the effects of an advertising retrieval cue on young children's memory and brand evaluations

The Effects of an Advertising Retrieval Cue on Young Children’s Memory and Brand Evaluations M. Carole Macklin University of Cincinnati

ABSTRACT

Young children’s memory for television advertising is important in order for children to recognize brands in stores and/or to recall the brand name in making a purchase request. Two experiments showed that the use of a visual advertising retrieval cue (a green frog as the brand character) improved memory performance and brand evaluations. Study 1 (n = 40) showed promise in the cue’s assistance in children’s recalling the brand name (cued recall) from the ad memory trace. Study 2 (n = 40) contained multiple exposures to the ad, which resulted in greder free recall and in support for the cue’s assistance in better access of the brand name from the ad memory trace (cued recall). Affected ad memory resulted in more favorable brand evaluations and intent to request the brand’s purchase. 0 1994 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Academic researchers, regulators, and marketing practitioners have demonstrated considerable interest in the information processing abilities of young children. Attention has been focused on children’s abilities to understand, evaluate, and use information related to product decisions.

Researchers concerned with issues of advertising directed to children have long recognized the importance of memory factors. Although Pi-

Psychology & Marketing 0 1994 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Vol. ll(3): 291-311 (May/June 1994) CCC 0742-6046194/030291-21

291

aget’s theory of intellectual development has predominated our view of children and their thinking over the past several decades (Flavell, 1963; Piaget, 19521, the information processing approach has grown in pop- ularity during the past two decades. This latter approach to the study of cognition emphasizes the flow of information through processing sys- tems. Roedder (1981) presented an information processing view of children’s reactions to television advertising, which provides for an expla- nation of age differences in processing in terms of cognitive abilities to store and to retrieve information. Strategic processors (age 10/11 and older) spontaneously use information storage and retrieval strategies. Cued processors (age 6-9/ 10) generally require prompting to exhibit storage and retrieval skills. Younger children (below six years of age) show deficits in using effective storage and retrieval cues efficiently to guide memory search.

The nature and extent of potential deficits for younger children have begun to receive some attention in the marketing/advertising context. In terms of encoding strategies to promote efficient representation and storage of information in memory, John and Sujan (1990) examined the bases used by children to categorize products. Young children were found to use perceptual attributes (e.g., product shape, package color, package size) to categorize products. Macklin (1984) reported that the encoding strategy, verbal labeling, assisted children aged 6-8 in the learning of character/product pairings. Also, younger children (aged 4 and 5) in an intentional learning task were reported to learn character/ product pairings better with rehearsal strategies than children who were provided no such opportunities for rehearsal (Macklin, 1985).

The current study examines children’s ability to use retrieval strategies as a strategy for remembering. The central question is whether young children can use a retrieval cue to guide memory search. Visual information originally contained in an ad is manipulated to be a retrieval cue designed to assist children’s memory for key information. If retrieved information is positive, then children’s evaluation of brand and likelihood to request purchase should increase in the presence of a cue.

Recent work by Keller (1987) suggests the importance of retrieval cues. In a laboratory experiment, Keller (1987) showed that visual/ verbal advertising retrieval cues facilitated access of elements from the ad memory trace and affected brand evaluations. The retrieval cue established a link between the brand and the information from the ad. The presence of the cue led to greater recall of brand claims and eval- uative ad reactions and more favorable brand evaluations by adult subjects. Keller’s empirical work supported prior speculations that advertising cues at the point of purchase might assist consumers in accessing elements of the ad memory trace and in influencing brand consideration (e.g., Bettman, 1979; Hutchinson & Moore, 1984; Lynch & Srull, 1982; Shimp, 1981; Sternthal & Craig, 1984).

292 MACKLIN

The current research focuses on an advertising retrieval cue designed to establish a link between the brand and memory of important information. Recall of the brand name was tested for a fictitious cereal. The recall of brand name was selected because of its advertising importance. McNeal wrote the following:

The brand name is about the only thing that marketers possess that another marketer cannot copy. Consequently, marketers of very similar products are constantly approaching children with sales messages that are distinguishable only by their brands. Children seem to follow suite by emphasizing brand names among products that parents often see as very similar and substitutable. (McNeal, 1987, p. 106)

Despite the practical importance of children’s learning brand name, it is recognized that recall of advertising information may be a difficult test of children’s learning. During the 1970s, considerable attention was given to the appropriateness of recall as a measure of advertising effectiveness with adults. Stewart, Pechmann, Ratneshwar, Stroud, and Bryant (1985) provided a review of the range of factors that affect recall other than the execution itself. For example, program effects, position of the commercial break, usage of the product category, and the nature of the measurement task all affect recall performance. During the 1980’s, researchers became increasingly concerned with the measurement task itself. In particular, the topic of the relationship between the recall and recognition of information obtained by advertising exposure has been controversial (Kent & Machleit, 1990; Singh & Rothschild, 1983; Singh, Rothschild, & Churchill, 1988; Stewart et al., 1985).

Both recall and recognition tasks are important in consumer decision making (Bettman, 1979; Lynch & Srull, 1982). For example, Bettman (1979) has suggested that the way in which information is to be used should be considered when selecting a recall or recognition level of learning. A brand choice decision made in a store may need only a recognition level of learning because of the choices that are available at the time of decision making. On the other hand, at-home decisions may require a recall level of learning because most choices are not available at home for consideration. For the child, both kinds of decisions, and therefore both levels of learning, are pertinent. A child shop- ping with hidher parent may see various cereals in the grocery and simply point to the one desired. A recognition level of learning appears appropriate. Alternatively, a child may ask hidher parent to buy a certain cereal before the parent shops at the grocery without the child. In this scenario, the recall level of learning is of more concern. There- fore, while both levels of learning are important to advertising researchers, the current focus is on the recall level. Specifically, the presence of an advertising cue is examined for its effect on brand name recall.

MEMORY AND BRAND EVALUATION 293

The product category of cereal was selected because, as a product category, cereal constitutes the largest percentage of advertising (30 percent) aired on the three major networks during children’s programming on Saturday morning (Stipp, 1988). Children were thus assumed to be familiar with cereal advertising. Moreover, the Youth Monitor (Clurrnan, 1988) estimated that 68% of children reported influence over the brand of breakfast cereal the last time their parents bought it. She estimated that children influence the purchase of 1.2 billion boxes per year. Clurman wrote, “Everyone knows that kids influence cereal se- lection, and the kids TV is covered with advertising for it” (Clurman, 1988, p. 137).

Schneider (1987) noted the importance of advertising expenditures for the cereal industry. He estimated that $460 million is spent on the category, with $150 million spent on children’s advertising. Schneider (1987, p. 90) asserted that “there are several proven ways to position a children’s product. One is to create a popular children’s personality from the product itself.” Tony the Tiger was developed solely for the use of Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes. Other examples include Quaker’s Cap’n Crunch and General Mills’ Count Chocula and Frankenberry, Trix the Rabbit, Toucan Sam, and Lucky Leprechaun (Schneider, 1987, p. 92).

Although many industry examples support the importance of brand personality, the reasons behind their effectiveness are less well under- stood. Several possible explanations are that the brand character may attract attention, influence the encoding of ad effects, and/or assist the retrieving of elements from the ad memory trace. It is this last effect that is the focus of the current research. The brand character was examined for its effectiveness in establishing a link between the brand and the brand name presented in the ad. Pertinent literature from a developmental perspective will be reviewed that further supports the importance of such an inquiry with young children.

DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS OF RETRIEVAL

The current study examines children’s ability to use retrieval strategies. Early work in developmental psychology suggested that young children do not use cues efficiently to aid children’s free recall (cf. Ashcraft, Kellas, & Keller, 1976; Ceci & Howe, 1978; Hall, Murphy, Humphreys, & Wilson, 1979; Kobasigawa, 1974). For example, Kobasigawa (1974) showed 24 pictures from eight common categories (e.g., monkey, bear) to 6-, 8-, and 11-year-olds. The pictures were placed with a larger picture that was associated with the category label. Results indicated that the percentage of children who spontaneously used the large pictures to aid in remembering the smaller pictures increased from 33% among 6-year- olds, to 75% among &year-olds, to over 90% among the 11-year-olds. Kobasigawa’s conclusion was that 6-year-olds are unlikely to use retrieval strategies, whereas the older children do so regularly.

294 MACKLIN

In general, Kobasigawa’s (1974) work reflected the orientation of the other developmental researchers during the 1970s who tended to con- centrate on the preschoolers’ deficits rather than competencies (Kail & Strauss, 1984). Although more recent research also assumes developmental differences in memory performance, research attention has turned to the developmental differences in memory processes to help explain how children develop greater expertise. Recent research has indicated that young children can make excellent use of retrieval cues.

The work of Ackerman (for a review, see Ackerman, 1985c) exem- plifies the process orientation used to understand differences in children’s use of retrieval strategies. His approach highlights that developmental recall differences can be attributed precisely to problems of gaining access to, or retrieving, event information and not to the differences in availability of event information in memory.

Four reasons appear for children’s retrieval deficit in using cues. First, children may encode context and event information less inter- actively than adults (Ackerman, 1987; Ackerman & Rathburn, 1984). For example, Pressley (1982) reviewed work that showed children do not spontaneously elaborate the cue and target information. Second, deficits in associative structure in memory may constrain children’s use of interitem associations to retrieve (Ackerman, 1985a, 1985b, 1986a, 1986b, 1987,1988; Ackerman & Rathburn, 1984). Norman and Bobrow (1979) suggested that the power to describe event information may vary depending on the structure and amount of what is known. Young children may lack well-articulated (Bjorklund & Thompson, 1983) or easily activated (Bjorklund & de Marchena, 1984) categorical associative networks. Third, the trace event information in memory may not be available (trace mutability) because concept representations are less stable or solidified in children than in adults (Ackerman & Rathburn, 1984). Fourth, children may encode cue information between acquisition and retrieval more variably than adults, again because of the less stable concept representations. Waters and Waters (1976, 1979) argued that children have less experience with events and may encode events in less stereotypical and more variable ways than adults.

In view of these reasons for children’s retrieval deficits, strategies can be suggested to improve children’s retrieval successes. For example, deficits in associative structure in memory may be addressed by consideration of some unique context-to-target association. Cue information must “describe” a target event in memory to be effective (Ackerman, 1985~). Moreover, in work with word triplets, Ackerman (1988) found that the kinds of relations linking elements made a difference for young children with recall being enhanced when mediated by integrated event representations. In general, children evidenced better remembering for related word triplets (e.g., coat-suitcase-train) than for unrelated word triplets (e.g., bottle-lake-train). The properties of the internal structure of event representations made a difference, however. For example, the-


matically related words (e.g., coat-suitcase-train) were better remem- bered than place-occurrence stimuli, that is, related context words cho- sen that often co-occurred in the same spatial and temporal locations as the targets, but did not seem thematically related to the targets (e.g., bench-magazine-train).

In regards to encoding variability, Ackerman (1983) (Ackerman & Rathburn, 1984) has found that when the encoding of event information is specific and distinctive and compatible cues are used at both acquisition and retrieval, then young children can make excellent use of retrieval cues. The goodness of encoding does seem to make a difference for young children.

In addition, Ackerman and Rathburn (1984) examined how the strategy of additional experience (two trials of acquisition encoding or repetition) affects retrieval performance. They found a benefit for second graders of repeating an item-specific experience. They found that repeating a particular interpretation of an episodic event, of the link between context and event, aids constructability, which refers to the cue information being sampled appropriately at retrieval so that it defines the correct search set (Norman & Bobrow, 1979). Ackerman and Rathburn (1984) argued that the repetition facilitates by strengthening or increasing the salience, and thereby increasing the sampling prob- ability for a particular interpretation of the retrieval cue information.

Therefore, there are several possible sources of retrieval deficit that help to explain why children fail more often than the adult processor. The kind and amount of specification required for retrieval may vary considerably for children in view of task situations and goals that un- derlie the retrieval attempt. Therefore, the current experimental de- signs will be described in detail to reveal the task situations and spec- ified goals required for successful retrieval.

PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESES OF THE RESEARCH

The purpose of this research was to test whether an advertising retrieval cue would help to establish a link between the brand and ad information. Two experiments were conducted to determine whether the presence of a brand character at the time of retrieval would assist children in linking the brand with the information provided in the ad. The central question was the following: When young children are presented with a retrieval cue, such as a brand character, do they better remember linked information presented in the ad? It was asserted that the presence of an advertising retrieval cue will assist children’s memory performance. Moreover, it was anticipated that when children are provided a cue for remembering and the retrieved information is positive, then the presence of an ad cue will also affect the evaluation of the brand. The ad retrieval cue can help activate the ad memory trace, facilitate the recall

296 MACKLIN

of the information, and lead to a more positive evaluation of the brand. Therefore, it is asserted that the presence of a positive advertising retrieval cue, such as the illustration of the brand character on the package, can assist young children in remembering, and the improved memory for information presented in the ad will also help make stored effects for the brand more accessible to the children. Positive stored effects will result in positive brand evaluations. MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) reviewed research that supports positive affect associated with salient ad cues affecting brand attitudes. More positive brand evaluation will result in a higher likelihood of requesting the product. Three major hypotheses are tested in the research.

H1:

H2:

H3:

Memory performance (cued recall) for the brand name will be greater in the presence of the advertising retrieval cue than in the absence of such a cue.

Brand evaluation will be more positive in the presence of an advertising retrieval cue than in its absence.

Behavioral intent toward the advertised brand (likelihood to ask mom to buy the brand) will be more favorable in the presence of an advertising retrieval cue than in its absence due to the more positive brand evaluations.

STUDY 1

Study 1 was designed to test the hypotheses concerning the role of retrieval cues in assisting cued memory performance, brand evaluation, and intent to request brand purchase. The following strategies were used to improve children’s opportunity for retrieval success: (a) context- to-target association, and (b) specific and distinctive encoding and compatibility of cue.

Subjects Forty boys and girls participated in the study at a preschool located in a suburb of a midwestern city. The children came from homes that are best described as middle- to upper-middle-income. Eighteen of the children were four years old and 22 were five (age range in months = 52- 68; mean = 60.05). Exactly one-half of the children were boys and the others were girls; all of the children were white.

Ad Stimulus A 25-second animatic was created for a fictitious cereal named Jumpers. A fictitious brand name was important to avoid any potential confounds with actual brand names which the children may know. Jumpers was


selected from three fictitious names that were pretested on another group of children from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. The pretest was designed to assess the link of the name with frogs (children believe that frogs jump, hop, and leap), and to insure the ease of pronunciation. The target information (Jumpers) is therefore interrelated to the context at the time of acquisition, and this interrelation can be used to link cue and trace information at retrieval. The pretest therefore assured that the association between target (brand name) and cue (frog character) was present in preschoolers’ permanent memory before ac- tivation (Ackerman, 1988). Therefore, the strategy of context-to-target association was considered.

Moreover, pretests also assured that the children not only associated the frog with the name Jumpers, but also that the association was distinctive. The name Jumpers was checked against the suggestion of any product attributes or product associations that may already exist in the cereal category. Craik and Jacoby (1979) pointed out that even a high degree of cue-target information overlap, due to a preexperi- mental association, may not result in successful recall unless the match is distinctive and discriminable from other matches. Therefore, frog- Jumpers was examined for uniqueness.

A frog was picked for several reasons to be the brand character serving as a visual retrieval cue. First, a census of cereals for sale in the market area of the test site indicated that a frog was one of the few common animals not already in popular use as a brand character (although Lucky Charms illustrates a stylized frog). Second, and as pre- viously mentioned, a pretest indicated that children did not associate a frog with any cereal.

The frog prototype was Dakin’s Nature Babies’ Hopper. This frog was perceived to be friendly and cute by the children. Thus, the highly liked frog was judged to be a viable candidate to serve as a positively valanced retrieval cue. An artist drew the frog to resemble (but not to carbon copy) Hopper; it was cute, green, and rather ordinary looking so that it would be clearly recognized as a frog. A mock package front (7% by 11 in.) was illustrated with a yellow background, green frog, blue let- tering of Jumpers, and a cereal bowl filled with brownish-tan cereal, milk, and strawberries.

Three storyboards were also drawn to illustrate brand attributes (strawberry flavor, 10 bowls per box, and sticker premium) that would be described in the animatic. Each storyboard depicted the frog, however. The package front and three storyboards were videotaped to make the visual portion of the animatic. A professional announcer read the following audio copy:

Jumping Jumpers. . Jumpers is that strawberry cereal that tastes good and is good for you. One box of Jumpers gives 10 great bowls of cereal.

298 MACKLIN

You’ll like Jumpers and the special surprise inside each box-a sticker especially for you. Try Jumpers and you’ll be jumping glad you did-Jumpers.

It should be noted that the information regarding the attributes was unlinked to the frog. Because the attribute information presented was not directly tied to the cue/association retrieval, no differences on comprehension were expected between the conditions based on the cue’s presence or absence. No hypothesis was formulated, therefore.

Ad Retrieval Cue (Mock Package Stimuli) The presence or absence of the frog at the time of retrieval served as the cue. The frog presented as the retrieval cue was identical to the frog presented during encoding to insure cue compatibility (Ackerman, 1982,1983,1985b; Ackerman & Hess, 1982). Ackerman’s findings suggest that the “. . . bases for a ‘compatible’ match of cue and trace information for young children may be restricted to retrieval cue information that exactly represents or reinstates the specific encoding context” (Ackerman, 1985b, p. 433). Multiple package fronts were con- structed to be consistent with presentation of measures, and they will be described under the procedure section that follows.

Procedure and Measures The design was a one-way with two levels: (a) presence of retrieval cue and (b) absence of retrieval cue. Forty subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions, and all interviews were conducted indi- vidually and privately. Each child was asked to watch the commercial. After the child watched the animatic, the television was turned off, and she or he was asked one question about her or himself as a distractor (e.g., Do you have any brothers or sisters?). The subject was then told that the experimenter wanted to ask some questions about what she or he saw on TV.

Please see Table 1 for a description of the measures in the order of their administration. FREE RECALL is a test of the child’s freely recalling the brand name. “Do you remember the name of the cereal that you saw on TV just now?” This measure was essential to determine the number of children who could freely remember the brand name of the cereal just promoted. Because children in both experimental conditions viewed the same animatic and because FREE RECALL dictates that no assistance be provided, children in both conditions are expected to perform comparatively well.

The next measure, CUED RECALL, related to the first hypothesis. For a child who was unsuccessful in freely recalling the brand name, the experimenter proceeded to CUED RECALL. The experimenter showed the child one of two boxes. For a child in the retrieval-cue-


Table 1. Description in Order of Administration of Measures, Studies 1 and 2.

Dependent Hypothesis Variable Brief Description of Measure(s1

FREE RECALL”

H1 CUED RECALLb

Do you remember the name of the cereal that you saw on TV just now?

Here is the cereal box that you saw on TV. Do you remember the name?

BRAND COMPREHENSION 1. Which of these fruit flavors does the cereal Jumpers have?

2. How many bowls of cereal do you get from one box of Jumpers?

3. What special surprise do you get inside each box of Jumpers?

1. Lets pretend that you can eat Jumpers. How much do you think that you’d like Jumpers, the cereal?

2. How good do you think Jumpers would be?

3. How yummy would Jumpers taste? H3 BF Do you think you’d ask your mom to

buy Jumpers?

H2 ABd

“Range = 0 or 1. bRange = 0 or 1. ‘Range = 0-3. dRange = 3-12. ‘Range = 0-3

present condition, the experimenter showed the package front of the box with the frog illustration (no brand name or strawberries were illustrated). For a child in the retrieval-cue-absent condition, the experimenter showed a box minus the frog (no brand name or strawberries were illustrated). The following aided recall measure was posed, “Here is the cereal box that you saw on TV. Do you remember the name?” The success or failure on this measure was coded CUED RECALL.

BRAND COMPREHENSION served as the next category of measures. However, as discussed, no hypothesis regarding these measures was formulated because the frog retrieval cue was not tied or linked to any of the product attribute information. This absence of a link to attribute information provides for a clean test of the role of a visual cue in providing a retrieval assist. The comprehension measures were included, however, to check whether or not the retrieval cue would influence unlinked elements in the ad memory trace. The child was shown a package front with the frog either present or absent, based on condition; the brand name illustrated; and the strawberries absent (due to the first brand comprehension measure posed). A child was also provided visual answer boards to assist her or his responding. The first brand comprehension measure was, “Which of these fruit flavors does the cereal Jumpers have?” A child could point to a strawberry, apple, or grape. (If she or he pointed to the strawberry, then the response was counted as correct.) The second brand comprehension measure was, “How many bowls of cereal do you get from one box of Jumpers?” Num-

300 MACKLIN

bers and a corresponding number of bowls were drawn to illustrate responses of 5, 10, or 15. (The animatic instructed 10 bowls; thus this response was counted as correct.) The third brand comprehension measure was, “What special surprise do you get inside each box of Jumpers?” A child could point to a sticker, a joke book prize, or a prize puzzle (foils were actual prizes available in cereals on the market). (A child who pointed to the sticker was counted as correct.) The number correct from the three measures was summed and labeled as “BRAND COMPRE- HENSION.” All of these brand features had been depicted auditorally and pictorally in the animatic.

Study 1 hypothesized that when subjects are cued they will make more favorable brand evaluations because they can make more ad- brand associations (H2). Table 1 also presents the three measures for AB. The child was shown an appropriate package front that either included or excluded the retrieval cue, based on condition assigned. The first brand evaluation question was the following, “Let’s pretend that you can eat Jumpers. How much do you think that you’d like Jumpers, the cereal?” A child was provided a visual answer board with four vertically displayed smiling to frowning faces with oral points “like a lot,” “like a little,” “don’t like much,” and “don’t like at all.” The second brand attitude question was, “How good do you think Jumpers would be?” The answer board showed four interval points of GOOD good bad BAD which were visually reinforced by large and small boxes. Third, “How yummy would Jumpers taste?”, served as the last brand evaluation measure. The smiling-frowning board was again shown with these oral points, “Real yummy,” “A little yummy,” “Not very yummy,” and “Not at all yummy.” The responses were summed to create the variable of brand evaluation, A*.

Next, H3 was examined by BI, behavioral intent. It was hypothesized that the behavioral intent toward the advertised brand will be more favorable in the presence of the cue than its absence because of the positive trace triggered from memory. The child was asked, “Do you think you’d ask your mom to buy Jumpers?” Visual boards showed YES yes no NO and the strength of the response was visually reinforced by the size of a box surrounding the answer. Oral articulations of the interval points were provided.

Please see Table 2 for results from the first phase. On FREE RECALL, three children out of each condition of n = 20 recalled the name “Jump- ers” correctly. Recall that performance on this measure should be comparable because children viewed the same stimulus and neither group was provided assistance with this measure. Encoding the message appeared comparable, as desired experimentally.

The experimental effect for HI, if forthcoming, should have appeared on the next dependent variable, CUED RECALL, when the retrieval cue was or was not provided. A cross tabulation between cued recall success and presence or absence of retrieval cue was statistically insig-


Tab

le 2

. St

udy

1 (n

= 4

0) H

ypot

hesi

zed

and

Non

hypo

thes

ized

Fin

ding

s.

Cel

l Mea

n C

ell M

ean

or P

erce

ntag

e-

or P

erce

ntag

e-

Ord

er

Ret

riev

al

Ret

riev

al

Mea

sure

A

dmin

iste

red

Cue

Pre

sent

C

ue A

bsen

t St

atis

tic

Hyp

othe

size

d (e

xclu

ding

thos

e su

cces

sful

on

FRE

E R

ECA

LL)

H1

CU

ED R

ECA

LL

2 17

.6%

5.

9%

H2

A, (

a =

0.9

7)

4 10

.24

8.76

H3

BI

5 3.

24

2.47

Non

hypo

thes

ized

FR

EE R

ECA

LL

1

15%

15

%

BR

AN

D

3 C

OM

PREH

ENSI

ON

(e

xclu

ding

thos

e su

c-

cess

ful

on

FRE

E

REC

ALL

)

1.65

1.

41

x2 =

,283

Y

ates

C

orre

cted

n.

s.

F =

1.6

24

df =

1,3

9 n

s.

F =

2.9

85

df =

1,3

9 p

= .

094

x2 =

0.0

00

n.s.

F

= 0

.471

df

= 1

,39

n.s.

nificant, but the direction was in accord with the hypothesis (x2 = 0.283, df = 1, p = 59, Yates corrected).

H2 was tested by an examination of AB, brand evaluation. With a possible range of 3-12, the summation for those in the retrieval-cue- present condition was 10.24, whereas AB in the retrieval-cue-absent condition was 8.76. Although the difference was not statistically significant (F = 1.624, df = 1, prob. = 0.212), the direction was as hypothesized.

BI results also indicated only marginal support for H3. With a possible range of 1-4, children in the retrieval-cue-present condition (mean = 3.24) were marginally more likely to express intent to ask mom for the brand as compared to children in the retrieval-cue-absent condition (mean = 2.47), F = 2.985, df = 1, sign = 0.094.

Table 2 also shows the nonhypothesized findings regarding BRAND COMPREHENSION. BRAND COMPREHENSION was examined, although effects were not expected because the information tested was not linked to the cue. An analysis of variance on the differences between summations was conducted. No BRAND COMPREHENSION effects were found (retrieval-cue-present condition mean = 1.65 correct and retrieval-cue-absent condition mean = 1.41 correct, F = 0.471, df = 1, sign = 0.498). Thus, it appears that unlinked information does not benefit by the presence of an unassociated cue.

In sum, the results from Study 1 offered promise for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 regarding aided recall, brand evaluation, and behavioral intent. None of the measures was statistically significant at the traditional .05 level, however. The generally low performance on the recall measures, both free and cued, should be noted.

Given only the promising indications, conditions for establishing a positive finding were reexamined. First, and as reviewed, the goodness of encoding is important (Ackerman, 1983; Ackerman & Rathburn, 1984). Second, Ackerman and Rathburn (1984) suggested that repeated exposure to an event may aid children’s use of retrieval cues. As pre- viously described, Ackerman and Rathburn (1984) argued that the repetition facilitates retrieval by strengthening or increasing salience and therefore increasing the likelihood of the retrieval cue’s success. Ack- erman and Rathburn (1984) used two acquisition trials for a set of 24 congruent and 8 incongruent cue-target word pairs. When item-specific questions were asked about the specific relationship between the pairs at both acquisition and retrieval, second-graders benefited from repetition. Although the current study was very different and featured one pair, pictorial cue/ brand name, multiple exposures may enhance children’s performance by increasing the salience of the cue. Therefore, the experiment was repeated to examine whether multiple exposures to the ad would strengthen the ad memory trace and aid children’s use of cues. Repetition would be expected to increase both FREE RECALL and CUED RECALL.


STUDY 2

The purpose of Study 2 was to provide an additional test of H1, H2, and H3. The second study was identical to Study 1 with one exception: a child was asked to watch the animatic three times. As described, these multiple exposures were included in view of the Ackerman and Rath- burn (1984) suggestion that repeated exposure to nominal event information may aid young children’s use of retrieval cues.

Subjects Forty additional children were recruited from another preschool located approximately five miles from the test site used in Study 1. Twenty four-year-olds, 19 five-year-olds, and 1 six-year-old participated in the second study (age range in months = 48-74; mean = 59.6 months). Nineteen boys and 21 girls were represented, 1 child was black and 39 were white. The socioeconomic profile was similar to the one in Study 1.

Ad Stimulus The same animatic from Study 1 was used.

Ad Retrieval Cue (Mock Package Stimuli)

The same mock package stimuli were employed.

Procedure and Measures

The procedure and measures from Study 1 were held constant, with one exception. A child was asked to watch the animatic three times.

Results The results from the second study provided statistical support for the three hypotheses: HI, H2 and H3. Table 3 illustrates a summary of findings from Study 2. H1 regarding the benefits of CUED RECALL was supported. Statistical support was shown for the presence of a visual retrieval cue in assisting children’s access to the linked information, the brand name. The cross tabulation between presence/absence of retrieval cue with the percentage successfull unsuccessful in recalling the brand name with aid was statistically significant as indicated by Fish- er’s Exact Test.

Table 3 also indicates support for H2 regarding brand evaluations. AB for the retrieval-cue-present condition was 10.80, whereas the retrieval-cue-absent summation was 8.20; this difference was statistically

MACKLIN 304

Tab

le 3

. St

udy

2 (n

= 4

0) H

ypot

hesi

zed

and

Non

hypo

thes

ized

Fin

ding

s.

Cel

l Mea

n C

ell M

ean

or P

erce

ntag

e-

or P

erce

ntag

e-

Ord

er

Ret

riev

al

Ret

riev

al

Mea

sure

A

dmin

iste

red

Cue

Pre

sent

C

ue A

bsen

t St

atis

tic

Hyp

othe

size

d (e

xclu

ding

thos

e su

cces

sful

on

FRE

E R

ECA

LL)

H1

CU

ED R

ECA

LL

2 80

%

10%

H2

A,(

a =

.94

) 4

10.8

0 8.

20

H3

BI

5 3.

80

2.40

Non

hypo

thes

ized

FR

EE R

ECA

LL

1

50%

50

%

BR

AN

D

3 C

OM

PREH

ENSI

ON

(e

xclu

ding

thos

e su

c-

cess

ful

on

FRE

E

REC

ALL

)

2.5

2.4

Fish

er’s

Exa

ct

F =

6.0

12

df =

1,3

9 p

= .

025

F =

11.

025

df =

1,3

9 p

= .

004

Tes

t =

0.0

05

x2 =

0.0

00

n.s.

F

= 0

.070

df

=

1,3

9 n

s.

significant at the 0.025 level. The presence of the cue assisted access to the ad memory trace which led to more favorable brand evaluations.

BI was also statistically different, as shown in Table 3. Thus, H3 was supported. Children who saw the cue (mean = 3.80) were more likely to express intent, “to ask mom to buy” the product than those who responded in absence of the cue (mean = 2.40). The more favorable brand evaluations related to higher intent to request the product’s purchase.

Other results are noted on Table 3. FREE RECALL resulted in identical percentages of children (50%) succeeding in the task in the two experimental conditions. There was a 50% success rate, compared to 15% in Study 1. Multiple exposures of the ad appeared to result in a stronger encoding of the message’s information. That is, repetition led to greater free recall of the brand name along with better CUED RE- CALL.

BRAND COMPREHENSION measures, not linked to the retrieval cue, were unaffected by condition. Table 3 illustrates no statistical difference, and this finding is consistent with the result from Study 1. The failure to find unlinked assistance is consistent with Ackerman’s (1982, 1983,1985a; Ackerman & Hess, 1982) findings that young children are more successful when cues reinstate and are linked to the acquisition encoding context. The frog retrieval cue was not linked to message information regarding attributes; consequently, its presence or absence did not affect unrelated memory performance.

In sum, the hypotheses regarding aided recall, brand evaluation, and behavioral intent received statistical support when repetition of the ad stimulus was included in the experimental design. Discussion of these findings is included in the final section.

DISCUSSION

The goal of the current research was to examine whether the presence of a retrieval cue would assist young children’s memory performance (cued recall) (Hl), brand evaluation (H2), and intent to request brand purchase (H3). Study 1 offered only directional indications for the hypotheses concerning cued recall (Hl), brand evaluations (H2), and intent to behave (H3). However, when multiple exposures were included in Study 2, statistical support resulted for all three hypotheses. Children who were provided the visual retrieval cue were more likely to recall (with the cue) the brand name, evaluate the brand more favorably, and express greater intent “to ask mom to buy the brand.” The Study 2 results also suggested the importance of repetition in establishing the ad memory trace. Please see Table 4 for a summary.

These findings are consistent with Keller’s (1987) results that suggest the importance of advertising retrieval cues. Whereas Keller used print

~ ~~

306 MACKLIN

Table 4. Summary-Statistical Support for Hypotheses.

Hypothesis Tested Measure Study 1 Study 2

H1 CUED RECALL no yesb H2 BRAND EVALUATION no Yes H3 BI Marginal supporta yes

“Marginal support = significance 5 .10 > .05. = significance c .05.

ads, the current research employed an animatic as the stimulus. Two other major differences between the current work and Keller’s centered on the nature of subjects and the task. Keller (1987) required adult subjects to complete a booklet instrument; on the other hand, the current study used personal interviews with preschoolers. Despite these and other differences in procedures from Keller’s (1987), the present results likewise indicated that retrieval cues are important consider- ations in accessing ad memory traces.

Moreover, the current results generally mesh with the information processing view of children’s reactions to television advertising (Roed- der, 1981). Although the preschoolers (limited processors) in Study 2 showed improved memory performance (cued recall) in the presence of a retrieval cue, the nature of the success should be qualified. Children watching the animatic only once (Study 1) demonstrated poor performance on both the free and cued recall measures. Three exposures to the animatic (Study 2) elevated memory performance. Therefore, repetition probably assisted children in their encoding difficulty along with their accessing of the ad memory trace.

The memory performance leads to many possible directions for future research. First, are multiple repetitions needed, in general, for children successfully to encode and access televised information? Is there a level of repetition at which effects due to the presence of retrieval cue might be expected to wash out? Keller (1987) suggested that one of the benefits of advertising retrieval cues may be the permission of lower levels of ad repetition. What level of repetition might be expected to optimize children’s use of retrieval cues?

The current findings also raise additional questions pertinent to children’s advertising. The experiment used a frog brand character to examine retrieval effects. A brand character can also be studied from the perspective of its ability to attract attention and/or to influence the nature of the encoding of ad effects.

Moreover, the present cue was relayed in the same modality at retrieval as in acquisition. Would the current findings emerge if the stimulus modality at acquisition and the modality at retrieval were un- matched? For example, what if the acquisition modality were pictorial, and the retrieval modality relied on word(s) such as, “. . . the green frog . . .?” Moreover, how would verbal modalities at acquisition affect chil-


dren’s performance? Ackerman (1981) examined a modality specificity effect for young children that suggests retrieval may only be successful when cue information matches the modality. In addition, Ackerman and Hess (1982) presented evidence that suggested picture cues may be more discriminable to children on average than words. As Keller (1987) pointed out, research is needed to provide guidelines for the design of ad cues. It is possible that visual cues may be more powerful than verbal ones in prompting children’s recognition and cued recall.

Finally, the conditions for ad processing deserve greater study. The ad exposure was forced and isolated from programming. Moreover, in Study 2, the three exposures were compressed within one session with only the length of rewinds serving as breaks in viewing. This exposure condition was very artificial, therefore; the findings may or may not apply in a natural viewing setting. Clearly, the effectiveness of multiple exposures requires study in a more naturalistic setting in which exposures are not compressed. This is an important consideration for future research agendas.

Despite these limitations, the major findings of the current experiments were consistent with the emerging view of the importance of advertising retrieval cues. A visual retrieval cue, a brand character, has been shown to have a potentially important effect on young viewers’ access to an ad memory trace that influences brand evaluation and intent to request brand purchase, especially under the condition of repeated exposures. The current findings supported the importance of use of retrieval cues in triggering memory for advertised information.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, B. P. (1981). Encoding specificity in the recall of pictures and words in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 193-211.

Ackerman, B. P. (1982). Retrieval variability: The inefficient use of retrieval cues by young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33,413- 428.

Ackerman, B. P. (1983). Encoding distinctiveness and the encoding shift pen- alty in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36,

Ackerman, B. P. (1985a). Constraints in retrieval search for episodic information in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 152-180.

Ackerman, B. P. (1985b). Children’s use of context and category cues to retrieve episodic information from memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psycho1 -

Ackerman, B. P. (1985~). Children’s retrieval deficit. In C. J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.), Basic processes in memory development (pp. 1-46). New York: Springer-Verlag.

257-283.

Ogy, 40,420-439.

308 MACKLIN

Ackerman, B. P. (1986a). Differences in the associative constraint on retrieval search from a context cue for children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42, 315-344.

Ackerman, B. P. (198613). Retrieval search for category and thematic information in memory by children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child

Ackerman, B. P. (1987). Attention and memory in children and adult, c in . context-interactive and context-independent situations. Journal of Experimen- tal Child Psychology, 44(2), 192-221.

Ackerman, B. P. (1988). Cued recall for category, thematic, and ad hoc classified events in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45,88-118.

Ackerman, B. P., & Hess, L. (1982). The effects of encoding distinctiveness on retrieval variability in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33,455-474.

Ackerman, B. P., & Rathburn, J . (1984). Developmental differences in the use of retrieval cues to describe episodic information in memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 147-173.

Ashcraft, M. H., Kellas, G., & Keller, D. (1976). Retrieval processes in fifth graders and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 21,264-276.

Bettman, J . R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bjorklund, D. F., & Thompson, B. E. (1983). Category typicality effects in children’s memory performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,

Bjorklund, D. F., & de Marchena, M. R. (1984). Developmental shifts in the basis of organization in memory: The role of associative versus categorical relatedness in children’s free recall. Child Development, 55, 952-962.

Ceci, S. J., & Howe, M. J. A. (1978). Semantic knowledge as a determinant of developmental differences in recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-

Clurman, A. (1988). New findings from the Nickeloden/Yankelovich Clancy Shulman Youth Monitor SM. In Transcript Proceedings Second Bi-Annual ARF Workshop on Children’s Research (pp. 129-140). New York: Advertising Research Foundation.

Craik, F. I. M., & Jacoby L. L. (1979). Elaboration and distinctiveness in episodic memory. In L.-G. Nilsson (Ed.), Perspectives on memory research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Flavell, J . H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Hall, J. W., Murphy, J., Humphreys, M. S., & Wilson, K. P. (1979). Children’s cued recall: Developmental differences in retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 27, 501-511.

Hutchinson, J. W., & Moore, D. L. (1984). Issues surrounding the examination of delay effects of advertising. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 11, pp. 650-655). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Re- search.

John, D. R., & Sujan, M. (1990). Age differences in product categorization. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 452-460.

Psychology, 42, 355-377.

35, 329-344.

chology, 26, 230-245.


Kail, R., & Strauss, M. S. (1984). The development of human memory: An historial overview. In R. Kail & N. E. Spear (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on the development of memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keller, K. L. (1987). Memory factors in advertising: The effect of advertising retrieval cues on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3),

Kent, R. J., & Machleit, K. A. (1990). The differential effects of within-brand and between-brand processing on the recall and recognition of television commercials. Journal of Advertising, 19(2), 4-14.

Kobasigawa, A. (1974). Utilization of retrieval cues by children in recall. Child Development, 45, 127-134.

Lynch, J. G., & Srull, T. K. (1982). Memory and attentional factors in consumer choice: Concepts and research methods. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 18-36.

Macklin, M. C. (1984). Verbal labeling effects in short-term memory for character/product pairings. In T. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 9, pp. 343-347). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Macklin, M. C. (1985). Rehearsal processes in children’s recall of advertising products. In W. D. Hoyer (Ed.), Division of consumer psychology A P A 1985 (pp. 21-25). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

MacInnis, D. L., & Jaworski, B. J . (1989). Information processing from adver- tisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1- 23.

McNeal, J. U. (1987). Children as consumers: Insights and implications. Lex- ington, MA: Lexington Books.

Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1979). Descriptions: An intermediate stage in memory retrieval. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 107-123.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton. Pressley, M. (1982). Elaboration and memory development. Child Development,

Roedder, D. L. (1981). Age differences in children’s responses to television advertising: An information-processing approach. Journal of Consumer Re- search, 8(2), 144-153.

Schneider, C. (1987). Children’s television: The art, the business, and how it works. Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books.

Shimp, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of Advertising, 10, 9-15.

Singh, S. N., & Rothschild, M. L. (1983). Recognition as a measure of learning from television commercials. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(August), 235-248.

Singh, S. N., Rothschild, M. L., & Churchill, G. A., J r . (1988). Recognition versus recall as measures of television commercial forgetting. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(February), 72-80.

Sternthal, B., & Craig, C. S. (1984). Consumer behavior: An information processing perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Stewart, D. W., Pechmann, C., Ratneshwar, S., Stroud, J., & Bryant, B. (1985). Methodological and theoretical foundations of advertising copytesting: A review. Current Issues and Research in Advertking, 1-74.

316-333.

53, 296-309.

310 MACKLIN

Stipp, H. H. (1988). Applications of new research on children. In G. Lometti &. L. Rust (Eds.), Transcript Proceedings: Second Bi-Annual ARF Workshop on Children’s Research. New York: The Advertising Research Foundation.

Waters, H. S., & Waters, E. (1976). Semantic processing in children’s free recall: Evidence for the importance of attentional factors and encoding variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2,370- 380.

Waters, H. S., & Waters, E. (1979). Semantic processing in children’s free recall: The effects of context and meaningfulness on encoding variability. Child Development, 50, 735-746.

The author is Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Cincinnati, Cin- cinnati, OH 45221.


the effects of an advertising retrieval cue on young children's memory and brand evaluations

Documents