Preface and summary  

In this study Professor Furnham, Europe’s most published psychologist, is concerned with those who wish to introduce regulations to “protect” young people from the advertising of products which they allege to be dangerous. These products include snacks, fizzy drinks, toys and cigarettes, but the product he most discusses is alcoholic drinks because most of the research is in this area. Professor Furnham concludes that these “regulators” do not have evidence that young people are at risk from advertising; on the contrary he thinks that learning how to handle advertisements is educative and a useful part of growing up, hence his title.

Elsewhere Professor Furnham has discussed advertising and children. This study is very much on adolescents and young people where several of the issues are different. For instance, young people have more money than children, constitute a bigger market and, in many other aspects of life, are thought capable of choosing for themselves, even where risk is involved, as with driving or sexual consent.

  Many other factors other than advertising influence young peoples’ purchasing decisions, including their personality, their parents, their peers, their consumption of non-advertising media, and their cash power. Many of these are more important than advertising, especially parents and peers. He cites evidence on which styles of parenting are best (warm and supportive but with clear rules and good role models); and to show that young people themselves believe peers are the strongest influence.

  What young people buy results from a complex interaction – “a reciprocal and multi-causal model” – of many factors and those who single out advertising neither have the research on their side, nor do they help young people. Indeed, regulation may have “boomerang effects” and drive behaviour in the opposite direction from that intended. It potentially subverts the family and delays young peoples’ participation in educative consumption.

  Publications from the Social Affairs Unit represent the views of their authors, not those of the Unit, its officers or Trustees. I may, however, commend this study as a spur to an important public debate.