Day 065 - 09 Dec 94 - Page 50

     
     1        Whatever conclusions you may have drawn from Zuckerman and
     2        Gianinno's paper, this shows, if it is to be believed, that
     3        four to five year-olds have a very good understanding of
     4        the intention and purpose of commercial advertising on
     5        television, does it not?
     6        A.  It shows that some of them in this particular study
     7        were able to identify some of those statements.  I am not
     8        quite certain how they were asked to agree or disagree with
     9        that.  I would have to refresh my memory by reading back on
    10        that.
    11
    12   Q.   Well ---?
    13        A.  I think this study again shows the context in which we
    14        are talking about, is that there are age-related
    15        differences; perhaps some of the differences in figures
    16        maybe have more to do with maybe differing methodologies
    17        used.  I think what one has to do is to look at the picture
    18        generally, in terms of, it is quite clear all these studies
    19        clearly point in the same direction, that we see a
    20        gradation of understanding with age.  There can be no doubt
         about that.  I do not think anyone would disagree with
    22        that.
    23
    24   Q.   Nobody would dream of disagreeing with that, Ms. Dibb.
    25        A.  I think the other point that I was going to go on to
    26        make is that awareness and understanding is no defence
    27        against persuasiveness.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That may be so, but what I want to understand
    30        because I made it clear I was surprised by the Zuckerman
    31        and Gianinno, Gains and Esserman have come out with a very
    32        different result, have they not?  For the 15 per cent in
    33        your right-hand column you would have to put 85 per cent
    34        for even six to eight year-olds, did you not?
    35        A.  I am not clear whether they used comparable
    36        methodologies.  They may have done; they may not have done.
    37
    38   Q.   They have used a different approach, but then you very
    39        often get different results from different approaches.
    40        A.  Yes.  I would have thought that in choosing to publish
         it within her volume that -----
    42
    43   Q.   The comment I have made is a fair one, is it not?  I have
    44        not misunderstood it?
    45        A.  No, I do not think you have.
    46
    47   MR. RAMPTON:  You see what is puzzling me, Ms. Dibb, is that the
    48        Zuckerman and Gianinno paper which you have quoted (or as
    49        I would say misquoted) in your paper is to be found in the
    50        very same book as this paper by Gains and Esserman.  What 
    51        is puzzling me, to which I would like an answer if you can 
    52        give it, is why you have chosen to take some information 
    53        from the Zuckerman and Gianinno paper and have totally
    54        ignored the results obtained by Gains and Esserman?
    55        A.  The studies I quoted were as examples.  They were not
    56        intended to be all the studies.  As I have pointed out,
    57        this section I think has a certain academic value and may
    58        have been relevant to the debate that was going on in the
    59        United States at the time.  I wanted to use the references
    60        to illustrate some of the findings, but really this piece