!
Food Portrayals in Children Television Programs: The Difference Between Programs Broadcast on Public and a Commercial Network in The Netherlands
Naomi R. Abigail Garfinkel 10198156
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science
Sindy Sumter 03-02-2017
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !2 Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the nutritional content of foods depicted in children’s entertainment television (CETV) programs aimed at children aged 6 to 12 years shown on a public and commercial network in the Netherlands. Four episodes of twelve programs, in the genre
fictional, situational comedies or dramas (N=52) were rated, totalling 10 hours and 17 minutes. The aim of the study was two fold; the first aim was to map the nutritional content of CETV programs, and the second aim was methodological, i.e. comparing two methods of coding. The method of Radnitz et al. (2009) and Olafsdottir and Berg (2016) were compared. The Olafsdottir Method is recommended as it is more objective and provides more detailed information. The current study showed that for one hour of children’s programming, on average 7.3 times a food is portrayed. For the Radnitz Method the following results were found: on average half of the food portrayed in CETV programs are considered to be unhealthy, and the public network significantly shows more unhealthy foods (67%) than the commercial network (44%). According to the Olafsdottir Method, 27% of food portrayals are fruit and vegetables (considered healthy) and 25% high-calorie low-nutrient (HCLN) foods (considered unhealthy). No significant difference between the public and commercial network was found in the amount of fruit and vegetables and HCLN foods. More than a quarter of the foods (27%) shown on CETV programs are consumed by characters, and significantly more HCLN foods than fruit and vegetables are consumed on the commercial network. The two methods lead to
different outcomes in the prevalence of unhealthy food and consumption by characters. Based on the findings of this study, future research should look at the effects of unhealthy food portrayals on children.
Food Portrayals in Children Television Programs: The Difference Between Programs Broadcasted on a Public and Commercial Network in The Netherlands
What do children learn about nutrition from television programs? Research has looked into violent, or sexual content in children’s entertainment media (e.g. Ward, 1995; Anderson & Bushman, 2002), but few studies have looked at the foods depicted in children’s television programs, even though the World Health Organisation called childhood obesity “one of the most serious public health challenges of the 21st century” (http://www.who.int). In search for possible explanations for the world-wide obesity trend, research has looked at the possible influence of television viewing. Those studies have shown that there is a positive association between television viewing and obesity in children and adolescents (Dietz & Gortmaker, 1985; Boone, Gorden-Larsen, Adair, & Popkin, 2007; Henderson, 2007). Moreover, other studies showed that children’s television viewing is associated with unhealthier perceptions of nutrition and leads to unhealthier eating behaviours (Signorielli & Staples, 1997; Dixon, Scully, Wakefield, White, & Crawford, 2007; Harrison, 2005; Harris & Bargh, 2009).
This study will look at the foods portrayed in children’s entertainment programs on Dutch television, since food advertising directed at children under 13 years old is not permitted
(Reclamecode voor Voedingsmiddelen, 2015). Previous studies from the United States have shown food references are pervasive in children’s entertainment programming and that more unhealthy than healthy foods are shown, especially in children’s compared to adult television programming (e.g. Byrd-Bredbenner, Grasso, & Finckenor, 2001; Greenberg, Rosean, Worrell, Salmon, & Volkman, 2009; Radnitz, Byrne, Goldman, Sparks, Gantshar, & Tung, 2009). As children learn from observing the people around them and learn social norms (Bandura, 1986), foods depicted in entertainment media might play a role in reinforcing and normalising unhealthy eating behaviour.
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !4 It is important to look at how children develop their food preferences and acquire nutritional knowledge, since this has a long-lasting effect on their diet (Harris & Bargh, 2009) and food
preferences established in childhood and adolescence are likely to persist into adulthood (Mikkilä, Räsänen, Raitakari, Pietinen, & Viikari, 2004). Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine the nature and extent of verbal and visual appearance of foods shown in children’s programs on Dutch television, employing a content analysis to analyse the frequency and type of foods shown, and comparing programs on a public funded and commercial network. First, a theoretical background will be provided in order to understand how children may acquire nutritional knowledge from entertainment programs, which explains why it is important to not only look at food advertising but also media entertainment. Second, we will review the existing literature on food portrayals in children’s entertainment television (CETV) programs as it provides important insights, namely that food portrayals are pervasive in CETV programs. However, there are also several gaps that remain to be filled; the studies are outdated as the most recent data is from 2011 (Olafsdottir & Berg, 2016), non-representative of the viewing behaviour of children aged 6-12 years old, and no previous study has been conducted in the Netherlands. This study aims to fills these gaps in the current literature. Television characters as role models
According to the Social Cognitive Theory, people learn and model behaviour based on observing others and learn social norms from both positive and negative role models on television (Bandura, 1986). Children learn food preferences by observing the food behaviours of the people around them such as their parents and peers (Patrick & Nicklas, 2005), a process which is called Social Modelling (Birch & Davidson, 2001). For example, parents can encourage their child to eat disliked vegetables (Holley, Haycraft, & Farrow, 2015). And children can overcome their fear of unknown foods by watching peers eat the particular food (Laureati, Bergamaschi, & Pagliarini, 2014). Moreover, children use others’ food intake as a guideline for their own intake, and positive
and negative emotions especially lead children to adjustment their food intake to a peer (Bevelander, Meiselman, Anschütz, & Engels, 2013).
Just as children look at parents and peers eating behaviours, television characters in children’s programs may teach viewers certain behaviour as well (Bandura, 2001). When children frequently see a television character, the viewer can start to share the characters’ perspective and participate in the experiences of the television character, a process called para-social relationship (Feilitzen & Linne, 1975). This process can stimulate children to copy the behaviour of television characters, especially those of their favourite programs. Children can also develop a
wishful-identification with a television characters, which is the desire to be like and behave similar to that of the television character, and consider them to be role models and pseudo-friends (Feilitzen & Linne, 1975; Hoffner & Cantor, 199; Giles, 2002). The wishful-identification of para-social relationships that children form with television characters mediates Bandura’s socialisation process (1986) which states that people learn by observing other people’s behaviour. Therefore, this study looks at the foods portrayed on CETV programs rather than advertising where para-social relationships are less expected. And as children model the behaviour of television characters, this study looks not only at the presence of food, but also looks at the food consumption by characters, since these are both part of the embedded messages in television programs.
Embedded messages in entertainment programming
Since the 1980s there has been some concern about indirect health messages embedded into entertainment programs and scholars noted that more attention should be given to embedded messages in entertainment programming (Hamburg & Pierce,1982) since they are “the most pervasive sources of information on health” (Gerbner, et al., 1982, p. 298). Since then, fourteen studies have looked at food references in television programming, in chronological order; Kaufman, 1980; Way, 1983; Gerbner, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1982; Story & Faulkner, 1990; Larson, 1991;
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !6
Byrd-Bredbenner, Grasso, & Finckenor, 2001*; Korr, 2008; Greenberg, Rosean, Worrell, Salmon, & Volkman, 2009*; Radnitz, et al., 2009*; Speers, Harris, & Schwartz, 2011; Roseman, Poor, & Stepherson, 2014; Scully, Reid, Macken, Healy, & Saunders, 2015*; Eisenberg, Larson, Gollust, & Neumark-Sztainer; 2016*; Olafsdottir, & Berg, 2016*. The six studies that looked at food portrayals in children’s television programs are indicated with an asterisk (*). These studies have provided three important insights, namely that: 1) food portrayals are pervasive in children’s television programs, 2) unhealthy foods are more prevalent than healthy foods, and 3) food portrayals differ between genres and the target age of the program. Each insight will be shortly illustrated.
The first important insight is that food portrayals are pervasive in children’s television programs, and has been for the last 15 years, with the number of food portrayals per hour ranging between 14.3 and 31.2 (see Table 1 for an overview) At least one food portrayal was found in 92% of episodes (Eisenberg, et al., 2016). From 1980 to 1990 the average number of food portrayals
occurred per hour ranged between 4.9 and 9.8 (see Table 1 for an overview). Many of these studies also included beverages, explaining why the range of food portrayals is large. Not all the studies mentioned the number of food portrayals per hour, thus based on the number of portrayals mentioned in the text and the total programming time mentioned in the study, these were calculated. If a study provided the number of food portrayals per half hour, this has been recalculated in order to compare the results. In some cases, the information could not be standardised because the authors provided information that reflected food portrayals per scene rather than per hour (i.e., Roseman, Poor & Stepherson, 2014; Olafsdottir & Berg, 2016).
The second important insight from previous studies on food portrayals is that unhealthy foods were more prevalent than healthy foods in children’s television programs, with the number of
*NCBR = Nutrient–calorie benefit ratio **age specifications were not described in the study Frequency of food references in television programs in order of year of publication
Author Year Publication Year Data Portrayal /Hour Program Type (age) % of Unhealthy Foods Nutritional Standard Food (F)/ Beverage (B) Country
Kaufman 1980 1977 4.9 Adult 72% NCBR* F&B USA
Way 1983 1980/81 7.67 Adult 50% NCBR* F&B USA
Story & Faulkner 1990 1988 9.8 Adult 60% NCBR* F&B USA
Byrd-Bredbenner, Grasso, & Finckenor
2001 1998 17.0 Children (2-11) 43% USDA Food
Pyramid
F&B USA
Greenberg et al. 2009 2003 15.4 Children (2-11) & Tweens (9-14)
35% USDA Food
Pyramid
F&B USA
Radnitz et al. 2009 2005/08 16.0 Children (1-4) 45% Self-developed F USA
Speers et al. 2011 2008 - - - - F&B USA
Roseman, Poor, & Stepherson*
2014 2007 16.6 Tweens (11-14) 42% USDA MyPlate F&B USA
Scully et al. 2015 2010 14.3 Children ** 48% Food Pyramid F&B UK/
Ireland
Eisenberg et al. 2016 2010 - Adolescents
(12-16)
- - F&B USA
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !8 The two studies that looked at CETV programs on US (Radnitz, et al., 2009) and UK/Irish public networks (Scully, et al., 2014) found that unhealthy foods make up almost half of all food portrayals. The only study that found twice as much ‘healthy’ foods ( 39% fruit and vegetables) as ‘unhealthy’ foods (19% high-calorie low-nutrient foods) is a recent study investigating CETV programs on Swedish public network (Olafsdottir & Berg, 2016).
The third insight from previous studies is that food portrayals differ between genres and target age of the program. Animated television programs have the greatest percentage of unhealthy foods, with 68 percent of all food occurrences classified as unhealthy, compared to the quiz genre, where unhealthy foods made up 16 percent of the food portrayals (Scully, et al., 2015). As the target age of the program went up, the number of food portrayals went down: children television programs had on average 6.1 portrayals per hour, tweens had 5.0 portrayals per hour, and the adult programs had 1.2 portrayals per hour (Greenberg, et al., 2009).
Children television programs also have more unhealthy foods shown than adult programs; children programs had 2.6 unhealthy food portrayals per hour and adult programs had 0.5 unhealthy food portrayals per hour. Furthermore, food was more commonly consumed and offered on
children’s programs compared to adult programs; in children’s programs unhealthy foods were consumed in 89% of food portrayals while healthy foods were consumed in 75% of food portrayals (Greenberg, et al., 2009). While these insights are very valuable and demonstrate that unhealthy food portrayals are prevalent on CETV programs, the studies also have some limitations which make it difficult to compare the results to each other. These limitations of existing research will be outlined. Limitations of existing studies on food portrayals
There are at least five limitations that are important to consider when reviewing previous content analyses on food portrayals in CETV programs; 1) the studies are outdated, 2) the sample was not representative, 3) the term children television programs is not defined in the literature thus
also used for pre-schooler and adolescents television programs, 4) a lack of research on 6 to 12 year olds, and 5) different methods are used to measure healthy or unhealthy foods. Each limitation will be illustrated below. Because of these limitations, the existing literature is doesn't fully represent the food portrayals in contemporary CETV programs. The current study aims to clarify this, and solve some of the limitations of previous studies.
First, most studies looking at food portrayals in television programs are outdated. Six out of the 14 studies are more than 15 years old, and even more recent studies use data from more than 6 years ago (see Table 1 for an overview). For example, Radnitz et al. (2008) use data from 2005/2006, and Greenberg et al. (2009) use data from 2003, Roseman et al. (2014) uses data from 2007, Scully et al. (2015) and Eisenberg et al. (2016) both use data from 2010. Since television programs change, existing studies are not representable of the television programs that children watch today. For this reason, the television programs in this study were selected on the fact that they were the most popular programs in October 2016, and most programs were produced in the last two years (see Table 2 for an overview). Even the oldest show in the sample of this study, iCarly and the Dutch series Spangas (both first produced in 2007) had new seasons broadcast since then.
The second limitation of previous studies, as Eisenberg et al. (2016) also pointed out, is that the sample was small or not representative of the viewing behaviour of children, who watch a variety of television programs. Therefore, the sample should include more than one network and a range of programs to be representative of the viewing behaviour of children. Therefore, this study includes the two most watched children networks, and 4 episodes of 12 different television programs (N=52).
The third limitation is that there is not one definition of the age group ‘children’, with the result that various studies use the term children’s television but analyse programs that fall in a wide age range, making it difficult to compare the results properly. According to the moderate-discrepancy hypothesis, children pay most attention to television content that is only slightly more difficult than
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !10 their existing knowledge and capability of understanding (Valkenburg & Vroone, 2004). Therefore, children watch different television programming at different ages.
The fourth limitation is the lack of research on children aged 6-12 years olds. To date there are only three studies that looked at television programs directed at children 6-12 years old: 1) Olafsdottir and Berg (2016) looked at one popular show among 2 to 9 year olds on a public network, 2) Greenberg et al (2009) investigates children television programs (ages 2–11) and ‘tween’
programs (ages 9-14), in which all the children television programs were animated and 3) Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2001) analyse programs for children aged 2-11 years old, but do not specify the results for different age ranges. Other studies state they look at children’s programs, even though they analysed pre-school programming (1-4 years old) (Radnitz, et al., 2009). One study did not specify the age group that the children television programs are directed at (Scully, et al., 2015). Thus, since it is difficult to compare programming per age group, our study decided not to compare the different age groups and instead use the definition used by the networks Nickelodeon and Zapp which defines children as 6 to 12 years old in their reporting of the most popular programs for children.
The fifth and last limitation of previous studies is the difficulty in defining nutritious foods, a problem which Larson in 1991 already pointed out. Since then, there has been no consensus which guideline to use to define healthy and unhealthy foods. Governmental nutritional ratings have been used such as Nutrient Calorie Benefit Ratio (Kaufman, 1980; Way, 1983; Larson, 1991), USDA Food Guide Pyramid (Byrd-Bredbenner, Grasso, & Finckenor, 2001), and the food pyramid ‘MyPlate’ in Scully, et al. (2015). The problem of defining healthy and unhealthy food is hard to overcome, the Radnitz and Olafsdottir Method use different standards to define healthiness. Rather than looking at existing nutritional standards they both developed a nutritional coding standard. However, they also differ from each other as the Radnitz Method codes the food based on the nutritional value and the
Olafsdottir Method places food in categories and distinguishes between fruit and vegetables, high-calorie low-nutrient (HCLN) foods.
Food portrayals on Dutch television
Since children may model the food consumption by characters in children’s entertainment programs and the limited scope and limitations of the existing research, this study will look at food portrayals on Dutch television. In the Netherlands, 60% of children 6-12 years old watch television daily and watch on average 1 hour and 48 minutes a day (Stichting Kijk Onderzoek, 2015).
Furthermore, 12% of children 4 to 12 years old in the Netherlands are classified as overweight (Gezondheidsenquête/Leefstijlmonitor, CBS i.s.m. RIVM, 2015), making it relevant for parents and policy makers to look at the possible food messages embedded on Dutch television programs. A few years ago there was a call for research on food messages in non-US (Canadian) television programs (Lynch, 2012), and to date only two studies have looked at television programming in Europe, one in UK and Ireland (Scully et al., 2015) and one in Sweden (Olafsdottir & Berg, 2016).
It is especially important to look at a Dutch context because the Netherlands has a public television network (NPO) which receives 800 million euros per year from the government, and 85% of the television programs broadcast are produced by the NPO (Benjamin & Takken, 2016). Aware of the role of educating children about nutrition and healthy eating, Zapp started a new program
Kiloknallers in January 2017, which follows overweight children who are trying to lose weight (http://www.zapp.nl/1787-kiloknallers). Since the NPO’s main objective is to “inform, inspire and amuse” (http://over.npo.nl/missie-en-visie) it is in both their interest and the public’s interest to know how food is portrayed on CETV programs.
This study also adds to the scientific literature; while earlier studies looked at either a public network (Olafsdottir & Berg, 2016; Radnitz, et al., 2009; Scully, et al., 2015) or commercial network (e.g. Eisenberg et al., 2016; Greenberg, et al., 2009), no comparison has been made between a
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !12 commercial and public network (Olafsdottir & Berg, 2016; Radnitz, et al., 2009). We are especially interested in the amount of unhealthy food references on the public network since a recent study on CETV programs in Sweden (Olafsdottir & Berg, 2016) found much less unhealthy food references than previous studies conducted on CETV programs in the US and UK/Ireland (Radnitz, et al., 2009; Scully, et al., 2014). However, as different methods were used to define healthy and unhealthy foods, this study will use two methods to define the nutritional value of the foods portrayed on CETV programs, and compare which method should be used in future studies.
In sum, the current study aims to address the limitations of previous research on food
portrayals in CETV and aims to provide insights on food portrayals on Dutch CETV programming. In order to investigate how food is portrayed this study looks at three different outcomes, namely the amount of food cues per hour, percentage of food cues that can be considered healthy or unhealthy, and the consumption of food.
Method Sample
The study object was children television programs on the commercial network Nickelodeon and the public network Zapp. Nickelodeon produces original content aimed at children aged 6 to 14, and is one of the most popular children’s network in the world. Founded in 1979 in the US,
Nickelodeon is broadcast in the Netherlands since 2003, it is owned by the American media
conglomerate Viacom (www.nickelodeon.nl/static/info_over_nickelodeon). The public network Zapp produces Dutch educational and entertainment programs aimed at children 6 to 12 years old and is part of the NPO, the Dutch public network funded by the government. Both networks can be watched on broadcast television and via their respective websites and YouTube channels.
The selection criteria for the sample was that the television programs 1) had to be directed at children aged 6 to 12 years, 2) had to be the most popular programs according to data provided by the
networks, and 3) the program had to be a fictional, situational comedy or drama. A fictional
situational comedy (sitcom) or drama is a genre of comedy which follows the lives of a fixed set of characters. As this genre of CETV program follows the lives of characters, children are more likely to form para-social relationships with the television characters from this genre than television characters from informational programs such as the program Jeugdjournaal broadcast on public network which is a daily newsprogram tailored to a young audience (http://www.zapp.nl/series/ jeugdjournaal).
For the network Nickelodeon, the following eight programs were selected from the top ten most popular programs among 6 to 12 years old; Alvin and the Chipmunks (the series), De Ludwigs, Game Shakers, iCarly, School of Rock (the series), Thundermans, and Wits Academy. All the
programs are American television programs except for De Ludwigs which is a Dutch produced program. From the public network Zapp, the following five series were included for analysis: Brugklas, Geheim van Eyck, Kicke, Spangas, and Voetbalmeisjes, all of which are produced in The Netherlands. These were the only programs that were fictional, situational comedies or dramas on Zapp in October 2016.
Of each of the 12 programs, four episodes were randomly selected (N=52). A total of 17 hours and 10 minutes of programming were included in the study. The duration of the television programs ranged from 10.11 minutes to 24.43 minutes and lasted on average 12.32 minutes. The programs were watched online on the website of the each of the network. For one program (Alvin and the Chipmunks) there was no available program on the website, this program was viewed on the Netflix website. An overview of the various programs and their description can be found Table 2.
Table 2
Overview of the television programs included in this study sorted in alphabetical order
Program Description Genre
Year Released
Country of Origin Commercial Network (Nickelodeon)
Alvin and the Chipmunks
An animated series follows bachelor Dave who raises three Chipmunks Comedy 2015 NL
De Ludwigs A show about Benny, who was taken into a foster family, but when the parents disappear, the children discover the mysterious family history
Drama 2016 NL
Game Shakers A sitcom about two middle schoolers who design an app and create a successful business.
Comedy 2015 NL
iCarly A semi-interactive tween comedy series about Carly who makes her own internet show together with her two friends
Comedy 2007 USA
School of Rock A sitcom that follows a substitute teacher, who turns his students into a rock band
Comedy 2016 USA
Thundermans A sitcom about a family with superpowers, where the kids often get into trouble Comedy 2013 USA
Wits Academy A sitcom about a school for children with magical powers Comedy 2015 USA
Public Network (Zapp)
Brugklas A scripted reality series where a group of students are followed in their first year of high-school
Drama 2014 NL
Geheim van Eyck A daily series about a group of children who discover that strange things are happening in the woods
Drama 2015 NL
Kicke A scripted reality-series which follows the adventures of friends in a soccer team Drama 2016 NL
Spangas A drama series about the lives of high school students Drama 2007 NL
Voetbalmeisjes The series follows a girls soccer team in Amsterdam Drama 2016 NL
F O O D P O R T RA Y A L S IN CH IL D RE N T E L E V IS IO N P RO G RA M S 14
Instrument
To measure the healthiness of the foods portrayed in the programs a codebook was created. This codebook was based on the study by Radnitz et al. (2009) and the study by Olafsdottir and Berg (2016). The author of this thesis recorded every time that a food was shown or talked about. In line with the study of Radnitz et al. (2009), for each reference the coder noted whether the character consumed the foods, the amount of time in seconds that the food was shown, as well as the time within the program that the incident occurred. Incidental visual references to food (e.g., a basket of fresh fruit on a kitchen counter) were also counted as food portrayal (Story & Faulkner, 1990). Although incidental visual references to real food were coded, incidental references to non-food items that looked like a food were left out (e.g. pillow that looked like a donut).
Coding proces
The codebook can be found in Appendix I. A pre-coding was done by one individual and code notes were taken during the coding. These coding notes were then discussed with the thesis supervisor and changes and clarifications were made. A second coder coded four episodes and variables were tested using the measurement Krippendorff’s alpha (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated for both coding methods, and all were accepted. The
measurement of the healthiness of the food according to the Radnitz Method had an alpha of .87. The coding of foods in the 18 food categories according to the Olafsdottir Method had an alpha of .90. The variable ‘Consumption - was the food consumed?’ had an alpha of .82.
Measuring healthiness of foods
As mentioned above, two different methods of analyses were selected to assess the healthiness of the foods, namely the method reported by Radnitz et al. (2009) and the method reported by Olafsdottir and Berg (2016) method. To enhance the readability of the thesis these
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !16 methods are referred to as the Radnitz Method and the Olafsdottir Method. Each method will be described shortly.
The Radnitz Method determines the healthiness of a food based on ten variables which combined create a scale from -10 to 10. The ten variables measure if there is none (0), some (1), or high levels (2) of an unhealthy nutrients (Sugar, Animal fat, Vegetable fat, Undifferentiated fat, Simple carbohydrates) or a healthy nutrients (Grain, Fruit, Vegetables, Vegetable protein, Animal protein). The sum of healthy nutrients and sum of unhealthy nutrients are then calculated and subtracted from each other: a score from -10 to -1 is considered to be an unhealthy food and a score from 0 to 10 is considered to be a healthy food. For example, an apple will be coded as 2 which reflects that it is healthy and a candy has a score of -5 which reflects that it is unhealthy. Since some foods were difficult to code, a list of foods with the nutritional value is provided in the codebook by Radnitz et al. (2009) and included in the codebook of this study (Appendix I).
The Olafsdottir Method does not use the term healthy or unhealthy foods but differentiates between fruit and vegetables and high-calorie low-nutrient foods. The food appearances are
aggregated into 23 food groups, including eggs, fish and candies (for the complete list see Table 4). In addition, two food groups are investigated in more detail, namely 1) Fruits and vegetables: fruit, berries, vegetables, legumes, root vegetables, juice and 2) High-calorie and low-(micro) nutrient foods (HCLN), which are defined as “foods that contribute to energy intake but hardly to intake of vitamins and minerals: cookies, confectionaries, sweet beverages, desserts, jam, ice cream, sugar, snacks, alcohol” (Olafsdottir & Berg, p.486). In our study, alcohol and sweetened beverages are not included in the definition of HCLN foods, since this study only looks at food portrayals. The first group is assumed to reflect healthy foods and the second unhealthy foods. This method also includes a rest category ‘other’– this category might best be viewed as the foods that are ‘neutral’ since they are not very healthy such as fruit and vegetables but also not problematic to consume such as HCLN
foods. The foods in the ‘other’ category are both found in the healthy and unhealthy category according to the Radnitz Method. For example, pizza’s and hamburgers are both included in the ‘other’ category according to the Olafsdottir Method, but pizza’s are considered healthy and hamburgers are considered unhealthy according to the Radnitz Method.
The two methods also differ in the way that they operationalise the prevalence of food cues in CETV programs. The Olafsdottir Method measures the number of food portrayals per program section and not per minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes or half an hour, since these were not found to be reliable (p. 486). The Radnitz Method measures the duration the food was shown in seconds and used that to calculate the total time food is shown per hour in children’s entertainment television (CETV) programs. However, as this variable had an alpha of .42, the method of Olafsdottir was chosen for this study. The current study used the number of food portrayals per hour to measure the prevalence of food portrayals in CETV programs, as it is more reliable and allows us to compare the results of our findings with previous studies as well.
Results The prevalence of food in children’s television programs
To test the first aim of this study, the average number of food portrayals in children’s programming was calculated in percentages and average number of food portrayals per hour. Of all the episodes included in this study, 94 percent contained a food portrayal. On average, per hour of children’s entertainment television programs (CETV programs), a food portrayal occurred 7.3 times. Furthermore, of all CETV programs, 28.3% of the foods portrayed are consumed.
The second aim of the study was to find out whether there are any differences in the prevalence of food portrayals between a public funded and commercial network. An ANOVA test showed that the difference between the commercial and the public network in the average number of food portrayals per hour in CETV programs approached significance, F(1, 10) = 4.47, p = .061. The
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !18 commercial network Nickelodeon had on average 11.3 food portrayals per hour and public network Zapp had 3.3 food portrayals per hour. See Table 3 for an overview of the number of food portrayals per hour per network and per program.
Differences between methods
To test the third aim of this study, the types of foods on children’s entertainment television programs are analysed according to the Radnitz and Olafsdottir Method and separately discussed: Radnitz Method
Food portrayals and consumption on the public and commercial network
First, the Radnitz Method was used to look at the foods shown on CETV programs. Reviewing all programs, on average 56.3% of the foods portrayed were of healthy foods while 43.7% of the foods portrayed were of unhealthy foods. Furthermore, the food portrayals on the commercial and public network were compared. A chi-square test showed that there was a significant difference between the commercial network and public network in the percentage of healthy and unhealthy foods, χ2 (1, N=215) = 4.570, p = 0.033. Of all food portrayals on the commercial network television, 60% of the food portrayed are healthy while 40% are unhealthy. On the public network 42.2% of all food portrayals are healthy while 57.8% are unhealthy. See Table 4 for an overview of the percentage of food portrayals per network and per program.
The study also looked at how often healthy and unhealthy foods were consumed. On the public network, no significant difference was found between the percentage of healthy and unhealthy foods consumed on the commercial network, χ2(1, N=164) = .268, p = .605, and both networks combined, χ2(1, N=209) = .357, p = .550. It was not possible to conduct a chi-square test for the foods portrayed for the public network since the minimum requirement of 5 cases per cell were not met.
Table 3
The number of food portrayals per hour per program and network
Network/program Food Portrayals per Hour
Networks combined (Nickelodeon & Zapp)
Average 7.3 portrayals/hour
Commercial Network (Nickelodeon)
Alvin and the Chipmunks 10.3 portrayals/hour
De Ludwigs 28.7 portrayals/hour
Game Shakers 4.7 portrayals/hour
iCarly 10.7 portrayals/hour
School of Rock 7.1 portrayals/hour
Thundermans 15.1 portrayals/hour
Wits Academie 2.3 portrayals/hour
Average 11.3 portrayals/hour
Public Network (Zapp)
Brugklas 2.0 portrayals/hour
Geheim van Eyck 3.1 portrayals/hour
Kicke 1.4 portrayals/hour
Spangas 5.7 portrayals/hour
Voetbalmeisjes 4.4 portrayals/hour
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !20
Olafsdottir Method
Types of foods shown on CETV programs
The Olafsdottir method makes a distinction between fruit and vegetables and HCLN foods, which are high-calorie low-nutrient foods. Reviewing all programs, 27.1% of all foods portrayals are
Table 4
Average percentage of the food portrayals healthy or unhealthy per television show and the average per network and the average for both networks combined.
Radnitz Method Olafsdottir Method
Network/program Healthy Unhealthy
Fruits &
Vegetables HCLN* Other
Networks combined 56.3% 43.7% 27.1% 25.1% 47.8%
Commercial Network (Nickelodeon)
Alvin & the Chipmunks 35.7% 64.3% 10.7% 26.9% 28.6%
De Ludwigs 63.2% 36.8% 42.1% 14.3% 42.1% Game Shakers 63.0% 37.0% 25.9% - 74.1% iCarly 85.2% 14.8% 30.8% 12.5% 50.0% School of Rock 63.6% 36.5% 10.5% 31.6% 57.9% Thundermans 57.5% 42.5% 30.0% 27.5% 42.5% Wits Academy 42.9% 57.1% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Average 60% 40% 27.3% 24.8% 47.9%
Public Network (Zapp)
Brugklas 33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3%
Geheim van Eyck 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 50.0%
Kicke 60.0% 40.0% - 40.0% 60%
Spangas 33.3% 66.7% 28.6% 28.6% 42.9%
Voetbalmeisjes 42.9% 57.1% 28.6% 21% 50.0%
Average 42.2% 57.8% 26.6% 26.2% 47.6%
fruit and vegetables and 25.1% of all foods portrayals are HCLN foods. No statistical difference is found between the type of network and the amount of fruit and vegetables and HCLN foods shown on CETV programs. This means that there is an equal ratio of fruit and vegetables and HCLN on the commercial network as the public network, χ2 (1, N = 103) = 2.02, p = .155. On the commercial network fruit and vegetables make up 27.3% of the food portrayals and on the public network this is 26.6%. HCLN foods make up 24.8% of the foods portrayals on the commercial network and 26.2% of the foods portrayals on the public network. For a detailed overview of the food portrayals found in this study, see Table 5 where the percentage of the total per network that fruit and vegetables, HCLN foods and other foods are shown.
Consumption of foods by characters
This study also looked at the number of food consumptions portrayed on CETV programs. Of all the foods shown, 27.1% were consumed by characters. As mentioned above in the Radnitz
Method, no significant difference was found for the amount of healthy and unhealthy food consumed. Reviewing all the programs on the combined network according to the Olafsdottir Method, a significant difference was found for the number of HCLN foods and fruit and vegetables consumed by characters, χ2(1) = 4.239, p = .040. Of all the food portrayals, 30.8% of HCLN foods were consumed, whereas 14.3% of all fruit and vegetables were consumed by characters. A statistical significant difference is found between the consumption of fruit and vegetables and HCLN on the commercial network, χ2(1) = 5.499, p = .019.
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !22
Table 5
Percentages of food portrayed according to the Olafsdottir Method
Type of food Combined Networks Commercial Network Public Network Fruit and Vegetables
Fruits & berries 17.9% 17.0% 21.4%
Vegetables 9.2% 10.3% 4.8%
Total 27.1% 27.3% 26.2%
HCLN* foods
Candy 4.3% 4.8% 2.4%
Cookies & pastry 5.8% 4.2% 11.9%
Desserts & jam 3.8% 4.8%
-Ice cream 6.3% 7.9%
-Snacks 4.8% 3.0% 11.9%
Total 25.0% 24.7% 26.2%
Other types of food
Bread & cereals 11.1% 10.3% 14.3%
Eggs 1.0% 1.2%
-Fish 1.0% 1.2%
-Meat 7.7% 9.1% 2.4%
Milk & cheese 1.0% 0.6% 2.4%
Mixed meals 15.5% 12.1% 28.6%
Nuts & seeds 0.5% 0.6%
-Pasta & rice 5.3% 6.7%
-Side dishes & spices 2.9% 3.6%
-Unidentifiable foods 1.9% 2.4%
-Total 47.9% 47.8% 47.7%
Of all the HCLN foods shown on the commercial network, 31.7% was consumed, and of all of the fruits and vegetables shown, 11.1% was consumed. Since there were less than five instances of food consumption shown on the public network for HCLN foods, it was not possible to calculate if the difference between the consumption of HCLN foods and fruit and vegetables was statistically significant. As there were so little instances of food consumption on the public network, it explains why the percentage of food consumption is similar for the commercial network compared to the results found for the combined network.
Discussion
This study is the first study on food portrayals in CETV programs conducted in the Netherlands and part of a growing body of research on food portrayals in children’s television programs. The goal of this study was threefold: 1) investigate the prevalence and nutritional value of foods portrayed on Dutch television, 2) compare the nutritional value of foods and consumption on CETV programs on a public and commercial network, and 3) investigate how different
Table 6
Comparison between methods and the foods shown per network and combined
Method/Consumption of Food Combined Networks Public Network Commercial Network Radnitz Method
Healthy foods consumption 25.7% 31.3% 24.7%
Unhealthy foods consumption 29.3% 32.0% 28.4%
Olafdottir Method
Fruits & vegetables consumption 14.3%* 27.3%** 11.1%*
HCLN consumption 30.8%* 27.3%** 31.7%*
*Significance level of p < 0.05; **Significance could not be calculated as there were less than 5
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !24 measurements of healthy and unhealthy foods impact the findings of the study. The method of Radnitz et al. (2009) and Olafsdottir and Berg (2016) were compared.
On average 7.3 food portrayals per hour were found on Dutch children’s networks. The difference in the average number of food portrayals per hour on the public network (3.3) and
commercial network (11.3) approached significance. The averages found for both networks are lower than the average number of food portrayals found in previous studies, which found between 7.67 and 31.2 food portrayals per hour (See Table 1 for an overview). However, all of these studies included beverage portrayals in their study except for the Radnitz, et al. (2009) study. As our study did not include beverage portrayals, this could explain why less portrayals per hour were found in our study. However, the 7.3 food portrayals per hour is still lower than the Radnitz et al. (2009) study that, which found 16 food portrayals per hour (Radnitz, et al., 2009). The average number of food portrayals for the commercial network (11.3 food portrayals per hour) and the public network (3.3 food portrayals per hour) was not significantly different.
Reviewing all programs, 56% of the food portrayals were healthy and 44% was unhealthy. (Radnitz Method) This is comparable to the Radnitz et al. (2009) study which found 45% unhealthy food portrayals, and in line with other recent studies which found 35% to 48% unhealthy food portrayals (Byrd-Bredbenner, et al., 2001; Greenberg et al., 2009; Roseman, et al., 2014; Scully, et al., 2015). However, these studies also included beverages. Reviewing all programs, 27% fruit and vegetables and 25% HCLN foods were found (Olafsdottir Method), which differs from the
Olafsdottir and Berg (2016) study which found 40% fruit and vegetables and 19% HCLN foods (and beverages). Thus, this study found less fruit and vegetables and more HCLN foods than a previous study conducted on food portrayals in Swedish public television.
With regard to the healthiness of food portrayed in CETV programs, significant differences were observed between networks. The public network showed significantly more unhealthy foods in
CETV programs than the commercial network, according to the Radnitz Method. No significant difference was found between the commercial and public network in the amount of fruit and vegetables and HCLN foods portrayed on CETV programs, according to the Olafsdottir Method. Moreover, by comparing two methods which have been used in the literature, it became clear that conclusion about the healthiness are highly dependent on the method employed. The differences and commonalities are discussed in detail below.
Healthiness of food portrayals
To establish the healthiness of food, we looked at a healthy versus unhealthy foods based on nutritional value (Radnitz Method), and compared the presence of fruit and vegetables, HCLN foods, and all other food (Olafsdottir Method). Following the Radnitz Method, significant differences were found between the commercial network and the public network in the percentage of healthy foods, meaning that the ratio healthy food and unhealthy food on the commercial network is not equal to the ration on the public network. On the commercial network, more than half of all food portrayals were of healthy foods (60%) in contrast to the public network where healthy foods make up less than half of all food portrayals (42.2%). No statistical difference was found for the type of network and the amount of fruit and vegetables, HCLN foods and other type of foods. This means that there was an equal ratio of fruit and vegetables and HCLN foods on the commercial and public network.
Furthermore, according to the Radnitz Method around half of all the foods shown on CETV programs were considered healthy or unhealthy. According to the Olafsdottir Method, around a quarter of the foods were ‘healthy’ (categorised as fruits and vegetables) and a quarter of the foods were ‘unhealthy’ (HCLN foods). Thus, if one reads the conclusions drawn from the Radnitz and Olafsdottir Method, they will find that unhealthy foods are a much bigger problem in CETV programs according to the Radnitz Method than the Olafsdottir Method.
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !26 Although it is important to look at all the food portrayed on CETV programs, it may even be more important to investigate whether food is actually consumed by characters. It is expected that of all food portrayals in CETV programs, the foods consumed by characters might have stronger impact than the foods that are not consumed by characters, as children can model the behaviour of television characters (Bandura, 2001). Of all the food portrayals, 27.1% was consumed by characters in CETV programs. For food consumption, different results were found when using the Radnitz or Olafsdottir Method. According to the Radnitz Method, there is no difference in the percentage that healthy and unhealthy foods were consumed by characters. According to the Olafsdottir Method, HCLN foods were consumed significantly more than fruit and vegetables on screen on the commercial network. When HCLN foods were shown on the commercial network, in 30.8% of the time the foods were consumed, while 14.3% fruit and vegetables portrayed were consumed. It is possible that fruit and vegetables are consumed less often than HCLN foods, as fruits such as a bowl of fruit were shown sometimes as part of the decor in a living room or kitchen setting.
Differences in food portrayals between television programs
The difference in the type of foods portrayed is larger between CETV programs within a network, than between the public and commercial network. The CETV programs of the commercial network differed in their food portrayal. Of all the food portrayals, 42.1% consisted of fruit and vegetables on De Ludwigs, while on the School of Rock this was 10.5%. The differences were also large for the amount of HCLN foods found on the commercial network: School of Rock had 45.5% HCLN foods while Game Shakers had zero HCLN foods. The differences between television programs were also found for the public network: Kicke showed zero fruit and vegetables whereas Brugklas and Geheim van Eyck showed 33.3% fruit and vegetables. A difference was also found for HCLN foods on the public network: Kicke had 40% HCLN foods whereas Geheim van Eyck had much less (16.7%).
Future research can look for a pattern in the type of CETV programs which have a high percentage of fruit and vegetable or HCLN food portrayal. Whereas a large difference was found between healthy (85.2%) and unhealthy foods (14.8%) in the Radnitz Method for the television program iCarly, the difference found between fruits and vegetables (30.8%) and HCLN (12.5%) was much smaller. Although an earlier study also included iCarly in their sample, they did not specify the results found in their study (Eisenberg, et al., 2016). In this study, De Ludwigs was the only Dutch CETV program of the commercial network that was included in the sample. In this show, 42.1% of the foods were fruit and vegetables, which is more than any other CETV program of the public network, which are all produced in the Netherlands. Further research should be conducted to find if other Dutch produced CETV programs differ between the commercial and public network in their food portrayals.
The method matters: differences in results
The third aim of this study, was to compare the Radnitz and Olafsdottir Method. The Radnitz Method measured the healthiness on the nutritional value of the food and then categorised the food in a healthy or unhealthy category, and the Olafsdottir Method uses a categorical measurement where food categorised as fruits and vegetables, HCLN food and ‘other’. This difference in method, led to different outcomes in this study. According to the Radnitz Method around half of the food portrayals are of is healthy foods and half are of unhealthy foods. The Olafsdottir Method finds on average that a quarter of the food portrayals are fruits and vegetables, another quarter HCLN foods and half of the food portrayals ‘other’.
The difference between the Radnitz and Olafsdottir Method can be explained by the fact that Radnitz method did not have a rest category (‘other’) while the Olafsdottir method did have a rest category. Half of the food portrayals were categorised as ‘other’, which indicates that half of the foods in the healthy and unhealthy category should perhaps not be coded as either healthy or
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !28 unhealthy but actually as ‘neutral’. As the Radnitz Method does not have a neutral category, the healthy and unhealthy category is so broad that it include foods that in reality are not particularly healthy or unhealthy.
Recommendations for future research
The method of Olafsdottir is recommended because it was more detailed, reliable, easier to follow, overall more replicable, and objective in its measurement. Radnitz Method had more room for error since there were ten variables which all had to be scored. Although a list was provided by the authors on how to score certain foods, it was difficult to score certain foods (e.g. hamburgers -meat protein was coded as healthy and the bun was coded as unhealthy). Thus, the Radnitz Method was more room open to the interpretation of the coder, making the study harder to replicate. While the method of Olafdottir was clear in the food categories used, certain categories were not explained well in their article such as mixed meals and snacks, and were therefore also open to some
interpretation, but this was much less of a problem than in the Radnitz Method which was perhaps not always correct in determining the true healthiness of foods. Since the Radnitz Method did not specify what overall score should be defined as healthy or unhealthy, certain foods that fell in the ‘healthy’ category such as pizza, should perhaps not be classified as healthy. Furthermore, as Radnitz et al. (2009) noted in the limitation section, how healthy and unhealthy portrayals were defined was “somewhat arbitrary” and left a large category of combination foods which were not included in the analysis (p. 232).
Conclusion
With the two methods, two different conclusions can be drawn about the healthiness of the food portrayed on the commercial and public network. In short, while there are some methodological considerations to keep in mind when reviewing the results, the results indicate that the public
(Radnitz Method). This difference between networks was not found for the Olafsdottir Method. As HCLN foods were also consumed more than fruit and vegetables on the commercial network, there should be concern about the unhealthy food portrayals on both the public and commercial network. To know more about food portrayals on children’s television programs further studies should be pursued. Future studies should include a larger sample size, investigate genre differences in entertainment programming for children 6-12 years old, and compare CETV programs from multiple countries. Moreover, research is needed to study the effect of food portrayals in CETV programming on children’s nutritional perception and behaviour. While even Radnitz et al. (2009) mentions that future studies should look at the effects of food portrayals in children’s programming, till date no research has been done. Policy makers should work together with television producers to ensure that children’s television programs provide nutritional information in line with nutritional standards for children, and show healthier foods on television.
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !30 References
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). The effects of media violence on society. Science, 295(5564), 2377-2379. doi:10.1126/science.1070765
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. 1977. Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall Google Scholar. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media psychology, 3(3) 265-299. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
Benjamin, J., & Takken, W., "Hoe Duur Is Uw Publieke Omroep?". NRC Handelsblad 2016. Retrieved on 6 Oct. 2016 via https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/02/02/hoe-duur-is-uw- publieke-omroep-1586350-a598324
Bevelander, K. E., Meiselman, H. L., Anschütz, D. J., & Engels, R. C. (2013). Television watching and the emotional impact on social modeling of food intake among children. Appetite, 63, 70-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.12.015
Birch, L. L., & Davison, K. K. (2001). Family environmental factors influencing the
developing behavioral controls of food intake and childhood overweight. Pediatric Clinics, 48(4), 893-907. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0031-3955(05)70347-3
Boone, J. E., Gordon-Larsen, P., Adair, L. S., & Popkin, B. M. (2007). Screen time and physical activity during adolescence: longitudinal effects on obesity in young adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4(1), 26. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-4-26 Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Grasso, D., & Finckenor, M. (2001). Nutrition Messages on Prime-Time
Television Programs. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 16(4), 61-hyhen.
Cohen, J. (2004). Parasocial break-up from favorite television characters: The role of attachment styles and relationship intensity. Journal of Social and personal relationships, 21(2), 187-202. doi:10.1177/0265407504041374
Dietz, W. H., & Gortmaker, S. L. (1985). Do we fatten our children at the television set? Obesity and television viewing in children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 75(5), 807-812.
Dixon, H. G., Scully, M. L., Wakefield, M. A., White, V. M., & Crawford, D. A. (2007). The effects of television advertisements for junk food versus nutritious food on children's food attitudes and preferences. Social science & medicine, 65(7), 1311-1323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.socscimed.2007.05.011
Eisenberg, M. E., Larson, N. I., Gollust, S. E., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2016). Peer Reviewed: Snacking on Television: A Content Analysis of Adolescents’ Favorite Shows. Preventing chronic disease, 13. doi:10.5888/pcd13.160014
Feilitzen, C. V., & Linne, O. (1975). The Effects of Television on Children and Adolescents: A Symposium: Identifying With Television Characters. Journal of Communication. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The
cultivation perspective. In. J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory, and research (pp. 17-41).
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 2, 43-67. Gerbner, G., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1982). Programing health portrayals: What viewers see,
say, and do.
Gezondheidsenquête/Leefstijlmonitor, CBS i.s.m. RIVM, 2015. Retrieved on 4 September 2016 via https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/overgewicht/cijfers-context/huidige- situatie#node-overgewicht-kinderen
Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media psychology, 4(3), 279-305. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04
Greenberg, B. S., Rosaen, S. F., Worrell, T. R., Salmon, C. T., & Volkman, J. E. (2009). A portrait of food and drink in commercial TV series. Health communication, 24(4), 295-303. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410230902889233
Hamburg, B. A., & Pierce, C. M. (1982). Television and health: Introductory comments. Television and behavior, 2.
Harris, J. L., & Bargh, J. A. (2009). Television viewing and unhealthy diet: implications for children and media interventions. Health communication, 24(7), 660-673. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/10410230903242267
Harris, J. L., Bargh, J. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2009). Priming effects of television food advertising on eating behavior. Health psychology, 28(4), 404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014399 Harrison, K. (2000). Television viewing, fat stereotyping, body shape standards, and eating disorder
symptomatology in grade school children. Communication Research, 27(5), 617-640. doi:10.1177/009365000027005003
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !32 Harrison, K. (2005). Is" fat free" good for me? A panel study of television viewing and children's
nutritional knowledge and reasoning. Health Communication, 17(2), 117-132. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1702_1
Harrison, K., & Marske, A. L. (2005). Nutritional content of foods advertised during the television programs children watch most. American Journal of Public Health, 95(9), 1568-1574. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.048058
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89. http://dx.doi.org10.1080/ 19312450709336664
Henderson, V. R. (2007). Longitudinal associations between television viewing and body mass index among white and black girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 544-550.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.018
Hoek, J., & Gendall, P. (2006). Advertising and obesity: a behavioral perspective. Journal of Health Communication, 11(4), 409-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10810730600671888
Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1991). Perceiving and responding to mass media characters. Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes, 63-101.
Holley, C. E., Haycraft, E., & Farrow, C. (2015). ‘Why don’t you try it again?’A comparison of parent led, home based interventions aimed at increasing children's consumption of a disliked vegetable. Appetite, 87, 215-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.216
Kaufman, L. (1980). Prime-time nutrition. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 37-46.
Korr, J. L. (2008). Healthy cartoons? A content analysis of foods in children's animated television programs. Food, Culture & Society, 11(4), 449-462.
Larson, M. S. (1991). Health related-messages embedded in prime-time television entertainment. Health Communication, 3(3), 175-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc0303_3 Laureati, M., Bergamaschi, V., & Pagliarini, E. (2014). School-based intervention with children.
Peer-modeling, reward and repeated exposure reduce food neophobia and increase liking of fruits and vegetables. Appetite, 83, 26-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.07.031 Lynch, M. (2012). Food Messages in Television Programs for Preschoolers: A Call for Research.
Canadian Journal of Communication, 37(2).
Mikkilä, V., Räsänen, L., Raitakari, O. T., Pietinen, P., & Viikari, J. (2004). Longitudinal changes in diet from childhood into adulthood with respect to risk of cardiovascular diseases: The
Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study. European journal of clinical nutrition, 58(7), 1038-1045. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601929
Matthes, J., & Naderer, B. (2015). Children's consumption behavior in response to food product placements in movies. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(2), 127-136. doi:10.1002/cb.1507 Olafsdottir, S., & Berg, C. (2016). Food appearances in children's television programmes in Sweden.
International Journal of Consumer Studies. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12266
Patrick, H., & Nicklas, T. A. (2005). A review of family and social determinants of children’s eating patterns and diet quality. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 24(2), 83-92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2005.10719448
Radnitz, C., Byrne, S., Goldman, R., Sparks, M., Gantshar, M., & Tung, K. (2009). Food portrayals in children's television programs. Appetite, 52(1), 230-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet. 2008.07.006
Reclamecode voor Voedingsmiddelen. (2015). Retrieved on 14 December 2016 from https://www.reclamecode.nl/nrc/pagina.asp?paginaID=277%20&deel=2
Roseman, M. G., Poor, M., & Stephenson, T. J. (2014). A content analysis of food references in television programming specifically targeting viewing audiences aged 11 to 14 years. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 46(1), 20-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.
2013.09.003
Sadeghirad, B., Duhaney, T., Motaghipisheh, S., Campbell, N. R. C., & Johnston, B. C. (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. doi: 10.1111/obr.12445.
Scully, P., Reid, O., Macken, A., Healy, M., Saunders, J., Leddin, D., ... & O’Gorman, C. S. (2016). Food and beverage portrayals in children’s television programmes: the influence of
programme genre. Public health nutrition, 19(04), 616-624. doi: 10.1017/ S1368980015001755
Signorielli, N., & Staples, J. (1997). Television and children's conceptions of nutrition. Health Communication, 9(4), 289-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc0904_1
Speers, S. E., Harris, J. L., & Schwartz, M. B. (2011). Child and adolescent exposure to food and beverage brand appearances during prime-time television programming. American journal of preventive medicine, 41(3), 291-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.04.018
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !34 Stichting Kijk Onderzoek (December, 2015). Retrieved on 14 December 2016 via
https://kijkonderzoek.nl/images/SKO_jaarrapport_2015.pdf
Story, M., & Faulkner, P. (1990). The prime time diet: a content analysis of eating behavior and food messages in television program content and commercials. American Journal of Public Health, 80(6), 738-740. doi:10.2105/AJPH.80.6.738
Valkenburg, P. M., & Vroone, M. (2004). Developmental changes in infants’ and toddlers’ attention to television entertainment. Communication Research, 31(3), 288-311. doi:
10.1177/0093650204263435
Ward, L. M. (1995). Talking about sex: Common themes about sexuality in the prime-time television programs children and adolescents view most. Journal of youth and adolescence, 24(5), 595-615. doi:10.1007/BF01537058
Way, W. L. (1983). Food-related behaviors on prime-time television. Journal of nutrition education, 15(3), 105-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3182(83)80013-2
Appendix I: Codebook
This is the codebook that this study used to code the food portrayals in children’s television programming. The codebook consists of two parts: the Radnitz Method and Olafsdottir Method. Each will be explained separately.
References:
Radnitz, C., Byrne, S., Goldman, R., Sparks, M., Gantshar, M., & Tung, K. (2009). Food portrayals in children's television programs. Appetite, 52(1), 230-233.
Olafsdottir, S., & Berg, C. (2016). Food appearances in children's television programmes in Sweden. International Journal of Consumer Studies.
Radnitz Method
The first part of the codebook was provided by Cynthia Radnitz by e-mail. To code the healthiness of the foods shown, a score of -10 to 10 can be calculated based on the scores on the 10 variables measuring the healthiness. Since some foods are difficult to code, a guideline of the nutritional value of foods is included in the codebook.
Guideline to code foods
To code the nutritional value of foods portrayed on television programs, this guideline for the Radnitz Method is included. As a general rule, fruit are high in fruit and vegetables are high in vegetable protein. If a food is high in simple carbohydrates, it is low in whole grains and vice versa.
• Cookies – high undifferentiated fat, high simple carbs and sugar • Cakes - high undifferentiated fat, high simple carbs and sugar
• Chocolate - high vegetable fat, some animal fat, high sugar (if hot cocoa, high animal fat) • Chocolate chip cookies - just code the same as cookies, don’t add in extra for the chocolate • Fruit pie - high sugar, high undifferentiated fat, high simple carbs, high fruit
• Pudding - high sugar, some animal fat and some animal protein
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !36 • Milk has some animal fat and high protein
• Eggs are high in animal protein and high in animal fat
• Juices are high in fruit, except cranberry or others that are doctored up • Cheese is high fat, high protein
• Yogurt is high protein, some fat
• Meat (red meat, chicken, fish) and eggs are high in animal protein and animal fat • Hot dogs - high animal fat, high simple carbs, high animal protein
• Ice cream - high in sugar and animal fat. Ice cream has some protein. The cone is high in simple carbs
• Whipped cream - high animal fat and some sugar
• Dough is high in simple carbs and has some undifferentiated fat • Chips are high in veggie fat and carbs
• Breads: Unless dark, assume white bread, high in simple carbs and some vegetable protein • Buns - high simple carbs and some protein
• Pasta is high simple carbs and some protein • Ketchup is high vegetable and some sugar
• Peanut Butter is high vegetable protein, high vegetable fat and some carbs • Popcorn is a whole grain
• Corn is high vegetable and high simple carbs • Potatoes is high vegetable and high simple carbs • Tomato is a vegetable
• Honey is high simple sugar
• Other: Other types of foods should be coded based on the principles outlined here. A mixed meal of for example spaghetti and meatballs should be coded as pasta and meat combined.
• Incidental references to non-food items that look like a food are not coded (e.g. pillow that looked like a donut).
Olafsdottir Method
The second method used in our codebook was generously provided by Steingerdur
Olafsdottir via e-mail. The codebook was adjusted since the Olafsdottir Method included beverages and our study did not. The food was coded into one of the 18 categories. When multiple foods are shown on a plate this is coded as a mixed meals. Foods that are eaten between meals such as potato chips, popcorn, pretzels and other snack food are coded as snacks.
Coding Sheet
A: Rater- who rated the episode 1- Naomi
2- Margalith (second coder for reliability test)
B: Date - the date that the show was coded (dd/mm/yyyy)
C: Program - which program was coded? 1. Alvin and the Chipmunks 2. Game Shakers 3. iCarly 4. School of Rock 5. Thundermans 6. Wits Academy 7. De Ludwigs 8. Brugklas
9. Geheim van Eyck 10. Kicke
11. Spangas 12. Voetbalmeisjes
D: Network- what network was the show aired on? 1: Nickelodeon
2: Zapp
E: Name episode - Name of the episode coded: F: Link- link to the episode
I: Stimulus- the food that is being coded J: Notes- additional notes
Radnitz Method
K: Consumption: were the characters shown eating? 0=No
1=Yes
L: Sugar - the amount of sugar in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
1=Some 2=High
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !38 0=None
1=Some 2=High
N: VegFat - the amount of vegetable fat in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
1=Some 2=High
O: UndifFat - the amount of undifferentiated fat in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
1=Some 2=High
P: SimpCarb - the amount of simple carbohydrates in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
1=Some 2=High
Q: Grain - the amount of grain in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
1=Some 2=High
R: Fruit- the amount of fruit in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
1=Some 2=High
T: Veggie - the amount of vegetables in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
1=Some 2=High
U: VegProt - the amount of vegetable protein in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
1=Some 2=High
V: AnimProt - the amount of animal protein in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
1=Some 2=High
Olafsdottir Method
1. Berries 2. Fruit 3. Vegetables
4. Potatoes and root vegetables 5. Cereals and bread
6. Pasta and rice 7. Milk and cheese 8. Fish
9. Meat 10. Eggs
11. Nuts and seeds 12. Candy
13. Ice cream 14. Snacks 15. Cookies
16. Side dishes and spices 17. Mixed meals
18. Unidentifiable foods END OF CODING SHEET Example of an episode coded:
A: Rater- 1- Naomi
B: DateRate- the date that the show was coded (dd/mm/yyyy)
C: Program - which program was coded? 5. Thundermans
D: Network- which network was the show aired on? 1. Nickelodeon
E: Nameepisode - name of the episode coded: DR. THUNDERMANS OPGEPIEPT S1 E19 F: Episodenumber - number given to an episode
43
G: Link- link to the episode
http://www.nickelodeon.nl/shows/1736-de-thundermans/videos/56183-dr-thundermans-opgepiept
FOOD PORTRAYALS IN CHILDREN TELEVISION PROGRAMS !40
H: DurationEpisode - the duration of the episode coded in minutes. (e.g. 21.15 minutes is 21 minutes and 15 seconds)
22.26
I: FoodBev: is it a food or beverage? 1. Food
J: Stimulus- the food that is being coded Ice-cream
K: Notes- additional notes
Father and daughter hold the ice-cream the entire scene. L: Consumption: were the characters shown eating?
1=Yes
M: Sugar - the amount of sugar in the food stimulus being coded 2=High
M: AnimalFat - the amount of animal fat in the food stimulus being coded 2=High
N: VegFat - the amount of vegetable fat in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
O: UndifFat - the amount of undifferentiated fat in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
P: SimpCarb - the amount of simple carbohydrates in the food stimulus being coded 2=High
Q: Grain - the amount of grain in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
R: Fruit- the amount of fruit in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
T: Veggie - the amount of vegetables in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
U: VegProt - the amount of vegetable protein in the food stimulus being coded 0=None
V: AnimProt - the amount of animal protein in the food stimulus being coded 1=Some
W: FoodCategory - which category the food is placed into 13. Ice cream
