Among people there is an argument as to whether allowing children of the age 2-5 to be exposed to direct advertising should be banned. Some might say that since children do not have an ability to know what is benecial materials and harmful ones and even they do not know what is advertisement, it is not necessary to ban the advertisement toward children. As far as I know, however, children, exposed to direct advertising, is likely to cause unexpected side-effects since children have a tendency to be affected by surroundings.
First of all, when children are exposed to direct advertising, it seems like they are not affected by the advertisement. However, the age of 2-5 is a period they learn words and form thought, so even if children are not affected at one time, when they grow, the advertisement will have an influence on them gradually. According to the Piaget theory developed by Piaget, curiosity and thought are formed at the age of 2-5, so all the children purely try to do anything and accept all anything surrounding them.
Secondly, the more advertisements children look, the more bad materials they are exposed to. In general, children learn words and way of talking when they are at 2-5, so if they are exposed to advertisements, they will learn negative things looking an advertisement. This is because advertisements contain a lot of slangs and dialect that can give confusion to children learning words. As from my cousin's experience, since my cousin worked at advertisement company, naturally, his son grown by looking enormous of advertisements. As a result, when growing, his son already knew so many slangs and dialects that it takes much time to correct his son's behavior.
To summarize, I firmly believe that preventing direct advertising toward children should be operated and advertisement company should try to reduce the use of dialect and slangs in an advertisement. This is because children can bring about problems, with direct advertising showing slangs and negative materials to children.
35:03
|