CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 00, Number 00, 2020

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2019.0488

Understanding the YouTube Generation:

How Preschoolers Process Television
and YouTube Advertising

Ini Vanwesenbeeck, PhD,1 Liselot Hudders, PhD,1,2 and Koen Ponnet, PhD3

Abstract
Downloaded by Lulea Univ Biblioteket from www.liebertpub.com at 04/30/20. For personal use only.

Preschool children are generally assumed to lack the skills to critically respond to advertising despite be-
ing exposed to a high number of advertising messages while watching videos on YouTube. However, research
on how preschool children process YouTube advertising is scarce. This study conducts an experiment to
examine how preschool children’s (4–5 years old, N = 62) responses to video advertising (20-second toy
commercial) vary between YouTube and television viewing. The results suggest that almost half of the children
were able to distinguish advertising from regular media content, and almost 70% of the children could correctly
identify that the video was advertising. No differences were found between the two media. Children were not
skeptical toward the video advertisement. With regard to ad effects, the results show low brand and product
recall, whereas aided recall was higher (around 40% of the children could correctly recognize the product and
brand shown in the advertisement). These findings suggest that 4–5-year-old children already have a proper
understanding of advertising, but lack a critical attitude. Furthermore, children’s advertising literacy does not
vary between YouTube and television advertising.

Keywords: advertising literacy, preschool children, theory-of-mind, YouTube, advertising processing

Introduction literacy.9 The limited literature available on preschool chil-

P reschool children’s (aged 3–5 years) media con-
sumption has heavily shifted from traditional TV view-
ing to digital media use. Watching YouTube videos, such
as cartoons, nursery rhymes, or toy unboxing videos (in
which children unpack toys), has become an important lei-
sure activity for this age group.1,2 On YouTube, children
come across a variety of advertisements that are shown prior
(i.e., pre-roll advertisements) or during videos (i.e., mid-roll
advertisements). Even on the YouTube Kids app, especially
designed for children, advertising messages are shown.3 Al-
though research confirms the impact of advertising on pre-
school children’s attitude and behavior,4,5 limited research is
available on their advertising literacy.6
Advertising literacy refers to an individual’s knowledge
and skills related to advertising.7 Previous research assumed
that children only gain advertising literacy skills after 5 years
of age.8 Nevertheless, some researchers acknowledge that
even preschoolers may have a primitive level of advertising
1
Department of Communication Sciences, Research Group Center for Persuasive Communication (CEPEC), Ghent University,
Ghent, Belgium.
2
Department of Marketing, Ghent University, Ghent Belgium.
3
Department of Communication Sciences, Research Group for Media, Innovation and Communication Technologies (imec-mict), Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium.
dren, however, mostly focuses on traditional TV advertis-
ing.5,10–12 Most of these studies rely on parents’ perceptions
of how their children respond to advertising. Research that
examines preschool children’s responses to advertising on
digital media and the role that advertising literacy plays in
this matter is scarce.9 The present study aims to examine
whether preschool children respond differently to video ad-
vertising (a 20-second toy commercial) when displayed on
TV versus YouTube. The viewing experience on digital me-
dia differs from traditional TV viewing.13 While TV viewers
look at a (large) screen from a distance, YouTube is mostly
watched on smaller, hand-held devices, which may affect
(children’s) advertising processing. Accordingly, this study
examines whether children’s advertising literacy varies by
format (YouTube versus television viewing), as well as ex-
plores the effects that video advertising may have on them
in terms of product and brand recall. This work focuses on
preschool children aged 4–5 years and takes their theory of
mind (ToM) into account when examining their responses.

1
 2 VANWESENBEECK ET AL.
ToM refers to the ability to think about the thoughts and
feelings of other people and is an important developmental
skill to be able to understand advertising.14
Theoretical Framework
The processing of commercialized media content model
states that a commercial message will only be thoroughly
elaborated when both the ability and the motivation to pro-
cess the message are high.15 As preschool children have
limited critical thinking skills, they are more likely to process
advertising messages automatically. Furthermore, preschool-
ers are at the beginning of their consumer socialization, in
which they acquire the skills, knowledge, and attitude needed
to function as consumers.16 One of these skills learned
through socialization is advertising literacy.7 Researchers
differentiate between conceptual and attitudinal advertising
literacy.17 The former refers to the ability to recognize and
understand advertising messages.18 This suggests that a per-
Downloaded by Lulea Univ Biblioteket from www.liebertpub.com at 04/30/20. For personal use only.
son understands that advertising is trying to sell something
(i.e., the selling intent) and to change an attitude (i.e., the
persuasive intent). The latter refers to having a critical atti-
tude toward advertising or ad skepticism.17
Ability to identify commercial content
The first step in critically coping with advertising is
awareness that one is being exposed to advertising.7 This
skill encompasses the ability to differentiate commercial
content from regular media content19 and to identify the
commercial content as advertising. To do so, children often
rely on perceptual features (e.g., jingles and advertising
disclosures). In addition, they need to be able to recognize
this different content as advertising. Before the age of five,
children are assumed not to be able to discern advertising
as different from regular content, and they instead see it as
entertainment.20 Around 5 years of age, children start to
develop this skill. However, previous research has shown
that children have difficulties discerning online advertising
from TV advertising.21 We therefore formulate the following
research question (RQ):
RQ1a: Is there a difference in the ability to discern com-
mercial content from media content between children who
see a commercial on TV and children who see a commercial
on YouTube?
RQ1b: Is there a difference in the ability to recognize
advertising between children who see a commercial on TV
and children who see a commercial on YouTube?
Advertising understanding
To critically reflect on advertising, children need to under-
stand the advertising intent. Around the age of seven, chil-
dren are assumed to gain this insight.8 However, researchers
have acknowledged the importance of looking at other de-
velopmental variables besides age.6,22 The most notable one
is the ToM skill, which develops somewhere between the
ages of three and five. Children who have this skill can un-
derstand the mental states of others and predict others’ future
behavior.6 Understanding one another’s thoughts is assumed
to be a vital ability for conceptual advertising literacy; a child
should be able to assess that advertisers want to sell their
products, thus identifying advertiser’ intent.6 Consequently,
children with ToM skills may already possess some level
of advertising literacy even before the age of five.6 Empiri-
cal research on traditional TV advertising has shown that
preschool children can possess advertising literacy skills,
although not advanced.6 Basing on these insights, we for-
mulate the following RQ:
RQ2: Is there a difference in advertising understanding
between children who see a commercial on TV and children
who see a commercial on YouTube?
RQ3: Is there an association between children’s ToM
skills and their conceptual advertising literacy skills?
Attitudinal advertising literacy
Being knowledgeable about advertising does not entail
that one is also skeptical.23 Following cognitive development
theory, researchers assume that attitudinal advertising lit-
eracy increases with age.8,23 To the best of our knowledge,
no studies on attitudinal advertising literacy and YouTube
advertising among preschool children have been conducted.
Among adults, YouTube advertising is associated with a
higher sense of annoyance24 and is considered more intru-
sive.25 This may be explained by the difference in screen
size. A greater screen size is associated with a higher feeling
of presence (i.e., being there in the media environment),26
which, in turn, leads to more positive emotions.13 Following
the above, we formulate the following RQ:
RQ4: Is there a difference in attitudinal advertising lit-
eracy between children who see a commercial on TV and
children who see a commercial on YouTube?
Advertising effects
More research is available concerning advertising effects
on preschool children, such as product and brand memory
(i.e., unaided and aided product or brand recall).14,27 Un-
aided brand or product recall refers to being able to name a
brand or product after being exposed to its advertising mes-
sage, whereas aided brand or product recall refers to being
able to choose the correct brand or product from a list.27 In
empirical research, children younger than the age of seven
generally score low on unaided recall, whereas children from
3 years of age may already be able to identify the correct
product or brand they see from a list.27 This skill increases
with age and is dependent on the type of brand involved.
Preschool children more easily remember food brands or
brands marketed at children.14
Empirical insights into how advertising effects differ be-
tween YouTube and TV are limited, even among adults.13
One recent study on adults investigating the difference in
viewing experience on YouTube and TV established no
differences in brand memory between both formats.13 In the
present study, we focus on preschool children, resulting in
the following RQ:
RQ5: Is there a difference in product and brand memory
between children who see a commercial on TV and children
who see a commercial on YouTube?
Method
A between-subject single-factor design (format: TV vs.
YouTube commercial) was used, in which each child was ex-
posed to one condition. This allowed us to examine how the
 HOW PRESCHOOLERS PROCESS YOUTUBE AND TV ADS
Downloaded by Lulea Univ Biblioteket from www.liebertpub.com at 04/30/20. For personal use only.
children respond to the same video advertisement (a 20-
second pre-roll ad), either on a TV screen or on a tablet in the
YouTube app. The respondents were asked to watch a five-
minute episode of a children’s program (Bobo), either on TV
(Fig. 1) or on a tablet (Fig. 2). Before the episode, a com-
mercial for a toy (drawing machine) was shown. The com-
mercial was an existing ad shown in the country where the
study was conducted and depicted an existing, yet, fairly
unknown brand (Dessineoª).
Each experiment was conducted individually at prepara-
tory school. Each participant was asked by his/her teacher to
follow the researcher to a separate classroom. Thereafter, the
respondent was randomly assigned to one of the experi-
mental groups by the researcher. In the TV condition, the
children were asked to watch the episode on a big screen. In
the YouTube condition, the children were handed a tablet
device showing a YouTube mock-up page. This mock-up,
developed for research purposes, has the look and feel of
YouTube and serves as an environment where the research-
ers control the viewing experience. The commercial was
disclosed, as prescribed by European regulation (Consumer
Rights Directive COM/2018/0183, EUR-Lex, 2018)28 and
done in practice in the country of the study. Specifically, a
visual disclosure containing the word ‘‘advertising’’ was dis-
played before the TV commercial and during the YouTube
commercial (Fig. 3). Afterward, the researcher asked the
3
FIG. 1. YouTube
condition.
participants questions regarding the commercial using a
structured questionnaire. The researcher read each question
aloud and entered the responses into a survey (using Qual-
trics software). Afterward, all participants received a small
incentive (a bread box).
Participants
The data were gathered from 62 preschool children (4–5
years of age; 53% boys and 47% girls) recruited from four
preparatory schools. Before the data collection, school
principals and teachers were asked for permission, and active
parental consent was also obtained. All children were in-
formed that they could end their participation at any given
time. This study was approved by the university’s Ethics
Committee (blind review).
Measurements
The questionnaire (Table 1) consisted of age-appropriate
answering options, with four-item smiley scales12 and color
codes (green for yes, red for no).29 The answering options
were practiced before the survey, and assisted children with
limited verbal skills.
Content differentiation. The extent to which the children
were able to identify that the advertising was different from
FIG. 2. Television
condition.
 4 VANWESENBEECK ET AL.

know why there was a clip of a drawing machine shown

before Bobo?’’). The answers were coded into a dichotomous
variable (correct/incorrect). Answers referencing to the
selling or persuasive intent were marked correct. Next, two
closed items measured the children’s understanding of the
selling and persuasive intent. A yes/no color code was used
to indicate the children’s answer.

FIG. 3. Television condition.
regular content was measured using the item ‘‘Was this clip a
part of the episode of Bobo?’’ Advertising recognition was
measured using the item ‘‘Do you think this clip was ad-
vertising?’’ A yes/no color code was used to indicate the
children’s answer.
Unaided and aided product and brand recall. Brand and
Downloaded by Lulea Univ Biblioteket from www.liebertpub.com at 04/30/20. For personal use only.
Attitudinal advertising literacy. Two items assessed ad-
vertising liking and advertising annoyance. The respondents
were asked to answer on a four-point smiley scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly dislike) to 4 (strongly like).
ToM skills. Three false-belief tasks measured ToM
skills30,31 (Appendix A1). A child’s total score ranged from 0
to 6, with high scores referring to a high ToM (M = 2.4,
SD = 2.1).

product recall were measured using an open question (‘‘Do

Results
you remember seeing a brand/product?’’). Before each
question, the researcher explained the words product and Advertising literacy
brand. Aided recall was measured using a list with three
Regarding content differentiation (RQ1a), 42% of the
other brands/products. Both variables were recoded into a
children were able to discern the commercial content, with
dichotomous variable (correct/incorrect).
no significant differences between TV (35%) and YouTube
(48%), z = -1.04, n.s. Overall, 69% indicated that the com-
Advertising understanding. Before the following ques-
mercial they saw was advertising (RQ1b), with no signifi-
tions, the children were shown the advertised drawing ma-
cant differences between TV (71%) and YouTube (68%),
chine, with the researcher explaining that there was a clip of
z = -0.27, n.s.
a drawing machine before the episode. Advertising under-
Concerning the understanding of advertising (RQ2), only
standing was measured using an open question (i.e., ‘‘Do you
two respondents (3%) were able to respond to the open
question on why the advertisement was integrated. Both re-
Table 1. Construct Overview spondents referred to the selling intent of the advertising
(i.e., that you can buy the product in a shop). In the two
Variable Range
closed questions, most respondents showed a good ad-
Content differentiation vertising understanding. Seventy-six percent were able to
Was this clip a part of the episode of ‘‘Bobo’’? 0–1 correctly identify the selling intent, with no significant dif-
Advertising recognition ferences between TV (68%) and YouTube (84%), z = 1.47,
Do you think this clip was advertising? 0–1 n.s. Furthermore, 86% of the respondents were able to cor-
Product recall rectly identify the persuasive intent, with no significant
Do you remember seeing a product? (unaided) 0–1 differences between TV (84%) and YouTube (87%),
Do you remember having seen one of the items 0–1 z = -0.33, n.s.
below? (aided) Four logistic regression analyses were performed (con-
Brand recall tent differentiation, advertising recognition, understanding
Do you remember seeing a brand? (unaided) 0–1 selling, and persuasive intent were added as dependent var-
Do you remember having seen one of the items 0–1 iables) with the experimental condition, ToM, and their in-
below? (aided) teraction entered as the independent variables to take into
Understanding advertising account the children’s ToM skills with regard to their con-
Do you know why there was a clip of a drawing 0–1 ceptual advertising literacy skills (RQ3). No significant
machine shown before Bobo? effects on neither of the dependent variables were found
Do you think that this clip makes you want to 0–1 (Tables 2–5).
have the drawing machine?
Do you think that this clip wants you to like the 0–1 Table 2. Summary of Binary Logistic Regression
drawing machine? Predicting Content Differentiation (N = 62)
Skeptical attitude toward advertising
How much did you like that clip? 1–4 Variable B S.E Exp(B)
How much did this clip annoy you? 1–4 Condition -0.09 0.79 0.91
ToM skills ToM -0.38 0.23 0.69
Sally and Anne task 0–2 ToM · Condition 0.33 0.28 1.39
Red and blue box story 0–2
Pencil task 0–2 The model explained 9.4% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in
content differentiation, but was not found significant v2(3) = 4.68,
ToM, theory of mind. p = ns.
 HOW PRESCHOOLERS PROCESS YOUTUBE AND TV ADS
Table 3. Summary of Binary Logistic Regression
Predicting Advertising Recognition (N = 62)
Variable B S.E Exp(B)
Condition 0.73 0.83 2.07
ToM 0.43 0.26 1.53
ToM · Condition 0.46 0.31 0.63
The model explained 7.9% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in
advertising recognition, but was not found significant v2(3) = 3.59,
p = ns.
Further, the analyses showed a rather low attitudinal ad-
vertising literacy (RQ4), with all participants having a rather
positive attitude toward the advertisement. The children re-
ported a high liking of the advertisement (M = 3.81, SD =
0.38) and were not annoyed by it (M = 3.06, SD = 1.02). In-
dependent samples t-tests revealed no significant differences
in ad liking between YouTube (M = 3.77) and TV (M = 3.87;
Downloaded by Lulea Univ Biblioteket from www.liebertpub.com at 04/30/20. For personal use only.
t(60) = -989, n.s.), nor in ad annoyance (MYouTube = 3.06;
MTV = 3.06; t(60) = 0.00, n.s.). No significant difference
was found with regard to ad liking (t(60) = -1.69, p = n.s.)
between the children who recognized the commercial as
advertising (M = 3.86) and those who did not (M = 3.74).
Similarly, no difference in ad annoyance was found between
the children who recognized the advertisements (M = 3.02)
and those who did not (M = 3.16; t(60) = -0.475, n.s.).
Advertising effects
Regarding unaided product and brand recall (RQ5), only
three children (5%) correctly recalled the toy, and none of
them was able to name the brand. As expected, aided brand
and product recall were higher: 37% of the children were
able to recall the brand correctly from a list, and 37% were
able to recall the product. Although a higher number of re-
spondents in the TV condition (42%) were able to recognize
the brand compared with the respondents in the YouTube
condition (32%), no significant difference was found be-
tween both conditions, z = -0.82, n.s. In addition, no sig-
nificant differences were found between TV (36%) and
YouTube (39%) with regard to aided product recall,
z = 0.244, n.s.
Association between advertising literacy
and advertising effects
Concerning conceptual advertising literacy, a significant
effect was found between advertising recognition and aided
product recall, z = 2.25, p < 0.05. Whereas 47% of the chil-
dren with high advertising recognition were able to recognize
Table 4. Summary of Binary Logistic Regression
Predicting Understanding Selling Intent (N = 62)
Variable B S.E Exp(B)
Condition 0.92 0.31 2.51
ToM 0.12 0.20 1.13
ToM · Condition 0.02 0.30 0.98
The model explained 6.6% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in
understanding selling intent, but was not found significant
v2(3) = 2.80, p = ns.
5
Table 5. Summary of Binary Logistic Regression
Predicting Understanding Persuasive
Intent (N = 62)
Variable B S.E Exp(B)
Condition 0.43 0.99 1.53
ToM 0.38 0.32 1.46
ToM · Condition -0.16 0.43 0.86
The model explained 7.2% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in
understanding persuasive intent, but was not found significant
v2(3) = 2.58, p = ns.
the product, only 16% of the children with low advertising
recognition were able to do so. The same association was
found with regard to aided brand recall: 46% of the children
with high advertising recognition recognized the brand
correctly compared with only 17% of the children with low
advertising recognition (z = 2.25, p < 0.05). No significant
associations were found between content differentiation and
aided product (z = 0.26, n.s.) and brand recall (z = 1.39, n.s.).
Attitudinal advertising literacy was not significantly re-
lated to advertising effects; point-biserial correlation analy-
ses showed that ad liking was not related to aided product
recall (rpb = 0.08, n.s.) nor to aided brand recall (rpb = 0.02,
n.s.), and neither was ad annoyance related to aided product
recall (rpb = 0.15, n.s.) nor to aided brand recall (rpb = 0.05,
n.s.).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate whether chil-
dren process advertising differently when it is displayed on
YouTube versus on TV. In contrast to a previous finding that
the different viewing experiences on YouTube and TV lead
to differences in advertising processing among adults,13 our
study could not confirm this for preschool children. Fur-
thermore, although consumer socialization researchers often
assume that preschool children lack advertising literacy
skills,8 our study found that preschool children are fairly able
to recognize advertising and to understand its intent. This
supports the assumption of ToM researchers that children
aged 4–5 years have some advertising literacy skills.6 Still,
we did not find any association between having ToM skills
and advertising literacy skills. However, our respondents
scored fairly low on their ToM skills, so future studies should
further investigate this finding by also including older chil-
dren who are likely to score higher on ToM skills.
Remarkably, although almost 70% of the children con-
firmed that the commercial was advertising, over 60% still
thought that it was a part of the regular content. Combined
with the finding that preschool children do have some level
of advertising understanding, our findings challenge the as-
sumption that one should first be able to discern an adver-
tisement before being able to understand its intent. One
plausible explanation may be that these children, due to their
frequent exposure to embedded advertising, are accustomed
to see advertising content being integrated into regular me-
dia content. This would suggest that for this generation, the
boundaries between entertainment and advertising are even
further fading away. Still, future research should investigate
this statement more in-depth.
 6 VANWESENBEECK ET AL.
Our study further showed that the preschool children
scored low on attitudinal advertising literacy, as most of
them scored high on advertising liking and low on ad-
vertising annoyance. This implies that preschool children
are not able to critically process advertising. Furthermore,
in contrast to previous findings among adults,25 the chil-
dren did not differ in their critical assessment of YouTube
and TV advertising. In accordance with previous findings
on children’s brand memory,27 the children in our study
also scored low on unaided brand and product recall,
which suggests that they did not spontaneously remember
the brand and/or product. Their aided brand and product
recall scores were slightly higher. These findings indicate
that both TV and YouTube advertising lead to low mem-
ory effects among preschool children. The brand used in
this study was an existing brand. Future research should
therefore also include nonexisting brands or well-known
brands. They could likewise focus on more embedded
Downloaded by Lulea Univ Biblioteket from www.liebertpub.com at 04/30/20. For personal use only.
advertising strategies, such as influencer marketing (i.e.,
toys being shown in a toy unboxing video).
Despite careful preparation, this study has its limitations.
First, we opted to focus on pre-roll advertisements instead
of mid-roll ones. Future research on children’s processing
of YouTube advertising should investigate whether the
timing of showing an ad (prior or during) affects advertising
processing. For instance, it could be that mid-roll adver-
tisements cause a higher level of annoyance, as they in-
terrupt the media content. Second, we did not assess the
effectiveness of the disclosure label. In our stimulus ma-
terial, we added a visual disclosure cue in both formats,
which is in line with current regulations in Belgium (i.e.,
the study where the study was conducted). However, not
every country requires the inclusion of a disclosure cue. As
such, the usage of a disclosure cue in this study may have
positively affected children’s ability to recognize adver-
tising. Further research investigating how a disclosure cue
can assist preschool children in recognizing advertising on
YouTube would be relevant. For instance, future studies
could investigate whether an auditory disclosure cue is
more effective among preschool children than currently
used visual cues are.
Our research was the first of a series of studies on pre-
school children and YouTube advertising. The next steps in
this research field will entail studies comparing preschool
children with primary school children, as well as including
more embedded advertising formats, such as influencer mar-
keting. Most importantly, our study suggests that the current
theoretical framework on children’s advertising literacy
should also include insights into preschool children, a target
group often ignored in contemporary research.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Funding Information
The first author was supported by the research grant from
the Ghent University Special Research fund (grant number
01J04519). The second author has the title of postdoctoral
fellow fundamental research of the FWO (grant number
FWO.3.E0.2015.0035.01).
References
1. Tan L, Ng SH, Omar A, et al. What’s on YouTube? A case
study on food and beverage advertising in videos targeted
at children on social media. Childhood Obesity 2018; 14:
280–290.
2. Ciboci L, Osmančević L. Preschool Children and Media.
The International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy 2019; 2:
1–4.
3. Burroughs B. YouTube Kids: the App Economy and
Mobile Parenting. Social Media + Society 2017; 3:
2056305117707189.
4. Henry HKM, Borzekowski DLG. The Nag Factor. Journal
of Children and Media 2011; 5:298–317.
5. Emond JA, Longacre MR, Drake KM, et al. Exposure to
child-directed TV advertising and preschooler’ intake of
advertised cereals. American Journal of Preventive Medi-
cine 2019; 56:e35–e43.
6. McAlister AR, Cornwell TB. Preschool children’s persua-
sion knowledge: the contribution of theory of mind. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing 2009; 28:175–185.
7. Hudders L, De Pauw P, Cauberghe V, et al. Shedding new
light on how advertising literacy can affect children’s
processing of embedded advertising formats: a future re-
search agenda. Journal of Advertising 2017; 46:333–349.
8. John DR. Consumer socialization of children: a retrospec-
tive look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Con-
sumer Research 1999; 26:183–213.
9. Nelson MR, Atkinson L, Rademacher MA, et al. How
media and family build children’s persuasion knowledge.
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 2017;
38:165–183.
10. Harris JL, Kalnova SS. Food and beverage TV advertising
to young children: measuring exposure and potential im-
pact. Appetite 2018; 123:49–55.
11. Watkins L, Aitken R, Robertson K, Thyne M. Public and
parental perceptions of and concerns with advertising to
preschool children. International Journal of Consumer
Studies 2016; 40:592–600.
12. Beaufort M. How candy placements in films influence
children’s selection behavior in real-life shopping scenar-
ios–an Austrian experimental field study. Journal of Chil-
dren and Media 2019; 13:53–72.
13. Weibel D, di Francesco R, Kopf R, et al. TV vs. YouTube:
TV Advertisements capture more visual attention, create
more positive emotions and have a stronger impact on
implicit long-term memory. Frontiers in Psychology 2019;
10:626..
14. McAlister AR, Cornwell TB. Children’s brand symbol-
ism understanding: links to theory of mind and execu-
tive functioning. Psychology & Marketing 2010; 27:
203–228.
15. Buijzen M, Van Reijmersdal EA, Owen LH. Introducing
the PCMC model: an investigative framework for young
people’s processing of commercialized media content.
Communication Theory 2010; 20:427–450.
16. Ward S. Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer
Research 1974; 1:1–14.
17. Rozendaal E, Lapierre MA, Van Reijmersdal EA, et al.
Reconsidering advertising literacy as a defense against
advertising effects. Media Psychology 2011; 14:333–354.
18. Rozendaal E, Opree SJ, Buijzen M. Development and
validation of a survey instrument to measure children’s
advertising literacy. Media Psychology 2016; 19:72–
100.
 HOW PRESCHOOLERS PROCESS YOUTUBE AND TV ADS
19. Robertson TS, Rossiter JR. Children and commercial per-
suasion: an attribution theory analysis. Journal of Con-
sumer Research 1974; 1:13–20.
20. Livingstone S, Helsper EJ. Does advertising literacy me-
diate the effects of advertising on children? A critical
examination of two linked research literatures in relation to
obesity and food choice. Journal of Communication 2006;
56:560–584.
21. Owen L, Lewis C, Auty S, et al. Is children’s understanding
of nontraditional advertising comparable to their under-
standing of television advertising? Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing 2013; 32:195–206.
22. Moses LJ, Baldwin DA. What can the study of cognitive
development reveal about children’s ability to appreciate
and cope with advertising? Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing 2005; 24:186–201.
23. Chu MT, Blades M, Herbert J. (2014) The Development of
children’s scepticism about advertising. In: Blades M,
Oates C, Blumberg F, Gunter B, eds. Advertising to Chil-
Downloaded by Lulea Univ Biblioteket from www.liebertpub.com at 04/30/20. For personal use only.
dren. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 38–49.
24. Campbell C, Mattison Thompson F, Grimm PE, et al.
Understanding why consumers don’t skip pre-roll video
ads. Journal of Advertising 2017; 46:411–423.
25. Logan K. And now a word from our sponsor: do consumers
perceive advertising on traditional television and online
streaming video differently? Journal of Marketing Com-
munications 2013; 19:258–276.
26. Hou J, Nam Y, Peng W, et al. Effects of screen size,
viewing angle, and player’ immersion tendencies on game
experience. Computers in Human Behavior 2012; 28:
617–623.
Appendix A1
False-Belief Tasks
Sally and Anne task
In the Sally and Anne task,A1,A2 the children were shown a
series of pictures, in which Sally puts a marble in her basket.
On the pictures, it was shown that, after Sally leaves the
room, Anne puts the marble in Anne’s box. Following the
story, the children were presented with the test question:
‘‘Now Sally comes back in the room. Where will Sally look
for her marble?’’ The children showed theory of mind skills
if they could indicate that Sally would look for the marble in
her basket. Thereafter, two additional control questions were
asked: ‘‘Where is the marble really?’’ and ‘‘Where was the
marble first?’’
Rex and blue box story
The red and blue box storyA2 had the same as the Sally and
Anne story, but was acted out by the interviewer, using two
boy dolls (Felix and Jerom), a red and blue box and a cookie.
After the story, the children were again presented with the
test question: ‘‘Now Felix comes back in the room. Where
will Felix look for his cookie?’’ followed by the two control
questions: ‘‘Where was the cookie first?’’ and ‘‘Where is the
cookie now?’’
7
27. Valkenburg PM, Buijzen M. Identifying determinants of
young children’s brand awareness: television, parents, and
peers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2005;
26:456–468.
28. EUR-Lex. A New Deal for Consumers 2018. https://ec
.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_3041
(accessed April 14, 2020).
29. Vanwesenbeeck I, Opree SJ, Smits T. (2017) Can disclo-
sures aid children’s recognition of TV and website adver-
tising? In: Zabkar V, Eisend M, eds. Advances in
advertising research VIII. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer
Gabler, pp. 45–57.
30. Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U. Does the autistic child
have a ‘‘theory of mind’’? Cognition 1985; 21:37–46.
31. Farhadian M, Abdullah R, Mansor M, et al. Theory of
mind, birth order, and siblings among preschool children.
American Journal of Scientific Research 2010; 7:25–35.
Address correspondence to:
Dr. Ini Vanwesenbeeck
Department of Communication Sciences
Research Group Center for Persuasive
Communication (CEPEC)
Ghent University
Korte Meer 11
Ghent 9000
Belgium
E-mail: ini.vanwesenbeeck@ugent.be
Pencil task
In the pencil task,A1 the children were shown a pencil
container and were asked what they thought was in the
container (‘‘pencils’’). The children then were shown that
stickers were inside the container (instead of pencils). After
putting the stickers back, the interviewer asked the following
memory question: ‘‘What do you think is in the container
now?’’ Afterward, two test questions were asked: ‘‘What did
you first think that was in the container’’ and ‘‘If your best
friend enters, what will he/she think that is in the box?.’’
Appendix References
A1. Weibel D, di Francesco R, Kopf R, et al. TV vs. YouTube:
TV advertisements capture more visual attention, create
more positive emotions and have a stronger impact on
implicit long-term memory. Frontiers in Psychology 2019;
10:626.
A2. Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U. Does the autistic child
have a ‘‘theory of mind’’? Cognition 1985; 21:37–46.
A3. Farhadian M, Abdullah R, Mansor M, et al. Theory of
mind, birth order, and siblings among preschool chil-
dren. American Journal of Scientific Research 2010; 7:
25–35.