...« 4:11.11.)
£34 e. ham ;.
. raffldsfuvflmrd
.135". Airman.
. A HM :mwm.

zawfimm» . , . . ‘ ‘ . , , ‘ .
. . . . . . . . . .. . e...v......6...a.....

. 3%me

a.
.9525? .
Havana.“

.. $.on
.txfiflxnr. ..

'..r 3.! a}.

.
.. :fifinfiam
. ,

v
a:
v...

r

nu...»
.t

:23

It. .

.l... n 4.“.
.3"...

rt:
.. on.

.. L? a. -
.{1 {915%}:
. a V

I. .

.1317
. 1.....lldl
9.6. an.» .

v in"

ul«

:1 3:! x; 5”. ...

 

'nca.

2w?)

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

HAPPY MEALS, HAPPY PARENTS:
FOOD MARKETING STRATEGIES AND CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY

- an-v.1.g_-!-gggtlt-L‘l—‘Luh—

presented by
ELIZABETH TAYLOR QUILLIAM

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctor of degree in Communication Arts &
Philosophy Sciences - Mass Media

W CL m
Major Pfissor’ééignature
“Mm/t 24; 0m 82

Date

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer 5

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

APR 1 8 20M

MAYOQZUM
i '31501u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K'lProonc8PreleIRC/DaleDue indd

HAPPY MEALS, HAPPY PARENTS:
FOOD MARKETING STRATEGIES AND CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

By

Elizabeth Taylor Quilliam

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Communication Arts and Sciences — Mass Media

2008

ABSTRACT

HAPPY MEALS, HAPPY PARENTS:
FOOD MARKETING STRATEGIES AND CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

By
Elizabeth Taylor Quilliam

Food marketing to children has come under intense scrutiny for its role in fueling
the childhood obesity epidemic. Fifteen percent of children aged six through nineteen are
considered obese; more than thirty percent of American adults are similarly classified
(American Obesity Association 2006; United States Department of Health & Human
Services 2007). In response to heightened public concern about childhood obesity,
accompanied by renewed calls for advertising regulation, some food companies are
adopting new strategies for marketing to children. This research examines how these
changing strategies influence consumers, specifically parents of children aged twelve and .
younger.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been defined as “a company’s
commitment to minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maximizing its long-
run beneficial impact on society” (Mohr et a1. 2001). Activities typically considered in
studies of CSR include sponsorships, cause-related marketing campaigns, and
environmental or “green” advertising. Similarly, how companies respond to concerns
about children’s diet and health can be considered evidence of social responsibility.
Following this general conceptualization of corporate social responsibility, the research
presented here expands on a model developed to understand consumer response to cause-
brand alliances (ijon et al. 2004), exploring if, and how, marketers can enhance their

reputations by changing advertising strategies.

Using the framework of attribution theory, the motives that consumers ascribe to
marketers were examined in a series of empirical studies. In the main study, an online
experiment, several variables hypothesized to influences perceptions of company
credibility and attitude toward the company were tested. Involvement with nutrition,
skepticism toward advertising, motive attributions, and attributions of blame were among
the factors studied for their effect on perceived company credibility and parental attitudes
toward the company.

The results of this research have implications for practitioners, policy makers, and
scholars. Parents are important stakeholders in the regulation of advertising to children.
Understanding their views offers valuable insights for marketers and policy makers.

In addition to these practical applications, this research contributes to the growing
body of scholarly knowledge regarding socially responsible marketing. Expanding on the
Rifon et a1. (2004) model, the findings support the role of attributions for corporate
reputational effects when making a strategic decision that may be viewed for its socially
responsible implications. Further, in addition to the altruistic and profit motives identified
in that model, a third “avoidance” motive was found. A company’s inferred desire to
avoid public pressure and potential regulation can be used in other domains of public
policy research involving issues of advertising limits or prohibitions. Finally, this
research introduced individual characteristic variables into the model and extended it to a

new domain, advertising to children.

Copyright by
ELIZABETH TAYLOR QUILLIAM
2008

DEDICATION

To my husband, Michael Quilliam, the love of my life,
who encouraged me to set a good example for our children by following my muse

To our children, Tasha Nicole and Brett David,
who keep me young and challenged, and who make me so very proud

And in memory of my mother, Sylvia Friedland Taylor,
who showed me, by example, that you can indeed teach an old dog new tricks

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

So many people have helped me fulfill my dream of earning a Ph.D. This research
would never have come to fruition without the aid and support of my many mentors,
colleagues, teachers, friends, and family.

First, thanks to those who knew me before I set off on this path and who
encouraged me to follow it, graciously writing letters of recommendation and providing
moral support throughout my studies: Allen Kay, Kate McDonough, and Dr. James Leo
Frances Patrick Walsh.

I am grateful to the faculty and staff at West Virginia University, and Tom
Harrison of Omnicom, for providing me with the opportunity of a lifetime and supporting
my work on this dissertation in the meantime. In particular, thanks to Dean Maryanne
Reed and to my graduate assistant Cara Slider, a fearless proofreader, able assistant, and
great listener.

To my fellow students at MSU, especially my office mates Dr. Mark Stuhlfaut
and Rebecca Hayes, thank you for letting me join you on this incredible journey. Dr.
Carrie Trimble helped me wrestle through a thorny theoretical quagmire. Many pe0ple,
including fellow students, assisted in the data collection efforts associated with this
research. At MSU, Szu-chueh (Christy) Lee, Clay Dedeaux, and Dan Lake allowed me to
recruit their students as research subjects. Lori Strorn of the MSU Family Resource
Center invited parents to participate. Dr. Terry Daugherty and Laura Bright at the
University of Texas-Austin worked their magic to help me gather data from parents

around the country. Thank you all.

vi

To the administrators and professors in the Michigan State University Graduate
School and College of Communication Arts and Sciences, notably Dr. Karen
Klomparens, Dr. Lucinda Davenport, and Nancy Ashley, my everlasting gratitude for
admitting me, welcoming me, providing fimding, and guiding me through the maze of
doctoral studies. Thanks especially to Dr. Robert LaRose, whose unique brand of “tough
love” proved indispensable in the classroom, on my guidance committee, and in the
world of research. I also appreciate immensely the opportunities provided by Drs.
Richard Cole and Yoonhyeung Choi who led me into new research endeavors, and the
administrative and moral support offered by Desiree Thompson.

My dissertation committee was the best! Dr. Bonnie Reece was the first voice I
heard from the Department of Advertising at MSU. I learned so much from her as a
teacher, administrator, researcher, and role model. Thank you for staying with me for the
duration. Dr. Johannes Bauer, in the classroom and as a committee member, introduced
me to the world of public policy and the media, and taught me that there are multiple
ways to approach an issue. His guidance was invaluable. Dr. Mira Lee was not only a
committee member, but also presented ideas and research opportunities that opened up
new avenues for me, and became a friend as well.

None of this would have happened without the fi'iendship, guidance, nurturing,
and all-around total mentoring of my committee chair and dissertation director, Dr. Nora
J. Rifon. I learned from Nora in the classroom, in the office, through research, at
conferences, in numerous phone calls and email messages at all hours of the day and
night. Nora adopted me before I started my first class and was by my side through this

entire life-changing experience. “Thank you” is much too mild to express what I feel.

vii

The greatest peanut gallery imaginable, the Peanut Barrel choir members (and
auxiliary), kept me sane with their unselfish and unending friendship (and beverages). Jan
Ayers was a particularly good friend, hostess, and nudge. I am so fortunate to have the
Deep End in my comer.

Finally, and most importantly, thank you to my fabulous family who settled for a
lot less of me than they deserved during the past four years. Spiney, Tasha, and Brett: I

love you and appreciate your support, encouragement, and, yes, patience.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 7
Children, Food Marketing, and Obesity ............................................................... 7
Children and Advertising ....................................................................... 10
Public Policy: Regulation vs. Industry Self-Regulation .......................... 14
Food Advertising and Marketing Tactics ................................................ 16
Parental Response to Food Advertising .................................................. 19
Corporate Social Responsibility ......................................................................... 21
Environmental (“Green”) Marketing ...................................................... 22
Cause Related Marketing ....................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 30
Attribution Theory ............................................................................................. 30
Correspondent Inference ........................................................................ 30
The Discounting Principle ...................................................................... 31
Congruence ....................................................................................................... 33
Attribution of Blame .......................................................................................... 35
Involvement ...................................................................................................... 37
Skepticism ......................................................................................................... 40
Parental Concern with Advertising .................................................................... 41
Source Credibility and Attitude toward the Company ........................................ 42
CHAPTER 4
METHODS ................................................................................................................... 46
Study 1 — Stimulus Development ....................................................................... 46
Design ................................................................................................... 46
Participants ............................................................................................ 47
Measures and Procedures ....................................................................... 47
Results ................................................................................................... 47
Study 2 — Pilot Study ......................................................................................... 51
Design ................................................................................................... 5 1
Participants ............................................................................................ 52
Stimulus Materials ................................................................................. 52
Measures and Procedures ....................................................................... 53
Results ................................................................................................... 54
Study 3 - Main Study ......................................................................................... 56
Design ................................................................................................... 56

ix

Participants ............................................................................................ 57

Stimulus Materials ................................................................................. 58
Procedures ............................................................................................. 59
Measures ................................................................................................ 60
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 71
Main Study Results ............................................................................................ 71
Participants ............................................................................................ 71
Manipulation Checks ............................................................................. 71
Motive Attribution Dimensions .............................................................. 73
Dimensions of Attributions of Blame/Responsibility .............................. 74
Variables ................................................................................................ 75
Hypothesis Tests .................................................................................... 77
The Model ............................................................................................. 86
Social Desirability .................................................................................. 91
Summary ............................................................................................... 92
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 93
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 97
Limitations ........................................................................................................ 98
Future Research ................................................................................................. 99
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 100
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 103
Appendix A — Hypotheses ............................................................................... 103
Appendix B - Stimulus Materials .................................................................... 105
Appendix C — Instruments ............................................................................... 109
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 130

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 — Study 1 Attitude Ratings ................................................................................ 49
Table 2 — Study 1 Health and Nutrition Ratings ............................................................. 51
Table 3 - Study 2 Participants ....................................................................................... 54
Table 4 — Study 2 Manipulation Check Factor Analysis ................................................ 55
Table 5 — Measures ....................................................................................................... 64
Table 6 — Main Study Participants ................................................................................. 71
Table 7 —— Main Study Manipulation Check Factor Analysis .......................................... 72
Table 8 — Motive Attribution Factor Analysis ................................................................ 74
Table 9 — Responsibility Factor Analysis ....................................................................... 75
Table 10 — Descriptive Statistics for Main Study Variables ........................................... 76
Table 11 — Altruism Motive Attributions ....................................................................... 81
Table 12 —- Avoidance Motive Attributions .................................................................... 82
Table 13 — Profit Motive Attributions ............................................................................ 83
Table 14 — Congruence ................................................................................................. 84
Table 15 — Source Credibility ........................................................................................ 85
Table 16 - Attitude to the Company .............................................................................. 86
Table 17 - Stepdown ANCOVA .................................................................................... 87
Table 18 — Multiple Regression - Attitude to Company ................................................. 90
Table 19 - Hypothesis Tests .......................................................................................... 92

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l — Conceptual Model ........................................................................................ 45

xii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Food marketing to children has come under intense scrutiny for its role in fueling
the childhood obesity epidemic. Fifteen percent of children aged six through nineteen are
considered obese; more than thirty percent of American adults are similarly classified
(American Obesity Association 2006; United States Department of Health & Human
Services 2007). The long-term health effects are serious. Implicated in more than thirty
medical conditions including diabetes and coronary heart disease, obesity is the number
two cause, after tobacco, of preventable death in the US. (American Obesity Association
2006). For children the risks may be even greater given “the epidemic of overweight
among today’s youth” (NARC 2004). The likelihood of lifelong health problems
increases for obese children, who have a 70% probability of becoming overweight or
obese adults, with the concomitant increased risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, some
forms of cancer, and high blood pressure (United States Department of Health & Human
Services 2007).

With childhood obesity in the United States increasing dramatically, and nearly
tripling for adolescents in the last twenty years (United States Department of Health &
Human Services 2007), parents and policy makers seek solutions. The current debate,
echoing the concerns surrounding food advertising for the last three decades, focuses on
the questionable practice of marketers targeting children; food marketers are now prime
targets for regulators, consumer advocates, and parents, for arguably fueling the

childhood obesity epidemic.

Historically food marketers have been blamed for a number of ills, ranging from
dental health problems to eating disorders (Livingstone and Helsper 2006). Today they
are targeted as prime offenders in the childhood obesity epidemic (Strasburger 2001).
Attacks on food marketers have broadened with calls for regulations limiting or
prohibiting advertisements targeting children (Ellison 2005; Markey 2007b). In response
to heightened public concern about childhood obesity, accompanied by renewed calls for
advertising regulation, some food companies are adopting new strategies for marketing to
children. This research examines how one important stakeholder group, parents of
children aged twelve and younger, respond to these changing strategies.

No single strategy has emerged. Some advertisers have adopted new tactics
designed to avert government intervention, while continuing to defend the industry’s
record of self-regulation even as criticism mounts (Better Business Bureau 2006). In
November 2006, the Council of Better Business Bureaus, along with ten member
companies, announced plans to modify food marketing aimed at children. This action
followed public hearings convened by the Federal Trade Commission and Department of
Health and Human Services (Federal Trade Commission and Department of Health &
Human Services 2006), the publication of a comprehensive analysis of food marketing’s
influence on children (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2006) and other
research examining the tactics used by food marketers to reach children (Moore 2006;
Wilcox et a1. 2004). Concurrently, some food marketers have announced the adoption of
a variety of strategy changes, including menu modifications, limitations on advertising to

children, or changes in advertising messages.

How companies respond to these concerns can be viewed as a demonstration of
social responsibility. The ethics of advertising to children has garnered considerable
attention in both academia and popular media, yet the topic is not typically included in
academic research on corporate social responsibility (CSR), defined as a “company’s
commitment to minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maximizing its long-
run beneficial impact on society” (Mohr et al. 2001). This study will explore whether
socially responsible actions concerning children influence consumers, who have become
increasingly distrustful of marketers. In this domain, can marketers enhance their
reputations by changing their advertising?

This study focuses on parents, the chief socialization agents for children and the
ultimate decision-makers and purchasers of most food consumed by children, (Bridges
and Briesch 2006), and their response to changing food marketing strategies targeting
children. Marketers often rely on the nag factor, directing advertisements to children
with the goal of persuading them to request that their parents purchase specific brands
(Bridges and Briesch 2006). Parents then are faced with an unpleasant choice: purchase
products that are not nutritious, or deal with unhappy children. Conceivably, parents
would reward a company that made the choice easier by promoting healthy options or by
ceasing to promote certain foods directly to children. Given the public attention to the
childhood obesity epidemic, companies that take the initiative in helping to protect
children might be rewarded as responsible corporate citizens. If parents believe the
companies are acting responsibly, company and brand attitude and purchase intentions
could be enhanced. Further, the FTC, commenting on the challenges encountered during

efforts to regulate food advertising in the 19705, notes that it would be more practical and

effective, as well as more consistent with First Amendment free speech protections, to
encourage businesses to be proactive in addressing the obesity issue, rather than to
attempt to regulate food marketing to children (Federal Trade Commission and
Department of Health & Human Services 2006).

This dissertation addresses the use of new food marketing tactics within the
framework of attribution theory, to understand the effectiveness of alternate approaches.
Parental response to food marketing strategies is posited to be influenced by the motives
that parents attribute to the sponsor. Consumers judge corporate strategies and actions,
and the companies that act, by assessing the motives of the company. As evidenced in
recent sponsorship and cause related marketing research, consumers attribute those
motives in part based on characteristics of the tactics, and in part based on their
preexisting perceptions of the corporation (Ellen et al. 2006; Mohr and Webb 2005; Rifon
et al. 2004; Trimble and Rifon 2006). This study will expand on that research, using the
conceptual framework of attribution theory (Fiske and Taylor 1991; Kelley 1973; Ross
and Fletcher 1985), to examine how changing child-oriented advertising tactics affects
parents’ attributions.

As the food wars continue to rage, policy makers and advertisers alike seek
solutions. The current tenor of the debate is illustrative of Pollay’s broader contention
that advertising’s supporters and critics “talk past one another, raising wholly different
issues and reaching judgments on wholly different criteria” (Pollay 1986). Food
marketers and their advocates continue to emphasize their fiduciary responsibilities and
First Amendment rights, while critics emphasize the negative effects of advertising to

vulnerable children. Given the unlikelihood of resolution, a new approach is needed.

This study, by increasing our understanding of how consumers respond to new food
marketing strategies, can help bridge the gap. It meets the call for academic marketing
researchers to “point the way toward enlightened marketing practices... that

should. . .safeguard the rapidly depleting pool of goodwill that consumers possess toward
most companies” (Sheth and Sisodia 2005).

Given the length of the debate, the emphasis on free market forces and freedom of
speech, and the paucity of clear evidence of a link between advertising and food
consumption, policy makers have been reluctant to adopt regulations limiting marketing
targeted to children. Yet the questionable record of industry collective self-regulation
leaves critics and concerned parents with limited options. If individual companies are
motivated to take corrective action, the environment could be improved. In fact, the
Federal Trade Commission has called on companies to modify their food marketing
practices, revisiting the nutritional balance of products they promote to children and how
they are promoted. (Federal Trade Commission and Department of Health & Human
Services 2006). If parents respond positively to withdrawal of advertisements targeting
children, then food marketers can find support for adopting such a strategy despite its
apparent inconsistency with accepted marketing dictums, and calls for further regulation
may be quieted. Companies with reputations that are congruent with healthy lifestyle
messages will be encouraged to expand such initiatives, providing a social marketing
benefit. As Calfee noted nearly twenty years ago, advertising that incorporates health
claims has often been more successful than government efforts to educate the public
(Calfee 1988). This study will help companies determine whether such an effort might be

effective in enhancing their reputations.

Further, the findings will build on the existing scholarly foundation for
understanding the effects of corporate socially responsible marketing activities on
consumers, testing and extending prior research. Studies of corporate social responsibility
and consumers have typically focused on cause related marketing, corporate
philanthropy, and environmental responsibility (Ellen et al. 2006). This research
introduces a new domain, advertising to children, to the CSR literature. This study will
explore the role of individual characteristic variables, such as involvement with and
knowledge of nutrition and skepticism to advertising, to understand their influence on
parents’ reactions to advertising strategies. It will expand the Rifon et al. (2004) model,
exploring the role of parents’ attributions of company motive in concert with these
individual characteristics, to gain a broader understanding of what influences how parents
react to different advertising strategies.

Based on a model developed to understand consumer response to corporate
socially responsible behavior in sponsorships and cause related marketing, this study
examines parental response to food marketing tactics with the goal of understanding how
and why parents respond to marketing strategies that modify or limit advertising. If
parents reward the advertisers that they judge to be socially responsible with their
business, others may emulate those strategies. Further, such voluntary demonstrations of
corporate responsibility could mitigate the need for government intervention. Food

marketers may find that, in fact, they can do well by doing good.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Children, Food Marketing, and Obesifi

Food marketing practices that target children have been criticized for decades,
although the reasons have changed. Early concerns about nutrition, dental health, and
eating disorders have been replaced by a focus on the dramatically increased incidence of
childhood obesity in the US. and other Western nations (Livingstone and Helsper 2006).
Concerns about the doubled rate of childhood obesity (Livingstone and Helsper 2006)
and its related health problems have been accompanied by a renewed effort from
researchers and policy makers to identify causes and solutions. With food marketers
spending in excess of $10 billion per year promoting their products to children and youth,
a 20-fold increase in ten years (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2006;
Strasburger 2001), food marketing practices are falling under increased scrutiny.

Public attention and concern with food advertising’s effects on children are not
unique to the United States. In Great Britain, for example, calls for legislation to ban fast
food advertising to children on the premise that it contributes to health problems (Higham
2003; Silverrnan 2004) were recently answered with the decision by the UK. regulator
Office of Communications (Ofcom) to ban advertising of foods high in salt, sugar, or fat
to children and adolescents (Hall 2006; Office of Communications 2006). Similar bans
have been enacted in Sweden and debated in other European Union member countries
(Higham 2003), and the EU itself has considered such legislation (Grant 2005).

A systematic review of more than 200 research studies conducted in the United

Kingdom in 2003 concluded that food is the most heavily advertised product to children,

with the advertised diet diverging dramatically from the diet generally recommended by
nutritionists and physicians (BBC.co.uk 2003; Hastings et al. 2003; Higham 2003). This
level of advertising has been blamed for the growing obesity problem, with one physician
stating unequivocally that“ . . . the leading cause of damage. . .is the relationship between
food advertisements, unhealthy eating practices, and obesity” (Strasburger 2001).

Not only has food been the most heavily advertised product, but also the items
that are represented tended to be nutrient poor. Between 1972 and 1997, the top
advertised category was cereal, followed closely by candy/cookies/gum/snacks, then
beverages (Reece et al. 1999). More recently, sorting foods into slightly different
categories, nutritionists found that candy, sweets and soft drinks (combining the second
and third categories from earlier studies) dominate child-audience food advertising,
followed by convenience foods, then breads and cereals (Harrison and Marske 2005). The
troubling findings about types of foods advertised to children were confirmed in a 2007
report issued by the Kaiser Family Foundation. That content analysis of a sample of more
than 1,600 hours of programming found that candy and snacks, cereal, and fast food are
the top three categories of food products advertised on television programs viewed by
children (Gantz et al. 2007). The Kaiser report concluded that “most of the food ads that
children and teens see on TV are for foods that nutritionists, watchdog groups, and
government agencies argue should be consumed either in moderation, occasionally, or in
small portions” (Gantz et al. 2007).

A detailed analysis of the nutritional content of advertised foods supported the
claim that these products offer little to meet the health needs of growing children.

Compiling the advertised foods into a single composite food, Harrison and Marske

(2005) created a nutrition label that showed 34% of calories per serving coming from
sugar, far exceeding the American Heart Association’s recommendation. In fact, were a
child to consume a daily diet comprised of nothing but the advertised foods, that diet
would include more sodium and sugar, but less fiber, vitamin A, calcium and iron than
recommended by nutritionists and government agencies (Harrison and Marske 2005).
Reinforcing these findings, a later study found that the majority of television food
advertisements viewed by children featured products high in fat, sugar, and sodium, with
nearly half the calories in advertised products coming from sugar (Powell et al. 2007).

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies in the United States
published an extensive study of food marketing to children, including an updated
systematic review of the evidence, a call for further research, and a variety of public
policy recommendations (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2006). Among
the conclusions drawn from their analysis of 123 studies was that television advertising
influences children’s food and beverage requests and dietary intake, and that there is
strong statistical evidence of a link between exposure to food advertising and child
adiposity.

Demonstrating the existence and nature of a link between frequent exposure to
television ads for nutritionally poor food products and childhood obesity is complicated
by a number of factors, including level of the child’s physical activity, parental
supervision, media consumption, child’s cognitive developmental stage, and the
development of a child’s capacity to self-regulate food intake and media consumption
(Hastings et al. 2003; Rideout 2005). The Hastings review concluded that while there is

substantial evidence that food promotion and television viewing significantly influence

children’s food behavior and diet independent of other factors, the size of the effect is
difficult to gauge (Hastings et al. 2003). Others have reached similar conclusions,
attributing exposure to food commercials with affecting children’s food preferences and
requests (Rollins 2004). Despite a large body of research conducted over decades,
establishing the existence of a clear link between advertising and childhood obesity has
been elusive. Many of the studies used content analysis to gauge frequency and content
of food advertising, but that alone does not identify causality or effects (see, e.g., Reece
et al. 1999, Harrison and Marske 2005, Gantz et al. 2007, Powell et al. 2007). In
empirical studies, it has been difficult to isolate advertising from other contributing
factors (e.g. Anderson et al. 1998, Lowry et al. 2002, Robinson 1999). Nonetheless, and
consistent with the conclusions reached by the Hastings (2003) and IOM (2006) reviews,
even the presence of a small effect of food marketing would be consequential to the
nation’s children and their future health (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies
2006)
Children and Advertising

In addition to this lack of clarity regarding the relationship between food
advertising and obesity is the incomplete picture of how children understand and use
advertising. Research has demonstrated differences in the ways children view advertising
at various ages (John 1999a; John 1999b; Oates et al. 2002), and has examined how
children acquire the requisite information processing skills to understand advertising, i.e.,
distinguishing between program content and advertising, and recognizing the persuasive

nature of advertising (Moore 2004). Yet there is not a clear picture of how children use

10

this knowledge to interpret and judge advertising (John 1999b; Moore 2004). As a result,
the debate about advertising’s role in this public health issue continues.

John (1999a) summarized the findings from consumer socialization research with
a model describing how children mature in both social and cognitive terms based largely
on information processing theory. The stages John presented are represented roughly by
ages three through seven (perceptual stage), seven through eleven (analytical stage) and
eleven through sixteen (reflective stage), with children varying along dimensions of
knowledge structure (orientation, focus and complexity) and decision-making and
influence strategies (orientation, focus, complexity, and adaptivity perspective). These
variations in development then translate into different capabilities with respect to
advertising knowledge and decision strategies (John 1999a).

Children in the perceptual stage, approximately ages three through seven, have
been found to be able to distinguish television commercials from programming, yet
without demonstrating understanding of the true differences between the two (John
1999a). They were more likely to rely on a single perceptual cue, such as the length of a
commercial versus the length of a program, than to realize that a commercial contained a
selling message. In addition, children under the age of 8 generally have difficulty
distinguishing whether advertising claims are true (Derevensky and Klein 1992).

Children in the analytical stage are better able to distinguish advertising from
programming and understand its persuasive intent, a new capability that emerges abruptly
around age seven or eight (John 1999a). Recognition of the persuasive intent of
advertising does not, however, translate into action; the analytical child may realize that a

marketer is trying to sell something but without considering that intention in evaluating

11

the advertised product. It is at this stage, also, that children recognize that advertising
messages may be biased or deceptive (John 1999a; John 1999b). Again, however, that
recognition is not necessarily accompanied by behavior. Children demonstrate that they
recognize falsehoods, yet still act as if the information were true. Children at this stage
have the ability to use more information processing strategies than younger children, but
typically must be prompted or guided (John 1999a).

Youth at the reflective stage, roughly coinciding with the preteen years beginning
around age eleven or twelve, are strategic processors, focusing on relevant features,
weighing multiple attributes, adopting dual perspectives, and applying those skills in the
marketplace (John 1999a). Adolescents, like adults, are able to think abstractly,
developing theories to explain reality and reasoning out their conclusions (Flavell et al.
2002). This advanced cognitive processing translates into understanding the persuasive
intent of advertising messages, and is accompanied by evidence of skepticism towards
advertisers’ claims (John 1999a).

Most of the research regarding food marketing to children, as well as the majority
of the policy debate, has addressed television. This is not surprising, given the ubiquitous
nature of the medium; 99% of US. children live in homes with televisions (Roberts et al.
2005). Not only are televisions present in nearly all US. households, but one-third of
children aged six and younger, and two-thirds of children aged eight and older, have
televisions in their own bedrooms (Rideout et al. 2003). Frequent television viewing
(more than two hours per day) has been associated with being overweight, being
sedentary, and consuming fewer healthy foods (Anderson et al. 1998; Lowry et al. 2002),

although the exact nature and size of the causal relationship between television viewing

12

and obesity remains elusive. Weak associations between amount of television viewing
and levels of physical activity have been reported, but there is stronger support for the
relationship between amount of television viewing and high-fat food consumption
(Robinson 1999), lending credence to the premise that advertising contributes to the
problem of childhood obesity.

Recent research found that children may, in fact, now be exposed to less
television advertising, with total paid advertisements reaching children in 2004 down by
7% from 1994, and an estimated 9% decrease in food advertising to children (Desrochers
and Holt 2007). This has led some to question the often repeated claim that childhood
obesity has increased as television advertising of unhealthy foods has grown, indicating a
likely causal link (Seiders and Petty 2007). Desrochers and Holt note, though, that the
decline in exposure to television advertising may be accompanied by the grth in use of
other marketing tactics, such as product placement, licensing, and other integrated
marketing communications tools. Further, simply counting the number or length of
television exposures ignores other variables that might influence the persuasive effects of
the messages, including the quality of the commercials or the difference between
exposure and attention (Desrochers and Holt 2007).

Recently, researchers have turned their attention to new media effects, as
marketers have adopted integrated marketing communications programs to reach children
as well as adults (Moore 2004). Tactics such as product placement, in-school promotion,
and, increasingly, online marketing, accompany the traditional television commercials
that have long been studied. A review of websites targeting or appealing to children

revealed a variety of practices incorporating marketing messages, such as viral marketing

13

and advergames (customized interactive games with brand identifiers), promoting food to
children (Moore 2006). In a content analysis of advergames, more than 600 advergames
were found on the websites for 108 food brands that target children (Lee et al. 2007). A
random sample of 251 of those games identified similar types of food being promoted
with this new technique as historically advertised on television: candy and gum, cereals,
and soft drinks were the most frequent categories.

As new marketing tactics evolve, new policy issues are raised. Moore and Rideout
(2007) identify a top concern being the nutritional profile of foods marketed to children
online, a concern that echoes those directed towards television.

Public Policy: Regulation vs. Industry Self-Regulation

The absence of a clear picture of the relationship between advertising and
childhood obesity has fostered a variety of recommendations, but little agreement on the
appropriate public policy response. Many advertisers point to the research inconsistencies
to defend their claims that advertising is not responsible for the obesity epidemic, while
advocacy groups and some lawmakers focus on the studies that identify a correlation and
call for further regulation (Teinowitz 2005b). Some supporters of advertising as
information recommend even fewer regulations with an emphasis on free market forces
and education (Calfee and Ringold 1994).

Industry self-regulation is often cited as a preferred solution, particularly given
the history of difficulty attempting to regulate food advertising (Federal Trade
Commission and Department of Health & Human Services 2006). The National
Advertising Review Council (NARC) is an independent, self-regulatory body that was

created by the Council of Better Business Bureaus in partnership with several advertising

14

agency associations; its Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) promotes and
investigates claims related to truth in advertising to children under the age of 12. NARC
and CARU issued a White Paper in 2004 explaining their activities regarding oversight of
food advertising to children and confirming the advertising industry’s commitment to,
and CARU’s contribution to, self-regulation (NARC 2004). Proposals to expand
CARU’s supervision of advertising to incorporate more specific standards regarding food
advertisements coupled with voluntary restraint by advertisers (Teinowitz 2005a) were
answered with the November 2006 revision of CARU guidelines (Better Business
Bureau 2006; Martin 2006) and the creation of the Children’s Food and Beverage
Advertising Initiative (NARC 2006). Under the most recent revision, CARU can take
action against unfair advertising, where it was previously limited to addressing only
misleading advertisements. Further, they will be responsible for oversight of voluntary
programs to be introduced by food marketers in response to childhood obesity concerns.
Supporters of industry self-regulation point to the unintended effects of the UK
ban on certain advertising of foods high in fat, salt, and sugar. Notably, more than $60
million in lost advertising spending has resulted in a reduction in development of new
children’s television programming (Fitzgerald 2007). Critics of self-regulation still
contend, however, that the new CARU guidelines are insufficient and evidence of the
failure of self-regulation (Martin 2006). Further, with the rapid evolution of marketing
tactics, particularly in the online environment, CARU guidelines may not effectively
address critical policy issues such as unlimited exposure to advertising in the form of
advergames, or viral marketing effects (Moore and Rideout 2007). Citing the UK

experience, some critics note the prevalence of loopholes even in a regulated

15

environment, allowing marketers to continue to exploit opportunities that could be
considered questionable such as the use of proprietary, as opposed to licensed, cartoon
characters, and certain online tactics such as viral marketing (Hall 2007)

Although there is no clear-cut agreement on the optimal public policy response,
there is agreement that obesity is a problem that must be addressed. Studies such as those
discussed above galvanize public opinion and draw the attention of legislators and
regulators, resulting in calls for further research, voluntary limits on advertising, or
outright advertising bans (Mishra 2004; Teinowitz 2005b).

Food Advertising and Marketing Ectics

Food marketers have responded to their critics with a variety of advertising
tactics, ranging fiom avoidance to modification of promotional practices to withdrawing
advertising to developing labeling programs. Those that have held steadfast in their
opposition to any external regulation or voluntary limitations emphasize advertisers’ First
Amendment rights to free speech as well as the belief that parents, not advertisers, bear
the primary responsibility for children’s food preferences and consumption (Ellison
2005). A group of major advertisers formed a coalition to lobby against regulation and
launch a publicity campaign rebutting the contention that advertising is the cause of the
childhood obesity epidemic (Melillo and Baar 2005).

Other advertisers have embraced proactive approaches, emphasizing the healthy
aspects of their products or healthy lifestyles in general (Federal Trade Commission and
Department of Health & Human Services 2006; Institute of Medicine of the National
Acaderrries 2006; Sanders 2005). These companies strive to enhance both their market

shares and their reputations (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2006).

16

McDonald’s, for example, has frequently come under attack for its unhealthy offerings,
as prominently portrayed in the 2004 documentary film Super Size Me (Spurlock 2004).
To combat public perceptions, in 2005 the company announced its program to promote
healthy eating habits and active lifestyles in its advertising to children. The “It’s what I
eat and what I do. . . I’m lovin’ it” campaign promoted physical activity and healthy
eating, along with adding more nutritious menu options and offering more accessible
nutrition information (McDonalds.com 2005).

A third approach involves elirrrination of advertising targeting children, as
practiced by food and beverage giant Pepsico and announced in 2005 by Kraft, a
company that produces a variety of popular food brands including both nutritionally rich
and nutritionally poor products (Federal Trade Commission and Department of Health &
Human Services 2006; Kraft Foods 2005; Sanders 2005). Typically, elimination tactics
such as these would be accompanied by substantial publicity, using the tools of integrated
marketing communication to ensure that consumers are aware of the company’s
initiatives. This was in fact the case with Kraft. Kraft withdrew advertising non-
nutritional foods in time slots or programs targeting children between the ages of six and
twelve, and reiterated its policy of not advertising in media with target audiences younger
than age six (Krafi 2005; McKay 2005; Teinowitz 2005a). Critics were quick to point out
that Kraft’s motives might be suspect, as its parent company at the time, Altria Group,
had learned of the perils of promoting controversial products to children from the legal
battles involving its Philip Morris tobacco subsidiary. The critics note the irony of a
corporation built on marketing of harmful products now claiming to be a champion of

health, as well as the likelihood that Kraft has learned from its parent’s tobacco

17

experience and was eliminating the questionable advertising in order to avoid more
adverse consequences (Higgins 2005). Regardless of the underlying reasons, however,
the company has modified its advertising to children, responding to the public opinion
pressures for action by eliminating advertising of suspect products (Kraft 2005).

More recently, and perhaps partially in reaction to a threatened lawsuit, Kellogg’s
announced a sweeping plan to change its marketing to children, either reformulating
products to meet internally developed nutritional guidelines or eliminating advertising
those products to children (Martin 2007). With prodding from the chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (Markey 2007a), other companies
have begun to follow suit (Eggerton 2007). Burger King introduced new products such as
apple slices and agreed to limit the types of foods advertised to children (York 2007);
NBC Universal banned advertisements for unhealthy food in children’s programming for
network-owned stations (Teinowitz 2007b); and Chuck E. Cheese and ConAgra
announced limits in response to Congressman Markey’s appeal (Eggerton 2007).

As public pressure has mounted, ten major food companies in partnership with the
Council of Better Business Bureaus launched a voluntary self-regulatory initiative
intended to limit their promotion of junk food to children (Better Business Bureau 2006;
Martin 2006). Among the provisions is a commitment to promote healthier foods or
lifestyles in at least half of their advertising targeted to children under age twelve.
Companies are also agreeing to limitations or bans on the use of licensed characters in
promoting non-nutritious foods to children. Each company will establish its own
guidelines, though, and the announced program stopped short of Kraft’s prior

commitment to stop advertising unhealthy food to children. The initiative in fact bears

l8

more resemblance to the McDonald’s approach of using healthy lifestyle messages while
continuing product promotions.
Parental Response to Food Advertising

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that the majority of parents believe
their children’s food choices are influenced by television (Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation 2004) and that the most important health problem facing children and teens is
obesity (Rideout 2005). Concern with food advertising is not a new issue, although the
specific food-related problems have evolved (Livingstone and Helsper 2006). More than
twenty years ago, Crosby and Grossbart (1984) identified parental concerns about both
the quantity of food advertising and the tactics used by food marketers to reach children.

In a survey of parents of elementary school-aged children, Crosby and Grossbart
(1984) explored parental concerns about food within the framework of parenting style.
They found that, regardless of the parent’s socialization style, the volume of food
advertising directed to children, the tactics used by advertisers, and the sugar content of
the advertised products, were all salient. Parents of all types were more likely to identify
these issues than they were to note intrafamily conflicts or concerns about eating habits.

Given the increase in quantity and variety of food marketing during the last
twenty years (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2006; Strasburger 2001),
it is not surprising that parents’ concerns continue.

Further, although parents may be the primary food shoppers, they are heavily
influenced by their children’s preferences for snack foods, breakfast foods, desserts, and
even dinner groceries (Bridges and Briesch 2006; Institute of Medicine of the National

Academies 2006). Advertisers recognize this influence, and frequently design campaigns

l9

targeting each group, parent and child, separately, attempting to persuade children to ask
their parents for specific brands (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2006).
The magnitude of child influence has even been recognized with a nickname: the nag
factor (Bridges and Briesch 2006).

Given the critical role that parents play in socialization (Carlson and Grossbart
1988; Crosby and Grossbart 1984; Grier et al. 2007) combined with the typical family
pattern of parental responsibility for most food purchases (Bridges and Briesch 2006), the
reaction of parents to food marketing targeted at children would seem to play a critical
role in those purchasing decisions. Yet research has focused primarily on the effects of
food marketing on children, rather than on the effects on parents and how that influences
children’s diet and activities (Grier et a1. 2007). Even less is known about parents’
knowledge of online marketing techniques, their attitudes toward such practices, or even
how much parental supervision is involved when children use the Internet (Moore and
Rideout 2007).

The long history of concerns about food marketing to children can be
characterized as a failure to meet consumer, i.e., parent, needs (Grossbart and Crosby
1984), opening the door for proactive marketers to gain support by changing their
practices to address the concerns of today’s parents. This study, along with the Grier et al.
(2007) research, addresses how parents respond. Grier et al. explored the effects of fast
food marketing on parental behavior and subsequent influence on children’s
consumption, based on attitude and behavior models of consumption. This dissertation
uses attribution theory to explore the mechanisms by which parents form their attitudes

about the marketers. The concepts studied here with respect to television should be

20

transferable to other media, but the focus is on parental response to advertising strategies,
and specifically to television, as with the majority of prior research.
Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been defined as a “company’s
commitment to minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maxirrrizing its long-
run beneficial impact on society” (Mohr et al. 2001). The idea that companies should act
as good citizens is not universally embraced, as famously noted by Milton Friedman’s
often quoted statement that“ . . . there is one and only one social responsibility of
business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits . . .”
(Friedman 1970). Nonetheless, the belief that corporations should function in a manner
that benefits a variety of stakeholders has gained traction (Mohr and Webb 2005). As a
response to accounting scandals and prominent corporate frauds, social responsibility has
been viewed as a way for companies to redeem their reputations and address calls by
consumers for companies to contribute to society (Dawkins 2004; Mohr and Webb 2005).

The academic literature on corporate social responsibility follows a number of
paths, but of primary interest for the current research is its focus on consumer response.
Typically these studies have explored sponsorships and cause related marketing (Barone
et al. 2000; Deshpande and Hitchon 2002; Ellen et al. 2006; Mohr and Webb 2005; Rifon
et al. 2004; Simmons and Becker-Olsen 2006; Trimble and Rifon 2006; Varadarajan and
Menon 1988; Webb and Mohr 1998), corporate philanthropy, or environmental
marketing (D'Souza and Taghian 2005; Davis 1994; Grankvist et al. 2004; Mohr et al.
1998; Putrevu and Lord 1994; Schuhwerk and Leflcoff-Hagius 1995; Schwepker and

Cornwell 1991). A common theme is the desire to understand how consumers respond to

21

various attempts by companies to engage in and promote their socially responsible
initiatives.

The issue of advertising to children can be approached from the CSR perspective.
Similar to company efforts to meet consumer needs by providing support for desired
causes or adopting environmentally friendly practices, company strategies for
communicating with children can be understood as evidence of social responsibility,
particularly in the domain of food advertising. As the nation has become increasingly
concerned with obesity and its related health problems, concurrent with the increase in
childhood obesity, food marketers’ actions in this arena have come under increased
scrutiny and businesses have explored possible responses and rationales for action
(Seiders and Berry 2007). How companies respond to these demands, and how
consumers react to corporate initiatives, are analogous to other CSR tactics that have
received academic attention.

Environmental (“Green”) Marketing

Parallels to the issues involved in food advertising can be found in environmental
(“green”) marketing where advertisers adopt socially responsible stances to further their
marketing goals. In the case of environmental advertising, as with food advertisements,
the products themselves may be called into question as being detrimental to society, or
the motives and practices of the company may be interpreted in a negative manner.
“Green” marketers modify their products, develop new products, or adopt tactics to
promote their products or organizations as environmentally responsible in an effort to
attract customers. The options currently being tested by food marketers are similar; for

example, the labeling tactics being introduced in response to obesity concerns are similar

22

to eco-labeling, used to persuade consumers to select one product or brand over another
due to its environmental friendliness (Grankvist et al. 2004).

Empirical studies have investigated consumer response to “green” advertising,
examining the relationship between environmental attitudes and purchase intentions
(Schwepker and Comwell 1991), consumer response to type of environmental appeal
(Schuhwerk and Lefl<off-Hagius 1995), the effects of corporate environmental activity
and green advertising on consumer attitudes (D'Souza and Taghian 2005; Davis 1994),
and the effects of labeling products as environmentally friendly on consumer response
(Grankvist et al. 2004; Thogerson 2000). Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) tested
print advertisements for an environmentally friendly laundry detergent and found that
involvement with the environment influenced the effectiveness of different types of
advertising appeals. For individuals highly involved with environmental issues, purchase
intent and attitude toward the ad did not differ based on type of appeal; those with low
environmental involvement did find the green appeals more persuasive than price
appeals. The authors concluded that those who are highly involved with the environment
are predisposed to buy green products, so the type of message appeal makes no
difference. However, advertisers can influence those who are less involved with
environmental issues by directing attention to the environmental characteristics of their
products.

Grankvist et al. (2004) found that individuals who had low levels of interest in
environmental issues were not affected by eco-labels. Their study included a computer-
based experiment investigating how different types of eco-labels (positive, negative and

neutral) affected product preferences. As in the Schuhwerk and Lefl<off-Hagius study,

23

highly interested or involved individuals reported no difference in response to different
types of message appeals, while negative labels influenced those with moderate interest
in the environment. In a later study, involvement with environmental issues was found to
influence the effectiveness of green ads (D'Souza and Taghian 2005). In a telephone
survey of Australian consumers, the authors found that highly involved consumers
thought green ads were more believable, and rated them more favorably, than did low
involvement consumers.

While most research focused on product appeals, Davis (1994) investigated
corporate responses to environmental concerns. The options examined were similar to the
options currently being tested by food marketers, with the emphasis on the organization’s
total commitment as opposed to specific product advertising appeals. Davis identified
three corporate behaviors that environmental advertisers promoted in their messages. The
first, philanthropic activities, was represented by announcing monetary grants. The
second, preservation or conservation activities, included advertisements promoting the
outcomes of expenditures or human resource support, while the third area, corporation
specific advertising, was intended to communicate both large financial commitments and
overall corporate philosophy and activities. Davis found that company image perceptions
play a significant role in shaping consumer response to environmental advertising. When
consumers believed that a company was environmentally concerned, then the corporate
specific appeals were most effective. When individuals had positive perceptions of a
company’s environmental activities, then advertiser image, product image, and purchase
intent were also perceived more favorably. Davis concluded that the results indicated

corporate environmental advertising can influence consumer perceptions and behaviors,

24

but only if consumers have positive perceptions of the company’s actions or image
regarding the environment (Davis 1994).

Mohr, Eroglu and Ellen (1998) developed and tested a scale to measure the effects
of consumer skepticism on environmental marketing effectiveness. They distinguished
between skepticism toward advertising in general and skepticism toward the specific
target of environmental claims in advertising. The scale could be adapted to measure
skepticism toward food advertising claims. Given the similarities between environmental
advertising and food advertising, similar effects of skepticism and involvement would be
expected.

Cause Related Marketing

Cause-related marketing (CRM), the marriage of for-profit company advertising
with non-profit organizations, first caught the attention of marketers more than twenty
years ago. In 1983, American Express tied its corporate philanthropy to consumer
purchases, donating one cent to the Statue of Liberty restoration for every American
Express card transaction (American Express 2003). More recently, the stakes were raised
when General Motors promised to contribute $100 to the VFW Children’s Home for each
purchase of certain automobile models (Detroit Free Press 2006). In the intervening
years, partnerships between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations have become a
prominent part of the marketing landscape, with colorful ribbons sprouting throughout
the country in advertisements, on product labels, and car bumpers, promoting corporate
support of non-profit organizations. Breast cancer research has been a particularly
popular cause for a variety of companies and brands. Yoplait yogurt, BMW automobiles,

Avon, and 3-M Post-It notes are just a sampling of those that have prominently displayed

25

the pink ribbon signifying their financial support for the Susan G. Komen Foundation,
City of Hope, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, or other similar organizations (Woo
2005). The popularity of cause-brand alliances as a marketing tactic is evidenced by
annual U.S. cause-related marketing expenditures exceeding one billion dollars in 2005
(Cause Marketing Forum 2006).

Defined by Varadarajan and Menon (1988) as “. . .marketing activities that are
characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a designated
cause when customers engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy organization
and individual objectives,” CRM uses elements from advertising, publicity, and corporate
philanthropy (Varadarajan and Menon 1988; Webb and Mohr 1998). The corporate
scandals that have dominated business news in recent years have fostered the need for
companies to frnd ways to improve their reputations and enhance their brands’ images.
Marketers have adopted CRM as one way to achieve those objectives. Companies that
partner with causes seek to transfer the positive image associated with the non-profit
organization to the company, while simultaneously increasing sales. This transference
results in numerous benefits to the sponsor, including strengthening of its customer base,
enhanced employee loyalty, and increased revenues and profits (Deshpande and Hitchon
2002).

Similar to food advertising to children, CRM intenningles social responsibility
with advertising. Some of the recent responses to concerns about childhood obesity have
included tactics intended to signal that the company is “doing the right thing” by
minimizing or eliminating the offensive advertising, or promoting responsible behavior.

The aforementioned plan by Kraft to eliminate advertisements to children was described

26

by the company as part of their “. .. broader efforts to address consumers' health and
wellness concerns” (Teinowitz 2005a). In an analogous manner, CRM uses signals to
consumers that the company is “doing the right thing” by contributing to causes that are
typically aligned either with the organization’s objectives or the target consumer’s
concerns. CRM is “a marketing program that strives to achieve two objectives — improve
corporate performance and help worthy causes — by linking fund raising for the benefit of
a cause to the purchase of the firm’s products and/or services” (Varadarajan and Menon
1988)

Much of the early research following Varadarajan and Menon’s seminal article
was qualitative, focused on defining and describing the issues. Drumright, for example,
used elite interviews (interviews with decision makers rather than consumers) to compare
advertising campaigns with social dimensions to standard advertising campaigns, from
the perspective of management (Drumright 1996). Webb and Mohr (1998) investigated
consumer reactions to CRM activities, conducting semistructured interviews to develop a
typology of consumers. Their typology of four types of consumer response to CRM
(skeptics, balancers, attribution-oriented and socially concerned) indicates the importance
of attribution in CRM effectiveness. When categorized for their response to CRM
tactics, the sample of consumers was evenly split between consumers who thought the
company engaged in this type of campaign to increase sales or profits and those who
thought that the company acted, at least in part, for altruistic reasons. A subsequent study
confirmed the influence of perceived motivation on the effectiveness of CRM (Barone et
al. 2000). The authors conducted two experiments, testing several hypotheses about

consumer response to cause-related marketing activities. The experimental design

27

involved a manipulation of motivation perception (participants were presented with
information describing the company’s motives). The authors identified sponsor
motivation and price or performance trade-offs as interacting to affect brand choice.

Rifon and colleagues focused on the measurement of consumer attributions of
sponsor motives (Rifon et al. 2004) and their mediating role for the creation of
reputational outcomes. Analogous to the manner in which consumers have been found to
attribute motives to celebrity endorsers, consumers attribute motives to sponsoring
companies to infer why the company is supporting the partner cause. Whether consumers
view companies as altruistic or profit-motivated will be based in part on the perceived
congruence between company and cause. The experiment paired a fictitious cause, a
health and disease prevention web site, with real companies. The researchers found that,
as hypothesized, subjects had a more favorable attitude in the high fit situation, and the
congruent sponsor was perceived as more credible and more altruistic. Furthermore, the
level of altruistic attributions mediated the development of a corporation’s credibility as a
result of that tactic, confirming the essential role of consumer attributions of corporate
motives in response to sponsorship-linked marketing tactics. Consumers ask, “Why is
the company taking this action,” and they answer the questions themselves, based only on
the tactic itself and their inferences. However, consumer characteristics that might be
drivers of these inferences were not measured. Since inferences are based on knowledge
and characteristics already possessed by consumers, one missing piece of this puzzle is
the role of individual characteristics.

In addition, unlike other areas of advertising with a social dimension, the

members of the target audience under discussion for changing food marketing tactics

28

targeting children are not the purchasers. Food advertisers target children with their
messages, in hopes that the children will influence the purchasers - their parents - today,
and ultimately become brand-loyal consumers themselves (Bridges and Briesch 2006).
Parents believe that such advertising does influence their children’s food choices and
contributes to the childhood obesity problem (Rideout 2005). Understanding parents’
responses to food marketers’ activities, within this framework of corporate social
responsibility, can both enhance our understanding of consumer behavior and guide food

marketers through the changing landscape.

29

CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Attribution Theory
Attribution theory addresses how individuals explain their own behavior and the

behavior of others. People make inferences about causal relationships based on events
they experience and observe, and those inferences help them perceive and understand the
world in which they live. The theory traces its roots to Fritz Heider, whose common-
sense or na'r've psychology compared how individuals make sense of their worlds to the
experimental method (Heider 1958; Sparkman and Locander 1980). Heider was
particularly concerned with causality, explaining that to understand why people behave as
they do, it is necessary to understand whether the locus of causality is internal or external
to the actor (Fiske and Taylor 1991). Harold Kelley described attribution theory as being
“about how people make causal explanations, about how they answer questions
beginning with ‘why?”’(Kelley 1973); he elaborated on these concepts in developing a
description of how individuals learn cause and effect patterns and make causal
inferences. These early works supply the foundation for much subsequent research based
on attribution theory, providing a platform for examining consumer behavior (Folkes
1988)
Correspondent Inference

Jones and Davis’s correspondent inference theory (F iske and Taylor 1991), which
falls into the general class of attribution theories, explains that people impute intentions
to others to explain their behavior. The theory proposes that people make these inferences

in two stages, attribution of intention and attribution of disposition (Ross and Fletcher

30

1985). An act, such as a company undertaking an advertising campaign, is judged as
intentional when the individual perceives that the actor (i.e., the company) knows that the
act will result in the observed consequences, and the actor has the ability to achieve those
results. When acts are judged as intentional, the second stage of assessment is invoked,
attribution of disposition. Here, the perceiver compares chosen and nonchosen acts to
identify the underlying disposition. The overall goal is to be able to reach conclusions
about both the behavior and the actor’s intention in producing the behavior. If the
behavior and intention can be traced to an underlying stable quality in the actor, or
disposition, then the perceiver can better understand and predict future behavior (F iske
and Taylor 1991).
The Discounting Principle

Kelley based his version of attribution theory on the premise that people have
expectations or preconceptions that guide their causal determinations (Kelley 1973). In
describing how people make attributions with limited information, Kelley explained that
they use a covariation principle to help attribute a single cause to an outcome, judging
whether the outcome varies across entities (distinctiveness), is consistent over time
(consistency), and if other people experience the same outcome (consensus) (F iske and
Taylor 1991; Kelley 1973). But such distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus are not
always obvious or available to a consumer faced with a decision. One of the rules used to
assess causality in their absence is the discounting principle.

According to the discounting principle, individuals will minimize an explanation
for events if an alternate explanation exists and is plausible; intrinsic motivation is likely

to be discounted if an extrinsic motive can be used to explain outcomes (Kelley 1973). In

31

the case of advertising, consumers are unlikely to know the sponsoring company’s
intrinsic motivation, but may identify an extrinsic (i.e., profit) motive. They will then rely
on the extrinsic explanation that is available, and attribute the company’s actions to the
external motive. They will do so even in the presence of cues that might signal an internal
rationale. It thus becomes critical to understand how extrinsic attributions might be
changed by controlling information and modifying consumer beliefs (Folkes 1988).

To explain cause and effect individuals attribute motives shaped by both intrinsic
and extrinsic factors and by the amount of information available prior to the observed
event. People seek explanations, especially when confronted with unexpected behaviors
(Hastie 1984). The explanations rely on attributing some motive to the actor; in this case,
the actor is the company. For example, consumers accustomed to aggressive food
marketing aimed at children by profit-seeking companies would find cessation of such
activities to be unexpected. According to attribution theory, they then will look for an
explanation for the company’s actions. Because most consumers understand the link
between selling products and corporate profits, they may be likely to assume a profit
motive for the company’s actions (Rifon et al. 2004). Similar to companies that sponsor
causes to enhance their reputations, companies seeking to promote their concern with
consumer health, particularly the health of children, hope to supplant consumers’ profit
inferences with beliefs that the actions are socially responsible. Consumers may believe
that companies choosing to eliminate advertisements of unhealthy food products to
children are more altruistic than companies that continue advertising to that market
segment, perceiving the former companies as acting in the interest of their customers and

society as a whole while willingly forgoing potential profit opportunities.

32

Similarly, consumers may attribute internal motives to companies that change
their advertising message appeals. Messages encouraging moderation in food
consumption and the adoption of healthy measures (e.g., increased physical activity,
dietary changes) would be perceived in a more favorable light than the messages that
simply promote non-nutritious foods, but are less likely to be perceived as altruistic than
the elimination tactic.

This leads to the following hypothesis:

H] .' Companies that eliminate food advertising targeting children will generate

stronger consumer attributions of internal (altruistic) motives and weaker

attributions of external motives than will companies that target children with food
advertising, including healthy lifestyle messages.
Congruence

Schemas are cognitive structures based on interactions with one’s environment,
preconceptions or images that organize past experience (Mandler 1982). They are not
fixed, but change over time as new information and experiences interact with the
information stored in memory. Incongruent information, that is, information that does not
match an individual’s existing schema because it is unexpected or irrelevant (Heckler and
Childers 1992; Mandler 1982), will lead to greater cognitive evaluation and elaboration
(Hastie 1984). Elaboration could lead to generation of counterargurnents, reducing the
effectiveness of persuasive messages (Petty et al. 1981).

Congruence between new information and a consumer’s existing schema for a
company can affect the accessibility of information about why the company is acting as it

is, and hence the assessment of internal vs. external motives. Further, a distinction

33

between moderate and strong congruence is related to the degree to which elaboration
occurs (Myers-Levy and Tybout 1989). Information that is moderately incongruent can
be resolved and incorporated into the schema, while highly incongruent information is
difficult to resolve (Myers-Levy and Tybout 1989).

Two key dimensions of congruence are expectancy and relevancy (Heckler and
Childers 1992). With reference to advertising messages, expectancy is defined as “the
degree to which a piece of information falls into some predetermined pattern or structure
evoked by an ad,” (Lee and Mason 1999) while relevancy refers to “the degree to which a
piece of information contributes to the identification of the primary message” (Lee and
Mason 1999). Expectancy relates to the probability of the action occurring, while
relevancy relates to whether it contributes to definition or understanding. Stimuli are
considered congruent with schema when the information is both expected and relevant,
and incongruent when unexpected and relevant (Heckler and Childers 1992).

In research on sponsorships and CRM, the effects of congruence between the
sponsored cause and the company on consumer attributions have been identified (Rifon et
al. 2004; Trimble and Rifon 2006). In this study, consumer perceptions of congruence
between the corporate behavior schema and planned new actions are posited to influence
consumers’ motive attributions and subsequent assessment of corporate credibility and
attitudes. A strategy that is perceived by consumers as congruent with their schemas for
the company is predicted to generate more internal or altruistic attributions and hence
more positive attitudes. For example, a “nutritious fast food” schema for a company such
as Subway, voted “healthiest of the fast-food pack” in a survey of 5,500 diners conducted

by the popular restaurant rating service, Zagat’s (Zagat and Zagat 2007), would include

34

ex;

AC

.W.

expectations of a variety of low fat and fresh ingredients with many fruits and vegetables.
Advertisements promoting exercise and nutritious diets would be perceived as congruent
with the Subway schema. Consumers would expect a company that offers nutritious food
to promote nutrition, and thus the announced behavior would be perceived as congruent
with their existing schemas. A strategy perceived as incongruent with the company
schema, such as a fast food company known for its high fat and fried foods using a
healthy lifestyles message strategy, is expected to be less successful due to incongruence.
Consumers expecting the company to sell non-nutritious foods to their children would not
expect those companies to use marketing messages that promote values or behaviors that
run counter to the unhealthy food image. They would, then, find the lifestyles messages
incongruent with their existing schemas.

H2: The elimination of food advertising to children will be viewed as more

congruent with companies viewed as having nutritious offerings than with

companies viewed as offering non-nutritious products.

H3: Congruence will mediate the relationship between advertising strategy and

motive attributions.
Attribution of Blame

Attribution theory has been used to explain how consumers respond in problem
situations by evaluating and understanding how they assign responsibility or blame for
the problem. Building on Bem’s self perception theory, the idea that individuals evaluate
their own behaviors in a similar manner to their evaluation of others (Bem 1965), two
dimensions of responsibility have been identified, locus of causality and controllability.

Because consumers are characterized as rational information processors acting on their

35

causal inferences, their beliefs about the reasons underlying problems are expected to
influence how they respond to those problems (Folkes 1984). The search for reasons
includes identification of the causal agent, either internal (self) or external. A consumer
might identify the reason for a product failure as something he or she caused, such as
misuse of the product. On the other hand, the consumer might infer an explanation that
blames the company, e. g., a manufacturing defect. Locus of causality has been found to
be related to consumer reaction to product failure (Folkes 1984) and penalty pricing (Kim
2006); who is judged to blame for a problem affects who is deemed responsible for a
solution (F olkes 1984; Folkes 1988; Kim 2006). If the customer attributes the problem to
her own actions, then responsibility for resolution is internal. Conversely, an external
attribution will be accompanied by an expectation that the company should solve the
problem.

A second dimension of responsibility is degree of control (Tsiros et al. 2004;
Weiner 2000). While locus of causality addresses the question of who caused the
problem, controllability addresses the question of whether the causal party could, in fact,
influence the circumstances. Continuing with the product failure example, a consumer
determines that a product failed due to her misuse of the product, attributing internal
causality. However, if there were inadequate instructions on proper use, the consumer
might conclude that she did not have control over the circumstances, and the company
then bears some of the responsibility. If the inference for the problem with a product is
that there was something inherently wrong with the product, and that the company knew
and could have changed it, responsibility will be attributed to the company. Since the two

dimensions of locus and controllability have been found to be highly correlated (Folkes

36

1984), a single responsibility construct, encompassing the ideas of who caused a problem
and the degree of control that party has, can be identified.

Analogous to product failure and consumer response, responsibility for nutrition
is expected to affect consumer response to food company advertising tactics. Parents who
blame food companies for nutrition-related problems, and who think that the companies
can control the circumstances, will assign responsibility to the companies. They would
then look to those companies for assistance in solving the problem. Conversely, parents
who believe they alone are responsible for their children’s diet and any nutrition-related
problems will not. In the former case, internal, altruistic attributions would be expected
for either elimination of advertising or healthy lifestyle messages. In the latter, when
consumers believe that they are to blame, it is expected that elimination of advertising to
children will be deemed altruistic, but healthy lifestyle messages will not.

H4: Consumers who attribute blame externally will be more likely to attribute

altruistic motives to the company than will consumers who attribute blame

internally.

H5 .' Consumers who attribute blame internally will be more likely to attribute

profit motives to a company that uses healthy lifestyle messages in advertising to

children, and altruistic motives to a company that eliminates advertising to
children.
Involvement

The concept of involvement, defined as “a person’s perceived relevance of the

object based on inherent needs, values, and interests,” (Zaichowsky 1985) or as a

motivational state to process information (Celsi and Olson 1988) is frequently studied in

37

consumer research, and its effect on consumer behavior is well-documented (Celsi and
Olson 1988; Krugman 1977; Krugman 1965; Laurent and Kapferer 1985; Muehling et al.
1991; Zaichowsky 1985). Involvement is described as an individual characteristic, either
enduring and long lasting (intrinsic involvement) or transitory and related to
environmental cues (situational involvement) (Celsi and Olson 1988; Zhang and Zinkhan
2006).

According to dual processing models such as Petty and Cacioppos’s Elaboration
Likelihood Model, messages are processed either centrally or peripherally, depending on
the individual’s involvement with the issue (Petty et al. 1981; Petty et al. 1983). Central
processing is slow, deliberate, elaborate, and systematic. Information is evaluated;
elaborations are made by connecting new information with existing information in
memory. If strong arguments are presented, attitude change will be generated. In contrast,
peripheral processing is intuitive, fast, and heuristic. Individuals rely on cues such as
executional elements of the message or characteristics of the source. If the source is
credible (i.e. trustworthy and expert), then the message will be more effective in
generating attitude change.

The ELM explains that the determination of whether a message is processed
centrally or peripherally is issue involvement (Petty et al. 1981). If an issue is relevant to
the individual, and if the individual will be affected by the outcome, then messages
regarding that issue will be processed centrally. If an individual is not highly involved
with the issue, then processing will be peripheral. When a message is processed centrally,
it is compared with other information stored in memory. Linkages are made to other

memories (i.e. elaboration). The key determinant of whether the message will be

38

persuasive is the strength of the arguments. Attitudes will be changed when strong
arguments are presented. Unlike central processing, when individuals are engaged in
peripheral processing they are not attending to the arguments. In peripheral processing,
attitudes will be changed based on executional elements or the credibility of the source. A
highly credible source, one that is trusted and perceived as having high expertise, will be
most persuasive (Petty et al. 1981).

High involvement has been found to be related to favorable brand name recall,
attitudes, and purchase intentions (Hitchon and Thorson 1995; Priluck and Till 2004).
Given our understanding of the role of involvement in attending to and processing
advertising messages, it is reasonable to believe it would be a factor in parents’ responses
to food marketing. Because involvement is an individual, not product, characteristic,
parents are likely to differ in their levels of involvement with nutrition. Parents who are
highly involved with nutrition would be more likely to attend to and process messages
about nutrition (Celsi and Olson 1988). They would be more likely to be concerned with
providing healthy meals for their children, and are expected to take note of food
advertising that targets their children. Those who are not involved with nutrition are less
likely to process and elaborate on messages about nutrition, and even less likely to notice
if advertisers stopped targeting children. Level of involvement, then, is expected to
influence the attributions that consumers make about food marketers’ motives, leading to
the following hypothesis:

H6: Consumers with high levels of involvement with nutrition will be less likely to

perceive congruence between company schema and planned behavior than will

consumers with low involvement.

39

Much as individual differences exist in perceptions of personal relevance, so too
are there differences in how knowledgeable individuals are about different domains such
as nutrition. Three different dimensions of consumer knowledge have been identified
(Brucks 1985). Objective knowledge is defined as the actual knowledge an individual
possesses, as measured by some type of test. Experience with a product or category is the
second type of knowledge. Subjective knowledge, the consumer’s perception of what he
or she knows, has been found to predict consumer behavior and purchase satisfaction
(Flynn and Goldsmith 1999). Subjective knowledge, like involvement, plays a role in
search and purchase decisions.

Skepticism

Skepticism generally implies disbelief, a context-specific cognitive response
(Mohr et al. 1998). In the sense of marketplace skepticism, it is a component of consumer
socialization, a tool consumers are trained to use when managing persuasion attempts
(Obermiller et al. 2005). Because it is learned, skepticism differs from the more general
concept of cynicism, “an enduring disbelief of others that occurs when people are seen as
acting solely based on selfish motives” (Mohr et a1. 1998). Both are individual
characteristics, but cynicism is a personality trait that is stable over time and across
different situations, while skepticism is context-dependent. Skepticism, due to its time or
context-specific nature, may be subject to influence, and thus responsive to persuasive
messages such as advertisements, while cynicism is more difficult to influence (Mohr et
al. 1998).

Skepticism towards advertising has been characterized as inevitable (Pollay
1986), the result of consumer recognition of advertising’s inherent distortions. Defined as

40

a trait that reflects an individual’s “tendency to disbelieve the informational claims of
advertising,” ad skepticism is a personal, as opposed to a situational or environmental,
characteristic (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998). This definition construes the idea
more narrowly than may be otherwise suggested, excluding related dimensions such as
skepticism about advertiser motives, appropriateness of targeting certain audiences, or
criticism of advertisements of stigmatized products (Oberrniller and Spangenberg 1998).
In developing a scale to measure skepticism toward advertising, Oberrniller and
Spangenberg (1998) focused on the disbelief aspect of the construct. They acknowledged
the multi-dimensionality of skepticism, but did not attempt to incorporate all of those
dimensions.

Several variables affect the believability of advertising, including product type
and advertising execution. Consistent with prior findings regarding advertising
believability (Obermiller et al. 2005), skepticism toward advertising in general, and
toward food advertising specifically, will likely influence the motives that consumers
attribute to food marketers:

H7: Consumers with high skepticism about advertising will be more likely to

attribute external profit motives than will consumers with low skepticism about

advertising.
Parental Concern with Advertising

As discussed in chapter 2, parents are concerned with the quantity of food
advertising targeting children, and with tactics used by marketers to reach their children
(Grossbart and Crosby 1984). Differences in degree of concern are expected to moderate

congruence in a manner similar to involvement. Highly concerned parents may not be

41

receptive to any advertisements that target their children, regardless of how those
strategies may fit with their perceptions of the marketer. Those parents will be less likely
to perceive congruence between behaviors that involve healthy message strategies and
any food company due to their beliefs about advertising to children, and consequently
more likely to attribute profit motives to advertisers that use healthy lifestyle messages.
With regard to parental concern, then, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H8: Consumers with high levels of parental concern about food advertising to
children will be less likely to attribute altruistic motives for companies that
change advertising strategies to children than will parents with low levels of
concern about food advertising.
Source Credibility and Attitude toward the Compag
Source credibility in advertising was originally explored in reference to
spokespeople or endorsers, with the idea that a credible source would lead to more
positive attitudes about the sponsoring company. This conceptualization, in relation to
individuals as endorsers, included three critical dimensions: expertise, trustworthiness

and attractiveness (Haley 1996; Ohanian 1990).

Subsequently, researchers identified the role of company reputation, image, or
credibility, on consumers. Expertise and trust are applicable to both individuals and
companies, but attractiveness is problematic when applied to organizations or
corporations (Goldsmith et al. 2000). Goldsmith, Lafferty and Newell (2000) define
corporate credibility as “the reputation of a company for honesty and expertise,” and
studies of corporate credibility typically include just those dimensions (Goldsmith et al.

2000; Lafferty et al. 2002; Newell and Goldsmith 2001).

42

Credibility is important to advertisers because of its effects on consumer attitudes
and behavior. It is presumed to influence how consumers react to advertisements, to
contribute to shaping their brand attitudes and purchasing decisions. Corporate
credibility, related to the concepts of reputation and image, complements endorser
credibility. While endorser or celebrity credibility affects attitude toward the ad, in a
survey, corporate credibility was found to have a strong effect on attitude toward the

brand and ultimately purchase intentions (Goldsmith et al. 2000; Lafferty et al. 2002).

In explicating how attributions influence consumer attitudes, Rifon and colleagues
(2004) found that congruence, or good fit, between a company and the cause it sponsors
is more likely to generate consumer perceptions of altruistic motivations by the company.
Further, and relevant to the current research, the authors identified the mediating role of
attributions of sponsor motive on source credibility. Stronger attributions of altruistic
motives led to greater perceptions of company credibility. This same dynamic could be
expected in the domain of food marketing. Consistent with Rifon et al. (2004),
attributions are expected to influence perceptions of source credibility, which has been
found to enhance attitude toward the company (Goldsmith et al. 2000). Motive
attributions will influence perceptions of company credibility and attitudes toward the
company. The greater the consumer’s belief that the company had altruistic reasons for
adopting an advertising strategy, the more likely that the consumer will find the company
credible:

H9: Attributions of altruistic company motives will generate stronger consumer

perceptions of company credibility than will attributions of external motives.

43

Consumer attributions may be particularly enduring once they become established
(F olkes 1988). As noted previously, if parents believe that companies are acting in their
interests or the interests of their children, then it is expected that those parents will have
more favorable attitudes. Attributions of altruistic motives that generate perceptions of
credibility are likely to lead to more positive attitudes toward the company than are
attributions of self-serving, profit motives. Consistent with earlier work on credibility, it
is expected that perceptions of source credibility will enhance attitude toward the
company, so that companies perceived as credible will be more likely to generate positive

attitudes, leading to the final set of hypotheses.

H10: Consumer perceptions of company credibility will mediate the relationship
between attributions of the sponsor ’s motive and consumer attitude toward the

company.

H11: Attributions of altruistic sponsor motives will lead to greater perceptions of
credibility, which will generate positive attitude toward the company, while
attributions of profit motives will lead to perceptions of less credibility, which will
have a negative effect on attitude toward the company.

Consequently, food marketers who offer to eliminate their advertising to children
are expected to receive greater reputational benefits than those who add healthy lifestyle
messages to their child-oriented advertising programs.

H12: Elimination of food advertising targeted to children will yield stronger

perceptions of source credibility than a change to a healthy lifestyle strategy.

H13: Elimination of food advertising targeted to children will yield more positive

attitudes toward the company than a change to a healthy lifestyle strategy.

44

The proposed model (see Figure 1 below) incorporates the concepts discussed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

above.
Figure 1
Conceptual Model
I v

Ad Congruence Motive —) Co. Cred. Attitude-Co.
Strategy Attribution.
Company
Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

 

CHAPTER 4
METHODS

Three studies were conducted: two pretests to identify stimulus companies and
test stimulus materials, and the main study, an experiment. Real companies and the actual
strategies being proposed were used to enhance external validity of the main study. The
main objective of Study 1 was to identify those real companies, while Study 2 was
intended as a pretest of some of the measures to be used in the main study.
Study 1 - Stimulus Development
26.8.ng

A major focus of this research was to understand parental response and inform the
public policy debate. To do so called for enhanced external validity, requiring use of real
companies in stimulus materials. Study 1 was designed to help identify and select
companies familiar to research subjects, and to determine which company images were
consistent with the study’s design. The goal was to assess consumer familiarity with and
attitudes toward national fast food companies in order to select stimulus companies that
represented perceptions of companies offering either nutritional or non-nutritional
products. A survey of fast food restaurants conducted by the popular rating organization,
Zagat’s, was used as a starting point (Zagat and Zagat 2007). According to this non-
scientific survey of 5,500 individuals, the most popular “mega-chain” fast food
restaurants in 2007 were Wendy’s, Subway, McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and Burger King.
The report noted that, of these chains, only Subway performed well in ratings of healthy
food options. These five companies were included in the first pretest, along with KFC,

another fast food company specializing in a different type of fast food (fried chicken).

46

Participants

One hundred thirteen undergraduate students were recruited from four advertising
classes and offered extra credit for participating. Slightly more than half (60%) of the
participants in this convenience sample were female. Most were seniors (45.9%) or
juniors (44.1%), with a mean age of 21 and ages ranging from 19 to 28.

Measures and Procedures

Students completed short self-administered questionnaires including questions
measuring familiarity with six fast food companies (a seven-point semantic differential
question anchored by familiar/unfamiliar), attitudes toward those companies using a three
item, seven-point semantic differential scale (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989), and
perceptions of the company’s offerings as nutritious or non-nutritious using two
questions developed for this study (See Appendix C, Instruments). To control for
differences in preconceptions about the stimulus companies, companies with similar
ratings on the attitude scales were preferred for the main study. To assess attitudes for the
six pretest companies, the three attitude items were combined to form a scale for each
company (a ranged from .788 to .862). The two health and nutrition items were combined
to identify a single rating on that dimension (r ranged from .329 for McDonald’s to .538
for Taco Bell, all significant correlations).

Re_§__ult§

The objective of Study 1 was to identify stimulus companies for use in the
subsequent studies. Subjects provided attitude and health/nutrition ratings for six fast
food companies. The attitude ratings used a three item, seven-point semantic differential

scale with one being most positive and seven least positive (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989).

47

Scale reliability ranged from 0.788 for McDonald’s to .862 for KFC. The most favorable
attitudes were expressed toward Subway (M = 2.30) while KFC (M = 3.91) garnered the
least favorable attitude ratings, compared to the scale mean of 4.00.

Because all subjects answered sets of questions about six different fast food
companies, repeated measures ANOVA was calculated comparing attitudes toward
McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, Subway, KF C, and Wendy’s. A significant effect
was found (F (1,104) = 10.873, p=. 000). To identify where the difference was, follow-up
paired sample t tests were conducted. Because fifteen pairs were involved, a significance
level of p<. 003 was required, due to the necessity to divide the standard .05 significance
level by fifteen (Cronk 2002). The tests revealed that mean attitude ratings differed
significantly between Subway and McDonald’s (t (111) = 7.929, p=. 000), and Subway
and Burger King (t (108) = 8.693, p=. 000). There was no significant difference in
participants’ attitudes toward McDonalds and Burger King (t (107) = 0.821, p>.05). See

Table 1 on the following page for more details.

48

TABLE 1

Study 1 Attitude Ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pair Mean Std. t df Sig.
Deviation
McDonald’s- 0.10 1.25 0.82 107 .413
Burger King
McDonald’s- 0.51 1.78 3.01 110 .003
Taco Bell
McDonald’s- 1.35 1.80 7.93 11 1 .000
Subway
McDonald’s— 0.25 1.64 1.57 109 .120
KP C
McDonald’ s- 0.53 1 .42 3 .93 109 .000
Wendy’s
Burger King- 0.62 1.93 3.32 107 .001
Taco Bell
Burger King- 1.46 1.75 8.70 108 .000
Subway
Burger King- 0.17 1.78 1.00 106 .322
KFC
Burger King- 0.62 1.58 4.06 106 .000
Wendy’s
Taco Bell- 0.83 1.85 4.76 111 .000
Subway
Taco Bell-KF C 0.82 2.04 4.22 109 .000
Taco Bell- 0.01 1.48 0.04 109 .966
Wendy’s
Subway-KFC 1.61 2.04 8.30 110 .000
Subway- 0.80 1.56 5.42 1 10 .000
Wendy’s
KFC-Wendy’s 0.80 1.78 4.72 110 .000

 

 

 

Health and nutrition ratings were based on two seven-point semantic differential
item (healthy/unhealthy, nutritious food/non-nutritious food) with one being healthy and
seven unhealthy. These items were significantly correlated for each of the brands, with r
ranging from 0.329 or McDonald’s to 0.538 for Taco Bell. Mean ratings on a seven-point

scale ranged from 2.33 for Subway to 5.96 and 6.10 for Burger King and McDonald’s,

49

respectively. Subway was the only brand with a health and nutrition score below the scale
mean of 4.00. Similar to the evaluation of attitude ratings, repeated measures ANOVA
was calculated comparing health and nutrition ratings for the six fast food companies.
Again, a significant effect was found (F (1,108) = 129.864, p=. 000). The follow-up
paired sample t tests conducted to identify where the differences lay revealed a
significant difference in perceptions of the nutritional value of foods sold by McDonald’s
versus Subway (t (111) = 26.324, p=. 000) and between Subway and Burger King (t

(1 12) = 24.866, p=. 000). Because the intent was to identify companies that represented
clear examples of perceptions regarding the health and nutrition value of product
offerings, significant differences were important in choosing companies. Subway was
thus selected as the healthy products company, as it was perceived as significantly
healthier than all of the other five options (see Table 2 on the following page).

For the unhealthy options, both McDonald’s and Burger King were selected for
further evaluation in Study 2. These brands had similar attitude ratings (McDonald’s M =
3.65, Burger King M =3.75), which as noted above were not significantly different, and
health and nutrition ratings that were similarly not significantly different (t (107) = 0.821 ,
p>.05). However, they had recently adopted different advertising strategies, with
McDonald’s promoting healthy lifestyles while Burger King emphasized large portion
sizes. For study 2, then, both brands were used to explore whether the current advertising
would influence parents, even though the attitude and health ratings found in Study 1 did

not differ significantly.

50

TABLE 2

Study 1 Health and Nutrition Ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pair Mean Std. t Df Sig.
Deviation
McDonald’s- 0.13 0.59 2.31 111 .022
Burger King
McDonald’s— 0.45 1.02 4.62 1 l l .000
Taco Bell
McDonald’s- 3.76 1.51 26.32 111 .000
Subway
McDonald’s- 0.61 1.37 4.71 109 .000
KFC
McDonald’s- 0.96 1.20 8.36 108 .000
Wendy’s
Burger King- 0.31 1.05 3.19 1 12 .002
Taco Bell
Burger King- 3.62 1.54 24.87 1 12 .000
Subway
Burger King- 0.49 1.32 3.91 1 10 .000
KFC
Burger King- 0.84 1.24 7.13 109 .000
Wendy’s
Taco Bell- 3.30 1.47 23.97 112 .000
Subway
Taco Bell-KFC 0.17 1.48 1.18 110 .240
Taco Bell- 0.50 1.33 3.97 109 .000
Wendy’s
Subway-KFC 3.12 1.67 18,67 110 .000
Subway- 2.77 1.42 20.48 109 .000
Wendy’s
KFC-Wendy’s 0.36 1.42 2.68 109 .008

 

Study 2 — Pilot Study

Design
Prior to launching the main study, a test of the stimulus materials was conducted.

The purpose of this study was to pretest the manipulation checks and some of the planned

scales. The study employed a fixed-factor, 3 (company) X 3 (advertising strategy)

51

between subjects, pretest/posttest, randomized design administered via an online survey.
Parents of children aged twelve and younger, rather than the student convenience sample
from Study 1, were research subjects.
Participants

Participants in Study 2 were parents with children aged twelve and younger,
recruited through a parent listserv with 600 names maintained by Michigan State
University. To participate, an individual was required to have one or more children aged
12 or younger living at home, and to be the family’s primary food shopper. As an
incentive, respondents were entered in a drawing for one of three $100 gift certificates
from amazon.com. One hundred thirteen parents participated, for a response rate of
18.3%, with the majority female (93.5%). The actual response rate for eligible parents
may have been higher; the ages of the children of parents on the list are unknown. This
was a highly educated group, with fewer than 17% having less than a college degree and
the majority (52.8%) possessing graduate degrees. Their average age was 37 and mean
family household income was in the $50,000 - $74,999 range.
Stimulus Materials

For Study 2, stimulus materials were developed using real brands identified in
Study 1 and advertising strategies reflecting those recently proposed or adopted by food
companies, i.e. elimination of some advertising to children, introducing healthy lifestyles
messages in ads targeting children, or no change representing the status quo. The
materials used brief news stories announcing the appointment of a new advertising
agency, and subsequent introduction of new advertising tactics, by one of the three

companies (See Appendix B, Stimulus Materials).

52

Measures and Procedures

Parents were invited to participate via an email invitation from the coordinator of
the Michigan State Family Resource Center, operator of the parent listserv. Those who
replied to the email invitation were assigned, using a random number generator, to one of
nine experimental treatments (Table 3 - Study 2 Participants). Each subject then received
an email confirmation with a link to a survey URL hosted by Zoomerang, a commercial
online market research organization. Each survey or condition represented a combination
of one of the three stimulus companies chosen following Study 1 (McDonald’s, Burger
King, and Subway) and one of the three possible advertising treatments, i.e. elimination
of advertising to children, changing to healthy lifestyle messages in children’s
advertising, and the control group, no change to the company’s advertising strategy. First,
the informed consent information was presented. Selecting “next” on the online survey
indicated consent and agreement to participate. The pretest questionnaire was then
presented. Subjects were asked questions about their attitudes toward the stimulus
company and other fast food companies. Then, following a distraction task that involved
reporting their amount of participation in twelve different online activities, participants
were presented with a news story about one of the companies and its new advertising
plans. This was followed by a series of questions including a manipulation check and
measurements of motive attribution, acceptance of the strategy, and attitude toward the
treatment company. Last, demographic data was collected (See Appendix C,

Instruments).

53

BisllLtS.

All participants, randomly assigned to different conditions (see Table 3— Study 2
Participants), were asked to provide attitude ratings for six fast food companies using a
three item, seven-point semantic differential scale (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989). Scale
reliability ranged from 0.798 for Taco Bell to 0.859 for Burger King. The most favorable
attitudes were expressed toward Subway (M = 2.42) while Burger King (M = 4.23) and
KFC (M = 4.33) garnered the least favorable attitude ratings. A repeated measures
ANOVA was calculated comparing attitudes toward all six brands. A significant effect
was found (F(1,109) = 106.6, p=.000). As in Study 1, follow-up paired sample t-tests
were calculated. A significant difference was found between Subway and McDonald’s
(t(110) = 10.355, p=.000) and between Subway and Burger King (t(109) = 11.626,
p=.000).

TABLE 3

Study 2 Participants

 

 

 

 

Company McDonald’s Burger King Subway
Strategy
Eliminate 1 1 15 1 1
Healthy Lifestyles 14 11 15
Status Quo 14 11 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

To ensure that participants perceived the differences between non-nutritious
brands (Burger King and McDonald’s) and the nutritious brand (Subway), eight

manipulation check items were included in the study. Principal components factor

54

analysis with varimax rotation confirmed that four of the items loaded on one factor
assessing perceived nutritional value of the company’s products and two items assess
congruence between the company’s ad strategy and the respondent’s expectation (See
Table 4 — Study 2 Manipulation Check Factor Analysis). The four nutrition items (a =
.939) were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale. An independent samples t-test
was conducted comparing perceptions of company nutrition for Subway versus
McDonald’s. A significant difference was found (t (71) = 17.899, p=.000). A significant
difference was also found between Subway and Burger King (t (71) = 23.897, p=.000).
However, as expected, there was no significant difference in the nutrition perceptions of
Burger King and McDonald’s (t (72) = .895). Thus, the manipulation for perceived
nutritional content of the companies’ products was confirmed.

TABLE 4

Study 2 Manipulation Check Factor Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor Loading
Factor 1 — Company Factor 2 —
Type/Healthy Congruence
Products
The company offers mostly nutritious .919
products

Products are not part of a nutritious .911
diet
The company has a reputation for .906
healthy products
The company is known for junk food .858
I am surprised the company is doing .875
this
The new ad plans are consistent with .875
a company like this

Eigenvalues 4. 142 1.484

The second manipulation check, congruence, used the two items identified in the

factor analysis as loading on the congruence factor. These items were measured with a

55

five-point Likert-type scale (r = 0.648, p<.01). An independent samples t-test compared
congruence perceptions for the high congruence conditions (McDonald’s/eliminate ads,
Burger King/eliminate ads, and Subway/healthy lifestyle) with the incongruent conditions
(McDonald’s/healthy lifestyle and Burger King/healthy lifestyle). A significant
difference was found (t(63) = 3.607, p = .001). Participants perceived the highly
congruent conditions as more congruent (m== 3.77) than the low congruence conditions
(m = 2.99). The manipulation was confirmed.
Study 3 — Main Study
12$ng

Similar to Study 2, the main study used a fixed factor, 2 (company schema) X 2
(planned behavior) between subjects pretest/posttest, randomized experimental design
with an online self-administered instrument. Two schemas for company were provided.
One emphasized expectations of nutritious offerings as identified in studies 1 and 2
(Subway), while the other company was regarded as providing non-nutritious products
(McDonald’s). Planned behavior was Operationalized as the announced advertising
strategy, healthy messages versus elimination of advertising to children versus status quo
advertising to children. The status quo condition, tested in study 2, was subsequently
dropped in the analysis of study 3 results because the primary purpose was to investigate
parental response to changes in marketing communication. Following the schema
congruity model (Myers-Levy and Tybout 1989), congruence was manipulated in an
attempt to create high congruence, moderate congruence, and high incongruence between

company schema and planned behavior.

56

Participants

As in study 2, participants were parents who had children aged twelve and
younger living at home and were responsible for their farrrilies’ food shopping. Subjects
were recruited from members of an online panel operated by the Media Research Lab at
the University of Texas —— Austin. This panel, with approximately 20,000 adult members,
is an opt-in, informed consent, privacy-protected group with diverse national
representation, available to researchers for Intemet-based studies. As an incentive to
participate, panel members were offered the opportunity to participate in a drawing for
one of five $100 cash prizes, a technique recommended by the Media Research Lab at
University of Texas-Austin to maximize response rates.

Four hundred twenty-one participants, parents of children aged twelve and
younger, participated in the main study. They were recruited in two phases. In phase one,
an email invitation was sent to 4,991 panel members, inviting them to visit a URL
operated by the Media Research Lab at the University of Texas-Austin to participate. The
invitation specified that participants must have one or more children aged twelve or
younger living at home, and must be their family’s primary food shopper. Further, they
were informed that, upon completion of the online survey, they would be entered in the
cash prize drawing. Within ten days, three hundred responses were received from this
initial invitation, for a response rate of 6.0%. In phase two, the same email invitation was
sent to 2,315 different panel members. After one week, one hundred twenty-one parents
had responded, for a response rate of 5.2%. The overall combined response rate
calculated on the total number of invitations was 5.8%. Information about the number of

panelists who are parents and the ages of any of their children was not available, so a

57

revised response rate of 18.1% was calculated based on US. Census data indicating that
31.9% of US. households have children aged 18 or younger (United States Census
Bureau 2006). Since an even smaller number of households would have children aged 12
and younger, the actual response rate was likely somewhat higher.

Participants in the main study ranged in age from 19 to 77, with mean age of 41.
Three quarters of the sample (75%) were aged 48 or younger. Most participants (77%)
had at least some education, and mean household income was in the $35,000 - $50,000
bracket. Eighty percent of respondents were female, and nearly two thirds (63%) were
married. More than half (57%) had one child aged twelve or younger living at home, with
the majority (95%) having three or fewer children in that age group living at home.

After eliminating the status quo condition and parents who believed that one of
the stimulus companies does not advertise to children, a total of 231 participants were
included in the main study for analysis.

Stimulus Materials

Based on the results of the pilot studies, stimulus materials were created
describing actual fast food companies, representing one of the largest categories of food
advertised to children as well as one of the frequent targets of criticism (Gantz et al.
2007). The stimuli were news stories about two national fast food companies, one
regarded as offering predominantly non-nutritious products (McDonald’s) and one
offering primarily nutritious products (e. g., Subway). Each story included a brief
description of one company, highlighting menu items that tap into the nutritious/non-
nutritious aspects of the schema, and announcing the company’s advertising plans, one of

the three ad strategy types (healthy message emphasizing nutritious diet and exercise,

58

limits placed on advertising to children including elimination of television ads in
children’s programs, or status quo advertising to children on children’s programs).

In this study, high incongruence was intended to be represented by the non-
nutritious food company/healthy lifestyle advertising treatment. This incongruence is
exemplified by McDonald’s in this analogy to a politician trying to reconcile conflicting
positions: “It's a bit like McDonald's trying to stand for childhood nutrition and fitness, or
GM trying to advertise that it has the most fuel efficient gas guzzlers on the market”
(Kiley 2007). High congruence was represented by the nutritious food company/healthy
lifestyle advertising and non-nutritious food company/eliminate advertising treatments.
Moderate incongruence was represented by the nutritious food company /eliminate
advertising treatment. The status quo advertising conditions were subsequently excluded
from the analysis.

Procedures

After responding to the email invitation by clicking on a link to the Media
Research Lab, subjects were again reminded of the eligibility criteria (parent of
child/children aged twelve or younger, primary food shopper), and then presented with
the consent language. Upon agreeing to participate, subjects were randomly assigned,
using a random number Java script, to one of six survey conditions, with the Media
Research Lab automatically redirecting the participant to the appropriate survey
instrument hosted by Zoomerangcom. No identifying information was transmitted to
Zoomerang.

The online, self-administered questionnaire began with a pretest including

measures of advertising skepticism, food advertising skepticism, involvement with

59

1111

116

l\

nutrition, parental concern about food advertising and subjective nutrition knowledge.
Subjects were then asked to provide attitude and familiarity ratings for six fast food
companies and to indicate their recent patronage of each. Following the pretest, a
distraction task was presented, asking subjects to indicate their level of usage of twelve
different online activities. This was followed by presentation of one of the six stimuli, a
news story about one fast food company and one advertising strategy. The post-test
questions included measures of motive attribution, strategy acceptance, responsibility and
blame for childhood obesity, post-test attitude toward the stimulus company, post-test
measures of company credibility and measures of familiarity with the stimulus
company’s recent advertising. Finally, parents were asked to respond to a ten-item social
desirability scale and to provide demographic information. Subjects were then thanked
for their participation. The University of Texas-Austin Media Research Lab completed
the follow-up with survey participants by contacting winners selected randomly and
awarding them the cash prize. Descriptions of the items follow, and are shown in Table 5
- Table of Measures, on page 64. The questionnaire is shown in Appendix C —
Instruments.
Measures

Two measures of advertising skepticism were used. The first assessed general
skepticism towards advertising (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998). In addition, a scale
originally developed to measure skepticism towards green advertising was modified to
measure skepticism about food advertisements (Mohr et al. 1998). Reliabilities for the
two skepticism scales were a = .947 for general advertising and a = .756 for food

advertising.

60

To measure parental concern with food advertising, six Likert items anchored by
strongly agree/strongly disagree were used (a = .818). These items are designed to
identify general parental concern with the quantity and type of food advertising used to
reach children (Grossbart and Crosby 1984).

Involvement was measured using the reduced Personal Involvement Inventory
(Zaichowsky 1994), comprised of ten bipolar adjectives (e. g. important/unimportant)
ranked on a seven-point scale (a = .895). Subjective knowledge of nutrition was assessed
using five seven-point Likert-type questions anchored by strongly agree/strongly disagree
(Flynn and Goldsmith 1999). Scale reliability was a = .857.

Also in the pretest, in order to be able to determine attitude change after exposure
to the stimulus, existing attitude toward six fast food companies was assessed with three
seven-point semantic differential items, bad/good, favorable/unfavorable,
unpleasant/pleasant (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989), with a = .918. Similarly, one seven-
point semantic differential item measured familiarity with those same companies,

familiar/unfamiliar.

Following exposure to the stimulus story, a post-test was administered. Several
manipulation check questions were asked immediately following presentation of the
stimulus story. The company description manipulation check used a four-item Likert
scale (a = .906). The congruence manipulation check was a five-point Likert scale (a =

.817 that included five items, with three added to the two identified in Study 2, in an

effort to tap into perceptions of congruence that were not revealed in Study 2.

The first scales assessed motive attribution, or the consumer’s perception of the

sponsor’s motive. Motives could be either internal (altruistic) or external (profit-driven).

61

Consumers who infer altruistic motives believe that the company or sponsor’s primary
reason for undertaking an advertising campaign or other marketing program is to “do the
right thing,” to do what is in the best interest of customers and society as a whole. In
contrast, when consumers attribute profit motives to a sponsor, they believe that the
sponsor is engaging in the activities to generate or increase profits. Eleven five-point,
Likert items used to tap socially responsible/altruistic and self-serving/profit sponsor
motive attributions, both from previous research (Rifon et al. 2004; Trimble 2007) and
created for this study, were used to operationalize the motive attribution variable.
Because several of the items were originally created to assess motive attribution in cause-
brand alliances, they were modified for this study to reflect the motives attributed to food

marketers targeting children.

Participants were asked to rate their acceptance of the ad strategy using a six item,
five-point Likert-type scale (a = .918), anchored by strongly agree/strongly disagree
(Trimble 2007). Attribution of blame was measured using a four item Likert-type scale,
originally created to measure such attributions arising from negative consequences that
result from use of a manufacturer’s product (Griffin et al. 1996). First created to measure
reaction to an accident caused by a product, the scale was adapted here to measure
perceptions of blame for negative outcomes resulting from consumption of the marketer’s
product. Scale reliability ranged from or = .840 for parental (internal) responsibility to a
= .892 for company (external) responsibility.

To measure the dependent variables of company credibility and attitude toward
the company, previously validated scales were used in the post-exposure questions.

Attitude toward the company was measured with three seven-point semantic differential

62

items, bad/good, favorable/unfavorable, unpleasant/pleasant (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989)
and three seven-point Likert items (Harris Interactive 2007). The combined reliability for
the post-test attitude scale was a = .940. A scale developed by Newell and Goldsmith
(2001) that measures the two dimensions of source credibility, trust and expertise, was
also used (a = .859). Familiarity with the stimulus company and its advertising
campaigns were each measured on a seven-point semantic differential item anchored by
familiar/unfamiliar.

Because this study asks parents about their parenting, they might be expected to
answer in what would be considered a socially acceptable manner (“of course I care
about my kid’s diet and health. . ..”). To assess the degree to which parental responses are
socially desirable, a modified, ten-item Crowne-Marlowe social desirability scale was
administered for later correlation with other items (Crowne and Marlowe 1960). The
scale consists of ten dichotomous choice items answered True/False (0. = .670). Finally, a
series of demographic questions were asked, including age, marital status, education,

income, number and ages of children.

63

TABLE 5

Measures*

 

Variable

Item

Reliability

Source

 

Type of
Company

I believe that the
company offers mostly
nutritious products.
For the most part, the
company’s products are
not part of a nutritious
diet

The company has a
reputation for having
healthy product
offerings.

This company is well

known for its junk food.

a = .906

Created for this study

 

Con gruence-
company
and strategy

The new advertising
plans make sense for a
company like this.
The new advertising
plans are consistent
with what I would
expect from this
company.

I am surprised that the
company is doing this.
I would not expect a
company like this to
take this action

The company’s new
advertising plans fit my
expectations.

or =.817

Created for this study

 

 

Involvement
with
nutrition

 

Important/unimportant
Boring/ interesting
Relevant/irrelevant
Exciting/unexciting
Means nothing/means a
lot to me
Appealing/unappealing
Fascinating/mundane
Worthless/valuable
lnvolving/uninvolving
Not needed/needed

 

a = .895

 

Zaichowsky 1994

 

64

 

TABLE 5 (cont’d)

 

 

Variable Item Reliability Source
Skepticism ° We can depend on a = .947 Oberrniller & Spangenberg
toward getting the truth in 1998
advertising most advertising

° Advertising’s aim is
to inform the
consumer.

° I believe advertising

is informative.

° Advertising is

generally truthful.

° Advertising is a
reliable source of
information about the
quality and
performance of
products.

° Advertising is truth
well told.

° In general, advertising
presents a true picture
of the product being
advertised.

0 I feel I’ve been
accurately informed
after viewing most
advertisements.

° Most advertising
provides consumers
with essential
information.

 

 

Skepticism ° Most claims made in a = .756 Mohr et al. 1998 (adaptation of
toward food food advertising are environmental advertising
advertising true. skepticism scale)

0 Most nutritional
claims are
exaggerated.

° Consumers would be
better off if nutritional

claims in advertising
were eliminated.

° Most claims in food
advertising are
intended to mislead
rather than to inform
consumers.

° I do not believe most
claims made in food
advertising.

 

 

 

 

65

 

TABLE 5 (cont’d)

 

 

 

Variable Item Reliability Source

Motive Factor 1 — Altruistic motives a = .875 Based on Rifon et al. 2004 and

Attribution (dispositional) Trimble 2007; additional items
° The new advertising created for this study

strategy demonstrates the
company’s commitment
to helping its customers.

° The company is doing
this because they care
about children &
childhood obesity.

° The company is doing
this because it is the
ethical thing to do.

° The company really
cares about getting
nutrition information to
their customers.

Factor 2 — Avoidance motives
(situational) a = .828

° The company is
changing its advertising
to avoid government
regulation.

° The company is afraid
that laws will be passed
limiting their ability to
advertise unless they take
actions like their new
advertising plans.

° The company is
changing its advertising
only to pacify parents
who might not want their
children to eat their food.

° The company is
changing its advertising
because other companies
are using similar
strategies.

Factor 3 — Profit motives
(dispositional)

° The company is doing
this to persuade me to
buy their products.

° The company is doing
this because it will a = .805
increase their profits.

° Ultimately, the company
benefits by this action.

 

 

 

 

66

 

TABLE 5 (cont’d)

 

 

Variable Item Reliability Source
Parental ° There are too many A = .818 Grossbart & Crosby 1984
concern with food ads
food ° Food ads employ tricks
advertising and gimmicks to get

children to buy

° Food ads make false
nutritional claims

° There is too much
sugar in advertised
foods

° Food ads teach children
bad eating habits

° Food ads lead to family

 

 

conflict
Attribution Factor 1 — Company Griffin and Babin 1996
of blame responsibility or = 392 (adapted from attribution of
0 How much do you blame scale) and items created
blame the company for for this study
children’s diet related
problems?

° How responsible is the
company for children’s
diet-related problems?

° I think advertisers like
this company are
responsible for
childhood obesity.

Factor 2 — Parental
responsibility or = .340

° How much blame do
you place on parents
like you for children’s
diet related problems?

° How responsible are
parents like you for
children’s diet related
problems?

° I think that parents are
responsible for
childhood obesity.

 

 

 

 

67

 

TABLE 5 (cont’d)

 

 

Variable Item Reliability Source
Source ° The company has a a = .859 Newell and Goldsmith 2001
credibility great amount of

experience.

° The company is skilled
at what they do.

° The company has great
expertise.

° The company does not
have much experience.

° I trust the company.

° The company makes
truthful claims.

° The company is honest.

° 1 do not believe what
the company tells me.

 

 

 

Familiarity How familiar are you with Rifon et al. 2004
with [the company]?
company How familiar are you with
[the company]’s advertising
campaigns?
Attitude ° My impression of a = .940 MacKenzie & Lutz 1989
toward [company name] is:
company ° Good/ bad
° Unpleasant/pleasant Harris Online
° Favorable/unfavorable Emotional appeal dimension

1 have a good feeling

about the company.

° I admire respect the
company.

I respect the company

 

 

 

 

68

 

TABLE 5 (cont’d)

 

 

 

Variable Item Reliability Source
Acceptance ° I agree with the a = .918 Trimble 2007
of the company’s advertising (adaptation of acceptance of
strategy strategy. alliance scale)
' I don’t have any

problems with the

company’s advertising

strategy.

0 More companies
should do something
like this company’s
advertising strategy.

° The company’s
advertising strategy is a
bad idea

° 1 reject the company’s
advertising strategy.

° I approve of the
company’s advertising
strategy.

° This company’s
strategy will help my
child.

° The company’s new
advertising will not
make any difference in
childhood obesity.

 

 

 

 

69

 

TABLE 5 (cont’d)

 

 

 

Variable Item Reliability Source
Social 1 am always willing to a = .670 Crowne & Marlowe 1960
Desirability admit it when 1 make

 

a mistake.

I always try to practice
what I preach.

I never resent being
asked to return a
favor.

I have never been
annoyed when people
expressed ideas very
different from my
own.

I have never
deliberately said
something that hurt
someone’s feelings.

I like to gossip at
times. (reverse coded)
There have been
occasions when I took
advantage of
someone. (reverse
coded)

I sometimes try to get
even rather than
forgive and forget
(reverse coded)

At times I have really
insisted on having
things my own way.
(reverse coded)
There have been
occasions when I felt
like smashing things.
(reverse coded)

 

 

 

*Individual items were averaged to create scales

70

 

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

Main Study Results

Participants

As in Study 2, participants were randomly assigned to the different conditions.
One item measured the participants’ beliefs about the stimulus companies actual
advertising targeting children (“The company advertises to children”) using a five point
Likert scale anchored by strongly disagree/strongly agree. To avoid confounding results
by asking about a change in strategy if the parents did not believe the company advertised
to children, participants answering strongly disagree or disagree somewhat were excluded
from further analysis. This resulted in the following distribution of 231 main study
participants.

TABLE 6

Main Study Participants

 

Company McDonald’s Subway

 
 
    

 

 

Strategy
Eliminate 56 5 1
Healthy Lifestyles 73 51

 

 

 

 

 

Manipulation Checks
New items were added to the manipulation check scale used in Study 2. The

factor analysis for study 2 resulted in only two items for the congruence scale. With the

71

addition of items to produce a more robust scale in the Main Study, nine manipulation
check items were evaluated. Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
revealed that four items again loaded on factor 1, company type/healthy products, while
five items loaded on factor 2, congruence (see Table 7 — Main Study Manipulation Check
Factor Analysis).

TABLE 7

Main Study Manipulation Check Factor Analysis

 

Factor Loading
Factor 1 — Company Factor 2 —
Type/Healthy Products Congruence

 

 

The company has a reputation for .885
healthy products

 

The company offers mostly .845
nutritious products

 

The company is known for junk food .845

 

The company’s products are not part .801
of a nutritious diet

 

I wouldn’t expect a company like .776
this to do this

 

I am surprised that the company is .769
doing this

 

The company’s new advertising .709
plans fit my expectations

 

The new ad plans are consistent with .671
what I would expect from a company
like this

 

 

The new advertising plans makes .653
sense for a company like this

 

 

 

 

Eigenvalues 4.925 1.375
The manipulation check for the health or nutrition value of the company’s
products used a four-item Likert scale (a =. 906). An independent samples t-test was
conducted and confirmed that health and nutrition perceptions were significantly different

(I (227) = 14.86, p = .000) between McDonald’s (m = 2.20) and Subway (m = 3.85).

72

Parents perceived Subway as offering more nutritious foods than McDonalds confirming
the manipulation.

The manipulation check for congruence used a five-item Likert scale (a=. 817).
An independent samples t-test compared high congruence conditions (McDonald’s
eliminate advertising, Subway healthy lifestyles) to the incongruent condition
(McDonald’s healthy lifestyles). A significant difference was found (t (176) = 3.11,
p<.05). McDonald’s/eliminate and Subway/healthy lifestyles were viewed as more highly
congruent (m = 3.50) than McDonald’s/healthy lifestyle (m = 3.12), confirming the
manipulation.
Motive Attribution Dimensions

Motive attributions were assessed using eleven Likert items. Principal
components factor analysis with varimax rotation of the motive items identified three
dimensions of parental attributions of food marketers’ motives. This solution accounted
for 69.4% of the total variance (see Table 8 — Motive Attribution Factor Analysis). Factor
1, Altruism, is a dispositional dimension related to the marketer’s concerns for its
customers and their children. Factor 2, labeled Avoidance, is a situational dimension
reflecting the perception that the company is taking action to avoid potential future
problems. Factor 3, Profit, is a dispositional characteristic reflecting parents’ beliefs that

the company is acting to further its own self-interest.

73

TABLE 8

Motive Attribution Factor Analysis

 

Factor Loading

 

Factor 1 — Factor 2 - Factor 3 — Profit
Altruism Avoidance

 

Shows company’s .875
commitment to
customers

 

Cares about children & .861
childhood obesity

 

Ethical thing to do .834

 

Cares about getting .776
nutrition info out

 

Change to avoid gov’t .845
regulation

 

Afraid of laws limiting .897
ads

 

Change because others .807
are

 

Change to pacify parents .739

 

Company ultimately .830
benefits

 

Change to persuade me .753
to buy products

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increase profits .722

 

Eigenvalues 4.739 2.807 1.474

Dimensions of Attributions of Blame/Responsibility

Six items assessed whether parents placed primary responsibility for childhood
diet problems with the companies or with themselves. Principal components factor
analysis with varimax rotation identified two dimensions of blame, external and internal.
The solution accounted for 80.4% of the variance. Factor 1 represents external blame and

Factor 2 internal blame (See Table 9 — Responsibility Factor Analysis).

74

TABLE 9

Responsibility Factor Analysis

 

Factor Loading
Factor 1 — Company Factor 2 — Parents

 

 

How much do you blame the .923
company for children’s diet
related problems?

 

How responsible is the company .901
for children’s diet-related
problems?

 

I think advertisers like this .867
company are responsible for
childhood obesity

 

How much blame do you place .920
on parents like you for children’s
diet related problems?

 

How responsible are parents like .882
you for children’s diet related
problems?

 

 

I think that parents are .823
responsible for childhood
obesity.

 

 

 

 

Eigenvalues 3.081 1.742

Variables

Descriptive statistics for the variables and scales under study are shown below,
based on the 231 subjects used for the main study analysis. For each of the variables or

scales, one is low and five or seven is high.

75

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics for Main Study Variables

 

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Standard
Deviation

 

Congruence 1.60 5.00 3.47 0.77
5 point scale

 

Involvement 2.80 7.00 5.63 0.98
7 point scale

 

Parental concern 1.00 5.00 3.51 0.75
with food
advertising
5 point scale

 

Skepticism to 1.00 5.00 3.02 0.89
advertising
5 point scale

 

Skepticism to 1.00 5.00 3.12 0.70
food advertising
5 point scale

 

Altruism motive 1.00 5.00 3.40 0.98
attribution
5 point scale

 

Avoidance 1 .00 5.00 3.19 0.90
motive
attribution

5 point scale

 

Profit motive 1.00 5.00 3 .92 0.81
attribution
5 point scale

 

 

External blame 1.00 5.00 2.41 1.06
attribution
ipoint scale

 

 

 

 

 

76

 

Table 10 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Standard
Deviation

Internal blame 1.00 5.00 4.31 0.76
attribution
5 point scale
Source 1.00 5.00 3.68 0.70
credibility
5 point scale
Pretest attitude 1.00 7.00 4.47 1.71

to McDonald’s
7 point scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pretest attitude 1.00 7.00 5.70 1.27
to Subway

7 point scale

Posttest attitude 1.00 7.00 4.71 1.65
to McDonald’s

7 point scale

Posttest attitude 1.00 7.00 5.89 1.33
to Subway

7 point scale

Age 19 77 41 11.7
# Children aged 1 10 1.64 1.03

 

 

 

 

 

l2 and younger

 

Hypothesis Tests

To test H1, an independent samples t-test comparing the mean scores for altruistic
motive attributions of the parents exposed to elimination versus healthy lifestyles
advertising strategies was calculated. There was no significant difference between the
means of the two strategy treatments (t (225) = .894, p>.05. The mean rating for altruistic
motivations for the parents exposed to the elimination strategy (m = 3.49, sd = .92) was
not significantly different from the mean rating for parents exposed to the healthy
lifestyles strategy (m = 3.35, sd = .09). Similarly, an independent samples t-test

comparing the mean scores for profit motive attributions of parents exposed to

77

elimination versus healthy lifestyles advertising found no significant different between
the two groups (t (227 = .072, p > .05). The mean rating for parents in the elimination
strategy treatment group (m = 3.91, sd = .08) was not significantly different from the
mean rating by parents in the healthy lifestyles strategy treatment group (m = 3.92, sd =
.073). H1 was not supported.

Congruence perceptions were influenced by the company changing its strategy.
To test H2, a 2 (company) X 2 (new advertising strategy) between subjects factorial
ANOVA was calculated comparing congruence perceptions. A significant main effect for
company was found (F (1,223) = 34.67, p = .000). Subway (m = 3.79, sd = .71) was
viewed as significantly more congruent with either strategy than was McDonald’s (m =
3.23, sd = .72). The main effect for ad strategy was not significant (F (1,223) = .426, p >
.05). While it was hypothesized that the type of strategy change would influence
congruence based on the expectations the consumer had for the company’s actions, there
was no significant interaction (F (1,223) = 1.832, p > .05) and H2 was not supported.
However, Subway, the company perceived as having more nutritious food products, was
viewed as more congruent with both types of strategy changes than McDonald’s, the
company viewed as having non-nutritious offerings.

Congruence was expected to mediate the relationship between advertising
strategy and motive attribution. Stepdown ANCOVAs were calculated for each of the
three motives. Two of the motives were influenced by congruence perceptions.
Congruence was significantly related to the altruism motive (F (1,219) = 57.49, p = .000),
and to the avoidance motive (F( 1 ,21 7) = 27.45, p = .000), but only marginally related to

the profit motive (F (1,220) = 3.36, p = .07). However, advertising strategy is not

78

significantly related to any of the motives when congruence is included as a covariate:

for motive 1, F (1,219) = 0.81, p > .05; for motive 2, F (1,217) = 0.39, p > .05; and for
motive 3, F (1,220) = 0.02, p > .05. Contrary to what was predicted by H3, advertising
strategy is not significantly related to the motives when congruence is removed: for
motive 1, F (1,223) = 0.45, p > .05; for motive 2, F(1,222) = 0.26, p > .05; for motive 3, F
(1,225) = 0.00, p > .05.) Thus, no mediation effect was found, disconfirming H3.

To test H4, 3 Pearson correlation was calculated examining the relationship
between attribution of blame and motive attributions. A significant correlation was found
between altruistic motive attributions and external (company) blame attributions (r (230)
= .276, p < .01). There was no significant correlation between internal (parent) blame
attributions and altruistic motive attributions (r (230) = .021, n.s.). H4 was supported.

In H5, parent attribution of blame and strategy change were predicted to be
related to motive attributions. Internal blame was expected to lead to attributions of profit
motives for healthy lifestyle messages and attributions of altruistic motives for
elimination strategies. An analysis of variance was conducted comparing profit motive
attributions based on strategy and internal blame. A significant effect was found for
internal blame attributions on profit motive attributions (F (10,211) = 4.05, p = .000), but
no effect was found for strategy change (F (1,211) = 0.19, p > .05) and no interaction
effect was found (F (6,211) = 0.67, p > .05). Analysis of variance for altruistic motives
was conducted. No significant effect was found for internal blame (F (10,209) = 0.32, p >
.05), strategy (F (1,209) = 0.12, p > .05), or the interaction between blame and strategy (F

(6, 209) = 0.88, p > .05). H5 was not supported.

79

In H6, it was proposed that involvement would influence perceptions of
congruence. To test H6, an independent samples t-test was conducted comparing the
perceptions of congruence for parents who were highly involved with nutrition versus
those with low levels of involvement. A significant effect for involvement was found (t
(214) = 2.876, p = .004). Parents who were highly involved were more likely to perceive
congruence between the company and strategy (m = 3.61) than were parents with low
levels of involvement with nutrition (m = 3.31).

To test H7, an analysis of variance was conducted comparing the attributions of
profit motives based on parents’ skepticism toward advertising. A significant difference
was found (F (33,185) = 2.45, p = .000). Parents who were more skeptical about
advertising were more likely to attribute profit motives to the stimulus company.
Similarly, an analysis of variance comparing profit motive attributions based on
skepticism toward food advertising found a significant difference (F (19, 207) = 3.08, p =
.000). Greater skepticism toward food advertising was significantly related to attributions
of profit motives. H7 was thus supported.

To further examine some of the hypotheses, analyses of variance tests were
conducted for motive attributions. Attributions were different by company but not
strategy. For motive 1, altruism, there was no significant difference for company (F
(1,191) = .645, p > .05) or strategy (F (1,191) = 2.361, p > .05). However, altruism was
significantly related to the parent’s existing attitude toward the company (F (1, 191) =
33.83, p = .000), external blame attributions (F (1,191) = 5.84, p = .017), skepticism
toward food advertising (F (1,191) = 5.29, p = .023), and skepticism toward advertising

(F (1,191) = 14.52, p = .000). The greater the parent’s skepticism and the more positive

80

the pro-existing attitude toward the company, the greater the perceptions of an altruistic
motive behind the strategy change. Altruistic motive attributions were not significantly
related to involvement (F ( 1,191) = .986, p > .05), or internal blame attributions (F
(1,191) = 0.91 , p > .05). (See Table 11 — Altruistic Motive Attributions)

TABLE 11

Altruism Motive Attributions

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source F Sig.
Corrected Model 13.82 .000
Intercept 48.63 .000
Pretest attitude 33.83 .000
Skeptrcrsm to food 529 .023
advertrsrng

Skept’f’f’m ’0 14.52 .000
advertrsrng

Involvement 0.99 .322
Attribute Blame 5.84 .017
external

Attribute Blame 0.09 .763
rntemal

Parental Concern 0.64 .426
Company 0.64 .426
Strategy Change 2.36 .126
Company X

Strategy Charge 0'02 '886

 

R Squared = .369 (Adjusted R Squared = .390)

For motive 2 attributions, the company treatment had a significant effect (F
(1,191) = 12.70, p = .000). McDonald’s (m = 3.45) was viewed as being motivated by
avoidance of negative consequences more than Subway (m = 2.85). Attribution of blame
was also positively related to views of avoidance methods. Both external blame
attributions (F (1,191) = 19.5, p = .000) and internal blame attributions (F (1,191) = 4.31,

p = .039) were significant. Parental concern was statistically marginally significantly

81

related to avoidance attributions (F (1,191) = 3.14, p = .078). (See Table 12 — Avoidance

Motive Attributions)

TABLE 12

Avoidance Motive Attributions

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source F Sig.
Corrected Model 7.71 .000
Intercept 7.54 .007
Pretest attitude 2.12 .147
Skepticism to food 03 6 .549
advertrsrng

Skepuflfm ’0 0.13 .723
advertrsrng

Involvement 0.89 .347
Attribute Blame 19.50 .000
external

{W‘bu’e Blame 4.31 .039
internal

Parental Concern 3. 14 .078
Company 12.70 .000
Strategy Change 0.00 .993
Company X

Strategy Change 0'83 '364

 

R Squared = .288 (Adjusted R Squared = .250)

For motive 3, profit, pretest attitude toward the company was marginally
statistically significant (F (1, 193) = 3.32, p = .07). Internal blame attribution was
significantly related to profit motive attributions (F (1,193) = 14.31, p = .000) but
external blame was not (F (1,193) = 0.20, p > .05). Parental concern with food
advertising was another significant predictor of attributions of profit motives (F (1,193) =
5. 34, p = .022). Skepticism to advertising was marginally significant (F (1,193) = 3.41, p
= .066), but skepticism to food advertising was not (F (1,193) = 0.56, p > .05). (See Table
13— Profit Motive Attributions.) Thus, support was found for H4, marginal support was

found for H7, and no support was found for H1 and H8.
82

TABLE 13

 

 

Profit Motive Attributions
Source F Sig.
Corrected Model 7.723 .000
Intercept 8.90 .003
Pretest Attrtude to 3.32 .070
company
Skeptrcrsm to food 0.56 .457
advertrsrng
Skepticism to
advertising 3.41 .066
Involvement .0.01 .907
Attrrbute Blame 0.20 .656
external
Am‘b‘m’ Blame 14.31 .000
mternal
Parental Concern 5.34 .022
Company 0.39 .531
Strategy Change 0.15 .695
Company X
Strategy Change 0'03 '871

 

 

 

 

 

R Squared = .237 (Adjusted R Squared = .236)

Parental attitude toward the company before knowing of the change was also
directly related to perceptions of congruence (F (1,191) = 16.20, p = .000), as was
involvement with nutrition (F (1,191) = 7.16, p = .008), supporting H6. The more
nutritious food offerings were also associated with greater perceptions of congruence (F
(1,191) = 11.61 p = .001). External attributions of responsibility were also related to

congruence perceptions (F (1,191) = 27.84, p = .000). (See Table 14 - Congruence)

83

TABLE 14

 

 

 

 

 

Congruence
Source F Sig.
Corrected Model 11.99 .000
Intercept 41 .47 .000
Pretest attitude 16.19 .000
Involvement 7. 16 .008
Skepticism to Food
Advertising 1.01 .317
Skept’f‘.“ ’0 0.24 .623
advertrsrng
Parental Concern 0.13 .723
Attrrbute Blame 27.84 .000
external
Attrrbute Blame 0.56 .457
1nternal
Company 1 1.60 .001
Strategy Change 0.03 .856
Company X
Strategy Change 0'47 '494

 

 

R Squared = .386 (Adjusted R Squared = .354

Source credibility was not a function of the company making the change (F
(1,190) = 3.10, p = .08) or the strategy itself(F (1,190) = 2.81, p = .10), thus
disconfrrming H12. While both strategies received higher than midpoint ratings of
credibility, the elimination (m = 3.72) strategy was viewed as a more credible strategy
than the healthy lifestyle strategy (m = 3.66) but the difference was not significant.
Source credibility was a function of parental involvement with nutrition (F (1,190) = 5.28,
p = .023), pre-existing attitudes toward the company (F(1,190) = 42.08, p = .000),

external blame attributions (F(1,190) = 24.91, p = .000), internal blame attributions

84

 

 

 

 

.01:

(I')

(F (1,190) = 3.85, p = .05) and skepticism toward food advertising (F (1,190) = 10.89, p =

.00). (See Table 15 — Source Credibility).

 

 

TABLE 15

Source Credibility
Source F Sig.
Corrected Model 16.76 .000
Intercept 67.44 .000
Pretest attitude 42.08 .000
Involvement 5.28 .023
Skepticism to Food
Advertising 10.89 .000
Skepticism to
Advertising 1 '94 ' 165
Parental Concern 0.54 .463
Attrrbute Blame 24.56 .000
external
Attrrbute Blame 3.80 0.52
1ntemal
Company 2.70 . 102
Strategy Change 3.08 .081
Company X
Strategy Change '01 '94]

 

 

 

 

 

R Squared = .469 (Adjusted R Squared = .441)

Finally, attitude toward the company making the strategy change was
significantly different based on the strategy posed (F (1,191) = 9.29, p = .003), but not
on the company making the change (F (1,191) = 0.46, p > .05), supporting H13. Both
companies received positive ratings above the scale’s midpoint (McDonald’s m = 5.18,
Subway m = 5.28). The elimination strategy (m = 5.44) was viewed more positively than
the healthy lifestyle strategy (m= 5.02), supporting H13. There was no significant

interaction. Pre-existing attitude toward the company (F (1,191) = 227.74, p =.000) was

85

directly related to attitude toward the company, as was skepticism to advertising

(F (1,191) = 4.62, p = .033). (See Table 16 — Attitude to the Company)

 

 

TABLE 16

Attitude to the Company
Source F Sig.
Corrected Model 40.05 .000
Intercept 13.07 .000
Pretest Attitude 227.74 .000
Involvement 0.83 .364
Skepticism to Food
Advertising 3'57 '060
Skepticism to
Advertising 4'62 '033
Parental Concern 2.57 .11 l
Attrrbute Blame 4.68 .032
external
Attrrbute Blame 0.06 .800
1nternal
Company 0.46 .497
Strategy Change 9.29 .003
Company X
Strategy Change 0'01 '936
Error 191
Total 202
Corrected Total 201

 

 

 

 

 

R Squared = .677 (Adjusted R Squared = .650)

The Model

To test the explanatory value of the model and hypotheses 9, 10, and 11, a step
down ANCOVA was performed. When credibility is introduced as a covariate, the
significance of the strategy change on attitude toward the company is significant (F
(1,175) = 4.70, p = .032). Source credibility is significantly related to attitude to the
company (F (1,175) = 34.31, p = .000), as is preexisting attitude toward the company (F

(1,175) = 104.01, p = .000). Introducing the three types of attributions as covariates, the

86

effect of strategy change on attitude is significant. Two of the three motive attributions
were significantly related to the attitude to the company. For altruism, F (1,175) =
26.453, p = .000; for avoidance attributions, F (1,175) = 6.47, p = .012; for profit motive
attributions, F (1,175) = 1.54, p > .05). Introducing the three types of attributions as
covariates, the effect of strategy change on credibility becomes non-significant. Altruistic
motive attributions are significantly related to credibility a: (1,179) = 36.66, p = .000), as
are avoidance motive attributions (F (1,179) = 5.92, p = .016). (See Table 17 — Stepdown

ANCOVA) H9, H10, and H11 are supported.

 

 

TABLE 17

Stepdown ANCOVA

Attitude to Compan
Source F Sig.
Corrected Model 46.90 .000
Intercept 3.58 .060
Pretest attitude 104.01 .000
Involvement 0.00 .978
Skepticism to
Food Advertising 0'11 '744
Skepticism to
Advertising 0'22 '639
Parental Concern 0.93 .336
Attrlbute Blame 0.1 5 .702
external
Attrrbute Blame 1.72 .191
rntemal
Altruistic Motive
Attribution 26.45 .000
Avoidance Motive
Attribution 6'47 '012
Profit Motive
Attribution 1 '54 '216
Source Credibility 34.43 .000
Company 6.28 . 013
Strategy Change 4.70 .032
Company X
Strategy Change 0'06 '800

 

 

 

 

 

R Squared = .790 (Adjusted R Squared = .773)
87

Table 17 (cont’d)

 

 

 

Source Credibility
Source F Sig.
Corrected Model 19.489 .000
Intercept 25.57 .000
Pretest attitude 17.78 .000
Involvement 2.89 .091
Parental Concern 0.20 .653
Altruistic Motive
Attribution 36'66 '000
Avoidance Motive
Attribution 5 ’ 92 '01 6
Profit Motive
Attribution 4'63 '033
Attrrbute Blame 10.31 .002
external
Attrrbute Blame 4'93 .026
rntemal
Skepticism to
Food Advertising 7'86 '006
Skepticism to
Advertising 0'04 '84 1
Company 7.62 .006
Strategy Change 1.19 .276
Company X
Strategy Change 0'00 '981

 

 

R Squared = .586 (Adjusted R Squared = .556)

 

A linear regression using the enter method in SPSS was performed using
perceptions of the nutritiousness of food offerings, involvement with nutrition, pre-
existing company attitude, skepticism to advertising, skepticism to food advertising,
parental concern with food advertising, external blame, internal blame, congruence
perceived in the strategy, motive attributions, source credibility, and strategy (See Table
18 — Multiple Regression - Attitude to Company) A significant regression equation was
found (F (14,172) = 46.46, p = .000; R = .889, R2 =.774). The strongest predictors of

attitude toward the company making the change were pretest attitude toward the

 

company, source credibility, altruistic motive attributions, and avoidance motive
attributions. The type of company and strategy were also significant. The more
nutritious company (Subway), elimination strategy, altruistic motive attributions,
avoidance motive attributions, source credibility, and pretest attitude toward the
company, were all positively statistically significant with respect to posttest attitude to

the company.

89

TABLE 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple Regression
Attitude to Company
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Regression 392.832 14 28.059 46.460 .000
Residual 103.878 172 .239
Total 496. 709 186
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta t Sig.

(Constant) -1 .739 .084

Company Treatment .100 2.452 .015

Strategy Change -.082 -2.293 .023

Congruence -.018 -0.345 .731

Involvement -.001 -0.022 .982

Parental Concern

with Food Adv. .048 0.980 .329

Skepticism to Food

Advertising .016 0.317 .752

Skepticism to

Advertising -.030 -0.656 .513

Altruism Motive

Attribution .275 5.115 .000

Avoidance Motive

Attribution .102 2.144 .033

Profit Motive

Attribution -.047 -1.000 .319

““1me blame -.010 -0239 .812

external

{A‘m‘bme blame —.052 -1.211 .227

Internal

Pretest Attitude . 469 10.072 .000

toward company

Source Credibility .320 5.866 .000

 

To ensure that the variables were not interdependent, multicollinearity diagnostics

were calculated for the scales used in the model. The VIF for all variables ranged from

90

1.06 to 2.45, below the suggested cut-off of 10 (Mason and Perrault 1991) and thus not
considered problematic.
Social Desirability

Because the questionnaires asked about attitudes and behaviors regarding child-
rearing and parental responsibility, it is feasible that parents responded with socially
acceptable answers. Social desirability scales were correlated with the other variable
scales to ensure that social bias did not influence parents’ responses. There were no
significant correlations between social desirability and parental concern with advertising,
skepticism to food advertising, avoidance motive attribution, profit motive attribution,
external (company) blame attribution, or internal (parent) blame attribution. There were
significant correlations between social desirability and involvement with nutrition, (r =
.210, p<.01), advertising skepticism (r = .241, p <.01), pretest attitude (r = .186, p < .01),
posttest attitude (r = .210, p < .01), and source credibility (r = .143, p < .05). However,
calculating the r2 for each pair identified the relatively minor contribution of social
desirability to responses (involvement r2=.044, advertising skepticism r2=.058, pretest
attitude r2=.034, posttest attitude r2=.044, and source credibility r2=.020). This indicates
that while there might be some variation attributable to parents providing socially

desirable responses, the magnitude of that contribution to overall response is negligible.

91

Summary

A summary of the results of hypothesis testing is shown in Table 18, below.

TABLE 19

Hypothesis Tests

 

HYPOTHESIS

RESULTS

 

H1: Elimination of food adv generates
altruistic attributions

Not supported

 

H2: Elimination of food advertising more
congruent

Not supported

 

H3: Congruence mediates ad strategy-
attributions relationship

Not supported

 

H4: External blame leads to altruistic
attributions

Supported

 

H5: Internal blame leads to profit motives for
healthy lifestyle, altruistic motives for
elimination

Not supported

 

H6: High involvement related to congence

Supported

 

H7: High skepticism related to profit
attributions

Supported

 

H8: Parental concern associated with
altruistic motives

Not supported

 

 

 

H9: Altruistic motives generate greater Supported
credibility perceptions

H10: Credibility mediates relationship Supported
between attributions and attitude to company

H11: Altruistic motives lead to greater Supported

credibility, profit motives lead to less
credibility

 

H12: Elimination strategy leads to stronger
credibility perceptions than healthy lifestyles

Not supported

 

 

H13: Elimination strategy leads to more
positive attitude to company

 

Supported

 

92

 

CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
When this research was conceived, public attention to increasing rates of

childhood obesity in the US. was expanding, and the lens began to focus on the role of
food marketers. While those companies had been subjected to numerous bouts of
criticism through the years, ranging from outrage over the contribution of sugared foods
to dental problems to marketers’ role in provoking eating disorders (Livingstone and
Helsper 2006), the volume of the debate seemed to have increased. Public hearings
sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Health and Human
Services (Federal Trade Commission and Department of Health & Human Services 2006)
followed the publication of an extensive analysis of the issue (Institute of Medicine of the
National Academies 2006). Marketers, individually and jointly, have publicly addressed
concerns in news releases, with product modifications, and in revisions to their marketing
approaches; at the same time policy makers and politicians have continued to call for
action (Better Business Bureau 2006; Eggerton 2007; Kamp 2007; Martin 2007; Martin
2006; Teinowitz 2007a; United States Department of Health & Human Services 2007). In
April 2007, Congressman Edward Markey, chair of the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, in a letter to the Federal Communications
Commission, observed “While the growing problem of childhood obesity cannot be
attributed solely to advertising, and parents have an undeniable responsibility to steer
their children toward healthy choices, numerous experts in the fields of pediatrics and
public health have identified advertising —- and television advertising, in particular — as

one of the most pernicious factors driving this alarming trend” (Markey 2007b).

93

As the pace of the debate and associated action has quickened, the need for
research to support decision-making has also hastened. In this study, a key stakeholder
group in the childhood obesity debate, parents of children aged twelve and younger, was
studied. Parents’ responses to advertising strategies were explored using a model
developed to explain consumer response to cause marketing. There, congruence between
company and cause generated greater consumer perceptions of altruistic company
motives, which in turn led to enhanced perceptions of company credibility and more
positive attitudes toward the company (Rifon et a1. 2004). In this study, the expected
congruence was not found. It is not clear if the problem was with the stimulus, or the
construct itself. It is possible that congruence is not an important variable influencing
parental response to food adverting. It may be more likely that whether a strategy is
viewed as a good “fit” with a company is more complex than conceived here.

The results indicate that the company’s pre-existing reputation for healthy versus
unhealthy food is a key indicator of how parents expect the company to operate. If the
company is already perceived as offering healthy products, either strategy fits. If it is not,
then neither changing to healthy lifestyle messages nor eliminating ads to children is
viewed as a good fit. In this study, congruence was conceived as representing the
expectancy and relevancy of a company’s planned actions grounded in the company’s
pre-existing schema as offering healthy or unhealthy foods. The results indicate that
consumers instead base their expectations on their attitude toward the company, not on
the fit between the company and its planned actions. In fact, they seemed to define that fit
solely by the company’s product offerings. If the company was known for nutritious

foods, then either strategy change was believed to be congruent. If the company was

94

known instead for unhealthy foods, then neither strategy was seen as a good fit. But in
either case, eliminating advertising to children was preferred over changing to healthy
lifestyle messages.

Building on the Rifon et al. model (2004), this research introduced individual
characteristics as influencing motive attributions. Skepticism toward food advertising was
found to play a role in attributions, but its role is mediated by parental concerns with food
advertising, at least regarding profit motive attributions. Parental concern, a situational
variable gauging concerns with both quantity and quality of advertising targeting
children, was related to both profit and avoidance motive attributions. Where skepticism
focuses predominantly on the believability of advertising claims, parental concern
encompasses some skepticism-related ideas along with concerns about both the amount
of food advertising targeting children and its effects on families and children. The more
concerned parents are about food advertising to children, the more likely they are to
attribute avoidance or profit motives to food marketers. Skepticism did influence overall
attitude toward the company, being significantly related to posttest attitudes, but its
effects were mediated by attributions. Skepticism also influenced source credibility, even
after including motive attributions as covariates. Further examination of these two
constructs would provide additional insight into how consumers answer their “why”
questions regarding marketers’ intents.

Originally, two broad categories of motive attributions, internal or altruistic and
external or profit, were expected to influence parents’ responses to food advertising
strategies. The mediating role of motives was confirmed in this research, along with the

introduction of a third motive category, avoidance. In fact, the avoidance motive

95

 

 

 

 

 

ace

3“

pr:

Sill

€}<

pro

COP

\Vil

accounted for more of the variance than the external profit motive attribution. Like profit,
avoidance is externally driven, with parents inferring that companies are changing to
pacify parents like themselves or to avoid negative future consequences such as
government intervention. Consumers understand that companies not only exist to make
profits, but also must function in a sometimes-contentious environment where
stakeholders’ needs can be in conflict. The conclusion that decisions are made with an
eye to future negative results is likely, and, at least for the parents in this study, played a
prominent role.

This research has implications for marketing practitioners as well. Even as
companies modify their practices to meet today’s concerns, it is likely that other issues
will arise in the future. Further, not all companies have announced or enacted plans to
alter their practices when children are a target market. The findings here, that eliminating
advertising to children leads to more positive outcomes than changing message strategies,
can provide support for marketers considering such action. The positive outcomes in
terms of credibility and attitude that emanate from either elimination or even a change in
message offer encouragement for food marketers who have not yet acted. Balancing
shareholder pressure for profit and earnings growth with public pressure for
accountability and responsibility, marketers must decide whether and how to act. Here,
parents responded positively to either change, offering encouragement to act now rather

than wait.

96

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION

As the food wars continue to rage, policy makers and advertisers alike seek
solutions. Food marketers and their advocates continue to emphasize their fiduciary
responsibilities and First Amendment rights, while critics emphasize the negative effects
of advertising to vulnerable children. Given the unlikelihood of resolution, a new
approach is needed.

Even under the umbrella of the industry’s self-regulation program announced in
2006 (Better Business Bureau 2006), companies have wide latitude to determine their
advertising strategies. The guidelines allow companies to choose their own strategies
including their own categorizations of nutritious vs. non-nutritious foods, to make their
own decisions about whether to target children at all, and to make their own
determinations about content of healthy lifestyle messages. The looming possibility of
regulation may encourage some food marketers to self-regulate; others may opt to
continue aggressive lobbying against regulation. No empirical evidence exists to aid them
in choosing the best approach. They can take guidance from studies of environmental
advertising and cause related marketing, but the concepts have not been applied to food
advertising or more specifically, to advertising directed to children. Can companies refute
a link between advertising and obesity without losing credibility or market share? Or will
those companies that continue advertising to children face the fate of tobacco companies,
with a combination of consumer skepticism and public policy forcing change upon them?
If change is necessary, which message appeal will be most effective, one that involves

parents by announcing that the advertiser will no longer target children, or one that shifts

97

the message from selling nutritionally poor products to one that promotes healthy eating
and physical activity? The results of this study will help answer some of these questions,
and provide guidance for policy makers and advertisers alike.

Limitations

While the studies described here used real brands as stimuli and “real people” as
subjects, the surveys were not random samples of the adult population of the United
States. Participants in Study 2 were faculty and staff of Michigan State University, a
more highly educated group than the general population. Participants in the Main Study
were randomly sampled from the virtual panel operated by the University of Texas-
Austin, but the panel itself is not random. Further, while a random sample of the panel
was invited to participate, only six percent of those invited actually participated. It is
possible that the respondents were more involved with the issue than non-respondents.
Future research with a more representative adult sample would be desirable.

Another limitation of the current research relates to its timing. Between the time
the study was conceived and the main study was launched, there was substantial publicity
about the issues involved in food marketing to children. CARU released revised
guidelines; several companies announced revisions in their marketing strategies regarding
children, public hearings were held, and studies were published. Parents responding to
the survey could have been influenced by media coverage of the issue.

Several methodological limitations could have influenced these results as well.
The stimuli were news stories announcing a company’s planned strategy change, but no
actual advertising stimuli were presented. While external validity was enhanced by the

use of actual, rather than fictitious, companies, utilizing advertisements and other

98

promotional materials rather than a simple statement of the company’s intentions could
further enhance it. In addition, the dependent variables were source credibility and
attitude toward the company; purchase intentions and actual purchasing behavior were
not explored. As noted previously, the congruence construct did not function as expected.
It is not clear if the problem was in the development of the stimulus materials or in the
application of congruence to food advertising to children.

Future Research

The concepts reviewed here are applicable to both the specific domain of food
marketing to children and the more general category of corporate social responsibility.
Future research in both directions can build on the foundation established here.

The results of this research raise further questions regarding several of the
concepts. For example, the influence of skepticism toward advertising in general, and
food advertising specifically, could be further explored. Further, attributions of blame
(internal vs. external) had differing effects, warranting further examination.

This research looked specifically at fast food brands. Would parents respond
similarly to other categories, including other foods such as packaged goods, or other
categories frequently promoted to children, such as toys? Future research could replicate
this study in different product categories. Also, additional studies that address the
limitations noted above would be of value, i.e. a national random sample of parents and
promotional materials as stimuli. In addition, this research looked at fast food marketing
in isolation. Do parents respond differently depending on the available choices? Would
their reactions to strategies intended to present companies as socially responsible differ if

other options were available? How do demographic factors, including income and

99

geographic location, affect the results? It seems likely, as recently studied by Grier et al.
(2007), that access to both fast food and alternatives would influence parents’ choices.

Much as the studies described here replicated and extended prior research, future
studies could build on this theoretical foundation. Applying the model to other domains
of corporate social responsibility would provide additional support for its utility. While
past research focused on sponsorships and cause related marketing, the concepts could
similarly be explored with respect to green marketing, corporate philanthropy, social
marketing, corporate investment policies, employee volunteerism, or other activities
practiced today or in the future. The avoidance attribution is fertile ground for future
research, as it has not been examined in the CSR literature but emerged here as
contributing to perceptions of social responsibility and influencing consumers’ attitudes
about corporate reputations.
Conclusion

This research has both practical and theoretical implications. In this study, parents
respond more positively to elimination of advertisements targeting children than to
healthy lifestyles messages, regardless of other factors. This provides support for food
marketers to adopt such a strategy despite its apparent inconsistency with accepted
marketing dictums, and calls for further regulation may in fact be quieted. However, it
could be argued that the addition of healthy lifestyle messages to food advertising
targeted to children is sustainable and more appealing to the companies. Building on
Calfee’s observations about the ability of the private sector to communicate health
benefits more effectively than government (Calfee 1988), such advertising might, in fact,

provide a broader public service message and contribute to solving, rather than

100

compounding, the childhood obesity problem. In this study, the stimulus company
representing a food marketer known for non-nutritious offerings received positive
credibility and attitude ratings for just such a strategy, indicating that this may, perhaps,
offer a happy medium for both parents and food marketers.

Further, the findings build on the scholarly foundation for understanding the
effects of corporate socially responsible marketing activities on consumers,
supplementing studies that have typically focused on cause related marketing, corporate
philanthropy, and environmental responsibility (Ellen et al. 2006). This research
introduces a new domain, advertising to children, to the CSR literature.

The results of this study support the role of attributions for the creation of positive
corporate reputational effects when making a strategic decision that may be viewed for its
socially responsible implications. This not only supports the validity of the attribution
model (Rifon et al. 2004), but also its utility in other domains. The explication of three
motive attributions further extends the model with the introduction of avoidance as a
motive parents attribute to marketers. This avoidance motive should be of particular
interest to policy makers, reflecting a company’s desire to avoid public pressure and
regulation.

As parents, educators, policy makers, and food marketers continue to struggle
with finding optimal solutions to children’s dietary challenges, research can provide
guidance. Parents are important stakeholders when it comes to the regulation of
advertising targeted to children. Understanding their views on this issue, and

incorporating them in policy discussions and marketing decisions, adds a critical

101

dimension. Further, understanding their views on this issue may offer insights to

advertising regulation in other domains.

102

APPENDIX A
Hypotheses

H1: Companies that eliminate food advertising targeting children will generate stronger
consumer attributions of internal (altruistic) motives and weaker attributions of external
motives than will companies that target children with food advertising, including healthy
lifestyle messages.

H2: The elimination of food advertising to children will be viewed as more congruent
with companies viewed as having nutritious oflerings than with companies viewed as
ofiering non-nutritious products.

H3 .' Congruence will mediate the relationship between advertising strategy and motive
attributions.

H4." Consumers who attribute blame externally will be more likely to attribute altruistic
motives to the company than will consumers who attribute blame internally.

H5 : Consumers who attribute blame internally will be more likely to attribute profit
motives to a company that uses healthy lifestyle messages in advertising to children, and
altruistic motives to a company that eliminates advertising to children.

H6: Consumers with high levels of involvement with nutrition will be less likely to
perceive congruence between company schema and planned behavior than will
consumers with low involvement.

H 7: Consumers with high skepticism about advertising will be more likely to attribute
external profit motives than will consumers with low skepticism about advertising.

H8: Consumers with high levels of parental concern about food advertising to children
will be less likely to attribute altruistic motives for companies that change advertising
strategies to children than will parents with low levels of concern about food advertising.

H9: Attributions of altruistic company motives will generate stronger consumer
perceptions of company credibility than will attributions of external motives.

H10: Consumer perceptions of company credibility will mediate the relationship
between attributions of the sponsor ’s motive and consumer attitude toward the company.

H11: Attributions of altruistic sponsor motives will lead to greater perceptions of
credibility, which will generate positive attitude toward the company, while attributions
of profit motives will lead to perceptions of less credibility, which will have a negative
eflect on attitude toward the company.

103

H12: Elimination of food advertising targeted to children will yield stronger perceptions
of source credibility than a change to a healthy lifestyle strategy.

H13: Elimination of food advertising targeted to children will yield more positive
attitudes toward the company than a change to a healthy lifestyle strategy.

104

APPENDIX B
STIMULUS MATERIALS

The following news stories were used as stimulus materials. In study 2, all nine scenarios
were used. In study 3, #2, #5, and #8 were eliminated.

I. High congruence between schema and company behavior: non-nutritious, eliminate
advertising

New York, June 15 - McDonald’s, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on McDonald’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced program is McDonald’s plan to eliminate
commercials on television programs intended for children. They will continue to
advertise a variety of products to adults, and will continue to encourage adults to bring
their families to McDonald’s restaurants. In announcing this program, the company stated
that it is part of their program to help families encourage nutritious eating and exercise to
improve the diets of America’s youth and battle childhood obesity.

2. High congruence between schema and company behavior: non-n utritious, eliminate
advertising

New York, June 15 — Burger King, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on Burger King’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced program is Burger King’s plan to eliminate
commercials on television programs intended for children. They will continue to
advertise a variety of products to adults, and will continue to encourage adults to bring
their families to Burger King restaurants. In announcing this program, the company stated
that it is part of their program to help families encourage nutritious eating and exercise to
improve the diets of America’s youth and battle childhood obesity.

3. High congruence: nutritious, healthy lifestyles message
New York, June 15 - Subway, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its fresh fruits and vegetables, whole

grain breads, and low carbohydrate options, the company recently engaged a new

105

advertising agency. The new agency has been concentrating on Subway’s children’s
advertising, and will unveil their first campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced program is Subway’s plan to introduce
commercials on children’s television programs that emphasize exercise and nutritious
eating. They will continue to advertise a variety of products to adults, and will continue
to encourage adults to bring their families to Subway restaurants. In announcing this
program, the company stated that it is part of their program to help families encourage
nutritious eating and exercise to improve the diets of America’s youth and battle
childhood obesity.

4. High incongruence: non-nutritious, healthy lifestyles message

New York, June 15 - McDonald’s, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on McDonald’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced program is McDonald’s plan to introduce
commercials on children’s television programs that emphasize exercise and nutritious
eating. They will continue to advertise a variety of products to adults, and will continue
to encourage adults to bring their families to McDonald’s restaurants. In announcing this
program, the company stated that it is part of their program to help families encourage
nutritious eating and exercise to improve the diets of America’s youth and battle
childhood obesity.

5. High incongruence: non-nutritious, healthy lifestyles message

New York, June 15 — Burger King, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on Burger King’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced program is Burger King’s plan to introduce
commercials on children’s television programs that emphasize exercise and nutritious
eating. They will continue to advertise a variety of products to adults, and will continue
to encourage adults to bring their families to Burger King restaurants. In announcing this
program, the company stated that it is part of their program to help families encourage
nutritious eating and exercise to improve the diets of America’s youth and battle
childhood obesity.

6. Moderate incongruence: Nutritious, eliminate advertising

106

New York, June 15 - Subway, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its fresh fruits and vegetables, whole
grain breads, and low carbohydrate options, the company recently engaged a new
advertising agency. The new agency has been concentrating on Subway’s children’s
advertising, and will unveil their first campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced program is Subway’s plan to eliminate
commercials on television programs intended for children. They will continue to
advertise a variety of products to adults, and will continue to encourage adults to bring
their families to Subway restaurants. In announcing this program, the company stated that
it is part of their program to help families encourage nutritious eating and exercise to
improve the diets of America’s youth and battle childhood obesity.

7. Control group: Non-nutritious, no change in children ’3 advertising

New York, June 15 — McDonald’s, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on McDonald’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced campaign is McDonald’s plan to develop new
commercials to run on television programs intended for children, promoting a variety of
products. They will also continue to advertise a variety of products to adults, and will
continue to encourage adults to bring their families to McDonald’s restaurants.

8. Control group: Non-nutritious, no change in children ’s advertising

New York, June 15 — Burger King, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on Burger King’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced campaign is Burger King’s plan to develop new
commercials to run on television programs intended for children, promoting a variety of
products. They will also continue to advertise a variety of products to adults, and will
continue to encourage adults to bring their families to Burger King restaurants.

9. Control group: Nutritious, no change in children ’5 advertising

New York, June 15 — Subway, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on Subway’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

107

A cornerstone of the newly announced campaign is Subway’s plan to develop new
commercials to run on television programs intended for children, promoting a variety of
products. They will also continue to advertise a variety of products to, and will continue
to encourage adults to bring their families to Subway restaurants.

108

APPENDIX C
INSTRUMENTS

I. Study 1
FOOD MARKETING

I. We would like to know how you perceive some food companies. Below you will see a set of word pairs.
For each of the companies, please mark closest to the word which best reflects your feelings about the
company. For example, if you think that McDonald’s matters to you, you might respond like this:

Matters
to me X

 

Doesn’t
matter

 

 

A. McDonald’s

 

 

 

Familiar to me

Unfamiliar to me

 

Nutritious food

Non-nutritious food

 

Good

Bad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uflleasant __ __ Pleasant
Favorable _ Unfavorable
Unhealthy _ Healthy

 

B. Burger King

 

Familiar to me

Unfamiliar to me

 

Nutritious food

Non-nutritious food

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good _ Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable _ Unfavorable
Unhealthy _ __ Healthy

 

C. Taco Bell

 

Familiar to me

Unfamiliar to me

 

Nutritious food

Non-nutritious food

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good _ _ Bad
Unpleasant __ _ Pleasant
Favorable _ __ _ Unfavorable
Unhealthy _ _ Healthy

 

109

 

 

 

 

Familiar to me

Unfamiliar to me

 

Nutritious food

Non-nutritious food

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good _ _ Bad
Unpleasant _ _ __ Pleasant
Favorable _ _ Unfavorable
Unhealthy _ _ Healthy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. KF C
Familiar to me ! Unfamiliar to me
Nutritious food _ _ _ Non-nutritious food
Good _ _ Bad
Unpleasant _ Pleasant
Favorable ; Unfavorable
Unhealthy Healthy

F. Wendy’s

 

Familiar to me

Unfamiliar to me

 

Nutritious food

Non-nutritious food

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good _ Bad
Unpleasant _ Pleasant
Favorable _ _ Unfavorable
Unhealthy _ Healthy

 

 

 

 

II. Please answer the following questions by circling the correct answer or filling in the
blank.

1. Are you. . .(please circle)

Male Female

2. What is your current academic status?

Freshman
Sophomore
Junior

Senior

Graduate Student
Other

3. In what year were you born? 19

This is the end of the survey. Thank you for your participation.

110

11. Study 2

 

Food Marketlng and Chlldren

We’re conducting a study to learn more about how parents feel about food marketing and
children. We are asking you, and other parents like you, to help us with this research.

We would like the adult who is responsible for most of the family’s food shopping to
read and respond to the attached questions, which should take about 15 minutes to
complete. There are no right or wrong answers; we are interested in your opinions.

Your answers will be kept completely confidential.

Thank you for your participation.

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIV’LRSITY

 

111

First, we have a few questions about how you perceive some companies. Below you will
see a set of word pairs. For each of the companies, please mark closest to the word which
best reflects your feelings about the company. For example, if the question is about
Mattel and you think that Mattel is familiar to you, you would choose (1) Familiar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Taco Bell
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable
B. Wendy’s
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable
C. McDonald’s
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable
D. KFC
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable
E. Subway
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable
F. Burger King
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable

 

 

 

 

 

112

In the last month, how many times have you visited each of the following companies?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 or
Subway 0 l — 3 4 —- 6 7 — 9 more
. IO

Burger ng O 1 — 3 4 - 6 7 - 9 or
more

10 or

Taco Bell 0 1 — 3 4 — 6 7 — 9 more
KFC 0 1 —- 3 4 — 6 7 — 9 10 0'
more

McDonald’s 0 1—3 4—6 7—9 100'
more

9 10 or
Wendy S O 1’3 4’6 7_9 more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Online Activities

Next, we have some questions about what you do online. Please tell us how often you do
each of the activities when you are online. If you do something every time you access the
Internet, select the number 5. If you never take part in the activity, choose the number 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never Always

E-mail 1 2 3 4 5
Read or watch news 1 2 3 4 5
Check weather reports or forecasts l 2 3 4 5
Read sports reports 1 2 3 4 5
Online shopping (purchase) 1 2 3 4 5
Health-related search 1 2 3 4 5
Watch TV programs 1 2 3 4 5
Listen to radicmrograms 1 2 3 4 5
Online banking or financial l 2 3 4 5
transactions

Chat room 1 2 3 4 5
Instant message 1 2 3 4 5
Play games 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

113

Now, we would like you to read the following short news story. You will be asked a few
questions about your reaction to it after you finish.

[random presentation of one of the nine stimulus stories]

11. Next, we have a few questions about your reaction to the story you just read. Please

select the number that best indicates your agreement or disagreement with each

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

statement.
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
. agree or
Disagree somewhat . somewhat Agree
disagree
I believe that the company offers 1 2 3 4 5
mostly nutritious products.
For the most part, the company’s
products are not part of a nutritious I 2 3 4 5
diet.
The company has a reputation for 1 2 3 4 5
having health) product offerings.
This company is well known for its 1 2 3 4 5
junk food.
The new advertising plans make
. . l 2 3 4 5
sense for a company like this.
The new advertising plans are
consistent with what I would expect 1 2 3 4 5
from a company like this.
I think there is a better strategy for a
. . l 2 3 4 5
company like this to use.
I am surprised that the company is 1 2 3 4 5
domg this.
I agree with the company s 1 2 3 4 5
advertisg strategy
I don’t have any problems with the
, . . 1 2 3 4 5
company s advertismg strategy.
More companies should do
something like this company’s l 2 3 4 5
advertising strategy.
The company’s advertising strategy
. . 1 2 3 4 5
is a bad idea.
1 reject the company s advertismg 1 2 3 4 5
strategy.
I approve of the company s l 2 3 4 5
advertismg strategy.
This company s strategy Will help 1 2 3 4 5
my child.
The company’s new advertising will
not make any difference in childhood I 2 3 4 5
obesity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

114

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
. agree or
Disagree somewhat . somewhat agree
disagree
The company’s new strategy will
reduce the incidence of childhood 1 2 3 4 5
obesity.
The company is doing this because
they care about children and l 2 3 4 5
childhood obesity.
The company is doing this to 1 2 3 4 5
persuade me to buy their products.
The company is doing this because it
. . . I 2 3 4 5
Will increase their profits.
The company is doing this to create a
. . . 1 2 3 4 5
posmve corporate image.
The company is doing this because it 1 2 3 4 5
is the ethical thing to do.
The company does not have a
genuine concern for the welfare of 1 2 3 4 5
children.
The company really cares about
getting nutrition information to their 1 2 3 4 5
customers.
Ultimately, the company benefits by
. . 1 2 3 4 5
this action.
The company is changing to this
. . 1 2 3 4 5
strategy because customers like it.
The company is changing their
advertising because other companies 1 2 3 4 5
are using similar strategies.
The company is changing their
advertising to avoid government 1 2 3 4 5
regulation.

 

Based on what you just read, how do you feel about the company in the story? Please us
select the word closest to how you feel for each of the next three questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable

 

115

Now, we would like your opinions about the current advertising by the company you just
read about. Please answer these questions based on your opinions about what you have
seen, heard, or read previously, NOT based on what you read in the story today. Tell us
how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the
company’s advertising.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
. agree or
Disagree somewhat . somewhat agree
disagree
The company advertises to children. I 2 3 4 5
The company promotes a variety of 1 2 3 4 5
food products in its advertising.
Most of the advertised products are I 2 3 4 5
nutritious.
Recent advertising for this company 1 2 3 4 5
has promoted healthy lifestyles.
The advertisements for this company 1 2 3 4 5
feature non-nutritious foods.
In its advertising to children, the
company emphasizes healthy I 2 3 4 5
lifestyle choices.

 

Please answer the following questions, providing general information about yourself and
your family, by circling the correct answer or filling in the blank.

What best describes your marital status?

Married

Single, Living with Significant Other
Single

Divorced

Widowed

What is your sex? Male Female
In what year were you born?
What was the highest level of education that you completed?

Less than high school graduate
High school graduate

Some college

Junior college or technical degree
Bachelors (college) degree

Some graduate school

Graduate degree

116

What is your family’s total household income, before taxes?

Under $20,000
$20,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more

This is the end of the survey. Thank you for your participation.

117

III. Main Study Instrument

MICHIGAN STATE
u N IV E R SIT Y

 

Food Marketing and Children

We’re conducting a study to learn more about what parents think about food marketing and
children. We are asking you, and other parents like you, to help us with this research.

Ifyou have a child or children aged twelve and younger living with you, and you are responsible
for most of your family’s food shopping, please read and respond to the attached questions. The
survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. There are

no right or wrong answers; we are interested in your opinions.

Your answers will be kept completely confidential.

Thank you for your participation.

 

118

Advertising

First, we have some questions about advertising. For each of the following statements,
please select the number that best indicates how much you agree or disagree. The higher
the number, the more you agree with the statement.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat agree nor Somewhat Agree
disagree
We can depend on getting the truth I 2 3 4 5
in most advertising.
Advertising’s aim is to inform the l 2 3 4 5
consumer.
I believe advertising is informative. 1 2 3 4 5
Advertising is generally truthful. 1 2 3 4 5
Advertising is a reliable source of 1 2 3 4 5
information about the quality and
performance of products.
Advertising is truth well told. I 2 3 4 5
In general, advertising presents a true 1 2 3 4 5
picture of the product being
advertised.
I feel I’ve been accurately informed 1 2 3 4 5
after viewing most advertisements.
Most advertising provides consumers l 2 3 4 5
with essential information.
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat agree nor Somewhat Agree
disagree
1 2 3 4 5
Most claims made in food
advertising are true.
Nutritional claims in food 1 2 3 4 5
advertising are exaggerated.
Consumers would be better off if I 2 3 4 5

nutritional claims in advertising

were eliminated.

Most claims in food advertising are l 2 3 4 5
intended to mislead rather than to

inform consumers.

I do not believe most claims made I 2 3 4 5
on in food advertising.

There are too many food ads. 1 2 3 4 5
Food ads employ tricks and 1 2 3 4 5
gimmicks to get children to buy.

Food ads make false nutritional 1 2 3 4 5
claims.

There is too much sugar in 1 2 3 4 5
advertised foods.

Food ads teach children bad eating 1 2 3 4 5
habits.

Food ads lead to family conflict. 1 2 3 4 5

119

Nutrition

How do you perceive nutrition? Please judge how you feel about the topic of nutrition
against these descriptive items. Then mark closest to the word that represents your
reaction to each pair. Mark each item below as a separate and independent judgment.
Do not worry or puzzle over individual items. It is your first impression, the immediate
feelings about the items, which we want. On the other hand, please do not be careless,
because we want your true impressions.

To me, nutrition is:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Important Unimportant
Boring Interesting
Relevant Irrelevant
Exciting ' Unexciting
Means Nothing Means a lot to me
Appealing Unappealing
Fascinating Mundane
Worthless Valuable
Involving Uninvolving

Not needed Needed

 

 

 

 

 

Please select the number that best represents your answer to each of the following
questions. The larger the number, the more you agree with the statement.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat agree nor Somewhat Agree
disagree
I talk to my friends about 1 2 3 4 5
nutrition.
I read food labels before 1 buy a l 2 3 4 5
product for the first time.
When I eat out, I do not pay 1 2 3 4 5
attention to nutritional
information.
I talk to my children about food I 2 3 4 5
and nutrition.
I know pretty much about I 2 3 4 5
nutrition.
I do not feel very knowledgeable l 2 3 4 5

about nutrition.

120

Among my circle of friends, I’m

one of the “experts” on nutrition. 1 2 3 4 5
Compared to most other people, I l 2 3 4 5
know less about nutrition.

When it comes to nutrition, 1 l 2 3 4 5

really don’t know a whole lot.

Food Companies

We would like to know how you perceive some food companies. Below you will see a set
of word pairs. For each of the companies, please mark closest to the word which best
reflects your feelings about the company.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Taco Bell
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable
B. Wendy’s
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable
C. McDonald’s
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable
D. KFC
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable
E. Subway
Familiar Unfamiliar
Good Bad
Unpleasant Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable
. Burger King
Familiar _ __ Unfamiliar
Good __ __ Bad
Unpleasant _ _ Pleasant
Favorable Unfavorable

121

In the last month, how many times have you visited each of the following companies?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 or

Subway 0 1 -— 3 4 - 6 7 — 9 more
. 10 or

Burger King 0 1- 3 4 — 6 7 - 9 more
Taco Bell 0 1—3 4—6 7—9 100‘
more

10 or

KFC o 1-3 4—6 7-9 more
McDonald’s o 1—3 4-6 7—9 100'
more

9 10 or
Wendy s 0 1—3 4—6 7—9 more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Online Activities

Next, we have some questions about what you do online. Please tell us how often you do
each of the activities when you are online. If you do something every time you access the
Internet, select the number 5. If you never take part in the activity, choose the number 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never Always

E-mail 1 2 3 4 5
Read or watch news I 2 3 4 5
Check weather reports or forecasts 1 2 3 4 5
Read sports reports 1 2 3 4 5
Online shopping(purchase) 1 2 3 4 5
Health-related search 1 2 3 4 5
Watch TV programs 1 2 3 4 5
Listen to radio programs I 2 3 4 5
Online banking or financial l 2 3 4 5
transactions

Chat room 1 2 3 4 5
Instant message I 2 3 4 5
Play games 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

122

Recent News [stimulus news story presented here. Subjects randomly assigned to
one of the six conditions]

Now we would like you to please read the following short news story. You will be asked
a few questions about your reaction to it after you finish.

[random presentation of one of the following 6 stories]

New York, August 15 - McDonald’s, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on McDonald’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced campaign is McDonald’s plan to introduce
commercials on children’s television programs that emphasize exercise and nutritious
eating. They will continue to advertise a variety of products to adults, and will continue
to encourage adults to bring their families to McDonald’s restaurants. In announcing this
plan, the company stated that it is part of their program to help families encourage
nutritious eating and exercise to improve the diets of America’s youth and battle
childhood obesity.

OR

New York, August 15 - McDonald’s, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on McDonald’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced campaign is McDonald’s plan to eliminate
commercials for non-nutritious food products on television programs intended for
children. They will continue to advertise a variety of products to adults, and will continue
to encourage adults to bring their families to McDonald’s restaurants. In announcing this
plan, the company stated that it is part of their program to help families encourage
nutritious eating and exercise to improve the diets of America’s youth and battle
childhood obesity.

OR

New York, August 15 — McDonald’s, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on McDonald’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced campaign is McDonald’s plan to develop new
commercials to run on television programs intended for children, promoting a variety of

123

products. They will also continue to advertise a variety of products to adults, and will
continue to encourage adults to bring their families to McDonald’s restaurants.

OR

New York, August 15 - Subway, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its fresh fruits and vegetables, whole
grain breads, and low carbohydrate options, the company recently engaged a new
advertising agency. The new agency has been concentrating on Subway’s children’s
advertising, and will unveil their first campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced campaign is Subway’s plan to introduce
commercials on children’s television programs that emphasize exercise and nutritious
eating. They will continue to advertise a variety of products to adults, and will continue
to encourage adults to bring their families to Subway restaurants. In armouncing this plan,
the company stated that it is part of their program to help families encourage nutritious
eating and exercise to improve the diets of America’s youth and battle childhood obesity.

OR

New York, August 15 - Subway, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its fresh fruits and vegetables, whole
grain breads, and low carbohydrate options, the company recently engaged a new
advertising agency. The new agency has been concentrating on Subway’s children’s
advertising, and will unveil their first campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced campaign is Subway’s plan to eliminate
commercials for non-nutritious food products on television programs intended for
children. They will continue to advertise a variety of products to adults, and will continue
to encourage adults to bring their families to Subway restaurants. In announcing this plan,
the company stated that it is part of their plan to help families encourage nutritious eating
and exercise to improve the diets of America’s youth and battle childhood obesity.

OR

New York, August 15 - Subway, a fast food company that is popular with families,
announced a new advertising strategy. Known for its French fries, hamburgers, and milk
shakes, the company recently engaged a new advertising agency. The new agency has
been concentrating on Subway’s children’s advertising, and will unveil their first
campaign next month.

A cornerstone of the newly announced campaign is Subway’s plan to develop new
commercials to run on television programs intended for children, promoting a variety of
products. They will also continue to advertise a variety of products to, and will continue
to encourage adults to bring their families to Subway restaurants.

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree somewhat agree or Somewhat Agree
disagree
I believe that the company offers 1 2 3 4 5
mostly nutritious products.
For the most part, the company’s
products are not part of a nutritious 1 2 3 4 5
diet.
The company has a reputation for 1 2 3 4 5
having healthy product offerings.
This company is well known for its 1 2 3 4 5
junk food.
The new advertising plans make 1 2 3 4 5
sense for a compagy like this.
The new advertising plans are
consistent with what I would expect 1 , 2 3 4 5
from a company like this.
I think there is a better strategy for a l 2 3 4 5
cgmpany like this to use.
I am surprised that the company is 1 2 3 4 5
dogs this-
I would not expect a company like 1 2 3 4 5
this to take this action.
The company’s new advertising 1 2 3 4 5
lans fit my expectations.
I agree with the company’s
advertisingstrategy l 2 3 4 5
I don’t have any problems with the 1 2 3 4 5
company’s advertisig straggy.
More companies should do
something like this company’s 1 2 3 4 5
advertising strategy.
The company s advertrsrng strategy 1 2 3 4 5
is a bad idea.
I reject the company s advertrsrng 1 2 3 4 5
strategy.
I approve of the company’s l 2 3 4 5
advertisipg strategy.
This company s strategy wrll help 1 2 3 4 5
my child.
The company’s new advertising will
not make any difference in 1 2 3 4 5
childhood obesity.
The company’s new strategy will
reduce the incidence of childhood 1 2 3 4 5
obesity.
The company is doing this because
they care about children and 1 2 3 4 5
childhood obesity.
The company is doing this to 1 2 3 4 5
persuade me to buy their products.

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

 

 

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree
somewhat

Neither
agree or
disa ree

Agree
somewhat

Strongly
Agree

 

The company is doing this because

it will increase their profits.

I

2

3

4

5

 

The company is doing this to
create a positive copporate ima_,ge.

1

2

3

4

5

 

The company is doing this because

it is the ethical thing to do.

 

The company does not have a
genuine concern for the welfare of
children.

 

The company really cares about
getting nutrition information to
their customers.

 

Ultimately, the company benefits

 

by this action.
The company is changing to this

strategy because customers like it.

 

The company is changing its
advertising because other
companies are using similar

strateg ies .

 

The company is changing its
advertising to avoid government

regulation.

 

The company is changing its
advertising to pacify parents who
might not want their children to eat
their food.

 

 

The company is changing
advertising strategies because they
think it will help improve their

reputation.

 

The company is changing
advertising strategies to
demonstrate that they are good

“corporate citizens.”

 

The new advertising strategy

demonstrates the company’s

commitment to helping its
customers.

 

The company is afraid that laws

will be passed limiting their ability

to advertise unless they take

actions like their new advertising
lans.

 

The new advertising is intended to
change the company’s public

ungge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

126

 

We have a few more questions about the company in the story you read. Please answer
each of the following by selecting the number that best indicates your reaction. Higher
numbers indicate greater blame or responsibility.

 

None

Completely

 

How much do you blame
the company for children’s
diet related problems?

1

5

 

How responsible is the
company for children’s diet-
related problems?

 

How much blame do you
place on parents like you for
children’s diet related
problems?

 

 

I-low responsible are parents
like you for children’s diet
related problems?

 

 

 

 

 

 

For each of the following statements, please tell us whether you agree or disagree by
selecting the appropriate number. The higher the number, the more you agree.

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat or Disagree Somewhat Agree
1 think advertisers l 2 3 4 5
like this company
are responsible for
childhood obesity.
1 think that parents 1 2 3 4 S

are responsible for
childhood obesigl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on what you just read, how do you feel about the company in the story? Please

select the word closest to how you feel for each of the next three questions.

Good
Unpleasant
Favorable

Bad

 

 

 

Pleasant

Unfavorable

 

127

 

 

Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with each of the statements about the
company you just read about by selecting the appropriate number. The higher the
number, the more you agree with the statement.

The company has a great amount of
experience.

The company is skilled at what they do.

The company has great expertise.
The company does not have much
experience.

I trust the company.

The company makes truthful claims.
The company is honest.

I do not believe what the company tells
me.

I have a good feeling about the
company

I admire and respect the company.

I trust the company a great deal.

Strongly
Disagree

1

Disagree

Somewhat

2

NNN

NNNN

Neither
Agree or
Disagree
3

3
3

b.)

wwww

Agree
Somewhat

4

#4}

Abhh

Strongly
Agree

5

MM

M‘JILIIM

U’t

Now, we would like your opinions about the current advertising by the company you just
read about. Please answer these questions based on your opinions about what you have
seen, heard, or read previously, NOT based on what you read in the story today. Tell us
how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the

company’s advertising.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
. agree or
Disagree somewhat . somewhat agree
diggee
The company advertises to children. 1 2 3 4 5
The company promotes a variety of 1 2 3 4 5
food products in its advertising.
Most of the advertised products are 1 2 3 4 5
nutritious.
Recent advertising for this company 1 2 3 4 5
has promoted healthy lifestyles.
The advertisements for this company 1 2 3 4 5
feature non-nutritious foods.
In its advertising to children, the
company emphasizes healthy 1 2 3 4 5
lifestyle choices.

 

128

 

Some Questions About You

Listed below are some statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each
item and decide whether it describes you personally, then select True or False.

I am always willing to admit it when I make a mistake True
I always try to practice what I preach True
I never resent being asked to return a favor True
I have never been annoyed when people expressed ideas very different from my own. True
I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings True
I like to gossip at times True
There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone True
I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget True
At times I have really insisted on having things my own way True
There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things True

False
False
False
False
False
False
False
False
False
False

Please answer the following questions, providing information about yourself and your
family, by selecting the correct answer or filling in the blank.

1.

What best describes your marital status?

Married

Single, Living with Significant Other
Single

Divorced

Widowed

What is your sex? Male Female

. How many children age 12 and under live with you?

. In what year were you born?

What was the highest level of education that you completed?
Less than high school graduate
High school graduate
Some college
Junior college or technical degree
Bachelors (college) degree
Some graduate school
Graduate degree

. What is your family’s total household income, before taxes?

Under $20,000
$20,000 to $34,999
$35 ,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more

This is the end of the survey. Thank you for your participation.

129

 

REFERENCES

American Express (2003), "American Express Launches National Campaign to Help
Reopen the Statue of Liberty; Pledges A Minimum of $3 Million with Cardmember
Support." Retrieved April 26, 2006, from
http://home3.americanexpress.com/corp/pc/2003/statue_liberty.asp.

American Obesity Association (2006), "Obesity in the US." Retrieved November 21,
2006, from http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/obesity_US.shtrnl.

Anderson, Ross E., Carlos J. Crespo, Susan J. Bartlett, Lawrence J. Cheskin, and Michael
Pratt (1998), "Relationship of Physical Activity and Television Watching with Body
Weight and Level of Fatness Among Children," JAMA, 279 (12), 938 - 42.

Barone, Michael J., Anthony D. Miyazaki, and Kimberly A. Taylor (2000), "The
Influence of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good Turn
Deserve Another?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 248 - 62.

BBC.co.uk (2003), "Kids Influenced by Junk Food Ads." Retrieved September 25, 2003,
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/hi/healthy/31361 18.strn.

Bem, Daryl J. (1965), "An Experimental Analysis of Self-persuasion," Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 464 - 79.

Better Business Bureau (2006), "New Food, Beverage Initiative to Focus Kids' Ads on
Healthy Choices; Revised Guidelines Strengthen CARU's Guidance to Food
Advertisers." Retrieved November 15, 2006, from
http://www.bbb.org/alerts/article.asp?ID=728.

Bridges, Eileen and Richard A. Briesch (2006), "The 'Nag' Factor and Children's Product
Categories," International Journal of Advertising, 25 (2), 157 - 87.

Brucks, Merrie (1985), "The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search
Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 1 - 16.

Calfee, John E. (1988), "How Advertising Informs to our Benefit," Consumers' Research
Magazine, 81 (4), 13 - 18.

Calfee, John E. and Debra Jones Ringold (1994), "The 70% Majority: Enduring
Consumer Beliefs About Advertising," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13 (2), 228
- 40.

Carlson, Les and Sanford L. Grossbart (1988), "Parental Style and Consumer
Socialization of Children," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (1), 77 - 94.

130

Cause Marketing Forum (2006), "The Growth of Cause Marketing." Retrieved May 19,
2006, from http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=l 88.

Celsi, Richard L. and Jerry C. Olson (1988), "The Role of Involvement in Attention and
Comprehension Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 210 - 24.

Crosby, Lawrence A. and Sanford L. Grossbart (1984), "Parental Style Segments and
Concern About Children's Food Advertising," in Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, James H. Leigh and Claude R. Jr. Martin, Eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Division of
Research, Graduate School of Business Administration.

Cronk, Brian C. (2002), How to Use SPSS. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Crowne, Douglas P. and David Marlowe (1960), "A New Scale of Social Desirability
Independent of Psychopathology," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (4), 349 - 54.

D'Souza, Clare and Mehdi Taghian (2005), "Green advertising effects on attitude and
choice of advertising themes," Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 17 (3), 51
- 66.

Davis, Joel J. (1994), "Consumer Response to Corporate Environmental Advertising,"
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11 (2), 25 - 37.

Dawkins, Jenny (2004), "Corporate Responsibility: The Communication Challenge,"
Journal of Communication Management, 9 (2), 108 - 19.

Derevensky, Jeffrey L. and Carolyn Klein (1992), "Children and Television," in Seeing
Ourselves: Media Power and Policy in Canada. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Canada.

Deshpande, Sameer and Jacqueline C. Hitchon (2002), "Cause-Related Marketing Ads in
the Light of Negative News," Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79 (4),
905 - 27.

Desrochers, Debra M. and Debra J. Holt (2007), "Children's Exposure to Television
Advertising: Implications for Childhood Obesity," Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 26 (2), 182 - 201.

Detroit Free Press (2006), "Industry Report," in Detroit Free Press. Retrieved May 19,
2006, from http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dIl/article?AID=/20060518.

Drumright, Minette E. (1996), "Company Advertising with a Social Dimension: The Role
of Noneconomic Criteria," Journal of Marketing, 60 (October), 67 - 87.

131

Eggerton, John (2007), "Chuck E. Cheese Agrees to Self-Regulate Kids' Marketing," in
Broadcasting & Cable (October 11). Retrieved October 12, 2007, from
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/indes.asp?layout=articlePrint&articIeID=CA6489306.

Ellen, Pam Scholder, Deborah J. Webb, and Lois A Mohr (2006), "Building Corporate
Associations: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Socially Responsible Programs,"
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147 - 57.

Ellison, Sarah (2005), "Children's Menu: Divided, Companies Fight for Right to Plug
Kids' F ood," in Wall Street Journal. Eastern ed. New York, NY (January 26).

Federal Trade Commission and Department of Health & Human Services (2006),
"Perspective on Marketing, Self-Regulation, and Childhood Obesity: A Report on a Joint
Workshop of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health & Human
Services," United States.

F iske, Susan and Shelley Taylor (1991), "Attribution Theory," in Social Cognition. New
York: McGraw Hill.

Fitzgerald, Toni (2007), "The Real Cost of Low-Fast Kids Television," in
medialifemagazine.com. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from
www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Younger_viewers_49/The_real_cost_of_l
ow-fat_kids_television.

Flavell, John H., Patricia H. Miller, and Scott A. Miller (2002), Cognitive Development
(Fourth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Flynn, Leisa Reinecke and Ronald E. Goldsmith (1999), "A Short, Reliable Measure of
Subjective Knowledge," Journal of Business Research, 46 (1), 57 - 66.

Folkes, Valerie S. (1984), "Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional
Approach," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (4), 398 - 409.

---- (1988), "Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New
Directions," Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 548 - 65.

Friedman, Milton (1970), "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its
Profits," in The New York Times Magazine. New York, NY (September 13).

Gantz, Walter, Nancy Schwartz, James R. Angelini, and Victoria Rideout (2007), "Food
for Thought: Television Advertising to Children in the United States," Kaiser Family
Foundation (Ed.). Menlo Park.

Goldsmith, Ronald E., Barbara J. Lafferty, and Stephen J. Newell (2000), "The Impact of
Corporate Credibility and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements
and Brands," Journal of Advertising, 29 (3), 43 - 54.

132

Grankvist, Gunne, Ulf Dahlstrand, and Anders Biel (2004), "The Impact of
Environmental Labelling on Consumer Preference: Negative vs. Positive Labels," Journal
of Consumer Policy, 27 (2), 213 - 30.

Grant, Jeremy (2005), "Self-regulation and the Junk Food Giants: The Food Industry's
Attempt to Modify Advertising to Kids May Not be Enough," in Financial Times.
London, UK (January 22).

Grier, Sonia, Janell Mensinger, Shirley H. Huang, Shiriki K. Kumanyika, and Nicolas
Stettler (2007), "Fast-Food Marketing and Children's F ast-F ood Consumption: Exploring
Parents' Influences in an Ethnically Diverse Sample," Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 26 (2), 221 - 35.

Griffin, Mitch, Barry J. Babin, and Jill Attaway (1996), "Anticipation of Injurious
Consumption Outcomes and its Impact on Consumer Attributions of Blame," JAMS, 24
(Fall), 314 - 27.

Grossbart, Sanford L. and Lawrence A. Crosby (1984), "Understanding the Bases of
Parental Concern and Reaction to Children's Food Advertising," Journal of Marketing, 48
(3), 79 - 92.

Haley, Eric (1996), "Exploring the Construct of Organization as Source: Consumers'
Understandings of Organizational Sponsorship of Advocacy Advertising," Journal of
Advertising, 25 (2), 19 - 35.

Hall, Emma (2006), "British Junk-Food Ad Ban Rocks TV Business," in Advertising
Age. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from http://adage.com/article?article_id=113444.

---- (2007), "Watchdogs: Marketers are Sidestepping U.K. Ban on Junk-Food Ads,"
Advertising Age (September 3).

Harris Interactive (2007), "Annual RQ." Retrieved April 2, 2007, from
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/services/rq.asp/meth.

Harrison, Kristen and Amy L. Marske (2005), "Nutritional Content of Foods Advertised
During the Television Programs Children Watch Most," American Journal of Public
Health, 95 (9), 1568 - 74.

Hastie, Reid (1984), "Causes and Effects of Causal Attribution," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 46 (January), 44 - 56.

Hastings, Gerard, Martine Stead, Laura McDermott, Alasdair Forsyth, Anne Marie

MacKintosh, Mike Rayner, Christine Godfrey, Martin Caraher, and Kathryn Angus
(2003), "Review of Research on the Effects of Food Promotion to Children: Final Report

133

Prepared for the Food Standards Agency." Glasgow: Center for Social Marketing,
University of Strathclyde.

Heckler, Susan E. and Terry L. Childers (1992), "The Role of Expectancy and Relevancy
in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What is Incongruency?," Journal of
Consumer Research, 18 (4), 475 - 92.

Heider, Fritz (195 8), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2004), "Parents, Media and Public Policy: A Kaiser
Family Foundation Survey." Menlo Park: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Higgins, John M. (2005), "No More Nutter Butter Ads?," in Broadcasting & Cable
(January 17).

Higham, Nick (2003), "Confusion over "Junk Food" Ads," BBC. Retrieved February 9,
2006, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3 16270.stm.

Hitchon, Jacqueline C. and Esther Thorson (1995), "Effects of Emotion and Product
Involvement on the Experience of Repeated Commercial Viewing," Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39 (3), 376 - 89.

Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2006), Food Marketing to Children and
Youth: Threat or Opportunity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

John, Deborah Roedder (1999a), "Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective
Look at Twenty-Five Years of Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 183-213.

---- (1999b), "Through the Eyes of a Child: Children's Knowledge and Understanding of
Advertising," in Advertising to Children: Concepts and Controversies, M. Carole
Macklin and Les Carlson, Eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Kamp, David (2007), "Don't Point that Menu at My Child, Please," in The New York
Times. New York.

Kelley, Harold H. (1973), "The Process of Causal Attribution," American Psychologist,
28 (3), 107 - 28.

Kiley, David (2007), "Romney's Problem: His Brand Story is Too Complicated for
Voters," in Business Week Online Vol. March 15.

Kim, Young (2006), "How Attribution Explains Consumers' Views of Penalties," Journal
of American Academy of Business, 8 (l), 311 - 15.

Kraft (2005), "Kraft Takes Lead in Responsibility," in Advertising Age. Midwest Region
ed., 76(4) January 24).

134

Kraft Foods (2005), "Kraft Foods Announces Marketing Changes to Emphasize More
Nutritious Products." Retrieved April 18, 2005, from
Krafi.com/newsroom/Ol 122005 .htrnl.

Krugman, Herbert E. (1977), "Memory Without Recall, Exposure Without Perception,"
Journal of Advertising Research, 17 (4), 7 - 12.

---- (1965), "The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning without Involvement,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Fall), 349 - 56.

Lafferty, Barbara A., Ronald E. Goldsmith, and Stephen J. Newell (2002), "The Dual
Credibility Model: The Influence of Corporate and Endorser Credibility on Attitudes and
Purchase Intentions."

Laurent, Gilles and Jean-Noel Kapferer (1985), "Measuring Consumer Involvement
Profiles," Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (February), 41 - 53.

Lee, Mira, Yoonhyeung Choi, Elizabeth Taylor Quilliam, and Richard T. Cole (2007),
""Playing with" Food: How Marketers Target Children Online," in American Marketing
Association Marketing and Public Policy Conference. Washington, DC.

Lee, Yih Hwai and Charlotte Mason (1999), "Responses to Information Incongruency in
Advertising: The Role of Expectancy, Relevancy, and Humor," Journal of Consumer
Research, 26 (September), 156 - 69.

Livingstone, Sonia and Ellen J. Helsper (2006), "Does Advertising Literacy Mediate the
Effects of Advertising on Children? A Critical Examination of Two Linked Research
Literatures in Relation to Obesity and Food Choice," Journal of Communication, 56 (3),
560 - 84.

Lowry, Richard, Howell Wechsler, Deborah A. Galuska, Janet E. Fulton, and Laura Kann
(2002), "Television Viewing and its Associations with Overweight, Sedentary lifestyle,

and Insufficient Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables among US High School Students:
Differences by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender," Journal of School Health, 72 (10), 413 - 21.

MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical Examination of the
Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Prestesting Context,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (April), 48 - 65.

Mandler, George (1982), "The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste," in Affect and
Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium, Margaret S. Clark and Susan T. Fiske,
Eds. I-Iillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Markey, Edward J. (2007a), "Letter to Chuck E. Cheese," Richard M. Frank (addressee),
Letter to Chuck E. Cheese regarding limitations on advertising to children (April 16).

135

---- (2007b), "Letter to the Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission,"
Kevin J. Martin and Michael J. Copps and Deborah Taylor Tate (addressees). Letter to
the Federal Communications Commission regarding the Task Force on Media and
Childhood Obesity (September 12).

Martin, Andrew (2007), "Kellogg to Phase out Some Food Ads to Children," in The New
York Times. New York, NY (June 14).

---- (2006), "Leading Makers Agree to Put Limits on Junk Food Advertising Directed at
Children," in The New York Times. New York, NY. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from
http://www.nytimes.com.

Mason, Charlotte H. and William D. Jr. Perrault (1991), "Collinearity, Power, ad
Interpretation of Multiple Regression Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 28
(August), 268 - 80.

McDonalds.com (2005), "McDonald's launches New Worldwide Balanced, Active
lifestyles Public Awareness Campaign." Retrieved April 18, 200, from
www.mcdonalds.com/corp/news/corppr/2005/cpr_03082005.htrnl.

McKay, Betsy (2005), "The Children's Menu: Do Ads Make Kids Fat?," in Wall Street
Journal. Eastern ed. New York (January 27).

Melillo, Wendy and Aaron Baar (2005), "Battle Lines are Drawn Over What Makes Kids
Pat," in Adweek Vol. 46 (5).

Mishra, Raja (2004), "US. Panel Releases Battle Plan Against Child Obesity," in Knight
Ridder Tribune Business News. Wire ed. Washington (October 1).

Mohr, Lois A., Dogan Ergolu, and Pam Scholder Ellen (1998), "The Development and
Testing of a Measure of Skepticism Toward Environmental Claims in Marketers'
Communications," Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32 (1), 30 - 55.

Mohr, Lois A. and Deborah J. Webb (2005), "The Effects of Corporate Social
Responsibility and Price on Consumer Responses," Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39 (1),
121 - 47.

Mohr, Lois A., Deborah J. Webb, and Katherine E. Harris (2001), "Do Consumers
Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social
Responsibility on Buying Behavior," Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35 (I), 45 - 72.

Moore, Elizabeth S. (2004), "Children and the Changing World of Advertising," Journal
of Business Ethics, 2004, 161 - 67.

136

---- (2006), "It's Child's Play: Advergaming and the Online Marketing of Food to
Children." Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Moore, Elizabeth S. and Victoria Rideout (2007), "The Online Marketing of Food to
Children: Is it Just Fun and Games?," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26 (2), 202
— 20.

Muehling, Darrel D., Russell N. Laczniak, and Jeffrey J. Stoltman (1991), "The
Moderating Effects of Ad Message Involvement: A Reassessment," Journal of
Advertising, 20 (2), 29 - 38.

Myers-Levy, Joan and Alice M. Tybout (1989), "Schema Congruity as a Basis for
Product Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39 - 54.

NARC (2004), "Guidance for Food Advertising Self-Regulation," National Advertising
Review Council (Ed.). New York (May 28).

---- (2006), "New Food, Beverage Initiative to Focus Kids' Ads on Healthy Choices;
Revised Guidelines Strengthen CARU's Guidance to Food Advertisers." Retrieved
October 31, 2007, from www.cbbb.org/initiative/

Newell, Stephen J. and Ronald E. Goldsmith (2001), "The Development of a Scale to
Measure Perceived Corporate Credibility," Journal of Business Research, 52 (3), 235 -
47.

Oates, Caroline, Mark Blades, and Barrie Gunter (2002), "Children and Television
Advertising: When Do They Understand Persuasive Intent?"," Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 1 (3), 238-45.

Oberrniller, Carl and Eric R. Spangenberg (1998), "Development of a Scale to Measure
Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertising," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 72 (2),
159 - 86.

Oberrniller, Carl, Eric R. Spangenberg, and Douglas L. MacLachlan (2005), "Ad
Skepticism," Journal of Advertising, 34 (3), 7 - 17.

Office of Communications (2006), "New Restrictions on the Television Advertising of
Food and Drink Products to Children," (March 28).

Ohanian, Roobina (1990), "Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity
Endorsers' Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness and Attractiveness," Journal of
Advertising, 19 (3), 39 - 52.

Petty, Richard B, John T. Cacioppo, and Rachel Goldman (1981), "Personal Involvement
as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion," Journal of Personality and Social
psychology, 41 (5), 847 - 55.

137

Petty, Richard B, John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), "Central and
Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (2), 135 - 47.

Pollay, Richard W. (1986), "The Distorted Mirror: Reflections on the Unintended
Consequences of Advertising," Journal of Marketing 50 (April), 18 - 36.

Powell, Lisa M., Glen Szczypka, Frank J. Chaloupka, and Carol L. Braunschweig (2007),
"Nutritional Content of Television Food Advertisements Seen by Children and
Adolescents in the United States," American Academy of Pediatrics, 120 (3), 576 - 83.

Priluck, Randi and Brian D. Till (2004), "The Role of Contingency Awareness,
Involvement, and Need for Cognition in Attitude Formation," Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 32 (3), 329 - 44.

Putrevu, Sanjay and Kenneth R. Lord (1994), "Comparative and Noncomparative
Advertising: Attitudinal Effects under Cognitive and Affective Involvement Conditions,"
Journal of Advertising, 23 (2), 77 - 90.

Reece, Bonnie B., Nora J. Rifon, and Kimberly Rodriguez (1999), "Selling Food to
Children: Is Fun Part of a Balanced Breakfast?," in Advertising to Children: Concepts
and Controversies, M.C. Macklin and L. Carlson, Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Rideout, Vicky (2005), "Youth Obesity: Public Opinion on the Role and Responsibility
of the Food and Beverage Industry," in Youth Marketing Mega-Event. Huntington
Beach, CA.

Rideout, Victoria, E.A. Vandewater, and Ellen A. Wartella (2003), "Zero to Six:
Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers and Preschoolers," Kaiser Family
Foundation (Ed.). Menlo Park, CA.

Rifon, Nora J ., Sejung Marina Choi, Carrie S. Trimble, and Hairong Lee (2004),
"Congruence Effects in Sponsorship: The Mediating Role of Sponsor Credibility and
Consumer Attributions of Sponsor Motive," Journal of Advertising, 33 (1), 29 - 43.

Roberts, Donald F ., Ulla G. F oehr, and Victoria Rideout (2005), "Generation M: Media
in the Lives of 8 - 18 Year-Olds," Kaiser Family Foundation (Ed.). Menlo Prak, CA.

Robinson, Thomas (1999), "Reducing Children's Television Viewing to Prevent Obesity:
A Randomized Controlled Trial," JAMA, 282 (16), 1561 - 67.

Rollins, Judy A. (2004), "Kaiser Family Foundation Releases Report on Role of Media in
Childhood Obesity," Pediatric Nursing, 30 (2), 165.

138

Ross, Michael and Garth J. O. Fletcher (1985), "Attribution and Social Perception," in
The Handbook of Social Psychology, Lindzey and Aronson, Eds. 3rd ed. Vol. II.

Sanders, Lisa (2005), "McDonald's Unveils Global Ad Campaign Aimed At Children," in
Advertising Age. Online ed (March 8).

Schuhwerk, Melody E. and Roxanne Lefkoff-Hagius (1995), "Green or Non-Green?
Does Type of Appeal Matter When Advertising a Green Product?," Journal of
Advertising, 24 (2), 45 - 54.

Schwepker, Charles H. Jr. and T. Bettina Comwell (1991), "An Examination of
Ecologically Concerned Consumers and Their Intention to Purchase Ecologically
Packaged Products," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 77 - 101.

Seiders, Kathleen and Leonard L. Berry (2007), "Should Business Care About Obesity?,"
MIT Sloan Management Review, 48 (2), 15 - 17.

Seiders, Kathleen and Ross S. Petty (2007), "Taming the Obesity Beast: Children,
Marketing, and Public Policy Considerations," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26
(2), 236 - 42.

Sheth, Jagdish N. and Rajendra S. Sisodia (2005), "A Dangerous Divergence: Marketing
and Society," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24 (1), 160 - 62.

Silverrnan, Gary (2004), "Ban on Junk Food Commercials is Unlikely to Harm

H H

Advertising Industry , in Financial Times. London, UK.

Simmons, Carolyn J. and Karen L. Becker-Olsen (2006), "Achieving Marketing
Objectives Through Social Sponsorships," Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 154 - 69.

Sparkman, Richard M. Jr. and William B. Locander (1980), "Attribution Theory and
Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 219 - 24.

Spurlock, Morgan (2004), "Supersize Me." USA.

Strasburger, Victor C. (2001), "Children and TV Advertising: Nowhere to Run, Nowhere
to Hide," Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 22 (3), 185 - 87.

Teinowitz, Ira (2005a), "Food Advertising Pushed Into Harsh Spotlight," in Advertising
Age (March 15).

---- (2007a), "Markey Demands McD's, Other Marketers Follow Kellogg's Lead:

Congressman Tells Five Food Titans to Implement Kids' Advertising Limits," in
Advertising Age (July 26).

139

---- (2007b), "NBC Universal Bans Junk-Food Ads from More Kids Shows," in
Advertising Age (September 26).

---- (2005b), "Senator Mocks Food Industry Efforts to Monitor Ads," in Advertising Age
(March 16).

Thogerson, J (2000), "Psychological Determinants of Paying Attention to Eco-labels in
Purchase Decisions: Model Development and Multinational Validation," Journal of
Consumer Policy, 22, 285 - 313.

Trimble, Carrie S. (2007), "Consumer Response to Cause-Brand Alliances: How
Situational and Consumer Characteristics Influence Consumer Response," Dissertation,

Michigan State University.

Trimble, Carrie S. and Nora J. Rifon (2006), "Consumer Perceptions of Compatibility in
Cause-Related Marketing Messages," International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, 11 (1), 29 - 47.

Tsiros, Michael, Vikas Mittal, and William T. Jr. Ross (2004), "The Role of Attributions
in Customer Satisfaction: A Reexamination," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 476
- 83.

United States Census Bureau (2006), "America's Families and Living
Relationship."Retrieved February 16, 2008, from
http://www.census.gov/population/www.socdemo/hh-fam.html.

United States Department of Health & Human Services (2007), "The Problem of
Overweight in Children and Adolescents." Retrieved October 25, 2007, from
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_adoIescents.htm.

Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Anil Menon (1988), "Cause-Related Marketing: A
Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy," Journal of Marketing,
52 (July), 58 - 74.

Webb, Deborah J. and Lois A Mohr (1998), "A Typology of Consumer Responses to
Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned," Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 17 (Fall), 226 - 38.

Weiner, Bernard (2000), "Attributional Thoughts about Consumer Behavior," Journal of
Consumer Research, 27 (December), 382 - 87.

Wilcox, Brian L., Dale Kunkel, Joanne Cantor, Peter Dowrick, Susan Linn, and Edward

Palmer (2004), "Report of the APA Task Force on Advertising and Children," American
Psychological Association (Ed.). Washington, DC.

140

Woo, Michelle (2005), "Breast Cancer Fight Sees Pink," in The Arizona Republic.
Phoenix, AZ (October 1).

York, Emily Bryson (2007), "You Want Apple Fries with That?" in Advertising Age
(September 11).

Zagat, Nina and Tim Zagat (2007), "Zagat Fast Food Chains 2007," Carol Diuguid (Ed.).
New York, NY: Zagat Survey, LLC.

Zaichowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of
Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341 - 52.

---- (1994), "The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application
to Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 59 - 70.

Zhang, Yong and George M. Zinkhan (2006), "Responses to Humorous Ads," Journal of
Advertising, 35 (4), 113 - 28.

141

1:399:19 u,.‘z.r?:.*l}f"f‘:% u':"'v"""v' ‘

   

I"imijjgjrjjjjj[iiiI