Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Appetite. 2024 Jun 14;200:107557. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107557

Examining the Effects of Brand and Licensed Characters on Parents’ Perceptions of Children’s Breakfast Cereals

Phoebe R Ruggles 1,4, Lindsey Smith Taillie 2,3, Cristina J Y Lee 5, Carmen E Prestemon 3, Emily W Duffy 1,4, Carlos F U Rojas 6, Marissa G Hall 1,3,4,*
PMCID: PMC11328928  NIHMSID: NIHMS2006210  PMID: 38880284

Abstract

Brand and licensed characters frequently appear on children’s breakfast cereal boxes and are known to affect children’s product perceptions, selection, and consumption. However, less is known about their impact on parents’ perceptions of foods they purchase for their child. The present study assessed the impact of brand and licensed characters featured on three children’s breakfast cereal packages on parents’ intentions and perceptions in an online experiment. Parents of children aged 2–12 years (n=1013) were randomized into one of two conditions: breakfast cereals containing brand and licensed characters or breakfast cereals without any characters. Within each condition, participants viewed three breakfast cereal brands in random order per their assigned condition and reported their purchase intentions, healthfulness perceptions, and perceptions of appeal to children using 5-point Likert scales. No significant differences in purchase intentions (p=0.91), perceived healthfulness (p=0.52) or perceived child appeal (p=0.59) were observed between the experimental and control groups. However, exploratory moderation analyses revealed that educational attainment moderated the impact of experimental condition on purchase intentions (p for interaction=0.002) such that participants with a bachelor’s degree in the character condition reported 0.36 points lower purchase intentions compared to the control with no difference between conditions for those with an associate’s degree/trade school or high school degree or less. This study did not find an impact of brand and licensed characters on children’s breakfast cereals, suggesting that their primary appeal is directly to children. Parents with higher educational attainment may be skeptical of characters on cereal brands. Additional research on the impact of brand and licensed characters on other products, in real-world settings, is needed.

Keywords: child-directed marketing, parent perceptions, brand characters, licensed characters, cereal, ultraprocessed food

1. Introduction

In children, excess added sugar consumption is a major public health concern, as it is associated with diet-related diseases such as cardiovascular disease risk (Vos et al., 2017) and dental decay (Chi & Scott, 2019). Breakfast cereals are heavily marketed towards children (Emond et al., 2019; Harris, Webb, Sacco, & Pomeranz, 2020; LoDolce, Harris, & Schwartz, 2013; Page, Montgomery, Ponder, & Richard, 2008) and are a leading source of added sugar in children’s diets (Bailey, Fulgoni, Cowan, & Gaine, 2018). Additionally, children’s breakfast cereals tend to be nutritionally poor compared to breakfast cereals that are not marketed toward children (Schwartz, Vartanian, Wharton, & Brownell, 2008). Exposure to child-directed marketing for food products impacts children’s dietary preferences and behaviors, such that they tend to prefer marketed products and tend to consume greater quantities of marketed products compared to non-marketed products (Kraak & Story, 2015; Smith, Kelly, Yeatman, & Boyland, 2019).

The use of characters, such as cartoons, is a prolific form of child-directed marketing (Chacon, Letona, & Barnoya, 2013; Elliott & Truman, 2020; Harris, Schwartz, & Brownell, 2010; Mehta et al., 2012; Packer et al., 2022), and may be particularly appealing to children (Kraak & Story, 2015; Packer et al., 2022). Characters provide children with cues that a product is designed for them – and they may recognize characters from other facets of their life (e.g., television cartoons) (de Droog, Valkenburg, & Buijzen, 2010). After continual exposure to and engagement with these characters through media and marketing environments, children can develop parasocial relationships with characters, which can then promote short-term product preference, as well as brand loyalty throughout the lifespan (Keller et al., 2012; Kraak & Story, 2015). This is problematic to public health, as most food products that employ child-directed marketing are nutritionally poor (Elliott, 2019). Two primary types of characters are used in food and beverage marketing: brand characters and licensed characters. Brand characters are characters that are specifically linked to a brand and are owned by the company they represent (e.g., Tony the Tiger). Licensed characters, also known as media or spokes characters, are characters from other media sources such as television or films (e.g., Buzz Lightyear). Food product brands and media companies often engage in cross promotion – where a food product brand will feature a popular media character in their advertising – in an effort to increase the appeal of both the food product and the media product. Cross promotions are commonly used on child-directed food products (Harris et al., 2010).

Ample research demonstrates persuasive effects of exposure to child-directed food and beverage marketing on product preferences and behaviors in children (Sadeghirad, Duhaney, Motaghipisheh, Campbell, & Johnston, 2016; Smith et al., 2019). Less is known, however, about the effects of exposure on parents or caregivers – who make most food purchases for children and may also be persuaded by child-directed marketing practices (Lavuri & Aileni, 2021; Velázquez et al., 2021). Children’s pester power – the ability of children to persuade parents to purchase products they want – likely contributes to the impact child-directed marketing has on parents (Harris et al., 2020). However, parents are readily able to identify child-directed marketing practices in retail environments and have expressed concern about the impact of marketing to children (Driessen, Kelly, Sing, & Backholer, 2022). Despite parental concerns, research indicates that child-directed marketing features, such as the presence of licensed/spokes characters, may increase their likelihood to select food products for their child (Russell, Burke, Waller, & Wei, 2017). The presence of child-directed marketing likely cues to parents that a product is appropriate for or appealing to a child, which may also persuade them to purchase the product, though there is a lack of research measuring how parents respond to these cues.

Parents’ healthfulness perceptions also contribute to their food purchasing decisions. Research in Mexican adults found that adults were more likely to perceive a fictional children’s breakfast cereal brand featuring a licensed character as “not good to buy for children” compared to a breakfast cereal featuring no character (Contreras-Manzano et al., 2020). Additionally, evidence from Australia suggests that the presence of characters on fruit-flavored snacks tends to reduce parents’ healthfulness perceptions (Russell et al., 2017), which contributes to reduced purchase intentions (Abrams, Evans, & Duff, 2015). However, there is a lack of research examining how characters affect parents’ healthfulness perceptions of real brands of children’s breakfast cereals in the US, where the breakfast cereal marketing environment (e.g., packaging features, branding, regulation) and consumption patterns may differ from other countries.

To address this gap, this study aims to examine the impact of both brand and licensed characters on parents’ perceptions of breakfast cereal product’s child appeal, their own healthfulness perceptions, and purchasing intentions of breakfast cereal products for their children. Additionally, we conducted exploratory moderation by several parental and child sociodemographic and behavioral factors that may affect how marketing materials are perceived.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Sample

We recruited a sample of U.S. adults (≥18 years old) from December 14, 2022 – December 26, 2022, using Qualtrics Market Research Survey Panel (www.qualtrics.com). Participants were eligible if they were 18 years or older, resided in the US, and were a parent or guardian of any children aged 2 to 12 years older. Quotas were established to recruit at least 25% of participants self-identifying as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish and at least 25% of participants self-identifying as Black or African American. Quality control measures employed by Qualtrics eliminated and replaced participants who completed the survey in less than half of the median completion time or did not complete the survey. Additionally, participants were asked to report the day of the month of their child’s birthday at the beginning and again at the end of the survey; those who reported different days were also removed from the dataset and replaced with a different participant. The final sample, after quality control measures, was 1,013 participants.

2.2. Stimuli Development

To maximize external validity, we opted to use real brands of cereals that featured both brand and licensed characters at the time of stimuli development (August 2022). We chose to use breakfast cereals featuring both brand and licensed characters because this type of cross promotion is common on breakfast cereals (Page et al., 2008), but the effects of the combined use of characters on perceptions and intentions are not well understood. We selected three brands of children’s breakfast cereals that contained both a brand character and a licensed character using a two-step process. First, we visited three major grocery stores – one national chain (Walmart) and two regional chains in the US southeast (Food Lion and Harris Teeter) – to determine which children’s breakfast cereal brands featured cross promotions using both a brand character and licensed character. In this exercise, we identified six unique combinations of brand and licensed character within four major children’s breakfast cereal brands (i.e., some brands had more than one brand/licensed character combination). Next, we used market share data from Euromonitor to determine the top three brands of the four identified in stores. Ultimately, we selected the following three brand/character combinations to test: Frosted Flakes’ Tony the Tiger/Buzz Lightyear, Apple Jacks’ Cinnamon/Sing 2 Characters, and Froot Loops’ Toucan Sam/Llama Llama.

A professional designer (CFUR) created images of the selected breakfast cereal packages for both the character and control conditions using Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator. The character condition contained the three brands, each featuring their respective brand character and licensed characters (e.g., a box of Frosted Flakes, featuring Tony the Tiger alongside Buzz Lightyear). The control condition stimuli featured no characters but were otherwise identical to the character condition (e.g., a box of Frosted Flakes without any character). We removed all other promotional messages featured on the cereal boxes. To enhance realism, the cereal boxes featured front-of-package nutrition information labels that were identical across conditions. Stimuli can be found on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/encyq/?view_only=b3169de1045340da84175a0540ba2907

2.3. Procedures

Participants completed an online survey (median completion time = 7.16 minutes). The online survey contained three separate experimental tasks – one related to sugary drink price tags (Hall et al., 2024), one related to environmental labeling, and the present experiment. Participants completed the present experiment after completing the first two studies. Participants were re-randomized before beginning each task.

We employed a 2-arm between-subjects randomized experiment. After providing online written informed consent, participants were randomized with a 1:1 simple allocation ratio to a character condition or no-character control condition, where each participant viewed the three brands of cereal designed per their assigned condition (See Supplementary Material Figure 1 for CONSORT diagram). Participants viewed the three cereal brands in random order and answered questions about each cereal brand. After completing the survey, participants received a pre-determined incentive from the panel company. This study was approved by the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board (#21–3135).

2.4. Measures

Brand specific purchase intention, the primary outcome, perceived child appeal, and perceived healthfulness were assessed after viewing each cereal brand. Participants who had more than one child between the ages of 2–12 were prompted to think about their child who most recently had a birthday when responding to questions about their child.

Purchase intentions were measured using the following item “How likely would you be to buy this cereal for your [age]-year-old child in the next month?” using a 5-point Likert-style response scale ranging from “not at all likely (0)” to “extremely likely (4).” Perceived healthfulness was measured using the following adapted item: “How healthy or unhealthy would it be for your [age] year old child to eat this cereal every day?”(Hall, Lazard, Grummon, Mendel, & Taillie, 2020) with a 5-point Likert-style response scale ranging from “very unhealthy (0)” to “very healthy (4).”

Perceived child appeal was conceptualized as a latent measure, consisting of three items (perceived child enjoyment, perceived taste satisfaction, and perceived desire to consume). The following items (adapted from previous work) were used to assess perceived child appeal: “How much do you think your child would enjoy eating this cereal?” (Hall et al., 2020; Liem & Zandstra, 2009); “How much do you think your [age]-year-old child would like the taste of this cereal?”(Dial & Musher-Eizenman, 2020); and “How much do you think your [age]-year-old child would want to eat this cereal?”(Liem & Zandstra, 2009). All child appeal items were assessed using a 5-point Likert-style response scale ranging from “not at all (0)” to “a great deal (4).”

After viewing all three cereal brands and completing the outcome measures, participants were asked to provide information about their demographic characteristics, their child’s demographic characteristics, and information about their child’s cereal consumption habits. The complete codebook can be found on Open Science Framework.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Power analyses were conducted using G*power version 3.19.7. The sample size was predetermined at ~1,000 participants; therefore, post-hoc power analyses were conducted to calculate the minimum detectible effect size. The present study had 80% power to detect differences of d~0.177 or larger between groups with 500 subjects per group and a critical alpha of 0.05.

Analyses were conducted in Stata version 18. The study design, predictions, and analytic plan were pre-registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05639335) as well as AsPredicted.org prior to data collection (https://aspredicted.org/X1L_PHL).

Independent samples t-tests were used to assess mean differences in the primary and secondary outcomes between arms. Analyses used the average score across brands for each measure. We hypothesized that exposure to characters would lead to greater purchase intention scores, as well as greater perceived child appeal scores. In contrast, we hypothesized that exposure to characters would lead to lower perceived healthfulness scores.

We conducted exploratory moderation analyses to assess whether the impact of characters on purchase intention differed by the following participant characteristics: race/ethnicity; parental gender; child age; child gender; parental educational achievement; past-week cereal consumption frequency; and perceived child food fussiness (adapted from Wardle, Guthrie, Sanderson, & Rapoport, 2001). Race/ethnicity categories were collapsed into the following categories for moderation analyses due to small cell sizes: White; Hispanic, Latino or Spanish; Black/African American; Black; Another race/ethnicity (including multiple race/ethnicities). We selected these moderators because previous literature suggestions that these characteristics may differentially affect consumers’ perceptions of marketing materials (e.g., Cassady, Liaw, & Miller, 2015; Castro et al., 2017; Powell, Wada, & Kumanyika, 2014; Russell et al., 2017; Vogel et al., 2016). We ran separate linear models for each moderator, regressing purchase intention on trial arm, the moderator, and the interaction between trial arm and the moderator. We examined the statistical significance of the interaction terms using a Wald test of joint significance. For statistically significant interactions, we then examined the average marginal effects of experimental arm on purchase intentions at each level of the moderator. Finally, we explored whether significant moderators also moderated the relationship between character exposure and perceived child appeal and healthfulness perception scores. These analyses were exploratory and not pre-registered.

3. Results

A total of 1,013 participants completed the experiment. Table 1 describes the sample makeup by condition. The mean age of participants was 37 years old (SD=9.4), and most participants identified as women (70%). Approximately 44% of the sample identified as White, 25% identified as Black or African American, and 25% identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ethnicity. The sample’s education level was evenly split across three categories: high school diploma/GED or below (28.8%); associate’s degree or some college/technical school (35.5%); and bachelor’s degree or higher (35.6%). The average child’s age was 7 years old (SD=3.1). Participants reported the frequency their child consumes breakfast cereal, with most reporting consumption 2–4 times per week (58.6%).

Table 1:

Participant Characteristics Overall and by Trial Arm

All (n=1013) No Character Control (n=505) Brand and Licensed Characters (n=508)
N (%) N (%) N (%)
Participant characteristics
Age
18–25 years 92 (9.1%) 48 (9.5%) 44 (8.7%)
26–34 years 339 (33.5%) 167 (33.1%) 172 (33.9%)
35–44 years 392 (38.7%) 211 (41.8%) 181 (35.6%)
45–54 years 137 (13.5%) 62 (12.3%) 75 (14.8%)
Over 55 years 53 (5.2%) 17 (3.4%) 36 (7.1%)
Mean (SD) 37.1 (9.4) 36.4 (8.7) 37.7 (10.0)
Gender identity
Woman 708 (69.9%) 354 (70.1%) 354 (69.7%)
Man 302 (29.8%) 148 (29.3%) 154 (30.3%)
Non-binary 3 (0.3%) 3 (0.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Race/ethnicity
White 363 (35.8%) 178 (35.2%) 185 (36.4%)
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish 176 (17.4%) 90 (17.8%) 86 (16.9%)
Black or African American 226 (22.3%) 110 (21.8%) 116 (22.8%)
Asian 95 (9.4%) 40 (7.9%) 55 (10.8%)
American Indian or Alaska Native 32 (3.2%) 16 (3.2%) 16 (3.1%)
Middle Eastern or North African 1 (0.01%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0%)
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 7 (0.7%) 2 (0.4%) 5 (1%)
Multiple Race/Ethnicities 112 (11.1%) 67 (13.3%) 45 (8.9%)
Education level
High school degree/GED or below 292 (28.8%) 124 (24.6%) 168 (33.1%)
Associate’s degree or some college/ technical school 360 (35.5%) 198 (39.2%) 162 (31.9%)
Bachelor’s degree or higher 361 (35.6%) 183 (36.2%) 178 (35.0%)
Annual household income
$24,999 or less 220 (21.7%) 103 (20.4%) 117 (23.1%)
$25,000 to $49,999 247 (24.4%) 129 (25.5%) 118 (23.3%)
$50,000 to $74,999 202 (20.0%) 96 (19.0%) 106 (20.9%)
$75,000 to $99,999 153 (15.1%) 84 (16.6%) 69 (13.6%)
$100,000 or more 190 (18.8%) 93 (18.4%) 97 (19.1%)
Number of people in household, mean (SD) 4.0 (1.4) 4.1 (1.4) 3.9 (1.3)
Number of children (ages 0–18) in household, mean (SD) 2.0 (1.1) 2.1 (1.2) 1.9 (1.0)
Child characteristics
Age
2–5 years 376 (37.1%) 194 (38.4%) 182 (35.8%)
6–9 years 350 (34.6%) 172 (34.1%) 178 (35.0%)
10–12 years 287 (28.3%) 139 (27.5%) 148 (29.1%)
Mean (SD) 6.9 (3.3) 6.8 (3.3) 7.0 (3.3)
Gender identity
Girl 460 (45.4%) 233 (46.1%) 227 (44.7%)
Boy 553 (54.6%) 272 (53.9%) 281 (55.3%)
Another gender identity 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Race/ethnicity
White 350 (34.6%) 170 (33.7%) 180 (35.4%)
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish 169 (16.7%) 91 (18.1%) 78 (15.3%)
Black or African American 217 (21.4%) 107 (21.1%) 110 (21.7%)
Asian 74 (7.3%) 31 (6.1%) 43 (8.4%)
American Indian or Alaska Native 27 (2.7%) 15 (3%) 12 (2.4%)
Middle Eastern or North African 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 7 (0.7%) 2 (0.4%) 5 (1%)
Multiple Race/Ethnicities 168 (16.6%) 88 (17.4%) 80 (15.7%)
Frequency of cereal consumption
1 time/week or less 172 (17.2%) 87 (17.5%) 85 (16.9%)
2–4 times/week 587 (58.6%) 290 (58.2%) 297 (59.0%)
5–7 times/week 242 (24.2%) 121 (24.3%) 121 (24.1%)
Open in a new tab

Percentage of missing values ranged from 0.1 to 1.2%.

In contrast to our pre-registered predictions, exposure to the character condition did not affect purchase intention (mcontrol=3.32, SD=1.08; mcharacter=3.31, SD=1.18; t=0.11 p=0.91; Table 2), perceived healthfulness (mcontrol = 2.89, SD= 1.13; mcharacter=2.84, SD= 1.18; t=0.65, p=0.52), or perceived child appeal (mcontrol=3.75, SD=0.91; mcharacter=3.78, SD = 0.91; t=−0.54, p=0.59) compared to the no-character control condition. In our pre-registration, we planned to assess mediation by perceived healthfulness and perceived child appeal using structural equation modeling. However, we opted to not conduct mediation analyses because of the lack of significant differences between conditions for the primary outcome and hypothesized mediators.

Table 2.

Impact of cereal characters on purchase intention, perceived healthfulness, and perceived child appeal (n=1013)

No Character Control (n=508) Character (n=505) t-test
Mean SD Mean SD t p
Purchase intention 3.32 1.08 3.31 1.18 0.11 0.91
Perceived healthfulness 2.89 1.13 2.84 1.18 0.65 0.52
Perceived child appeal 3.75 0.91 3.78 0.91 -0.54 0.59
Open in a new tab

Note. SD=standard deviation.

Moderation analyses revealed that educational attainment moderated the impact of experimental condition on purchase intention (p for interaction term=0.002). Results indicated that, among participants with a bachelor’s degree, the character condition resulted in 0.36 points lower purchase intentions compared to the control (p=0.002). However, the experimental arm did not affect purchase intention for those with an associate’s degree or some college/trade school (p=0.078 and p=0.58, respectively). Figure 1 visually depicts this finding. There were no significant interactions between purchase intention and other tested moderators (all ps>0.05).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Impact of cereal characters on purchase intention (range 0–4), by educational attainment

To better understand the observed evidence of moderation by educational attainment on purchase intention, we explored whether this interaction would hold for healthfulness perceptions and perceived child appeal. There were no significant interactions between educational attainment and either of these two outcomes.

4. Discussion

This study examined the impact of brand and licensed characters on parents’ perceptions and purchase intentions of three popular children’s breakfast cereal brands. We did not observe a significant difference in parents’ purchase intentions, healthfulness perceptions, or child appeal perceptions between character and no-character control conditions. Exploratory moderation analyses suggested that educational attainment impacts the effect of characters on purchase intention. Among parents with a bachelor’s degree or higher, the character condition led to significantly lower purchase intention scores compared to those in the control condition, whereas there was no difference by experimental condition for those with less than a bachelor’s degree.

The lack of differences in measured outcomes between character and control conditions were contrary to our predictions. Our null findings may be due to a variety of factors, including that there simply is no effect. However, there may also be other explanations for the null findings. For example, participants likely have preconceived opinions on each of the included cereal brands (Levin & Levin, 2010), which may be why the mean scores on the three outcomes are similar between conditions. It could also be that children’s pester power is a larger driver of parents purchasing these products (Marshall, O’Donohoe, & Kline, 2007), and without the presence of a child, characters do not influence parents. Future research examining this question may consider using a sample of parent/child dyads in order to reflect the pester power dynamic.

Our findings suggest that educational attainment may moderate the effect of characters on parents’ purchase intentions. We found that among parents with a bachelor’s degree or higher, the character condition resulted in significantly lower purchase intention scores compared to those in the no-character control condition. However, there were not significant differences between groups in the other two educational attainment categories. This finding suggests that those with a bachelor’s degree or higher may perceive the presence of characters more skeptically than those without a bachelor’s degree. There are several possible explanations for this finding. It could be that those with a bachelor’s degree are more conscious that products with child-oriented marketing tend to be nutritionally poor, making them more averse to packaging with characters. It could also be that those with a bachelor’s degree tend to have higher health literacy (Friis, Lasgaard, Rowlands, Osborne, & Maindal, 2016), which may impact how they interpret product marketing. It is also worth noting that there was no evidence of moderation by educational attainment on either healthfulness perceptions or perceived child appeal outcomes. Future research should further explore how and why the impact of characters vary by parents’ educational attainment, as this knowledge can inform interventions aimed at improving parents’ understanding of food marketing.

Study strengths include the randomized and controlled design, diverse sample of parents, and professionally designed stimuli. Additionally, the study was well powered to detect a small effect, should it have existed. The use of real brands and characters could be considered both a strength and a weakness. Using real brands and characters increases the external validity of our findings, as it more accurately imitates real-world shopping experiences, which is a strength. However, using real brands may have reduced our power to detect differences in intentions and other outcomes, due to the strong influence of brand preferences. Additionally, we used a brief, one-time exposure to the cereal brands. We did not examine whether the impact of combined brand and licensed characters differs from either type of character alone, but this is an important question to evaluate in future studies. Finally, we only examined children’s breakfast cereals, and thus our findings are limited to one category of products – the results of these findings may differ when tested on products with different nutrient profiles. Future studies may consider examining the impact of characters using fictional or generic brands and/or characters, using a variety of products, and allowing for greater exposure over a longer time period.

Conclusion

This study found that brand and licensed characters on children’s breakfast cereals did not affect parents’ perceptions of the cereal or purchase intentions. These findings may suggest that the use of these characters on breakfast cereals primarily appeals to children. Parents with higher educational attainment may be skeptical of characters on cereal brands, based on findings that characters led to lower intentions to buy the product in this group. Future research should continue to examine similar questions across different products and brands, as well as assessing actual selection and purchasing behaviors in real-world shopping environments with children present. Identifying the distinct effects of child-directed marketing exposure on children and parents in realistic settings is needed to truly understand the role of characters on perceptions and purchasing behavior.

Supplementary Material

1

Funding:

Phoebe Ruggles’s time was supported by UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, which is funded by National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (T32CA057726). Emily Duffy’s time was supported by a grant from the T32 Cancer Health Disparities Training Grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (T32CA128582). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Conflicts of Interest

No financial disclosures or conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors of this paper.

Footnotes

Ethical Statement:

This study was approved by the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board (#21–3135).

Declaration of Interest Statement:

No financial disclosures or conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors of this paper.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References:

  1. Abrams KM, Evans C, & Duff BRL (2015). Ignorance is bliss. How parents of preschool children make sense of front-of-package visuals and claims on food. Appetite, 87, 20–29. 10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailey R, Fulgoni V, Cowan A, & Gaine P. (2018). Sources of Added Sugars in Young Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Low and High Intakes of Added Sugars. Nutrients, 10(1), 102. 10.3390/nu10010102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cassady DL, Liaw K, & Miller LMS (2015). Disparities in Obesity-Related Outdoor Advertising by Neighborhood Income and Race. Journal of Urban Health, 92(5), 835–842. 10.1007/s11524-015-9980-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Castro IA, Calderon J, & Ayala GX (2017). Who Is Influencing Whom? Latino Parent–Child Request Interactions and Product Purchases in Food Retail Environments. Social Marketing Quarterly, 23(2), 155–168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chacon V, Letona P, & Barnoya J. (2013). Child-oriented marketing techniques in snack food packages in Guatemala. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 967. 10.1186/1471-2458-13-967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chi DL, & Scott JM (2019). Added Sugar and Dental Caries in Children: A Scientific Update and Future Steps. Dental Clinics of North America, 63(1), 17–33. 10.1016/j.cden.2018.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Contreras-Manzano A, Jáuregui A, Nieto C, Hall MG, Vargas-Meza J, Thrasher JF, … Hammond D. (2020). The impact of a cartoon character on adults perceptions of Children’s breakfast cereals: A randomized experiment. Nutrition Journal, 19(1), 43. 10.1186/s12937-020-00565-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. de Droog SM, Valkenburg PM, & Buijzen M. (2010). Using Brand Characters to Promote Young Children’s Liking of and Purchase Requests for Fruit. Journal of Health Communication, 16(1), 79–89. 10.1080/10810730.2010.529487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dial LA, & Musher-Eizenman DR (2020). Power of packaging: Evaluations of packaged fruits and vegetables by school-age children in the U.S. Appetite, 148, 104591. 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Driessen C, Kelly B, Sing F, & Backholer K. (2022). Parents’ Perceptions of Children’s Exposure to Unhealthy Food Marketing: A Narrative Review of the Literature. Current Nutrition Reports, 11(1), 9–18. 10.1007/s13668-021-00390-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Elliott C. (2019). Tracking Kids’ Food: Comparing the Nutritional Value and Marketing Appeals of Child-Targeted Supermarket Products Over Time. Nutrients, 11(8), 1850. 10.3390/nu11081850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Elliott C, & Truman E. (2020). The Power of Packaging: A Scoping Review and Assessment of Child-Targeted Food Packaging. Nutrients, 12(4), 958. 10.3390/nu12040958 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Emond JA, Longacre MR, Drake KM, Titus LJ, Hendricks K, MacKenzie T, … Dalton MA (2019). Exposure to Child-Directed TV Advertising and Preschoolers’ Intake of Advertised Cereals. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(2), e35–e43. 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.09.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Friis K, Lasgaard M, Rowlands G, Osborne RH, & Maindal HT (2016). Health Literacy Mediates the Relationship Between Educational Attainment and Health Behavior: A Danish Population-Based Study. Journal of Health Communication, 21(sup2), 54–60. 10.1080/10810730.2016.1201175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hall MG, Lazard AJ, Grummon AH, Mendel JR, & Taillie LS (2020). The impact of front-of-package claims, fruit images, and health warnings on consumers’ perceptions of sugar-sweetened fruit drinks: Three randomized experiments. Preventive Medicine, 132, 105998. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.105998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hall MG, Ruggles PR, McNeel K, Prestemon CE, Lee CJY, Lowery CM, … Taillie LS (2024). Understanding Whether Price Tag Messaging Can Amplify the Benefits of Taxes: An Online Experiment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 66(4), 609–618. 10.1016/j.amepre.2023.11.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Harris JL, Schwartz MB, & Brownell KD (2010). Marketing foods to children and adolescents: Licensed characters and other promotions on packaged foods in the supermarket. Public Health Nutrition, 13(3), 409–417. 10.1017/S1368980009991339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Harris JL, Webb V, Sacco SJ, & L. Pomeranz J. (2020). Marketing to Children in Supermarkets: An Opportunity for Public Policy to Improve Children’s Diets. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1284. 10.3390/ijerph17041284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Keller KL, Kuilema LG, Lee N, Yoon J, Mascaro B, Combes A-L, … Halford JCG (2012). The impact of food branding on children’s eating behavior and obesity. Physiology & Behavior, 106(3), 379–386. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.03.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kraak VI, & Story M. (2015). Influence of food companies’ brand mascots and entertainment companies’ cartoon media characters on children’s diet and health: A systematic review and research needs. Obesity Reviews, 16(2), 107–126. 10.1111/obr.12237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lavuri R, & Aileni VR (2021). TV Advertisements: Assessing the Moderating Effect of Children’s Pester Power on Parents Purchase Decision. Journal of Promotion Management, 0(0), 1–25. 10.1080/10496491.2021.2009613 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Levin AM, & Levin IP (2010). Packaging of healthy and unhealthy food products for children and parents: The relative influence of licensed characters and brand names. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(5), 393–402. 10.1002/cb.326 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Liem DG, & Zandstra LH (2009). Children’s liking and wanting of snack products: Influence of shape and flavour. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6(1), 1–10. 10.1186/1479-5868-6-38 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. LoDolce ME, Harris JL, & Schwartz MB (2013). Sugar as Part of a Balanced Breakfast? What Cereal Advertisements Teach Children About Healthy Eating. Journal of Health Communication, 18(11), 1293–1309. 10.1080/10810730.2013.778366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Marshall D, O’Donohoe S, & Kline S. (2007). Families, food, and pester power: Beyond the blame game? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(4), 164–181. 10.1002/cb.217 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mehta K, Phillips C, Ward P, Coveney J, Handsley E, & Carter P. (2012). Marketing foods to children through product packaging: Prolific, unhealthy and misleading. Public Health Nutrition, 15(9), 1763–1770. 10.1017/S1368980012001231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Packer J, Russell SJ, McLaren K, Siovolgyi G, Stansfield C, Viner RM, & Croker H. (2022). The impact on dietary outcomes of licensed and brand equity characters in marketing unhealthy foods to children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 23(7), e13443. 10.1111/obr.13443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Page R, Montgomery K, Ponder A, & Richard A. (2008). Targeting Children in the Cereal Aisle. American Journal of Health Education, 39(5), 272–282. 10.1080/19325037.2008.10599050 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Powell LM, Wada R, & Kumanyika SK (2014). Racial/ethnic and income disparities in child and adolescent exposure to food and beverage television ads across the U.S. media markets. Health & Place, 29, 124–131. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.06.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Russell CG, Burke PF, Waller DS, & Wei E. (2017). The impact of front-of-pack marketing attributes versus nutrition and health information on parents’ food choices. Appetite, 116, 323–338. 10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sadeghirad B, Duhaney T, Motaghipisheh S, Campbell NRC, & Johnston BC (2016). Influence of unhealthy food and beverage marketing on children’s dietary intake and preference: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Obesity Reviews, 17(10), 945–959. 10.1111/obr.12445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Schwartz MB, Vartanian LR, Wharton CM, & Brownell KD (2008). Examining the Nutritional Quality of Breakfast Cereals Marketed to Children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108(4), 702–705. 10.1016/j.jada.2008.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Smith R, Kelly B, Yeatman H, & Boyland E. (2019). Food Marketing Influences Children’s Attitudes, Preferences and Consumption: A Systematic Critical Review. Nutrients, 11(4), 875. 10.3390/nu11040875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Velázquez AL, Alcaire F, Vidal L, Varela P, Næs T, & Ares G. (2021). The influence of label information on the snacks parents choose for their children: Individual differences in a choice based conjoint test. Food Quality and Preference, 94, 104296. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104296 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Vogel C, Ntani G, Inskip H, Barker M, Cummins S, Cooper C, … Baird J. (2016). Education moderates the association between supermarket environment and diet. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(2), e27–e34. 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.02.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Vos MB, Kaar JL, Welsh JA, Van Horn LV, Feig DI, Anderson CAM, … Johnson RK (2017). Added Sugars and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Children. Circulation, 135(19), e1017–e1034. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wardle J, Guthrie CA, Sanderson S, & Rapoport L. (2001). Development of the Children’s Eating Behaviour Questionnaire. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(7), 963–970. 10.1111/1469-7610.00792 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS2006210-supplement-1.docx (222.2KB, docx)

RESOURCES