The impact of brand advertising on children’s food preferences and behavioural intentions: an experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Despite strong evidence linking exposure to food and beverage marketing with poor diet quality and negative health impacts in children, the effect of brand marketing (i.e. marketing featuring branded content, but no food products) is uncertain. This study evaluated the impact of brand marketing v. product-based advertising on children’s food preferences and behavioural intentions. Design: An online survey was administered to participants randomised to one of four ad conditions; familiar product (i.e. from popular Canadian brands); familiar brand (i.e. no food product, Canadian brand); unfamiliar product (i.e. foreign products); and unfamiliar brand ad (i.e. foreign brand). Participants viewed three ads displaying features of that condition and answered three 5-point Likert-scale questions related to the study outcomes: food preference, purchase intent and pester power. The average of all outcomes determined the total impact. An ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc tests evaluated differences in impact between conditions. Setting: Canada participants: n 1341 Canadian children (9–12 years) Results: Familiar product ads had a higher total impact on children (mean score 3·57) compared with familiar brand ads (2·88), unfamiliar brand ads (3·24) or unfamiliar product ads (3·09; P < 0·001 for all pairwise comparisons). Total impact was lower for familiar brand ads than for unfamiliar brand ads or unfamiliar product ads (P < 0·001 for all pairwise comparisons). The impact of an unfamiliar brand and product did not differ (P = 0·53). Conclusions: Results suggest that familiar product ads seem to have a stronger impact on children’s food preferences and behavioural intentions than familiar brand ads, unfamiliar brand ads and unfamiliar product ads.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".