Monday, October 17, 2016

Online Assignment #1 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)

In lieu of meeting on Tuesday please read the following article (Couples, The Internet, and Social Media) and write a reaction to it. The first part should be a summary, and the second part should be your own reaction/thoughts/opinions.

Post the reaction on Sakai, under Assignments, Online Assignment #1.

I hope you'll find the article as interesting as I did.




Couples, The Internet, and Social Media


As digital technology becomes more and more of a fixture in Americans’ daily lives, it has infiltrated all sorts of domains, including how people meet, communicate with their romantic partners and manage their lives together.  In an earlier report, Online Dating and Relationships, the Pew Research Center detailed the meeting part of the equation, looking at how adults use technology to find, date and interact with potential romantic partners.  This report looks at the next step in the process – how couples in committed relationships use technology to manage their digital and offline lives, but also how couples feel technology has enhanced or detracted from a sense of intimacy and connection with their partner.
The focus of this report is on couples who are in an existing marriage or other type of committed relationship. Specifically, this includes anyone who describes themselves as:
  • Married (47% of Americans are currently married)1
  • Living with a partner (6% of Americans fall into this category)
  • Not married or living with a partner, but are currently in a “committed romantic relationship” (12% of Americans are in a committed relationship of this kind)
Throughout this report, when we refer to “couples,” or to people who are in a “marriage or committed relationship,” we are referring to the 66% of the American public that falls into one of the three categories listed above. Additional demographic details about these groups can be found in the appendix at the end of the online dating report.
Technology plays a prominent role in the lives of partnered Americans. Among those who are married or in a committed relationship:
  • 88% use the internet (as do 85% of American adults)
  • 71% use social networking sites (as do 72% of all internet users)
  • 93% have a cell phone (as do 91% of adults)
The remainder of this report, with the exception of the discussion of sexting, examines the role of these technologies in the lives of Americans who are married or in a committed relationship. The sexting analysis focuses more broadly on all adult cell phone owners, both single and those in couples.

Digital Sharing & Logistics

Sharing online accounts with a partnerWhile most American couples tend to operate their online accounts independently, a subset of couples utilizes email, social media and other digital tools together as a unit. Sharing email accounts between couples is relatively prevalent—although far from a majority activity. Meanwhile, sharing an online calendar or social networking profile is relatively uncommon:
  • 27% of internet users who are married or in a committed relationship share an email account.
  • 11% of such couples share an online calendar.
  • 11% of couples who use social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter say that they share a social networking profile.
Although fully “joint accounts” are relatively uncommon when it comes to online communication platforms, many more couples share passwords with their spouse or significant other. Some 67% of internet users in a marriage or committed relationship say that they have shared an online password with their spouse or current partner.

27% of internet users in couples share an email account with their partner. Older couples are especially likely to share an email account.

Among internet users who are married or are in a committed relationship, some 27% share an email account with their partner. The likelihood of sharing an email account becomes steadily greater with age – just 12% of married or committed adults ages 18-29 share an email address with their partner, compared with 47% among adults ages 65 and older. Adults earning more than $50,000 in household income are substantially more likely to share an email address with a partner or spouse than those who earn less, with 18% of those earning less than $50,000 a year reporting sharing an email address, while 32% of those couples earning more share an address. White adults in committed relationships or marriages are more likely to share a joint email address than similarly married or committed African-American adults (28% vs. 17%).  Retirees are also substantially more likely to share an email account with their spouse or partner, with 42% of them reporting a shared email address, compared with 24% of those employed full time.
Sharing email accounts

11% of internet users who are in a couple share an online calendar with their spouse or partner. Sharing online calendars is most prevalent among parents and middle aged couples.

Sharing online calendars is less common than sharing email accounts—11% of internet users in a couple say that they share an online calendar with their spouse or partner. Sharing online calendars is not especially prevalent for any demographic subset of committed couples, but is most common among couples at a stage in life in which logistical scheduling can be challenging. In particular, the following groups have relatively high rates of online calendar sharing (all figures are based on internet users in a marriage or committed relationship):
  • Sharing online calendarsMiddle aged couples – 16% of 25-34 year olds, and 12% of those ages 35-44, share an online calendar with their partner. Calendar sharing also increases at retirement age, as 11% of those 65 and older share an online calendar with a partner.
  • Couples with children living at home – 13% of parents share an online calendar.
  • Those who are employed full-time – 12% of those who are employed full-time share an online calendar with their spouse or partner.
  • Those with higher income and/or education levels – 16% of college graduates, and 15% of those with an annual household income of $75,000 or more per year, share an online calendar with their spouse or partner.
Individuals who own a smartphone, or who use social networking sites, are also more likely to share a calendar with a partner or spouse compared with non-adopters of these technologies.

11% of social network site users in a marriage or committed partnership share a social media profile with their spouse or partner.

Sharing of social networking profiles is also relatively uncommon. Among adults in a couple who use social networking sites, just 11% say that they share a profile with their spouse or partner. There is also relatively little demographic variation when it comes to this behavior—for example, social media users of all ages are equally likely to share a profile with their spouse or partner. However, those who have only completed high school are a bit more likely to say they share a social media profile compared to those with a college degree (15% vs. 9%).
Sharing social media profiles

67% of committed couples have shared a password with partner or spouse

Sharing of online passwords between partners is much more common than creating joint accounts. Fully 67% of internet users in a marriage or committed relationship have shared an online password with their partner or spouse. Password sharing does not vary by age, but it is more prevalent in higher-income households. Couples who earn more than $50,000 a year in household income are more likely to share passwords with each other than those who earn less (76% vs. 56%). Parents are also a bit more likely to report sharing passwords than those without children at home. Some 71% of parents share passwords with their partner or spouse as do 65% of those who are not parents.
Sharing passwords

Couples who share one type of digital tool or account tend to share others as well

Couples who share one type of digital tool will more often share other tools and accounts. Among adults who share a calendar with their spouse or significant other, more than 2 in 5 also share an email account, 18% share a social media profile and nine in ten share passwords with their partner.
Couples who share an email address also share other online tools and materials – one quarter of email sharers also co-own a social media profile, 16% share an online calendar and 87% share passwords with their partner.

Long-term couples are more likely to approach their online accounts as a joint undertaking.

Couples who have been together for a longer period of time—and therefore may have first encountered many of these technologies as a couple, rather than as single individuals—tend to have higher rates of account sharing compared with couples who have been together for a shorter period of time.
Among the married and partnered, there are big differences between those in relationships of long duration and the more newly partnered: the longer partners in a couple have been together, the more likely they are to share an email address. For those married or partnered for 5 years or less, just 10% share an email. This rises to 24% for those together for 6 to 10 years and 38% for those married or in a committed relationship for more than ten years. The age of the individual is not as strong a factor in email sharing as how long a couple has been together.
Sharing online accounts and passwords, based on the length of the relationship
Couples who have been together for more than ten years are more likely than those who have shared their lives for shorter periods to say they share a social media profile. Fourteen percent of the long-married or internet users in couples who have been together for more than ten years share a profile, while just 8% of those married or partnered for less than a decade do so. As with email, the duration of the relationship is a more important factor than the age of the individuals.
Couples who have been married or partnered for 6 years or more are also more likely to have shared a password with their partner than those married less than 6 years (59% vs 71%).
Sharing calendars is the only activity where the length of the relationship does not seem to have an impact.

Impacts and Experiences


Most couples say that the internet has had no real impact one way or the other on their relationship—but for those who say it has had an impact, that impact is overwhelmingly positive.

For a substantial majority of couples, the internet plays a modest role in their relationships. Just 10% of internet users in couples say that the internet has had a “major impact” on their relationship, while 17% say that it has had a “minor impact.” On the other hand, fully 72% of married or committed online adults said the internet has “no real impact at all” on their partnership.
Although most couples believe that the internet’s impact on their relationship has been minimal, the proportion saying it does have some impact has increased since we first asked this question in 2005. At that point, a total of 16% of internet users in couples said that the internet had either a major or minor impact on their relationship, compared with a total of 27% who say so today.2
Among the adult internet users who report that the internet had an impact on their marriage or partnership, the majority of them say the impact was positive, with three quarters of adult internet users reporting a positive impact. Still, 20% said the impact was mostly negative, and 4% said it was both good and bad.

Younger and more tech-savvy Americans tend to view the internet as having a more pronounced impact on their relationships
Overall, just 27% of internet users in couples say that the internet has had some impact on their relationship—but this varies substantially by age. Some 45% of internet users in couples ages 18-29 say that the internet has some impact on their relationship (21% say it has had a “major” impact, and 24% say it has had a “minor” impact). On the other hand, just 11% of such internet users in couples ages 65 and older say that the internet has an impact on their relationship (and only 1% of these older adults say that the internet has a “major” impact on their marriage or partnership).
Impact of technology on relationships, by age and relationship lengthRelationship duration shows a similar pattern – internet users who have been married or partnered ten years or less are substantially more likely to say the internet has had an impact on their relationship than those in longer partnerships. While 15% of more newly partnered people say the internet has had a major impact on their partnership, just 5% of those partnered more than a decade say the same.
As the earlier Online Dating and Relationships report shows, adults in partnerships or marriages of ten years or less look quite similar to single and dating adults in their use of the internet and social media for the work of meeting, flirting and checking up on people they are about to date or have dated in the past. These adults have already incorporated the technology in the beginnings of their relationship, and now continue to do so as they enter a more stable phase of their romantic lives. For more details on married and partnered adults’ use of social media and the internet to manage meeting, flirting, breaking up and checking up, see the Online Dating and Relationships report.
Adults with a wider range of technology assets – for instance, those who use social media sites or own smartphones—are also more likely to say that the internet has had an impact on their relationship. Some 13% of smartphone owners in committed relationships say the internet had a “major” impact on their relationship, compared with just 4% of non-smartphone owners, and 3% of those without a cellphone at all. Similarly, 13% of coupled social media users say the internet has had a major impact on their relationship, compared with just 4% of internet users who do not use social media. And 38% of those in committed relationships who have used online dating sites say the internet has had a major impact on their partnership, compared with 7% of those who have not used online dating sites.
Impact of technology on relationships, by cell phone, social media, and online dating status
In addition, parents are more likely than non-parents to say that the internet has had an impact on their relationship, and urban dwellers (and to a lesser extent, suburbanites) are more likely than those living in rural areas to say that the internet has had an impact on their relationship.

Among adults in couples who say that the internet has an impact on their relationship, a majority say the impact is positive.
Among internet users in couples who report that the internet has at least a minor impact on their marriage or partnership, a substantial majority—74%–say that the internet has a positive impact. An additional 20% say that the impact of the internet on their relationship is mostly negative, while 4% say that its impact is both good and bad.
As the proportion of online couples who say that the internet has had some impact on their relationship has increased over time, the proportion saying that its impact on their relationship is negative has also increased. When we asked this same question of online couples who felt that the internet had an impact on their relationship in 2005, some 84% said that the internet had a positive impact on their relationship—a figure that has dropped to 74% today. Similarly, at that time 13% of these online couples said that the impact of the internet on their relationship was mostly negative—today 20% of these couples say that the internet has had a negative impact on their relationship overall.
The number of respondents who answered this question (n=328) is too small to conduct a detailed analysis of demographic subgroups.

For younger adults and those in relatively new relationships, technology can be a source of frustration and distraction—even as it offers new sources of intimacy.

Couples communicate. In the last two decades, the options that couples have at their fingertips for communication within or outside of the partnership have diversified tremendously. Voice and text based communication on phones of all kinds, social media postings, instant and email messages, photos, videos and video chatting all have changed how couples can communicate with one another.

Technology can be a source of tension in relationships…
Some 8% of online adults in a marriage or partnership have argued with their partner about the amount of time one of them was spending online, and 4% have been upset by something they found out their partner was doing online.
Those who have been with their partner for ten years or less were significantly more likely than those in longer relationships to have encountered these negative experiences. Young adults (those ages 18-29 years old) were especially likely to say they had an argument with their partner about the amount of time one of them was spending online (18% have experienced this), and this experience is also relatively common along with those living in households with an annual income under $30,000 (15%). Both of these groups were also likely to say they found the online activity of their partner upsetting (8% of young adults and 9% of low-income people have experienced this).
Beyond these general annoyances, cell phones seem to have a particularly distracting effect on relationships. Fully 25% of cell phone owners in a committed relationship have felt that their spouse or partner was distracted by their cell phone when spending time together.  Cell phone distractions are especially common among younger couples—some 42% of 18-29 year olds in marriages or serious relationships have experienced this issue. Other groups of couples who have experienced this at relatively high rates include parents, college graduates, and those with relatively high household incomes.
  • 42% of 18-29 year olds felt that their partner was distracted by their cell phone when they were together
  • 29% of those ages 30-49 said the same
  • 32% of those living in households with an annual income of more than $75,000/year said their partner was distracted by their cell phone
  • 31% of parents reported that their partner was distracted by their cell phone in their presence
  • 28% of college graduates reported similar phone-based distractions.
Negative technology experiences in relationships

…but can also add a new level of emotional intimacy to communication between partners
But even as it introduces new sources of annoyance and frustration, technology can also add a level of emotional intimacy to one’s communications that many couples find helpful in their relationships. For example, 21% of internet users or cell phone owners in committed relationships have felt closer to their partner because of exchanges or conversations they had online or by text message. Another 9% have resolved an argument with their partner online or by texting that they had difficulty resolving in person. And 25% of text messaging users who are in relationships have texted their partner while both were home together. Those who have been in relationships for ten years or less were more likely than those in longer relationships to exhibit all three of these behaviors.
Positive technology experiences in relationshipsEven as they are more likely to experience some negative consequences of technology in the form of distraction and arguments with their partners, young people (those ages 18-29) are also particularly likely to experience more positive outcomes with respect to technology and relationship communication. Some 33% of text messaging users in this age group who are in a committed relationship have texted their partner while both are at home, while 41% of young internet users or cell phone owners in relationships have felt closer to their partner due to online or text conversations, and 23% have resolved an argument in the digital sphere that was difficult to resolve in person. Parents were also likely to describe feeling closer to their partner due to technology (26% of internet users or cell owners in relationships) and to text while at home together (30% of texters in relationships).

Sexting on the Rise

People – whether in couples or not – are also using technology to share some of the most intimate aspects of their relationship. Sexting – receiving, sending, or forwarding sexually suggestive photos or videos via cell phones– is on the rise among cell phone owners. Some 9% of cell phone owners have sent a suggestive picture or video, while 20% have received one. These are both statistically significant increases from the last time we asked about these behaviors in 2012 when 6% of cell owners had sent a sext and 15% had received one. Just 3% of cell owners have forwarded a sext, a figure that is unchanged from the percentage who did so in 2012.
As in 2012, age remains the strongest demographic predictor of sexting. Younger adults are more likely than their older counterparts to send, receive, and forward sexts. Cell owners ages 18-24 are the most likely to say they receive sexts (44%), while those in their mid-twenties through mid-thirties are more likely than older adults to say they send sexts (22%). Forwarding sexts is not highly popular among any age group – just 6% of those 18-24 do so along with 5% of those 25-34.
Sexting by age
Across all age groups, the proportion of cell owners that says they send and receive sexts has increased since the last time we asked in 2012. The largest gains were reported by those ages 18-24. In previous surveys, those in their mid-twenties through mid-thirties were the most likely to both send and receive sexts. For the first time, however, those ages 18-24 are the most likely of any age group to say they receive sexts (44%). This represents a significant increase from 2012, when 26% of those 18-24 said they received sexts.
Overall, fewer cell phone owners report sending sexts than receiving them. But this behavior, too, has also seen increases since 2012 across every age group except those 55 and older.
The rise in sexting also correlates with the growing popularity of smartphones, which make it easy to take and share pictures and videos. Some 56% of American adults own a smartphone (including 80% of those 18-29), up from 46% in 2012. Smartphone owners are significantly more likely than other cell phone owners to sext. Some 27% have received a sext, more than double the 10% of other cell owners who have received one. Smartphone owners are also more likely to send sexts – 12% vs. just 4% of non-smartphone cell owners. Forwarding sexts is also somewhat more popular among smartphone owners (4%) than other cell owners (1%).
Sexting by type of cell phone
Those who are actively dating are also more likely to sext. Cell phone owners who said they were “single and looking” are significantly more likely than those who are single but not looking to say they send, receive, and forward sexts. Fully 42% of single and looking cell phone owners have received a sext, 23% have sent one, and 10% have forwarded a suggestive picture or video.
Cell phone owners who date online are even more likely to sext. Over half (55%) have received a suggestive image, almost a third (31%) have sent one, and 9% have forwarded a sext. They are significantly more likely than cell owners who do not use online dating to perform all three activities.
Sexting, however, is not just for daters. Adults in marriages or committed relationships are just as likely to say they have sent sexually suggestive texts as single individuals. Some 9% of those in a relationship have sent sexts, along with 10% of those not in a relationship. But when it comes to receiving and forwarding sexts, those not in a relationship are significantly more likely to do both. A quarter of those not in a relationship say they have received sexts compared to 18% of those not in a relationship. Some 4% of singles say they forward sexts along with 2% of those in a relationship, both relatively low figures. Sexting has been with us since cameras were added to cell phones – so it is possible that partnered (or single) adults could be referring to past sext-sending rather than current activity.
Among those in relationships, cell owners who have been partnered for ten years or less are significantly more likely than those who have been in a relationship for more than ten years to sext. A third (32%) of those in shorter relationships have received a sext, more than five times the proportion of those in longer relationships to say so (6%). Some 17% of those partnered for ten years or less have sent a sext, compared to just 2% of those in a relationship for more than ten years. Another 4% of those in shorter relationships have forwarded a suggestive picture or video, while a slim 1% of those in longer relationships have done so.
Sexting by relationship status
  1. This data point is an estimate based on the sample for this survey and is slightly different from the Census estimates published in other Pew Research Center surveys. The Center’s current figure for married adults based on 2012 Census data is 51%. 
  2. In our 2013 survey, this question was asked of all adults. However, we are reporting our findings throughout this section based on internet users in order to be comparable with our 2005 data, which was asked only of those who use the internet. There are only modest differences in our 2013 data when based on all adults as opposed to internet users, and results for both groups can be found in the “survey questions” section at the end of this report. 

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Yom Kippur and Fall Break

If you're going home tomorrow for Yom Kippur, have an easy fast.

Have a relaxing fall break.

Jack


Sunday, October 9, 2016

Media Use, Violence, and Aggression- Eric


EARLIER this summer the actor Jim Carrey, a star of the superhero movie “Kick-Ass 2,” tweeted that he was distancing himself from the film because, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, “in all good conscience I cannot support” the movie’s extensive and graphically violent scenes.
While Mr. Carrey’s point of view has its adherents, most people reflexively agree with Mr. Millar. After all, the logic goes, millions of Americans see violent imagery in films and on TV every day, but vanishingly few become killers. Mark Millar, a creator of the “Kick-Ass” comic book series and one of the movie’s executive producers, responded that he has “never quite bought the notion that violence in fiction leads to violence in real life any more than Harry Potter casting a spell creates more boy wizards in real life.”
But a growing body of research indicates that this reasoning may be off base. Exposure to violent imagery does not preordain violence, but it is a risk factor. We would never say: “I’ve smoked cigarettes for a long time, and I don’t have lung cancer. Therefore there’s no link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer.” So why use such flawed reasoning when it comes to media violence?



Photo

CreditOlimpia Zagnoli

There is now consensus that exposure to media violence is linked to actual violent behavior — a link found by many scholars to be on par with the correlation of exposure to secondhand smoke and the risk of lung cancer. In a meta-analysis of 217 studies published between 1957 and 1990, the psychologists George Comstock and Haejung Paik found that the short-term effect of exposure to media violence on actual physical violence against a person was moderate to large in strength.
Mr. Comstock and Ms. Paik also conducted a meta-analysis of studies that looked at the correlation between habitual viewing of violent media and aggressive behavior at a point in time. They found 200 studies showing a moderate, positive relationship between watching television violence and physical aggression against another person.
Other studies have followed consumption of violent media and its behavioral effects throughout a person’s lifetime. In a meta-analysis of 42 studies involving nearly 5,000 participants, the psychologists Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman found a statistically significant small-to-moderate-strength relationship between watching violent media and acts of aggression or violence later in life.
In a study published in the journal Pediatrics this year, the researchers Lindsay A. Robertson, Helena M. McAnally and Robert J. Hancox showedthat watching excessive amounts of TV as a child or adolescent — in which most of the content contains violence — was causally associated with antisocial behavior in early adulthood. (An excessive amount here means more than two hours per weekday.)
The question of causation, however, remains contested. What’s missing are studies on whether watching violent media directly leads to committing extreme violence. Because of the relative rarity of acts like school shootings and because of the ethical prohibitions on developing studies that definitively prove causation of such events, this is no surprise. 
Of course, the absence of evidence of a causative link is not evidence of its absence. Indeed, in 2005, The Lancet published a comprehensive review of the literature on media violence to date. The bottom line: The weight of the studies supports the position that exposure to media violence leads to aggression, desensitization toward violence and lack of sympathy for victims of violence, particularly in children.
In fact the surgeon general, the National Institute of Mental Health and multiple professional organizations — including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association — all consider media violence exposure a risk factor for actual violence.
To be fair, some question whether the correlations are significant enough to justify considering media violence a substantial public health issue. And violent behavior is a complex issue with a host of other risk factors.
But although exposure to violent media isn’t the only or even the strongest risk factor for violence, it’s more easily modified than other risk factors (like being male or having a low socioeconomic status or low I.Q.).
Certainly, many questions remain and more research needs to be done to determine what specific factors drive a person to commit acts of violence and what role media violence might play.
But first we have to consider how best to address those questions. To prevent and treat public health issues like AIDS, cancer and heart disease, we focus on modifying factors correlated with an increased risk of a bad outcome. Similarly, we should strive to identify risk factors for violence and determine how they interact, who may be particularly affected by such factors and what can be done to reduce modifiable risk factors.
Naturally, debate over media violence stirs up strong emotions because it raises concerns about the balance between public safety and freedom of speech.
Even if violent media are conclusively found to cause real-life violence, we as a society may still decide that we are not willing to regulate violent content. That’s our right. But before we make that decision, we should rely on evidence, not instinct.



Television/Media Use and Scholastic Achievement- Erin


Scholastic Achievement

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Dv4MQMdbN4M1ZtVk9jQmdVSVE/view?usp=sharing

Kids and Advertising- Alex

Introduction

Advertising is hardly a recent human endeavor; archaeologists have uncovered signs advertising property for rent dating back to ancient Rome and Pompeii. Town criers were another early form of advertising. As an industry, advertising did not take off until the arrival of the various mass media: printing, radio, and television. Nevertheless, concerns over advertising targeting children preceded both radio and television. The British Parliament passed legislation in 1874 intended to protect children from the efforts of merchants to induce them to buy products and assume debt.
Commercial appeals to children, however, did not become commonplace until the advent and widespread adoption of television and grew exponentially with the advent of cable television, which allowed programmers to develop entire channels of child-oriented programming and advertising. Opportunities to advertise to children further expanded with the explosive growth of the Internet, and thousands of child-oriented Web sites with advertising content have appeared in the past few years.
Compounding the growth in channels for advertising targeting children has been another development: the privatization of children's media use. A recent study found that a majority of all U.S. children have televisions in their bedrooms. Many children also have unsupervised access to computers, meaning that much of the media (and advertising) content that children view is in contexts absent parental monitoring and supervision.
These two trends—the growth in advertising channels reaching children and the privatization of children's media use—have resulted in a dramatic increase in advertising directly intended for the eyes and ears of children. It is estimated that advertisers spend more than $12 billion per year to reach the youth market and that children view more than 40,000 commercials each year. These figures represent dramatic increases over those from the 1970s.
The Task Force on Advertising and Children, responding to its charge, began by reviewing research on the impact of advertising on children, 2 with particular attention given both to the implications of children's cognitive development for understanding the potential effects of exposure to advertising and to specific harms that might result from exposure to advertising. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence addressing all of these basic issues. In contrast, concerns about advertising that have emerged as a result of new and changing technological capabilities, such as interactive forms of advertising and commercial Web sites targeting children, have yet to attract almost any empirical study. Consequently, our research review and conclusions are largely confined to more traditional advertising approaches, although we identify the issues in need of further research investigation within our final recommendations.
Two important information processing tasks are required for any person to achieve a mature understanding of advertising messages. First, the individual must be able to distinguish between commercial and noncommercial content. In other words, an individual must be able to differentiate the ads from the programs. Studies of children indicate that those below the ages of 4–5 years do not consistently distinguish program from commercial content, even when program/commercial separation devices ("GoBots will be back after these messages") are used. As children reach the age of 4–5 years, they typically perceive a categorical distinction between commercials and programming, but primarily on the basis of affective ("commercials are funnier") or perceptual ("commercials are shorter") cues only.
The second essential cognitive task involved in a mature comprehension of advertising is the ability to recognize the persuasive intent of advertising and to apply that knowledge in the child’s understanding of the advertising message. In other words, mature persuasive intent comprehension involves not only the recognition that the advertiser has a perspective different from the viewer and that advertisers intend to persuade their audience to want to buy their products, but also that such persuasive communication is biased, and that biased messages must be interpreted differently than unbiased messages.
Basic developmental research on egocentrism and perspective taking, along with a great deal of evidence specifically examining developmental differences in the comprehension of persuasive intent within advertisements, establishes clearly that most children younger than 7–8 years of age do not recognize the persuasive intent of commercial appeals. However, there is far less research examining whether and at what ages children begin to appreciate that advertising messages are inherently biased or on when children begin to develop strategies to counteract the bias within these messages. It is clear that both of these abilities are dependent upon the child’s development of the ability to understand the persuasive intent of advertising, meaning that mature comprehension of advertising occurs no earlier than age 7–8 years on average. Further investigation is needed to establish the upper age boundary of children who are uniquely vulnerable to televised commercial persuasion as a function of normative developmental limitations on their information-processing capabilities. Nonetheless, a key conclusion of the task force, which is supported by a strong base of empirical evidence, is that young children below 7–8 years of age clearly lack an understanding of the persuasive intent of television advertising.

The task force reviewed research addressing two important types of questions regarding the effects of advertising on children. First, does advertising affect children’s commercial recall and product preferences? If not, the $12 billion spent annually by advertisers in commercial appeals to children would represent a surprisingly poor investment. Second, does exposure to advertising result in consumption of products that are inimical to the health and well-being of children? For example, does advertising play a role in the overconsumption of candy and sugared cereals or in underage drinking of alcoholic beverages?
Research on children's commercial recall and product preferences confirms that advertising typically achieves its intended effects. A variety of studies using differing methodologies find that children recall content from the ads to which they've been exposed. Product preference has been shown to occur with as little as a single commercial exposure and to strengthen with repeated exposures. Most importantly, studies have shown that product preferences affect children's product purchase requests and that these requests do influence parents' purchasing decisions.
The more fundamental concern regarding the effects of advertising on children relates to questions of potential harm resulting from exposure. A variety of research findings are relevant to this issue. Several studies, for example, have found that parent–child conflicts occur commonly when parents deny their children's product purchase requests that were precipitated by advertising. Considerable research has examined advertising's cumulative effect on children's eating habits. Studies have documented that a high percentage of advertisements targeting children feature candy, fast foods, and snacks and that exposure to such advertising increases consumption of these products. While consumption of nonnutritious foods per se may not be harmful, overconsumption of these products, particularly to the exclusion of healthier food, is linked to obesity and poorer health. Several studies have found strong associations between increases in advertising for nonnutritious foods and rates of childhood obesity.
A variety of studies have found a substantial relationship between children's viewing of tobacco and alcohol ads and positive attitudes toward consumption of such products. Children find many such commercials attractive (e.g., Joe Camel, the Budweiser frogs) and consequently have high brand awareness of such products and positive attitudes toward them. These products and their spokes-characters have been found to be featured in programming and publications frequently viewed by minors, and reviews of this research (including the Surgeon General's analysis) conclude that advertising of them contributes to youth smoking and drinking.
Critics have also expressed concern regarding the prevalence of advertising of violent media, such as movies and video games, targeting children. Three reports by the Federal Trade Commission found considerable support for such charges, and while studies have not directly assessed the impact of such advertising, it is highly likely that such ads do affect children's media preferences.

The TFAC gave special consideration to commercialism in the schools for two reasons. First, children spend a considerable amount of their childhood in school settings, and because school attendance is compulsory, children have little freedom to avoid any commercial content they are exposed to in schools. Second, it is conceivable that commercial content delivered in schools may be assumed to have the tacit endorsement of respected teachers and school officials, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the advertising.
Several recent analyses have summarized the extent and growth of advertising and other marketing activities in schools, including an important study by the U.S. General Accounting Office. Advertising and marketing takes several forms: direct advertising in school classrooms (via advertiser-sponsored video or audio programming), indirect advertising (via corporate-sponsored educational materials), product sales contracts (with soda and snack food companies), and school-based corporate-sponsored marketing research. Several of these advertising and marketing activities have been pursued aggressively by schools as a source of additional revenue, but these activities have generally been greeted critically by those outside school systems.
What surprised the task force was the dearth of research on commercialism in the schools. We found only two empirical studies that addressed in-school commercialism issues, one a content analysis of ads and the other a study of the effect of school-based ads on product-related attitudes and preferences and materialistic attitudes. Given the widespread nature of these advertising practices, along with their potential impact on consumer attitudes and behaviors and students' educational attitudes and achievement, it is perplexing that so little research has been conducted to date.

Research indicates clearly that advertising exerts substantial influence on children's attitudes and behaviors, and these effects go well beyond moving product desire from one brand to another. More specifically, the evidence points directly to one fundamental concern: that advertising targeting children below the ages of 7–8 years is inherently unfair because it capitalizes on younger children's inability to attribute persuasive intent to advertising. As a result of this limitation, children below this age comprehend the information contained in television commercials uncritically, accepting most advertising claims and appeals as truthful, accurate, and unbiased. Until fairly recently, advertisers tended to view children in this age range as off limits as advertising targets, but industry practices have changed as new developments in media technology have facilitated greater degrees of age-niche programming and related advertising.
Concern over the fairness of targeting such young children is not a new development. Research on the issue dates back to the late 1960s. In the early 1970s, the Federal Communications Commission considered a proposal to ban advertising to audiences of young children but settled on a more modest approach: limiting the amount of advertising time within children's programming and restricting certain advertising practices likely to make it more difficult for children to make attributions of persuasive intent. Later in the 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission also considered banning all television advertising to young children, citing exactly the type of developmental research the task force reviewed. Congress, responding to television and advertising industry pressure, forced the FTC to abandon this proposal by threatening the agency's funding. While the FTC did drop its effort to restrict advertising to children, it stated in its final order that the issue of advertising to young children is one that should remain a public concern, given the compelling body of scientific evidence documenting young children’s unique vulnerability to commercial persuasion. Since that time, the advertising industry has recognized the sensitivity of these issues in its own self-regulatory advertising guidelines, but this code is exceedingly vague, compliance is completely voluntary, and enforcement is not actively pursued.
In our view, the psychological evidence we have reviewed holds critical implications for public policy. The strength of the research documenting young children’s limited ability to recognize and defend against television advertising has improved substantially since the 1970s, when both the FCC and the FTC seriously considered, although ultimately eschewed, broad-based restrictions on advertising targeting audiences of young children. We believe that the accumulation of evidence on this topic is now compelling enough to warrant regulatory action by the government to protect the interests of children, and therefore offer a recommendation that restrictions be placed on advertising to children too young to recognize advertising’s persuasive intent. The implementation of such a policy would place the United States in good company, alongside such countries as Australia, Canada, Sweden, and Great Britain, which have already adopted regulations prohibiting advertising on programs targeting audiences of young children.

There are three areas in which the task force considered implications of the evidence reviewed for the field of psychology (PDF, 617KB), including the role of psychologists as researchers, educators, and the applied professional practice of marketing research.
While research psychologists have already established the cognitive limitations of younger children’s comprehension of advertising messages, there are many important areas where further investigation is needed. Nearly all research on advertising to children involves studies of television, leaving us with little empirical knowledge about other commercial forms and contexts. For example, we know virtually nothing about how children recognize and defend against commercial messages delivered in new media environments, such as the Internet. We know virtually nothing about new interactive advertising strategies being employed on the World Wide Web. We have no clear indication whether advertising delivered in school environments is more influential, less influential, or indistinguishable from advertising delivered in other contexts or whether allowing advertising in the schools exerts adverse effects on young people’s esteem for educational institutions. There is also a surprising paucity of research on the role of gender, race, ethnicity, and culture on the perception and comprehension of advertising as well as the ways in which they might influence responses to advertising. Given that advertisers develop ad campaigns to reach child audiences segmented by gender, race, and ethnicity, there is a clear need for research on these topics. Obviously, there is much of importance yet to be learned from psychological research in these topic areas, and thus it is an appropriate time for the field of psychology to reinvigorate the examination of how children understand and are influenced by contemporary advertising strategies and messages.
Psychologists can also play important roles in educating their students, clients, and people in the communities they serve regarding the types of concerns raised in this report. Education, in the form of media literacy, may assist parents and older children to consider the influence of advertising in their lives more seriously and to take actions protecting them from unwanted commercial influence. It should be noted, however, that the task force did not place great emphasis on media literacy strategies for addressing the concerns about advertising to young children for two reasons. First, there is limited research documenting the efficacy of media literacy training in protecting young children against advertising effects, and this vacuum corresponds with strong theoretical grounds for expecting that such training cannot overcome the cognitive limitations of younger children in this realm. More research is needed before one should invest much faith in media literacy as a principal means of combating commercial persuasion targeting young children, although older children might be expected to benefit more productively from such efforts. Second, it was the sense of the task force that an overreliance on media literacy as a key strategy for defending against advertising effects is misdirected and places too great a responsibility on children. All too often we see calls for interventions designed to "world proof” the child when we would be better off relying on strategies that offer protections for children, in this case from advertising deemed to be unfair and potentially harmful to children. An over-reliance on media literacy could, in this instance, be tantamount to blaming
the victim.
Finally, the growth in marketing efforts targeting children has seemingly fueled an increase in the industry’s use of applied psychologists working as marketing researchers or consultants to enhance the persuasive effect of child-oriented advertising campaigns. Given the well-established limitations on children’s ability to recognize and defend against commercial persuasion, such efforts raise sensitivities that warrant careful consideration by the field and particularly by those individuals involved in such practices, especially in those cases when younger children are targeted by advertisers. If it is unfair to direct commercial persuasion to audiences of young children, then it would seem to be equally unfair to employ psychological theory and research evidence to more effectively accomplish persuasive outcomes in young child viewers, at least insofar as the promotion of applied commercial interests are concerned. While drawing lines in this realm may be challenging, careful consideration is warranted to insure that psychologists hold faithful to their mission to benefit their research subjects, their clients, and the society at large.

I. PUBLIC POLICY
Restrict Advertising Primarily Directed to Audiences of Young Children We recommend that television advertising be restricted during programming directed to or seen by audiences primarily composed of children 8 years of age and under.
State Advertising Disclaimers So They Can Be Understood by the Intended Audience
We recommend that advertising disclaimers in children's programming be stated in language children can understand and be aired in both audio and video for a time length conducive to reading, hearing, and comprehending.
II. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Conduct Research on the Changing Contexts and Modes of Advertising Practices
We recommend that psychologists conduct research on what is new and what is different in advertising that targets children and adolescents, and consider its implications.
Investigate Ad Processing/Effects in Interactive Media Environments
We recommend that psychologists actively investigate how young children comprehend and are influenced by advertising in new interactive media environments such as the Internet and the
World Wide Web
Study the Development of Understanding of Persuasive Intent in More Sophisticated Fashion With Children Older than 8 Years of Age
We recommend that psychologists renew their investigation of the age at which children come to fully comprehend the persuasive intent that necessarily underlies all television advertising.
Study the Role of Gender, Ethnicity, and Culture in Relationship to the Psychological and Social Effects of Advertising on Children
We recommend that psychologists examine whether the psychological processes involved in the understanding of persuasive intent, as well as the impact of exposure to advertising, vary in relationship to gender, race, ethnicity and culture.
Conduct Research on Media Literacy
We recommend that psychologists conduct media literacy research to assist in the development of effective curricula for students at different grade levels.
III. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
Provide Public Education
We recommend that psychologists who are knowledgeable about the effects of advertising on children and youth be encouraged to communicate with parents and professionals who work with children and youth.
Support Continuing Education
We recommend that APA support continuing professional education (CPE) programs for psychologists on media literacy, with particular attention paid to issues related to media advertising and marketing to children.
Weigh Professional Practices Associated With Advertising to Children
We recommend that APA undertake efforts to help psychologists weigh the potential ethical challenges involved in professional efforts to more effectively advertise to children, particularly those children who are too young to comprehend the persuasive intent of television commercials.
IV. INDUSTRY PRACTICES
Encourage More Rigorous Industry Self-Regulation
We recommend that the Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus publicize its guidelines more widely so that parents and others can call to its attention deviations from the guidelines.
V. MEDIA LITERACY
Develop Media Literacy Curricula
We recommend that psychologists take a central role in developing and implementing effective advertising media literacy curricula for all school grade levels from 3rd through 12th.
VI. ADVERTISING AND SCHOOLS
Restrict School-Based Advertising That Targets Young Children
We recommend that advertising in all forms should be restricted in school environments serving children 8 years old and under.
Conduct Research on Effects of School-Based Commercial Practices
We recommend that psychologists engage in research on the impact of advertising and commercialism in schools.
Advocate Professional Collaborations
We recommend that APA collaborate with other professional and educational organizations to raise public, professional, and political awareness with respect to the increased commercialization of schools.

Chair: Brian Wilcox, PhD
Joanne Cantor, PhD
Peter Dowrick, PhD
Dale Kunkel, PhD
Susan Linn, EdD
Edward Palmer, PhD