ARTICLE IN PRESS

Appetite 50 (2008) 231–239

www.elsevier.com/locate/appet

Research Report

Associations between children’s television advertising exposure and their

food consumption patterns: A household diary–survey study
Moniek Buijzena,, Joris Schuurmanb, Elise Bomhofb
a
The Amsterdam School of Communications Research ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
b
Department of Communication Science, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Received 3 April 2007; received in revised form 18 July 2007; accepted 18 July 2007

Abstract

In a diary–survey study in 234 households with children aged 4–12 years, we investigated the associations between children’s exposure
to food advertising and their consumption of (a) advertised food brands, (b) advertised energy-dense food product categories, and
(c) food products overall. Relations were examined using multiple hierarchical regression analysis, while controlling for various child
(i.e., age, sex, television viewing time) and family variables (i.e., family income and consumption-related communication styles). Results
showed that children’s exposure to food advertising was significantly related to their consumption of advertised brands (b ¼ .21) and
energy-dense product categories (b ¼ .19). The relation between advertising exposure and overall food consumption only held in lower-
income families (b ¼ .19). In addition, consumption-related family communication was an important moderator of the relations between
advertising and the food consumption variables. Socio-oriented family communication (i.e., striving for harmony and conformity) was
particularly successful in reducing these relations. In conclusion, consistent with communication theories predicting spill-over effects of
advertising, the impact of television food advertising exceeded the advertised brand and generalized to more generic unhealthy
consumption patterns. Theoretical and societal consequences, as well as the important role of the family are discussed.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Advertising; Brands; Childhood; Consumption; Diary; Diet; Energy-dense food; Obesity; Survey; Television

Introduction and health organizations are pleading for restrictive

The growing prevalence of overweight and obese
children is receiving increasing public, political, and
academic attention. Among the various factors identified
as possible causes for the growth of childhood obesity,
including time-trend changes in leisure activities and
nutrition knowledge (Caroli, Argentieri, Cardone, & Masi,
2004), one factor continues to dominate the debate:
television advertising aimed at children. Critics hold
advertising responsible for the problem of childhood
obesity because of its abundant promotion of energy-dense
food, that is products containing relatively high propor-
tions of fat, sugar, and salt (Hastings et al., 2003;
Matthews, Cowburn, Rayner, Longfield, & Powell, 2004;
Schor, 2005). Consequently, in many countries consumer
Corresponding author
E-mail address: m.a.buijzen@uva.nl (M. Buijzen).
policies regarding food advertising directed at children
(Gantz, Schwartz, Angelini, & Rideout, 2007).
The principle aim of the present study is to investigate
the popular conception that advertising is related to
children’s unhealthy eating habits. We refer to this
conception as the food advertising effects hypothesis. Based
on current advertising and communication theories, we
refine the food advertising effects hypothesis and empiri-
cally investigate it in a natural setting. To do so, we
conducted a household diary–survey study investigating
television viewing behavior and food consumption patterns
of 4- to 12-year-old children.
Refining the food advertising effects hypothesis
The conception that child-directed food promotion is
responsible for unhealthy consumption patterns is based
on the assumptions that (a) advertising directed at children

0195-6663/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.07.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
232 M. Buijzen et al. / Appetite 50 (2008) 231–239
is dominated by energy-dense food product categories, and
(b) children who are often exposed to advertising for these
products have a less healthy diet than children who are less
often exposed.
The first assumption underlying the advertising effects
hypothesis finds support in several content analyses of
child-directed advertising, which have shown that televi-
sion advertising aimed at children is dominated by high-
calorie and low-nutrient food and beverages (e.g., Buijzen
& Valkenburg, 2002; Byrd-Bredrenner, 2002; Gantz et al.,
2007; Matthews et al., 2004). Over the past decades
televised food promotions targeting children have been
found to be increasingly dominated by a ‘‘big five’’ of
items: (sugared) breakfast cereals, confectionery, savory
snacks, soft drinks, and fast food restaurants (for a review,
see Hastings et al., 2003). Several researchers have
concluded that the advertised diet contrasts sharply with
that recommended by nutrionists and public health
advisors (Gamble & Cotugna, 1999; Gantz et al., 2007;
Hill & Radimer, 1997; Kotz & Story, 1994).
There is also empirical evidence for the second assump-
tion underlying the advertising effects hypothesis. Research
on the effects of food advertising has rather consistently
shown that exposure to food advertising can increase
children’s preferences, purchase requests, and consumption
of the advertised brands (Borzekowski & Robinson, 2001;
Goldberg, 1990; Gorn & Goldberg, 1982; Utter, Scragg, &
Schaaf, 2006). These effects are often explained by
hierarchical stimulus-response models of advertising ef-
fects, which assume that advertising leads to awareness and
liking of the advertised brand, and as a consequence, to
purchase and consumption of the brand (Coon, Goldberg,
Rogers, & Tucker, 2001; Petty & Cacioppo, 1996).
However, the question remains whether such responses
to advertising will actually lead to unhealthy consumption
patterns. Food industry advocates often claim that while
advertising exposure may lead to consumers’ preferences
and consumption of specific brands, it does not affect more
generic food consumption patterns (Ambler, 2006). The
distinction between advertising effects at a brand, a
product category, and a total consumption level is vital
in the debate about the role of food advertising with regard
to children’s diets. After all, the role of advertising is
relevant to the debate only when exposure to advertising
leads to more generic consumption of heavily advertised
product categories, that is, energy-dense food products. If
advertising exposure would lead merely to brand choice
(for instance Lays chips) and not to increased consumption
of the energy-dense food category (in this case savory
snacks), advertising-induced changes in children’s diets
would hardly increase the risk of obesity.
In the advertising literature it is assumed that the impact
of advertising may exceed the advertised brand, and extend
to other products within the same product category (cf.,
Ambler, 2006; Atkin, 1982; Young, 2003). An explanation
for such a spill-over effect on more generic consumption is
found in Bandura’s social learning theory (Bandura, 1986,
1994), which proposes that modeled behaviors, such as
eating portrayed in commercials, will lead to similar
behavior among viewers. Thus, social learning explains
responses to a broader category of depicted products,
rather than to only the distinctive brands. Advertising
exposure may therefore not only lead to brand switching,
but also to increased consumption of energy-dense
products and possibly increased food consumption overall.
Only a few studies have investigated the association
between advertising and consumption of advertised product
categories (Goldberg, Gorn, & Gibson, 1978; Wiecha et al.,
2006) and food products overall (Halford, Boyland, Hughes,
Oliveira, & Dovey, 2007; Halford, Gillespie, Brown, Pontin,
& Dovey, 2004). Findings from these studies are in support
of theories predicting spill-over effects of advertising and
suggest that advertising may result in more generic
consumption of energy-dense food products. However, the
distinction between different levels of advertising effects has
not yet been compared systematically.
For a full understanding of the association between food
advertising and children’s consumption patterns, there is a
need to refine the food advertising effects hypothesis and to
examine the relations between children’s exposure to food
advertising and their consumption of (a) advertised food
brands, (b) advertised energy-dense product categories,
and (c) food products overall. In the present study, we
make an explicit distinction between these three dependent
measures. We expect to find associations between chil-
dren’s exposure and all three consumption variables.
In addition, based on demonstrated relationships with
either advertising exposure, food consumption or both, we
investigate the role of several socio-demographic child (i.e.,
age, sex, TV viewing time) and family factors (i.e., income,
consumption-related communication style). In their com-
prehensive theoretical framework of the causal mechanisms
underlying the relations between environmental influences
and energy balance-related behavior, Kremers et al. (2006)
have proposed that socio-demographic factors may inter-
act with these environment–behavior relations. Therefore,
we expect that the various child and family variables will
moderate the relations between advertising and the three
consumption variables.
Investigating the refined food advertising effects hypothesis
Thus far, the effects of advertising on children’s food
consumption have predominantly been examined in
experimental research (Borzekowski & Robinson, 2001;
Dawson, Jeffrey, & Walsh, 1988; Galst, 1980; Gorn &
Goldberg, 1980; Halford et al., 2007; Halford et al., 2004).
In these experiments, children usually watch one or more
commercials, after which they are given a choice from a
series of products, which include the advertised brand.
Researchers have often demonstrated that the advertising
of a specific brand makes the child’s subsequent choice of
that brand more likely. A disadvantage of these studies is
that the results that are found within a controlled
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Buijzen et al. / Appetite 50 (2008) 231–239
laboratory setting may not be generalizable to more
naturalistic contexts (Young, 1990).
A number of studies have attempted to overcome this
problem by investigating advertising effects in a more
natural setting, for instance using survey or diary methods
(Bolton, 1983; Coon et al., 2001; Kremers, van der Horst,
& Brug, 2007; Ritchey & Olson, 1983; Taras, Sallis,
Patterson, Nader, & Nelson, 1989; Utter et al., 2006;
Wiecha et al., 2006). Such methods are potentially able to
take more naturalistic measures of behavior than are
experimental studies. However, earlier studies have often
relied on self-reported estimates of general television
exposure, for instance by operationalizing exposure as
‘‘frequency of television viewing.’’ A limitation of this
measure is that it lacks specificity concerning the amount
and nature of the advertisements to which respondents
have been exposed (see Slater, 2004). In addition, it is
impossible to say whether the effect can be attributed to
food advertising in particular or to alternative hypothe-
sized television effects, such as the sedentary nature of
television viewing or snacking that might take place while
viewing (Jordan, 2007; Snoek, van Strien, Janssens, &
Engels, 2006; Vandewater, Shim, & Caplovitz, 2004).
A strategy to increase the accuracy and specificity of self-
reports of advertising exposure is to assess which networks
children watch. Furthermore, uncertainty concerning the
content to which respondents report exposure can be
reduced by combining these more specific exposure data
with information on the amount and nature of advertise-
ments broadcast on these networks (Gantz et al., 2007;
Slater, 2004). Therefore, the present study combines a
household diary–survey study with broadcast data on
television food advertising.
Method
Data were collected in two waves during the spring of
2006, in urban and suburban districts adjacent to
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. To be able to provide a
detailed and accurate assessment of (a) the amount and
nature of food advertising that children were exposed to
and (b) the amount and nature of food products they
consumed, we used a multiple-method inquiry. More
specifically, we combined a structured food diary with
questionnaire data and advertising broadcast data.
Sample
In early 2006, we approached parents from children
in eight elementary schools, which consisted of students
with various socio-economic and cultural backgrounds.
In a letter administered via the schools, parents were
informed about the nature of the study and asked to
participate. Of the 380 parents who agreed to participate,
234 (i.e., 62%) returned a completed diary and question-
naire. This resulted in a total sample of 234 parents of
children between the ages of 4 and 12 years (51.5% boys).
233
In the sample, all educational levels of parents were
represented, although most of the parents were relatively
well educated: 32% had completed high school, 37% were
college graduates, and 21% had a master’s degree. Family
incomes ranged from less than 12 500 euro per year (USD
14 950; 12% of the sample) to more than 48 000 euro per
year (USD 57 450; 18% of the sample).
Procedure
The children were given an envelope to take home to
their parents that contained a food diary and a ques-
tionnaire. The package was accompanied by instructions,
asking the primary caregiver to report all of the food
products and beverages their child consumed each day
during a 4-day period, which covered two specific week-
and two weekend days. The instruction also emphasized
the importance of recording the brand names of the
products consumed. In addition to the diary, parents were
asked to fill out a questionnaire tapping a number of child-
(age, sex, television viewing behavior) and family-related
socio-demograhic variables (income, family communica-
tion patterns). After the packages were returned, two
coders listed and coded all foods and beverages consumed
by each child during the time of investigation. In order to
estimate the amount and nature of television food
advertising, we used a data set provided by Nielsen
Media Research of all advertisements broadcast in the
Netherlands in the month leading up to the investigation.
Measures
Our analyses were based on one independent measure
(exposure to energy-dense food advertising), three depen-
dent measures (consumption of advertised brands, adver-
tised energy-dense product categories, and food products
overall) and six child- and family-related socio-demo-
graphic control variables. The ranges, means, and standard
deviations of all measures are depicted in Table 1.
Food advertising exposure: To assess children’s exposure
to energy-dense food advertising, we combined children’s
television viewing behavior with advertising broadcast data
(cf., Gantz et al., 2007; Slater, 2004). Parents were asked to
indicate which network their child watched the most. Based
on the Nielsen advertising broadcast data we analyzed how
many commercials for the ‘‘big five’’ energy-dense product
categories (i.e., sugared breakfast cereals, confectionery,
savory snacks, soft drinks, and products from fast food
restaurants) were broadcast on each of the 15 networks
reported by parents. The number of energy-dense food
commercials ranged from 0 to 1684 per network. For each
child, a food advertising exposure score was created, which
reflected the amount of food commercials broadcast on his
or her favorite network.
Consumption of advertised brands, energy-dense product
categories, and food products overall: The three dependent
consumption measures expressed the number of food
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
234 M. Buijzen et al. / Appetite 50 (2008) 231–239

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for all variables

Range M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Food advertising exposure 0–1684 295.50 275.05

2. Consumption advertised brands 0–3 .49 .56 .20
3. Consumption energy-dense product categories 0–7 2.56 1.22 .22 .54
4. Consumption food products overall 5–24 15.25 3.84 .02 .26 .45
5. Child age 4–12 7.85 2.50 .20 .13 .32 .05
6. Child sexa 0–1 .48 .50 .02 .05 .10 .15 .06
7. Child weekly television viewing time 0–61.5 12.07 9.47 .11 .00 .02 .39 .06 .10
8. Family incomeb 0–7 3.65 2.26 .10 .24 .24 .38 .07 .01 .24
9. Family concept-oriented communication 1–4 2.19 .53 .01 .03 .03 .19 .20 .02 .21 .17
10. Family socio-oriented communication 1–4 2.39 .53 .24 .12 .13 .14 .26 .05 .11 .07 .03
a
0 ¼ boys; 1 ¼ girls; Spearman’s rho correlations were computed for this variable.
b
0p12 500 euros per year (USD 14 950); 7X48 000 euros per year (USD 57 450).
 po.05.
 po.01.
 po.001.

products or beverages a given child consumed during an
average day. First, the coders listed all products consumed
by each child during the time of investigation. To create a
measure for children’s daily overall food consumption, the
total number of food products consumed was divided by
the number of days included in the investigation.
Then, using the same set of advertising broadcast data as
mentioned above, the coders assessed (a) whether or not
the specific brand consumed was advertised in the month
leading up to the investigation, and (b) whether or not the
product consumed belonged to one of the ‘‘big five’’
product categories (i.e., sugared breakfast cereals, con-
fectionery, savory snacks, soft drinks, and products from
fast food restaurants).
To create a measure for children’s daily consumption of
advertised brands, the total number of food brands
consumed that had been advertised on television was
divided by the number of days included in the investiga-
tion. Similarly, the number of energy-dense food product
categories consumed was divided by the number of days to
create a measure of daily consumption of energy-dense
product categories. Of the total food products consumed,
17% belonged to one of the energy-dense product
categories and 3% were brands advertised on television.
The advertised brands comprised 19% of all energy-dense
products consumed.
Socio-demographic variables: Finally, a number of child-
and family-related socio-demographic factors were in-
cluded in the analyses. Child variables included: (a) age
of child, (b) sex of child, and (c) weekly television viewing
time. Family variables included (a) family income,
(b) concept-oriented consumption-related family commu-
nication, and (c) socio-oriented consumption-related fa-
mily communication (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2005; Carlson
& Grossbart, 1988). The concept-oriented communication
scale consisted of six items measured on a 4-point scale,
reflecting a communication style that emphasizes negotia-
tion, individual ideas, and opinions (a ¼ .74), while the
socio-oriented communication scale consisted of six items
reflecting a communication style that stresses harmony and
conformity (a ¼ .66). To investigate the moderating role of
family income and consumption-related communication
style, different subgroups were created by way of mean
splits.
Analyses
Before the hypothesis tests were conducted, bivariate
correlations were used to explore associations between all
measures. The correlations are depicted in Table 1. As can
be seen in the table, food advertising exposure was related
to consumption of energy-dense product categories, but
not to food consumption overall. In addition, the three
consumption variables were interrelated positively. Finally,
the various socio-demographic variables showed significant
associations with the measures for advertising exposure
and food consumption, and were therefore included in the
hypothesis tests.
Hierarchical multiple regression was used to test the
hypothesized relations between advertising exposure and
children’s consumption of advertised brands, energy-dense
product categories, and food products overall. To test for a
moderating influence of child and family variables, we
conducted interaction analysis in multiple regression,
following the procedure described by Aiken and West
(1991). All regression models controlled for the child and
family variables described above. In all analyses, p-values
of o.05 were considered significant.
Results
To test the refined food advertising effects hypothesis, we
conducted three hierarchical regression analyses, with
children’s consumption of advertised brands, energy-dense
product categories, and food products overall as the
dependent variables. The six socio-demographic variables
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Buijzen et al. / Appetite 50 (2008) 231–239 235

were entered on the first step, and children’s advertising
exposure was entered on the second step. Thus, the
hypothesis tests were performed on the second step of
each equation. Table 2 provides the summary of the
hierarchical regression predictions for the three dependent
variables.
The first step accounted for 8% of the variance in children’s
consumption of advertised brands, F(6, 226) ¼ 3.20, po.01;
16% of the variance in consumption of energy-dense product
categories, F(6, 226) ¼ 7.21, po.001; and 28% in consump-
tion of food products overall, F(6, 226) ¼ 14.52, po.001.
The second step resulted in a significant increase in the
variance explained for children’s consumption of adver-
tised brands and energy-dense product categories, but not
for consumption of food products overall (see Table 2).
Children’s advertising exposure added 4% to the explained
variance in consumption of advertised brands, leading to
F(7, 225) ¼ 4.22, po.001 and 3% to the variance in
consumption of energy-dense product categories, leading
to F(7, 225) ¼ 7.60, po.001. As Table 2 demonstrates,
children’s exposure to food advertising was significantly
and positively related to their consumption of advertised
brands and energy-dense product categories.
To investigate the moderating effect of the child and
family variables, we used interaction analysis in multiple
regression (cf. Aiken & West, 1991). We conducted six
additional sets of regression analyses with the three
consumption variables as the dependent measures. In each
set of analyses, three principle predictors were entered:
(1) advertising exposure, (2) one of the six socio-
demographic variables (i.e., child age, child sex, child
television viewing time, family income, socio-oriented
family communication, concept-oriented family commu-
nication), and (3) the product term of advertising expo-
sure and that socio-demographic variable. In addition,
we also controlled for the remaining child and family
factors.
If the child or family variable indeed moderated the
relation between advertising exposure and consumption, a
significant two-way interaction between advertising expo-
sure and the variable should occur (Aiken & West, 1991).
The analyses yielded no significant interaction effects for
the child variables, indicating that the relations between
advertising and the three consumption variables did not
vary for younger and older children, boys and girls, and
low- and high-television viewing children.
However, several significant interaction effects emerged
for the family variables. In order to understand the
moderator patterns for the family variables more thor-
oughly, Table 3 presents the associations between advertis-
ing exposure and the three consumption variables in
different subgroups, defined in terms of family income
(i.e., low vs. high) and family consumer communication
style (i.e., low vs. high concept orientation; low vs. high
socio orientation).
First, the interaction analyses for income yielded a
positive moderator effect on the relation between advertis-
ing exposure and consumption of advertised brands
(b ¼ .15, po.05), indicating that this relation was sig-
nificantly stronger among children from higher-income
families. Although the relation between advertising ex-
posure and food consumption overall was considerably
stronger in low-income families (see Table 3), the interac-
tion was nonsignificant (b ¼ .08, p ¼ .17).

Table 2
Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for variables predicting children’s food consumption

Advertised brands b Energy-denseproduct categories b All food products b

Step 1
Child variables
Age .07a (.10)b .27 (.30***) .05 (.07)
Sex .01 (.01) .06 (.07) .10 (.11)
Television viewing time .03 (.04) .01 (.02) .30 (.29)
Family variables
Income .26 (.23***) .23 (.21***) .31 (.30)
Concept-oriented comm. .01 (.03) .04 (.06) .10 (.10)
Socio-oriented comm. .03 (.07) .01 (.05) .14 (.12)
R2 .08 .16 .28
Step 2
Food advertising exposure .21 .19 .10
R2 change .04 .03 .01
Total R2 .12 .19 .29
a
Cell values without brackets are standardized multiple regression weights reflecting the relation between the predictor and the dependent variable while
controlling for all of the variables entered.
b
Cell values between brackets reflect the relation in the first step of the analysis.
 po.05.
po.01.
po.001.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
236 M. Buijzen et al. / Appetite 50 (2008) 231–239

Table 3 also extended to their consumption of energy-dense food

Moderating influence of family variables on the relations between product categories. Thus, consistent with communication
children’s advertising exposure and food consumption
theories predicting spill-over effects of advertising (Atkin,
Advertised Energy-dense All food 1982; Bandura, 1986, 1994), the impact of television food
brands b product products b advertising generalized to other brands within the same
categories b product category as the advertised brand. In low-income
families, children’s exposure to food advertising was also
Family income
Low income .12y .26 .19 associated with overall food consumption.
(n ¼ 103)
High income .38x .15 .01 Food advertising exposure vs. television viewing time
(n ¼ 131)
Family communication We also expanded on previous research by using a
styles specific measure of food advertising exposure. Earlier
Low concept .23 .33x .18 studies often relied on general estimates of television
orientation
exposure. Such non-specific proxy measures leave room
(n ¼ 108)
High concept .17 .06y .06 for alternative explanations for television effects, such as
orientation the ‘‘grazing’’ hypothesis, which attributes the effect of
(n ¼ 126) television to snacking that might take place while viewing
Low socio orientation .27 .29x .20x (van den Bulck & van Mierlo, 2004; Vandewater et al.,
(n ¼ 122) 2004). By isolating children’s advertising exposure while
High socio .07 .02y .05y controlling for television viewing time, our analyses
orientation revealed two patterns that deserve more attention. First,
(n ¼ 112)
two consumption measures (i.e., advertised brands and
Note: Cell values reflect the relations between food advertising exposure energy-dense product categories) were predicted by adver-
and the dependent variable while controlling for the various child (age, tising exposure but not by television viewing time, which
sex, television viewing time) and family variables (income, concept- and confirms the assumption that changes in consumption can
socio-oriented communication).
x,y be attributed to food advertising rather than to other
Column values with different superscripts differ significantly at
po.05. factors associated with television viewing.
The second pattern observed sheds new light on the
grazing hypothesis. Although overall food consumption was
Second, the analyses for concept-oriented family com- not related to advertising exposure, it was significantly
munication showed that the relation between advertising associated with television viewing time. Remarkably, the
exposure and consumption of energy-dense product analysis yielded a negative link between television viewing
categories was significantly weaker among children from and food consumption. It is conceivable that heavy-television
families high in concept orientation than from families low viewers expend less energy due to the sedentary nature of
in concept orientation (b ¼ .13, po.05). Finally, the television viewing, and thus have less of an appetite.
analyses for socio-oriented communication yielded signifi- However, in our study, while total food consumption
cant negative interaction effects for the relations between decreased as a function of television viewing, the amount
advertising exposure and consumption of energy-dense of energy-dense food intake remained equal, indicating that
product categories (b ¼ .20, po.01) and consumption of the proportion of energy-dense food was higher in heavy-
food products overall (b ¼ .19, po.01). viewers’ diets. In other words, television viewing appeared to
be related to dietary quality rather than quantity. This
Discussion interpretation concurs with earlier research yielding negative
associations between television and children’s consumption
In a combined diary–survey study, we investigated the of foods not normally advertised, such as fruit and vegetables
refined food advertising effects hypothesis. We extended (Boynton-Jarrett et al., 2003; Coon et al., 2001; Gable,
and improved on previous research by distinguishing Chang, & Krull, 2007; Halford et al., 2007).
between different levels of food advertising effects and by
using a more specific measure of food advertising exposure. The family context

Three levels of food advertising effects
Our study was the first to compare the effects of food
advertising on consumption of the specific advertised
brand, the more generic advertised product category, and
food products overall. As predicted, we found that food
advertising not only affected children’s brand choice, but
Aside from advertising exposure, family income was the
most important predictor of children’s consumption pat-
terns. Children from higher-income families consumed
more food products overall, more advertised energy-dense
product categories, and more advertised brands. A possible
explanation for this finding is that high-income parents can
afford to spend more money on food than lower-income
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Buijzen et al. / Appetite 50 (2008) 231–239
parents, resulting in a higher food availability in these
households, as well as a tendency to purchase more
expensive branded foods and beverages (Ambler, 2006;
Kinsey, 1994, 1997). In addition, higher-income households
are often comprised of dual-working parents who, due to
time pressure, are more inclined to purchase convenience
food (Ambler, 2006; Coon et al., 2001; Kinsey, 1997).
Based on Kremers et al.’s (2006) framework of the
mechanisms underlying environment–behavior relations,
we also investigated the moderating role of family income
and consumption-related communication style on the
relations between advertising and consumption. First, our
results showed that the relation between advertising
exposure and advertised brands was significantly stronger
in high-income families, while the relation between
advertising exposure and total food consumption only
held in low-income families. In other words, while in high-
income families advertising was mainly related to brand
choice—which might be explained by the higher avail-
ability of branded products in these households—children
in low-income families appeared to be especially sensitive
to advertising effects on the amount of foods and beverages
consumed. These results seem to indicate that the dietary
patterns of children from low-income families are more
strongly influenced by television advertising than those of
children from high-income families.
Second, family communication about consumer matters
also played an important role. The relations between
advertising exposure and the consumption variables were
considerably reduced in families characterized by high
levels of consumption-related communication. Especially
socio-oriented family communication (i.e., emphasizing
harmony and conformity) considerably moderated the
various relations. These findings are in agreement with
family communication research that shows that family
communication about consumer matters can mitigate,
channel, or counteract undesirable media effects (Buijzen
& Valkenburg, 2005; Nathanson, 1999).
Future research should further explore the role of family
variables in the relation between advertising and consump-
tion. Although children exert increasing influence on family
purchases (Valkenburg, 2004), parents are still the primary
gatekeepers to children’s food intake. In general, they are
the ones controlling financial expenditures and making
the final purchase decision in the retail environment
(Mangleburg, 1990). In addition, most parents control
access to food at home, for instance by family rules on
snacking and by determining what’s for dinner (Bolton,
1983; Cullen et al., 2001; Kremers, Brug, & de Vries, 2003).
However, indirectly, parents may also be susceptible to
food advertising directed at children. Research on family
consumer behavior has shown that many parents seriously
take into account the wants and preferences of their
children when shopping (Mangleburg, 1990; McNeal, 1999;
Williams & Burns, 2000). It is conceivable that parents
indulge their children by purchasing branded foods and
beverages.
237
Conclusions and policy implications
In conclusion, the question that dominates the public
and political debate about child-directed food advertising
can be answered affirmatively: Television food advertising
contributes to an unhealthy diet. Advertising for energy-
dense products influences not only children’s consumption
of the brands advertised, but also more generic consump-
tion of energy-dense food. These products seem to replace
healthier, non-advertised products in children’s diets. The
impact of advertising was strongest among families with
low levels of consumption-related communication.
However, it should be noted that our findings are based
on correlational data, implying that we cannot draw
definite conclusions about the causal direction of the
observed relations. In addition, even though our measure
for advertising exposure was more specific than those used
in earlier studies, it is uncertain whether the children were
actually exposed to the commercials, because no informa-
tion was gathered regarding actual viewing periods.
In order to further improve on specific advertising
exposure measures, future research could combine chil-
dren’s self-reported viewing behavior with advertising
broadcast data.
A third limitation of our study is that, although the link
between advertising and children’s consumption patterns
was established, the question is still open as to how this, in
turn, affects the risk of obesity. Obesity is generally
assumed to be caused by an excess of calorie intake
relative to calorie output (Ambler, 2006; Kremers et al.,
2006). For a full understanding of childhood obesity, we
should not only focus on advertising, but also on other
forces, including the general lifestyles of children and their
families. However, based on this study’s findings, we
encourage scholars investigating the causes of childhood
overweight to incorporate the role of food advertising in
their research designs.
Taking these reservations into account, our results do
appear to support consumer and health organizations in
their call for advertising restrictions. Assuming that
exposure to food commercials leads to less healthy eating
habits, it is plausible that children would benefit from a
reduction in commercial pressure. However, two argu-
ments can be raised against restrictions of television
advertising. First, it is uncertain whether it is feasible to
shelter children from being exposed to food marketing.
Even though children’s food promotion is still dominated
by television advertising, marketers have a wide variety of
tools at their disposal, including internet websites, product
packaging, and product placement in popular children’s
programs. Children represent an attractive and lucrative
consumer market and it is quite likely that a ban on
television advertising will result in a shift towards other
marketing tools (Schor, 2005).
Moreover, it is uncertain whether it is useful to shelter
children from advertising. Research on advertising inter-
vention has shown that intervention strategies aimed at
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
238 M. Buijzen et al. / Appetite 50 (2008) 231–239
increasing children’s defenses against advertising are more
successful in reducing the impact of advertising than
strategies aimed at restricting children’s advertising ex-
posure (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2005). Therefore, policy
makers, consumer organizations, and those involved in
children’s daily care could put more effort in the
empowerment of children. A first empowerment strategy
could aim at the enhancement of nutrition and health
knowledge among children and their parents, while a
second could focus on increasing children’s consumer
skills. In several countries, such as Canada, the UK, and
The Netherlands, school-based consumer education pro-
grams have been introduced in recent years. Given the
continuous increase of marketing efforts directed at
children, such education should, in our view, be a standard
part of children’s school curriculum.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ambler, T. (2006). Does the UK promotion of food and drink to children
contribute to their obesity? International Journal of Advertising, 25,
137–156.
Atkin, C. K. (1982). Television advertising and socialization to consumer
roles. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and
behavior: Technical reviews, Vol. II (pp. 201–208). Rockville, Md: US
Department of Health and Human Services National Institute of
Mental Health.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1994). Social cognitive theory of mass communication.
In J. Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects advances in theory
and research (pp. 61–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bolton, R. N. (1983). Modeling the impact of television food advertising
on children’s diets. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 6,
173–199.
Borzekowski, D. L. G., & Robinson, T. N. (2001). The 30-second effect:
An experiment revealing the impact of television commercials on food
preferences of preschoolers. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa-
tion, 101, 42–46.
Boynton-Jarrett, R., Thomas, T. N., Peterson, K. E., Wiecha, J., Sobol, A.
M., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2003). Impact of television viewing patterns
on fruit and vegetable consumption among adolescents. Pediatrics,
112, 1321–1326.
Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2002). Appeals in television
advertising: A content analysis of commercials aimed at children and
teenagers. Communications: The European Journal of Communication
Research, 27, 349–364.
Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2005). Parental mediation of undesired
advertising effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49,
153–165.
Byrd-Bredrenner, C. (2002). Saturday morning children’s television
advertising: A longitudinal content analysis. Family and Consumer
Sciences Journal, 30, 382–403.
Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental style and consumer
socialization of children. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
77–94.
Caroli, M., Argentieri, L., Cardone, M., & Masi, A. (2004). Role of
television in childhood obesity prevention. International Journal of
Obesity, 28, 104–108.
Coon, K. A., Goldberg, J., Rogers, B. L., & Tucker, K. L. (2001).
Relationships between use of television during meals and children’s
food consumption patterns. Pediatrics, 107, e7.
Cullen, K., Baranowski, T., Rittenberry, L., Cosart, C., Hebert, D., &
de Moor, C. (2001). Child-reported family and peer influences on fruit,
juice and vegetable consumption: Reliability and validity of measures.
Health Education Research, 16, 187–200.
Dawson, B. L., Jeffrey, D. B., & Walsh, J. A. (1988). Television food
commercials effect on childrens resistance to temptation. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1353–1360.
Gable, S., Chang, Y., & Krull, J. L. (2007). Television watching and
frequency of family meals are predictive of overweight onset and
persistence in a national sample of school-aged children. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 107, 53–61.
Galst, J. P. (1980). Television food commercials and pro-nutritional public
service announcements as determinants of young children’s snack
choices. Child Development, 51, 935–938.
Gamble, M., & Cotugna, N. (1999). A quarter century of TV food
advertising targeted at children. American Journal of Health Behavior,
23, 261–267.
Gantz, W., Schwartz, N., Angelini, J. R., & Rideout, V. (2007). Food for
thought: Television food advertising to children in the United States: The
Kaiser Family Foundation.
Goldberg, M. E. (1990). A quasi-experiment assessing the effectiveness of
TV advertising directed to children. Journal of Marketing Research, 27,
445–454.
Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, G. J., & Gibson, W. (1978). TV messages for
snack and breakfast foods: Do they influence children’s preferences?
Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 73–81.
Gorn, G. J., & Goldberg, M. E. (1980). Children’s responses to repetitive
television commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 421–424.
Gorn, G. J., & Goldberg, M. E. (1982). Behavioral evidence of the effects
of food messages on children. Journal of Consumer Research, 9,
200–205.
Halford, J. C. G., Boyland, E. J., Hughes, G., Oliveira, L. P., & Dovey, T.
M. (2007). Beyond-brand effect of television (TV) food advertise-
ments/ commercials on caloric intake and food choice of 5–7-year-old
children. Appetite, 49, 263–267.
Halford, J. C. G., Gillespie, J., Brown, V., Pontin, E. E., & Dovey, T. M.
(2004). Effect of television advertisements for foods on food
consumption in children. Appetite, 42, 221–225.
Hastings, G., Stead, M., McDermott, L., Forsyth, A., MacKintosh, A. M.,
Rayner, M., et al. (2003). Review of research on the effects of food
promotion to children. Glasgow: Centre for Social Marketing.
Hill, J. M., & Radimer, K. L. (1997). A content analysis of food
advertisements in television for Australian children. Australian Journal
of Nutrition and Dietetics, 54, 174–182.
Jordan, A. (2007). Heavy television viewing and childhood obesity.
Journal of Children and Media, 1, 45–54.
Kinsey, J. D. (1994). Food and families socioeconomic status. Journal of
Nutrition, 124, 1878–1885.
Kinsey, J. D. (1997). Income and food consumption: A variety of answers:
Discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79,
1461–1464.
Kotz, K., & Story, M. (1994). Food advertisements during children’s
Saturday morning television programming: Are they consistent with
dietary recommendations? Journal of the American Dietetic Associa-
tion, 94, 1296–1300.
Kremers, S. P. J., Brug, J., & de Vries, H. (2003). Parenting style and
adolescent fruit consumption. Appetite, 41, 43–50.
Kremers, S. P. J., de Bruijn, G. J., Visscher, L. S., van Mechelen, W., de
Vries, N. K., & Brug, J. (2006). Environmental influences on energy-
balance-related behaviors: A dual process view. International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3, 9.
Kremers, S. P. J., van der Horst, K., & Brug, J. (2007). Adolescent screen-
viewing behavior is associated with consumption of sugar-sweetened
beverages: The role of habit strength and perceived parental norms.
Appetite, 48, 345–350.
Mangleburg, T. F. (1990). Children’s influence in purchase decisions:
A review and critique. Advances in Consumer Research, 17,
813–825.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Buijzen et al. / Appetite 50 (2008) 231–239
Matthews, A., Cowburn, G., Rayner, M., Longfield, J., & Powell, C.
(2004). The marketing of unhealthy food to children. Brussels: European
Heart Network.
McNeal, J. U. (1999). The kids market: Myths and realities. Ithaca:
Paramount Market Publishing.
Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship
between parental mediation and children’s aggression. Communication
Research, 26, 124–143.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic
and contemporary approaches (New ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ritchey, N., & Olson, C. (1983). Relationships between family variables
and children’s preference for and consumption of sweet foods. Ecology
of Food and Nutrition, 13, 257–266.
Schor, J. B. (2005). Born to buy. New York: Scribner.
Slater, M. D. (2004). Operationalizing and analyzing exposure: The
foundation of media effects research. Journalism & Mass Communica-
tion Quarterly, 81, 168–183.
Snoek, H. M., van Strien, T., Janssens, J. M. A. M., & Engels, R. C. M. E.
(2006). The effect of television viewing on adolescents’ snacking:
Individual differences explained by external, restrained and emotional
eating. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 448–451.
Taras, H. L., Sallis, J. F., Patterson, T. L., Nader, P. R., & Nelson, J. A.
(1989). Televisions influence on children’s diet and physical
activity. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 10,
176–180.
239
Utter, J., Scragg, R., & Schaaf, D. (2006). Associations between television
viewing and consumption of commonly advertised foods among
New Zealand children and young adolescents. Public Health Nutrition,
9, 606–612.
Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Children’s responses to the screen. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van den Bulck, J., & van Mierlo, J. (2004). Energy intake associated with
television viewing in adolescents: A cross sectional study. Appetite, 43,
181–184.
Vandewater, E. A., Shim, M., & Caplovitz, A. G. (2004). Linking obesity
and activity level with children’s television and video game use. Journal
of Adolescence, 27, 71–85.
Wiecha, J. L., Peterson, K. E., Ludwig, D. S., Kim, J., Sobol, A., &
Gortmaker, S. L. (2006). When children eat what they watch: Impact
of television viewing on dietary intake in youth. Archives of Pediatrics
& Adolescent Medicine, 160, 436–442.
Williams, L. A., & Burns, A. C. (2000). Exploring the dimensionality of
children’s direct influence attempts. Advances in Consumer Research,
27, 64–71.
Young, B. M. (1990). Television advertising and children. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Young, B. M. (2003). Does food advertising influence children’s food
choices? A critical review of some of the recent literature. International
Journal of Advertising, 22, 441–459.