MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027755837 · doi:10.1186/s12937-020-00565-5

The impact of a cartoon character on adults perceptions of Children’s breakfast cereals: a randomized experiment

2020· article· en· W3027755837 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alejandra Contreras‐Manzano, Alejandra Jáuregui, Claudia Nieto, Marissa G. Hall, Jorge Vargas-Meza, James F. Thrasher, Daniel Illescas-Zárate, Sı́món Barquera, David Hammond

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)Clinical nutritionPerceptionMedicineDemographyPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cartoon characters on processed food packaging increase the perception of product preference among children, but their effect among adults has rarely been examined. We evaluated the effect of a cartoon character on breakfast cereals on beliefs about buying them for children, as well as whether demographic characteristics modified this effect. METHODS: An experimental study was conducted with adults from online consumer panels in Mexico (n = 3755). Participants were randomly assigned to a "cartoon" condition (n = 1789), in which they viewed a breakfast cereal box with a Minion character on the front of the package, or the "control" condition (n = 1966), in which the same cereal box was displayed with no character on the package. Participants were asked: "Is this a good cereal to buy children?" with the response options "Yes", "No", or "Don't know". Multinomial adjusted logistic models regressed responses to this question (Yes = 0, No = 1, 2 = Don't know) on experimental condition. Differences in the effect of the cartoon character across demographic characteristics were tested by introducing multiplicative interaction terms. RESULTS: The adjusted model showed that participants in the "cartoon character" condition were 1.67 (1.45-1.94) times more likely to consider the cereal as being "Not good to buy for children" than those in the control condition (p < 0.001). This effect was smaller among parents (RRR = 1.39, 1.13-1.72) compared to those without children (RRR = 2.01, 1.63-2.47). No differences were observed in the proportion of participants answering "Don't know" across experimental groups. CONCLUSION: Among this sample of Mexican adults, a cereal with a cartoon character on the packaging was more often perceived as "not good to buy for children" compared to a cereal without it. This effect was smaller among parents, potentially due to children influences of parental decisions during food purchasing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition JournalSame topicConsumer Packaging Perceptions and TrendsFrench-language works237,207