Children are considered by many one of the most vulnerable of all media audiences. After a discussion of the uniqueness of child audiences and commercials' effects on them, this article addresses the values of advertisers who purposely and inadvertently reach children with their messages. Three ethical theories are presented for use in recognizing the special consideration necessary for child audiences. Finally, a model proposed by Robin and Reidenbach ( 1987 ) is presented as a means of introducing ethical values and theories into corporate decision-making policies regarding children and advertising.
Dorr ( 1986 ) suggested that, "Of all the television content children process, interpret, and evaluate, commercial advertising presents the most significant challenges" (p. 51). Children meet these commercial challenges dozens of times each day. Indeed, as they grow, children are exposed to thousands of television commercials. Since the 1970s, the appropriateness of television advertising to children has been debated among consumer groups such as Action for Children's Television, governmental agencies, the advertising and television industries, and the industries that produce children's products. Almost all these opposing parties recognize that children are substantially more vulnerable than adults in the commercial marketplace. Assumptions about adults' rational abilities and obligations to operate in their own self-interests in the economic marketplace cannot be assumed to be operable for children. Too frequently, the exchanges among those on the various sides of the issue end in frustration, without much progress in efforts to account for the vulnerabilities of children with respect to television advertising.
Because the debate has primarily focused on advertising specifically aimed at children, one might think that this is the only or, at least, the most essential issue. However, during prime time television hours and other hours of the day, children watch programs intended for other target audiences and thus are exposed to commercials also intended for other target audiences. Current thinking about the longterm socialization and reality-defining effects of media (e.g., cultivation theory) suggests that unintended exposure to these advertisements may have powerful extended effects on child viewers' role expectations, values, and world views.
Despite the findings of a substantial body of research from a cognitive-developmental perspective supporting the notion of a vulnerable child audience, the controversy about appropriate advertising to children goes on. At the heart of this controversy is disagreement about the actual nature and extent of effects on children in real world television viewing contexts. As is typical of the dominant paradigm in the mass media effects literature, a rather limited definition of effects has guided much of the inquiry. Effects have been defined as short-term changes in individuals' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors after exposure to media technology and content (see Rossiter, 1979). For instance, researchers have investigated such things as the effects of host selling, animation, and program separators on children's understanding of selling intent and purchase requests (e.g., Hoy, Young, & Mowen, 1986; Kunkel, 1988; Meringoff & Lesser, 1980).
Social learning theory (e.g., Bandura & Walters, 1963; Tan, 1986) and cultivation theory ( Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1986) are two theoretical perspectives that bring alternative foci in thinking about the effects television commercials have on children. Both theories suggest that individuals' stereotypes, role learning, values, and "world views" can be influenced by consistently viewing televised portrayals of the world. These kinds of effects accumulate over long time periods and thus are difficult to assess. Cultivation theory suggests that television is the American culture's "storyteller," portraying consistent images of our beliefs, attitudes, and mores, regardless of content type. Commercials provide some of the most compact, consistent packages of value-laden information that is congruent with the values pervading program content.
Parents, consumer groups, educators, and some legislators are not only concerned with the types of potentially harmful short-term effects that may result from exposure to advertising aimed specifically at children. They are concerned with the role of advertising in legitimizing what they consider to be harmful social and cultural trends involving parental authority, social morality, and alternative lifestyles (Schultze, 1987, p. 3). Cultivation and socialization theories support concerns for long-run societal, and individual effects.
Although acknowledging potentially harmful effects on child audiences, those within the advertising, media, and consumer products industries have typically balked at calls for them to take responsibility for such unintentional effects. They point to their rights to advertise in the open marketplace and the good that advertising does in capitalistic economies by stimulating demand and raising standards of living. They also point to the support they provide the media. Indeed, without advertising, some would argue, there would be no children's programming at all. Hite and Eck ( 1987 ) found that respondents from large business firms had favorable attitudes toward advertising to children. They believe it provides useful information on new products and does not disrupt parent-child relationships because of purchase requests. The business leaders in this study said that although children might be at a disadvantage in viewing advertising, there is little they can do to change the number and types of children's commercials because of the competitive nature of the marketplace (Hite & Eck, 1987, p. 51).
These arguments reflect the values that dominate the cultures of many American corporations--profit and efficiency. These values emanate from the egoistic roots of capitalism which claim that the pursuit of selfish individual interests is the only true moral imperative. Kirkpatrick ( 1986 ) asserted that "the moral justification of advertising is that it represents the implementation of an ethics of egoism--the communication of one rational being to another rational being for the egoistic benefit of both" (p. 512). Yet, with respect to children and advertisers, the equal rationality of communicators cannot be presumed.
Consideration of the questions of advertising to children through the lens of ethical theories would require business leaders in the advertising industry to seriously reconsider the presumptions discovered by Hite and Eck ( 1987 ). Several theories are pertinent to the issue at hand, although Rawls ( 1971 ) Veil of Ignorance, with its specific concern for the weakest party in situations of unequal power, seems most appropriate. Rawls called for all parties to remove themselves from the real circumstances in which they find themselves and put themselves into an "original position," where all social differences are eliminated and all are considered equal members of society ( Rawls, 1971). In this "original position," no one knows how he or she will fare once the veil is lifted and real life resumes. As social agreements are negotiated in this context of imagined equality, all parties will seek to protect the most vulnerable, because they do not know whether they themselves will emerge from behind the veil as the most vulnerable party. If such moral reasoning were applied to decisions about advertising that affects children, decision makers would no doubt seek to protect the liberties of vulnerable children. Behind the veil, they would see that, as children, they would be at a psychological disadvantage in the economic marketplace and most susceptible to intentional and unintentional advertising effects.
Robin and Reidenbach ( 1987 ) suggested a blend of deontology and utilitarianism for any corporation that seeks to behave ethically, not just in advertising-related matters but all spheres of corporate life. Because of its fundamental concerns for individuals, deontological thinking should prevail when individuals' rights are at stake or if there is any potentially serious impact on them. They suggested that even when solid utilitarian arguments can be made, if serious individual effects are possible, deontological thinking should still prevail. Alternatively, when no such threats to individual well being are involved, the utilitarian arguments that are expected and appropriate within capitalistic democracies are acceptable. The argument for serious, although perhaps not life-threatening, effects of advertising on children, has been made. Thus, when children are known to be part of the commercial audience (as they almost always are), deontological thinking would necessarily prevail in advertising decisions.
Does the application of Rawls's Veil of Ignorance or deontological ethics imply that advertisers must entirely give up advertising, because children may be harmed by it? Not necessarily. Robin and Reidenbach ( 1987 ) also suggested that Aristotle's "golden mean" be applied when actual performance decisions are being made. To Aristotle, virtuous action is a location between two vices--one of excess, the other deficiency. Moderation and temperance are the most appropriate guides to behavior. If we tend toward one extreme, we must push ourselves away from that tendency toward the other extreme, in order to achieve the most appropriate "mean." Regarding advertising and children, advertisers would not be required to entirely relinquish their messages which serve to support their profit and efficiency values. They would not be able to use any persuasive message without regard for the less sophisticated child audience which may see those messages.
Attempts the industries have made to regulate themselves over the years, such as the Children's Advertising Review Unit within the National Advertising Division or the National Association of Broadcasters Television Code (see Adler, 1981), may be seen as examples of what the application of the golden mean might look like. However, such self-regulatory efforts wax and wane as the winds of government regulation change. As a result, industry regulations have been inconsistently applied and have not necessarily pertained to those advertisers who only inadvertently reach children. Furthermore, these regulations fall short of the kinds of creative solutions that would result if advertisers consciously pushed themselves away from their natural inclinations to advertise in ways that are mostly beneficial to themselves.
The three ethical theories just discussed demonstrate that moral reasoning would almost certainly lead to the recognition of children as the party whose interests are in need of protection. Once children's limited cognitive abilities are acknowledged, values that protect children must be incorporated into decision-making practices. Many organizations do have ethical guidelines that include more than profit and efficiency values. However, the application of these values in actual corporate conduct is often overlooked. For advertisers who recognize they have ethical responsibilities to children because of intentional or unintentional effects, Robin and Reidenbach ( 1987 ) provided a useful ethical framework for incorporation of ethical thinking into the very heart of corporate cultures.
According to Robin and Reidenbach ( 1987 ), many businesses recognize that marketing activities, including advertising, have ethical dimensions, but these are often considered separately from other elements of strategic planning, if considered at all. They called for full integration of ethical core values throughout organizations' cultures. As noted earlier, the ethical values that do seem to be extant within corporations are profit and efficiency. Without another set of positive, overt, consistent, and integrated core values, these two egoistic values will dominate corporate thinking and action. Other values must be established and advocated by the leadership of organizations.
The model proposed by Robin and Reidenbach ( 1987 ) is a parallel model for integrating ethics into strategic marketing planning. The first stage suggests that values be incorporated into corporations' mission statements and that they develop an ethical profile or "face" to present to all external publics. These two things guide the dual parts of the second stage of the model, the development of marketing objectives and the identification of all affected publics. Although most attention is to target audiences in this stage, other affected publics are analyzed.
The third stage in this parallel mode includes developing actionable ethical core values and the marketing mix(es) for target markets. Then, marketing strategies are implemented as core values are being integrated into the organizational culture. Finally, marketing actions are monitored and controlled for marketing and ethical effectiveness. The ethical profiles and actionable ethical core values would arise from careful consideration of ethical theories, such as those discussed earlier. For example, an ethical profile guided by value for individuals might result in a statement such as, "Treat customers with respect, concern, and honesty, the way you yourself would want to be treated" (Robin & Reidenbach, 1987, p. 55).
How is Robin and Reidenbach's attempt to bridge the gap between concepts of ethics and responsibility and their application useful when thinking about the ethical problems of advertising and children? The model provides the guidance that those within the advertising, television, and consumer products industries will find useful as they struggle with their own approaches to business ethics and social responsibility. First, the model does not require that the values of profit and efficiency have no place in organizational culture. Rather, it suggests ethical perspectives that would help organizations balance these values with other critical values in particular advertising decisions. From deontological or virtue ethics perspectives, organizations would be in a position to strive for creative ways to minimize potential harm to children in their advertising, in balance with their needs for fiscal well being. Given the potential for harmful short- and long-term effects and the difficulty of proving those effects unequivocally, this model encourages ways of thinking that would ensure fairness to children simply because the potential for harm exists. Questions about advertising aimed at children would be answered out of genuine concern for children, rather than a myopic determination to preserve advertisers' rights. For instance, one cannot help but think that issues such as advertising potentially harmful children's products would either not occur or would occur in ways that account for the child audience's limited understanding of advertising. Advertisers and television networks and stations would commit to fair advertising at the core of their organizations, not out of fear of regulation. Perhaps even supplemental educational materials and program content would result in order to truly help children negotiate well in the commercial marketplace.
This model also provides a guide for companies whose advertising is not aimed at children. Although the emphasis in the model is ethical consideration of target groups, the ethical profile and mission statements call for consideration of other affected publics. From a deontologically determined profile, no advertising would be undertaken that would harm child audiences, even though they are not in the target. From this perspective, products that are potentially dangerous to children, such as beer or wine, would not be advertised or would only appear in ways that would not exploit the vulnerabilities of young audiences. Careful and creative decisions need to be made about role portrayals, world views, and values surrounding the products in commercials. These decisions would not be easy, but they would arise naturally out of the previously determined ethical perspectives.
After many years of debate about issues of children and television advertising, it is evident that solutions satisfactory to all parties are difficult to come by. Solutions that arise from within organizations and have their roots in sound ethical thinking are likely to have the greatest and longest lasting benefits for child viewers. The framework outlined by Robin and Reidenbach ( 1987 ) is only one model for incorporating business ethics and social responsibility. It may be criticized for calling for changes that run too deep for realistic marketing applications. Yet, issues of children and advertising provide an excellent platform for testing the viability of such models. The potentially harmful effects, both in the short and long runs, from advertising either intended for children or not, make the controversy one worth pursuing with creative ethical thought. It is time to give it a try.
References
1. Adler, R. P. ( 1981 ). Children's television advertising: History of the issue. In E. L. Palmer & A. Dorr (Eds.), Children and the faces of television: Teaching, violence, selling (pp. 237-249). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
2. Dorr, A. ( 1986 ). Television and children: A special medium for a special audience. Beverly Hills: Sage.
3. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. ( 1986 ). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 17-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4. Hetherington, E. M., & Parke, R. D. ( 1979 ). Child psychology: A contemporary viewpoint. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5. Hite, R. E., & Eck, R. ( 1987 ). "Advertising to children: Attitudes of business vs. consumers." Journal of Advertising Research, 27, 40-53.
6. Hoy, M. G., Young, C. E., & Mowen, J. C. ( 1986 ). "Animated host-selling advertisements: Their impact on young children's recognition, attitudes, and behavior." Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 5, 171-184.
7. Kunkel, D. ( 1988 ). Children and host-selling television commercials. Communication Research, 15, 71-92.
8. Meringoff, L. K., & Lesser, G. S. ( 1980 ). Children's ability to distinguish television commercials from program material. In R. P. Adler (Ed.), The effect of television advertising on children (pp. 29-42). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
9. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. ( 1969 ). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
10. Robin, D. P., & Reidenbach, R. E. ( 1987 ). "Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing strategy: Closing the gap between concept and application." Journal of Marketing, 51, 44-58.
