The Role of Research in the Regulation of U.S. Children's Television Advertising

Abstract

Public concern about the effects of television advertising on children first appeared in the 1960s; it remains a focus of controversy and concern today. In policymakers' attempts to address this concern, they have frequently looked to the relevant social scientific evidence to help frame their decisions. This study reviews the development of regulations governing television advertising to children in the United States and examines the influence of social science research in the construction of these policies.

Does Advertising Literacy Mediate the Effects of Advertising on Children? A Critical Examination of Two Linked Research Literatures in Relation to Obesity and Food Choice

“…In developed countries especially, it seems that age offers a publicly acceptable policy tool for intervening in the promotion of messages targeted at children (Samson, 2005), both because young children are assumed to be more vulnerable and because advertising to those too young to recognize persuasive intent is unfair (Kunkel, 1990; Martin, 1997), this latter claim resting more securely on literacy research. Combined with the call for more media education, the call for regulation is the predominant way in which communication scholars have sought to influence these lively and often hotly contested debates over advertising to children (Bandyopadhyay et al, 2001; Hansen, 1997; Kunkel & Wilcox, 2001; Kunkel et al, 2004).…”

An Evaluation of the Federal Communications Commission's 2007 Report on TV Violence

“…How else could the FCC state in its conclusions and recommendations to Congress that "we believe action should be taken to address violent programming" (FCC, 2007, p. 21)? One possible explanation is that scientific studies are not the only factor policy-makers consider when making conclusions about possible rules and regulations (Kunkel, 1990;Kunkel & Roberts, 1991). In the case of the members of the FCC and their conclusions regarding the issue of television violence, it cannot be forgotten that each FCC member is associated with a particular political party, with particular political philosophies, and with particular constituencies.…”

“…Since the news media impacts the agenda of both the public and policy-makers (Dearing & Rogers, 1996), communication researchers should also consider communicating more frequently with the news media about communication policy debates which could be informed by communication research (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Additionally, researchers should consider working with evidence-based advocacy groups interested in media issues (Kunkel, 2007), since such groups have been influence historically in using communication research to get the attention of policy-makers (Kunkel, 1990). Finally, while advancing theory should always be of paramount concern for communication scholars, pragmatically minded academics must remember that communication research is most likely to impact policy when the research questions asked have a clear and direct bearing on policy issues (Kunkel & Roberts, 1991).…”

“…Although the emphasis of this analysis has been on the role of research in FCC decision-making, these suggestions are germane to the role of research in the communication policy-making process in general. First and foremost, researchers must remember that communication policy action is often spurred by public opinion (Kunkel, 1990;Kunkel & Roberts, 1991). Consequently, if communication researchers want to affect policy, they should consider spending more time communicating with the public about the meaning and practical implications of their findings.…”

“…Furthermore, the FCC report concluded that "many questions remain" even in regards to short-term effects (p. 10) in spite of the fact that the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) 25 years earlier had already determined that the debate about whether or not effects exist was over and that it is was time for the scientific community to begin devoting its energy to clarifying the psychological mechanisms underlying the effects (Kunkel, 2003). Although a variety of factors influence the role of research in the policy-making process (Kunkel, 1990;Kunkel & Roberts, 1991;Kunkel & Wilcox, 2001), it is suggested here that a lack of due diligence in general and a lack of scientific fitness in particular may have led the FCC to draw conclusions about the research on the effects of television violence that are incongruent with those that have been drawn by the vast majority of communication scholars (Huesman & Taylor, 2003;Kunkel & Zwarun, 2006). More specifically, there is reason to believe that the FCC drew the conclusions it did, at least in part, because (a) its examination of the research was less than thorough; (b) its understanding of the research that was reviewed and the way social scientists draw conclusions across studies was limited; and (c) because it gave just as much credence to the few social scientists who have found the violence research wanting as it did to the scores of social scientists who have found the research to be valid.…”