IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v116y2014icp211-219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can counter-advertising reduce pre-adolescent children's susceptibility to front-of-package promotions on unhealthy foods?: Experimental research

Author

Listed:
  • Dixon, Helen
  • Scully, Maree
  • Kelly, Bridget
  • Chapman, Kathy
  • Wakefield, Melanie

Abstract

This study aimed to test whether counter-advertisements (i.e. messages contesting industry marketing) make pre-adolescent children less susceptible to the influence of food promotions. Since children have lower media literacy levels due to their immature cognitive abilities, specific research questions explored were: (1) whether the effectiveness of counter-ads is contingent on children having understood them; and (2) whether counter-ads may be detrimental when they are misinterpreted. A between-subjects experimental design using a web-based methodology was employed. 1351 grade 5–6 students (mean age 11 years) from schools located in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia participated. Participants were randomly shown an animated web banner advertisement (counter-ad challenging front-of-package promotion or control ad) and a pair of food packages from the same product category comprising an unhealthy product featuring a front-of-package promotion (nutrient content claim or sports celebrity endorsement) and a healthier control pack without a front-of-package promotion. Responses to the assigned advertisement, choice of product (healthy versus unhealthy) and ratings of the unhealthy product and front-of-package promotion on various nutritional and image-related attributes were recorded for each child. Sixty-six percent of children who viewed a counter-ad understood its main message. These children rated the front-of-package promotion as less believable and rated the unhealthy product bearing the front-of-package promotion as less healthy compared to the control group. However, children who misunderstood the counter-ad rated the unhealthy product bearing a front-of-package promotion as more healthy and rated the front-of-package promotion more favourably than those who correctly understood the counter-ad. Counter-advertising may have unintended consequences when misunderstood. If public health organizations or government pursue counter-advertising as a strategy to reduce the negative influence of unhealthy food marketing among children, caution is needed in designing counter-ads to guard against possible contradictory effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Dixon, Helen & Scully, Maree & Kelly, Bridget & Chapman, Kathy & Wakefield, Melanie, 2014. "Can counter-advertising reduce pre-adolescent children's susceptibility to front-of-package promotions on unhealthy foods?: Experimental research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 211-219.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:116:y:2014:i:c:p:211-219
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361400135X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sharma, L.L. & Teret, S.P. & Brownell, K.D., 2010. "The food industry and self-regulation: Standards to promote success and to avoid public health failures," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(2), pages 240-246.
    2. Farrelly, M.C. & Davis, K.C. & Haviland, M.L. & Messeri, P. & Healton, C.G., 2005. "Evidence of a dose-response relationship between "truth" antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(3), pages 425-431.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Debasmita Basu & Hong B. Nguyen, 2021. "Eating Healthy: Understanding Added Sugar through Proportional Reasoning," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Dixon, Helen & Scully, Maree & Wakefield, Melanie & Kelly, Bridget & Pettigrew, Simone & Chapman, Kathy & Niederdeppe, Jeff, 2020. "Can counter-advertising protect spectators of elite sport against the influence of unhealthy food and beverage sponsorship? A naturalistic trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Silvera & FRANK R. KARDES & BRUCE E. PFEIFFER & ASHLEY R. ARSENA & R. JUSTIN GOSS, 2013. "Getting consumers to generate their own ad content: The impact of imagine instructions on persuasion," Working Papers 0202mkt, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    2. Jun Hyun Hwang & Dong-Hee Ryu & Soon-Woo Park, 2020. "Influence of School-Based Smoking Prevention Education on Reducing Gap in Exposure to Anti-Tobacco Media Message among Korean Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-10, November.
    3. Emma J. Kuhn & G. Stewart Walker & Harriet Whiley & Jackie Wright & Kirstin E. Ross, 2021. "Overview of Current Practices in the Methamphetamine Testing and Decontamination Industry: An Australian Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-11, August.
    4. Kraak, Vivica I. & Swinburn, Boyd & Lawrence, Mark & Harrison, Paul, 2014. "A Q methodology study of stakeholders’ views about accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the Responsibility Deal Food Network," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 207-218.
    5. Timothy Werner, 2015. "Gaining Access by Doing Good: The Effect of Sociopolitical Reputation on Firm Participation in Public Policy Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1989-2011, August.
    6. Angela Chang & Peter J. Schulz & Tony Schirato & Brian J. Hall, 2018. "Implicit Messages Regarding Unhealthy Foodstuffs in Chinese Television Advertisements: Increasing the Risk of Obesity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    7. Béné, Christophe, 2022. "Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Knai, C. & Petticrew, M. & Durand, M.A. & Eastmure, E. & James, L. & Mehrotra, A. & Scott, C. & Mays, N., 2015. "Has a public–private partnership resulted in action on healthier diets in England? An analysis of the Public Health Responsibility Deal food pledges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    9. Panjwani, Clare & Caraher, Martin, 2014. "The Public Health Responsibility Deal: Brokering a deal for public health, but on whose terms?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 163-173.
    10. Scott, C. & Hawkins, B. & Knai, C., 2017. "Food and beverage product reformulation as a corporate political strategy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 37-45.
    11. Marie A. Bragg & Brian Elbel & Marion Nestle, 2020. "Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, March.
    12. von Kaufmann, Freddie & Skafida, Valeria, 2023. "Captive school markets, industry self-regulation, and public-private partnerships: Narratives shaping the development of alternative proteins in the United States, 1965–1982," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    13. Rachel Griffith & Martin O'Connell & Kate Smith, 2017. "The Importance of Product Reformulation Versus Consumer Choice in Improving Diet Quality," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(333), pages 34-53, January.
    14. Elizabeth C. Hair & David R. Holtgrave & Alexa R. Romberg & Morgane Bennett & Jessica M. Rath & Megan C. Diaz & Donna M. Vallone, 2019. "Cost-Effectiveness of Using Mass Media to Prevent Tobacco Use among Youth and Young Adults: The FinishIt Campaign," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-9, November.
    15. David C. Colston & Yanmei Xie & James F. Thrasher & Sherry Emery & Megan E. Patrick & Andrea R. Titus & Michael R. Elliott & Nancy L. Fleischer, 2021. "Exploring How Exposure to Truth and State-Sponsored Anti-Tobacco Media Campaigns Affect Smoking Disparities among Young Adults Using a National Longitudinal Dataset, 2002–2017," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-11, July.
    16. Eunsoon Lee & Gyu-il Lee, 2021. "Perceived Exposure and Acceptance Model of Appearance-Related Health Campaigns: Roles of Parents’ Healthy-Appearance Talk, Self-Objectification, and Interpersonal Conversations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Julie V. Stanton & Deirdre T. Guion, 2013. "Taking Advantage of a Vulnerable Group? Emotional Cues in Ads Targeting Parents," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 485-517, November.
    18. Sartzetakis, Eftichis & Xepapadeas, Anastasios & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2008. "The role of information provision as a policy instrument to supplement environmental taxes: Empowering consumers to choose optimally," MPRA Paper 12083, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Zorbas, Christina & Resnick, Danielle & Jones, Eleanor & Suri, Shoba & Iruhiriye, Elyse & Headey, Derek D. & Martin, Will & Vos, Rob & Arndt, Channing & Menon, Purnima, 2024. "From promises to action: Analyzing global commitments on food security and diets since 2015," IFPRI discussion papers 2238, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    20. Marine Spiteri & Ghislaine Narayanane & Vincent Réquillart & Louis‐Georges Soler, 2024. "Reformulation of processed foods: Mixed effects on salt and saturated fatty acids intake in France," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 596-613, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:116:y:2014:i:c:p:211-219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.