Manipulation or Consumer Education?

For today's college students, shows like Thundercats and the Smurfs are almost inseparable from the ad jingles that interspersed the popular cartoons of the mid-1980s.

Students who barely remember the Gulf War can sing along with the ditty for Flintstone Kids vitamins--"Ten thousand strong...and growing"--and still go cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

In developing these advertising campaigns, marketing executives often turn to child psychologists to make ad spots as appealing as possible to their young audiences.

But in the past few months, several studies have made national news demonstrating the devastating effect of the media, such as the study of boys and body image that made the cover of the New York Times Sunday Magazine.

In response, a number of psychologists across the country have decided to speak out.

Four Harvard Medical School (HMS) professors recently signed a letter addressed to Dr. Richard Suinn, president of the American Psychological Association asking for strict regulation of the use of psychological research in advertisement campaigns targeting children.

Although legislators have for some time protected children from advertisement of regulated substances--such as tobacco or alcohol--this is the first relatively high-profile attempt of psychologists to regulate their own participation in the marketplace.

For the Children

Sixty psychologists across the nation signed the letter, which was sent on Sept. 30, including HMS professors Lane Conn, Sarah A. Conn, lecturer on psychology, Susan E. Linn and Lynne B. Layton, assistant clinical professor of psychology.

Gary M. Ruskin, director of Commercial Alert, an organization dedicated to helping families, schools and communities defend themselves against commercialism, advertising and marketing, according to its Web site, drafted the proposal and asked for signatures over the summer.

Among other things, the letter urges an explicit condemnation of using psychological knowledge to design advertising aimed at children:

"The use of psychological insight and methodology to bypass parents and influence the behavior of children is a crisis for the profession of psychology," the letter states.

The authors of the letter also stressed the need for limits for psychologists who use their training for commercial purposes and for an investigation into the ongoing use of research in advertising.

"If the APA stands for anything, and if it takes its own mission seriously, it out to expose and challenge this abuse of psychological. It must not to tolerate by silence such abuse by it's own members."

Though some question the APA's ability to take such a stance, longtime consumer advocate and Harvard Law School graduate Ralph Nader disagrees and says this is precisely what the organization is for.

"One function of a professional association is to set voluntary standards of ethical behavior," he says.

Silly Rabbit, Trix Are for Kids

This attempt at self-regulation within the APA comes at a time when national events have spurred discussion about media influence on children.

"I think it's a combination of things, partly because of the state of school shootings, and also because some legislation around children and the Internet, children safety, a lot of concern about children and the media," Linn says. "The problem is more acute then ever."

Recent legislation, passed to regulate tobacco advertising, testifies to the widespread concern about the vulnerability of children.

Last year, the tobacco industry agreed to stop advertising in sports stadiums and restrict the use of cartoon characters--such as the infamous Joe Camel--in advertising.

Many newspapers have also banned tobacco ads from their pages, including The New York Times, and most recently, The Los Angeles Times.

Other dangerous or illegal substances are associated with ads that appeal to a younger generation. The Budweiser frogs, for example, are well known among children

Most advertisers and researchers agree that manipulating children into desiring harmful products--such as tobacco or alcohol--is a problem, but the psychologists who signed the letter to the APA point to a deep-rooted problem in consumer culture--treating children as a separate market.

"I tend to think that our consumer capitalist culture creates psychological ill health," Sarah Conn says. " It's bad to treat any group, particularly kids, as a market only."

Children are a particularly good target for advertisers, Lynn says, because they are too young to tell the difference between commercial and regular programming.

"It is manipulating them to buy things without going through the mitigating presence of their parents," Lynn says. "They are too young to distinguish between reality and fantasy."

When asked why some might disagree with what seems like a logical argument, Linn responds by saying it's matter of opinion.

"The question is whether or not you believe this is using psychology to manipulate and deceive," she says. "I believe it is."

Another signatory, Tim Kessler, an assistant professor of psychology at Knox College in Illinois, says that commercials also reinforce a particular value system.

"There is a deeper value behind buying a Barbie," he says.

Kessler and other psychologists point out that ads tell children that they will be happy and loved if they buy the product, thereby furthering a materialistic society.

"We're moving towards being a consumer society," Layton says. "No one really questions whether or not it's good."

The Other Side of the Coin

There are developmental psychologists, however, who don't see a problem with treating children as a market within certain limits.

Developmental psychologist Whiton S. Paine, in fact, makes a career out of advertising to children. As president of a market research firm in Philadelphia Paine takes a middle stance in the argument.

Children are a vulnerable target, he says, and need protection, but marketing to them is not a problem.

says that advertising can actually benefit children, as long as it does not promote tobacco, alcohol, or violence.

In fact, Paine believes that children who become savvy about advertising can grow up to be much more competent consumers than kids who grow up without any knowledge about consumer culture.

But, he contends, things are not perfect and there is still room for a abuse.

"There is also a view that the present industry sanctions are sufficient and therefore no external restrictions are warranted," Paine says, "which I also disagree with."

But business leaders point to existing industry safeguards that protect children from inappropriate advertising.

One of these self-regulating mechanisms is the Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU), a program run by the Better Business Bureau that reviews and attempts to regulate advertising directed at children.

CEO of the ad agency The Geppetto Group and CARU Business Advisory Committee member Julie Halpin says she believes that the program is effective in regulating advertising:

"People want to do what's right, and they're happy to follow the [CARU] rules," Halpin says.

The Geppetto Group regularly consults psychologists when designing ad campaigns.

"The reason we use psychologists is to be responsible in creating advertising to children," Halpin says.

Nevertheless, adherence to CARU regulations remains completely voluntary. Although CARU encourages adherence to its Self-Regulatory Guidelines, it "seeks change through the voluntary cooperation of advertisers," according to the CARU Web site.

Only 29 of the country's corporations are listed as CARU supporters on the Web site, including several giant corporations such as America Online Inc. and Mattel Inc.

On the other side of the debate, businesses that advertise to children insist that they are in fact being responsible by consulting psychologists before launching ad campaigns aimed at children.

No More Toys 'R' Us Kids

The letter brings to the forefront an issue Rhea K. Farberman, director of public communication at the APA, says that is entirely new.

We don't have a response yet," she says. "It's the first time we've received such a letter or concern."

Farberman says that the issue has been referred to one of APA's boards.

Signatories of the letter say that they have not yet heard any response from their colleagues, but that they are not surprised because the letter only became public last week.

Nader points out that few people have actually seen or heard about this latest attempt to regulate commercialism.

"It will [have an effect] if it's more widely reported and the press calls on the recipient," he says.

Even if the APA does not do anything tangible in response to their requests, the psychologists say that they will have accomplished something.

"The least it will do," Linn says, "is get the issue out there and people talking about it."

"I think, what it will do in its public form is be educational for psychologists and get more people to take on our point of view," Layton says.