This is clearly a very weak reinforcer, especially for an adult.



This might work with kids, it most certainly wouldn't work for an adult. Besides, it would only work as a reinforcer if the kid actually likes comics.



This is probably not a reinforcer for anyone. No one is going to tear into the sugar pack or oatmeal pack and eat it because there is something interesting printed on the back. And it is doubtful that anyone would even buy it for that if they can just pick it up without opening it and read it.



This example is very much like the toy in the happy meal. The aspect I didn't go into depth about in my previous post was how a simple reinforcer then strengthens corresponding associations through classical conditioning so that the reinforcer is not even needed anymore. Thus the funny character on the box can over time evoke the same response as the "reward" of the toy for opening the box and eating the cereal.




Again, these are very weak reinforcers. None of these play a major symbolic role in an adults life. A toy on the other hand encompasses a large symbolic value in a child's life as that is mostly what children spend their time doing, playing and experimenting with toys of various sorts. Having a child do something (like eat) and then handing the kid a toy in response has a much stronger effect than the things you listed for multiple reasons. The effect is even stronger when younger when the child hasn't developed the cognitive faculties and is even more influential by basic behavioral learning.

Do not misunderstand me, I do not think that a happy meal toy dooms a kid to eat fast food the rest of his life. And actually if the kid is reinforced with stronger reinforcers to an alternative behavior then he or she will probably soon forget all about happy meals. But face it, that isn't what many parents do. Instead they continually eat there and the cycle of behavior and reinforcement continues. That is my point. The toy is important in the process because of the meaning it has for a kid. A toy for most kids is of far greater significance than something minor like a fortune cookie for an adult (typically the cost of the meal to get the cookie far outweighs the benefit of obtaining the reinforcer cookie).



No, they aren't cocaine. Again, I never claimed they were but they are marketing ploys that use a basic and powerful principle of human behavior and learning to get kids to want their product. Again, toys are especially powerful with kids because they don't have the range of alternative behaviors that adults have and they don't have the cognitive skills that adults have to deduce a cost/benefits analysis of eating fast food. Toys and playing are an integral part of childhood learning. Why do you think happy meals are for kids but teenagers grow out of them and move on? One reason (certainly not the only reason)is that a toy is not reinforcing to a teenager as they no longer play with them. So, the company finds other ways to market to the teenagers (and adults) like stickers that give away free food and prizes (for adults). Another good one I've watched over the years is the restaurants letting the teens hang out there (as long as they buy something of course). McDonalds is now remodeling restaurants all over the country to make them like mini-cafes with internet access and chairs to sit and relax in. A more cozy, comfortable place to chill out and socialize and surf the net.



I don't want to keep picking apart what is and what isn't a strong reinforcer. But, I will say this. No, I don;t think most parents ever really think about what the toy in the happy meal is really for. I mean they might kind of have an idea that there is something to it to get their kid's attention but they don't really understand how strong the effect can be. Personally, I blame psychologists everywhere for being very poor communicators of our craft. I regret saying this but we psychologists (I include myself) are very poor at communicating what we know to non-scientists. Many of us are so busy trying to get in to grad school or get published or land teaching positions, etc. that we often overlook the importance of the information we have and its relevance to the average person who will probably never hear about the mechanics of behavior and learning.



First let me say again that I don't think that the toy is the be all end all of reinforcers for a child but it is a stronger reinforcer than what people who have been posting in here seem to think it is.
Also let me restate, I don't think legislation is really an answer. As I said, in this instance, educating parents about the effects of advertising and the psychology behind it would probably have a better result. I always opt for education over legislation. If parents are told what is going on and they choose to ignore it then they are at fault for playing into the manipulation of marketers. But just forbidding something that seems trivial even though it is not just pisses people off.
As far as the article goes, even though I think the guy who did that movie is full of shit, I am also not buying the argument that fast food isn't that bad either. I don't want to get into that one but I'll just say that there is a lot more to health then just adding up calories and fat grams. For just one example, it is becoming clearer and clearer in nutrition that not every calorie is equal and insulin response is extremely important when it comes to food intake. Maybe we can discuss that topic another time.