, March). Ad execs to kids, "Buy this." Black Enterprise. 26 (8), 26.

Schroeder, Ken. (1997). Kids are U$. Education Digest. 63(1), 72-73.

Schneider, Cy. (1987). Children's Television. Illinois: NTC Business Books.

Seiter, Ellen. (1993). Sold Separately. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Signorielli, Nancy. (1991). A Sourcebook on Children & Television. New York: Greenwood Press.

Snyder, Robert J. (1995). First-year effects of the 1900 Children's Television Act on Saturday morning commercial time. Communications & the Law, 17(4), 67-74.

Stanley, TL. (1998, December 14). The big toon in. Brandweek, 39(47), 6.

Stoltman Jeffrey J. (1999). The Context of Advertising and Children: Future Research Directions. Advertising to Children: Concepts & Controversies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. M. Carole Macklin & Les Carlson. (Eds.).

Stipp, Horst & Goerlich, Bruce. (1995). Why youth rules. American Demographics. 17(5), 30-31.

118

Swan, Karen. (1998). Social Learning from Saturday Morning Cartoons. Social Learning from Broadcast Television. Karen Swan, Caria Meskill, & Steven De Maio. (Eds.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Van Evra, Judith. (1990). Television and Child Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates Inc.

Ward, Scott. (1976). Effects of Television Advertising on Children & Adolescents. In Ray Brown (Ed.), Children & Television (pp. 297-319). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Ward, Scott, Wackman, Daniel B., & Wartella, Ellen. (1977). How Children Learn to Buy: The Development of Consumer Information-Processing Skills. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Wartella, Ellen. (1995, February). The commercialization of youth: Channel One in context. Phi Delta Kappan. 76(6). 448-451.

Wolf, Aline D. (1998). Advertising and Children. America. 179(3). 13-18.

Wright-lsak, Christine. (1999). Advertising to Children in the Twenty-First Century: New Questions Within Familiar Themes. In M. Carole Macklin & Les Carlson. (Eds.). Advertising to Children: Concepts & Controversies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

119

APPENDIX

QUESTIONNAIRE

120

QUESTIONNAIRE

• ntroduction: Hello, my name is and I'm calling from the institute for Communications Research at Texas Tech University. I'm not trying to sell you anything; we're just trying to get opinions from Lubbock residents about children's consumer behavior.

1. Do you have a child between the ages of 6-11 ?

Yes No

2. Do you presentiy have a television set?

Yes No

3. How many children do you have between the ages of 6-11 ?

1. One 2. Two 3. Three 4. Four 5. Five 6. Six 7. Seven 8. Eight 9. Nine and up

4. What are the ages of your children?

(Here we tell the parent to answer the survey questions with the oldest or youngest in mind in an alternating pattern)

• I am going to read two statements, please indicate if you agree or disagree with the statements by using: (Read aloud scale)

Scale 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly Disagree

121

SA A N D SD

1. My child understands what commercials on children's shows are trying to do.

2. Commercials often make my child want the thing advertised.

• For the next few questions please indicate the frequency in which the situation occurs in your household using the following scale.

Scale 1=0ften 2=Sometimes 3=Rarely 4=Never

O S R N

3. Do you ask for your child what their preference is when you are buying something for them?

4. Does your child watch television?

• Using the choices given, please answer the question as it applies to your household.

Scale 1=Many 2=Some 3=Few 4=No

M S F N

5. Do you feel if your child does not have popular toys he/she will experience difficulties in playing with other children.

• For the next section, please answer the following question.

6. Some recent television programs have toys based on the show's characters, which you can buy in stores. What are some names of character toys associated with recent television programs?

• Using the previous scale, answer the next two questions accordingly. Scale

1=0ften 2=Sometimes 3=Rarely 4=Never

O S R N

7. Does your child watch any of these programs? _

122

8. Does your child ask for any of these toys?

• For the next section, please answer the following questions. Some answers may require a yes/no response.

9. Does your child have any of these toys? (If yes, skip to 9b)(lf no, skip to 10)

Yes No

9b. ff yes, which ones?.

10. When you go to the store, does your child wish to go with you or stay at home?

Yes No

11. Does your child make certain selections? (if yes, skip to 1 lb) (if no, skip to 12)

Yes No

11 b. If yes, for which products

12. Does your child make various suggestions? (if yes, skip to 12b) (if no, skip to 13)

Yes No

12b. If so, for what products

13. Do you ask for your child's opinion about purchases you make?

Yes No

14. When you buy things for your child, do you usually get the 'right' things? (if yes, skip to 15) (If no, skip to 14b)

123

Yes No

14b. If no, why?

15. Would your child like to do the buying of the items for him or her? (if yes skip to 15b) (ff no, skip to 16)

Yes No

15b. ffyes, why?

16. Does your child ask you to buy many of the things he/she sees advertised on television?

Yes No

17. Does your child ever go buy things with a friend? (If yes, skip to 18) (If no, goto 19)

Yes No

18. Does your child's friend help your child decide on things?

Yes No

19. Does your child perceive advertised items he/she sees on TV as more desirable?

Yes No

20. Does your child think owning advertised items on TV will make them happier?

Yes No

• The following questions are for classification purposes only. All responses are confidential and anonymous.

124

21. Record parent's gender, do not ask.

Male Female

22. What is your child's gender?

Male Female

23. What is your age?

1-Under21 2-21-25 3-26-30 4-31-35 5-36-40 6-41-45 7-46-50 8-over 50 9-DK/Refused

24. What is your marital status?

1-Single 2-Married 3-DK/Refused

25. What is your education level?

1-GED 2-High school Diploma 3-Some college 4-Bachelor's Degree 5-Master's Degree 6-PhD 7-Vocational Training 8-other 9-DK/Refused

26. Do you have a VCR?

1-Yes 2-NO 3-DK/Refused

125

27. Do you have cable?

1-Yes 2-NO 3-DK/Refused

28. Do you have a V-chip in your TV?

1-Yes 2-NO 3-DK/Refused

29. What is your approximated total family income per year?

0-Under $10,000 1-$10,000-$14,000 2-$15,000-$19,000 3-$20,000-$24,000 4-$25,000-$34,000 5-$35,000-$39,000 6-$40,000-$44,000 7-$45,000-$49,000 8-$50,000 and above 9-Refused to answer

126

PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis in partial ftilfillment of the requirements for a master's

degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I

agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for

research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be

granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that

any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed

without my further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright

infringement.

Agree (Permission is granted.)

Disagree (Permission is not granted.)

Student Signature Date