Day 065 - 09 Dec 94 - Page 49

     
     1        A.  She does indeed seem to be involved with Child Research
     2        Service Inc. that she refers to.  I imagine they do do a
     3        considerable amount of research, probably also do some
     4        research for commercial interests as well.
     5
     6   Q.   I do not understand, Ms. Dibb.  You say you "imagine".  You
     7        are here as an expert in the field of advertising to
     8        children; do you not know?
     9        A.  She has done a lot of research in this area, yes.
    10
    11   Q.   These two -- I do not know if they are both ladies or
    12        whether Leslie is a gentleman, but never mind -- Leslie
    13        Gaines and June Esserman write in the Abstract -- the thing
    14        is headed, "A Quantitative Study of Young Children's
    15        Comprehension of Television Programmes and Commercials".
    16        In the Abstract they write:  "This research was undertaken
    17        to determine (a) the extent to which young children can
    18        distinguish between television programmes and commercials,
    19        and (b) the extent to which young children can recognise
    20        the selling intent of commercials against the non-selling
         intent of television programmes.  Interviews were conducted
    22        with 104 youngsters aged four to eight years old using a
    23        technique called 'signal stopping'.  This procedures
    24        entails stopping a video presentation of a children's
    25        programme embedded with a children's cereal commercial at
    26        critical points and asking children specific questions.
    27
    28        "The findings of this study indicate that children as
    29        young as four years old can easily distinguish between
    30        television programmes and commercials, can recognise the
    31        selling intent of commercials, and are even sceptical about
    32        commercials.  Overall, older age children perform better
    33        than younger aged children.  Results indicate that
    34        television advertising directed at children may not be as
    35        deceptive and unfair as previously believed".
    36
    37        This is in 1981 or before.  Can I ask you, please, to turn
    38        to the tables on the third page of this study?  Table 2 is
    39        in the left-hand column.  It tells us, assuming that these
    40        people have not distorted their results, that of the four
         to five year-old age group, 90 per cent correctly
    42        identified the commercial as being separate from the
    43        programme, and that, as it must follow, the percentage
    44        which gave no indication recognising the difference was
    45        10.
    46
    47        Then, please, look over the other side of the page to table
    48        3, "Understanding the purpose of commercials".  The four to
    49        five year-olds were 40 per cent of the sample -- no, 40 out
    50        of 104, which is nearly 40 per cent.  The second block: 
    51        "Evidence and understanding of purpose of commercial".  Of 
    52        the total it was 76 per cent, that is between the ages of 
    53        four and eight.  Of the four to five year-olds it was 63
    54        per cent; to sell to advertise things, 20 per cent; to try
    55        to make you buy things, 10 per cent; to show things you can
    56        buy, 33 per cent.  If one adds them up one gets 63 per
    57        cent.  No evidence shown of understanding the purpose of
    58        the commercial, 37 per cent.
    59
    60        Ms. Dibb, you had this book before you wrote your paper.