Get Them While They're Young

[livius drusus]

Just in case you ever doubted the effectiveness of advertising, here's a study that'll give you pause: "McFood" Better Than Food, Kids Say (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/06/health/webmd/main3139085.shtml).

Robinson and colleagues studied 63 low-income children enrolled in Head Start centers in California. The kids ranged in age from 3 years to 5 years. [...]

The only difference between the pairs of food samples was that one came in a plain wrapper, cup, or bag, and the other came in a clean, unused McDonald's wrapper, cup, or bag. The kids were asked whether they liked one of the foods best, or whether they tasted the same.

In all cases, the majority of the kids said the "best" foods were those linked to the McDonald's brand, even though the only differences between the bags were the McDonald's logos (no special advertising materials were used).

And we're talking baby carrots and milk, too, not just burgers and fries. This does not bode well. :no:

[Petra]

I am completely unsurprised by these findings.


And no, it doesn't bode well, in so many ways.

[livius drusus]

I am surprised, actually. I guess I didn't expect 3 year olds to be so brainwashed already.

[vremya]

How depressing. And unfortunately, I'm not surprised at all.

[ChuckF]

I'm not sure I'm seeing it here. Is there anything to indicate that the kids' responses had anything to do with the fact that the bags were from McDonald's? Or does it have to do with the fact that one bag/cup/wrapper is more visually engaging and interesting than the other? I'd like to see a study in which kids are offered the choice between the plain bag and brightly colored packaging that isn't from McDonald's.

[The Lone Ranger]

As was pointed out in Supersize Me, McDonalds is all about advertising. They've been incredibly successful at it, too.

It's certainly not because their food is better than anyone else's. In my opinion, even for fast food, McDonalds' stuff is awful.

Cheers,

Michael

[livius drusus]

Good point, Chuck.

[vremya]

That's an interesting thought, because the kids could have just gone for the more interesting bag. I wonder if they controlled for that.

[Angakuk]

Man am I disappointed. I thought this was going to be another thread about pedophiles.

[The Lone Ranger]

Oh, I dunno. I'm not so sure there's that much difference between what a pedophile does to kids and what McDonald's does ...

Cheers,

Michael

[Ensign Steve]

:spew:

[godfry n. glad]

So...

Garry Trudeau was prescient?

He was lampooning this back in, what...1976? When he introduced the character of the Vietnamese baby girl who was adopted by US family, her first words were something like "two all beef patties...special sauce..."

It's insidious.

[LadyShea]

I think Chuck's point is excellent.

[erimir]

Some of the other patterns in the study are hard to explain based on children just liking brighter packaging, however.

The fact that the amount of McDonald's they eat and amount of TV they watch was correlated with which food they prefer suggests that advertising is probably a large factor, not just how exciting the packaging is.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Man am I disappointed. I thought this was going to be another thread about pedophiles.

And I'm posting here to hopefully bump it up and away from the ask-a-child-rapist thread, because seeing the two together was...*shudder*

[Sock Puppet]

Don't underestimate the Power of the Indoor Playground, too. My kid was in love with McD's because they had one. Now that there's a Chick-Fil-A with a playground, she has come to see that McD's sucks ass. Not that I'm terribly enamored with Chick-Fil-A (especially that "all employees get Sunday off whether they're Xian or not" policy), but at least I can keep their food down.

[Ensign Steve]

Chik-fil-a is awesome. Diet Lemonade FTW!

Anyway, when I was of burger-slinging age, I would have loved Sundays off, xian or not.

[Clutch Munny]

I don't know if it's publicly accessible, but I have e-access to the journal. Chuck's observation is bang on:
Research assistant No. 2 placed 2 samples of each of 5 foods in front of the child, 1 at a time, on the left and right sides of the tray. The foods were (1) one-quarter of a McDonald's hamburger, one partially wrapped in a white McDonald's wrapper showing the McDonald's logos and the word Hamburger in brown and the other wrapped identically in a matched plain white wrapper of the same size and material; (2) a Chicken McNugget in a white McDonald's bag with a red arches logo and the phrase Chicken McNuggets in blue and the other in a matched plain white bag; (3) 3 McDonald's french fries in a white bag with a McDonald's yellow arches and smile logo on a red background and the words "We love to see you smile" in blue on yellow along the edge and 3 fries in a matched plain white bag; (4) about 3 ounces of 1% fat milk (or apple juice for 1 child who was not allowed to drink milk) in a white McDonald's cup with lid and straw and in a matched plain white cup with lid and straw; and (5) 2 "baby" carrots placed on top of a McDonald's french fries bag and on top of a matched plain white bag.

So that's a very serious confound. And there's another one, too.

Under "Methods":
After placing the 2 food samples on the tray, RA2 asked, "Can you tell me which of these foods [drinks] is from McDonald’s?" to ensure that the experimental manipulation was apparent to the child. The RA did not say anything more if the child correctly identified the food or drink in the McDonald's wrapping. If the child did not answer or answered incorrectly, RA2 pointed to the McDonald's branded food or drink and said in a neutral voice, "This food [drink] is from McDonald’s." Research assistant No. 2 stood behind and out of eye contact with the child to prevent any unintentional expressions of approval or disapproval and did not repeat instructions or assist the child during the task.

The problem is that this is just the sort of thing that can elicit "demand characteristics" -- an experimental problem in which subjects are given seeming grounds to guess the purpose of the trial, or for that matter are just biased towards one option by an (unintentional) experimental emphasis on that option. Children are especially subject to this, since they regard the adult researchers as such strong authority figures that they're looking hard for ways to please their demand cues. For the experimenter to point out and emphasize one of the two options -- however "neutrally" -- is to throw the door wide open to demand effects.

To see the problem more clearly, notice the point in the methods about the experimenters having to tell some of the kids which food came from McDonalds. This pretty clearly shows that at least some of the kids haven't been as successfully colonized by advertising as other kids in the experiment. If the advertising, rather than demand effects, were responsible for a significant proportion of the effect, we would prima facie expect to see some difference in the responses of the had-to-be-told group, compared to the already-knew-it group. But... under "Results":

Children needed to be told which food was from McDonald's for 20.6%, 30.2%, 22.2%, 33.3%, and 27.0% of the hamburger, chicken nuggets, french fries, milk/apple juice, and carrot comparisons, respectively (not statistically significant across foods). Sixty-two percent, 17%, 8%, 5%, 2%, and 6% of children needed to be told which food was from McDonald's for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and all 5 comparisons, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between these groups of children for their total preference scores or any of the measures listed in Table 1 except parent survey and child experiment language....

The kids who didn't already know which food came from McDonald's preferred the McDonald's food indistinguishably from those who did already know. This might be explained by the kids having heard about McDonald's in all sorts of indirect ways and having pro-attitudes towards it as a result. But given the preexisting red flag about demand characteristics in the protocol, the fallback position must be that the experiment is confounded and its result inconclusive.

Clearly the researchers are at least somewhat sensitive to this worry. Under "Comments":
Although it is impossible to totally rule out the possibility of demand effects, we took many steps to prevent unintentional bias. For example, the RA giving instructions was not able to see the food or the child; food and drink samples were randomly ordered and positioned, also preventing order effects; and children were not given feedback about their selections.

But this only addresses the worry that the RA would subtly cue the children to pick one food while they were picking. It entirely overlooks the worry that the RA has by that point already drawn the child's attention to the McDonald's sample while saying bupkes about the unlabeled sample.

So, I would hold this alleged result at arm's length for now. A long arm, at that.

[Freddy]

I am surprised, actually. I guess I didn't expect 3 year olds to be so brainwashed already.
We all are!

[JoeP]

Oh, I dunno. I'm not so sure there's that much difference between what a pedophile does to kids and what McDonald's does ...

Cheers,

Michael

:whistles:
mcdonalds - Google Image Search (http://images.google.com/images?safe=off&q=mcdonalds)

Some of this stuff is sickening.
http://www.wayodd.com/funny-pictures2/funny-pictures-new-mcdonalds-ad-zXj.jpg

And ... "McDonalds reaches Africa"...
http://www.offbeatenough.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/mcdonalds-reaches-africa.jpg

[godfry n. glad]

Well... It looks as though the spin-meisters at the White House are all over this one. Here's (http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3277) evidence that the latest in marketing news is being applied to help the president shore up his flagging poll numbers.

[CaDan]

Well... It looks as though the spin-meisters at the White House are all over this one. Here's (http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3277) evidence that the latest in marketing news is being applied to help the president shore up his flagging poll numbers.
In related news, the President congratulates the crew members . . . er . . . troops . . . .

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2783&stc=1&d=1186677744
Mission Accomplished!

[godfry n. glad]

Would you like to be fried with that?