Does this language of behavior serve to enhance children’s position in the family, allowing them as they develop to interpret and take part in the family’s consumer decisions? Peracchio’s (1993) research suggests that 5-year-olds are capable of explicitly learning scripts for consumer behavior from repeated viewings of audiovisual narratives about consumer–product exchanges. Do these scripts benefit from the implicit memories of product placement? In this view, accessible and inaccessible perceptions are interconnected and provide information for each other in a way that becomes, with development, increasingly elaborate and systematic.
The implication is that images of the products in placements are perceived but not analyzed until the conceptual system “determines what gets perceptually processed” (Mandler, 1988, p. 132). This view is consistent with the developing child making greater use of implicit memories as these become important, perhaps for social reasons. Drummey and Newcombe (1995) seem to concur with this possibility when they suggest that “developmental changes in the understanding and use of the relations between explicit and implicit memory may account in part for age-related growth in explicit memory”
Then the question arises, does the script get put into action invariably once it has been written, or are children subject to competing scripts depending on the reactivation or repetition priming of stimuli? Such a view would suggest the importance of primacy and recency effects, first detected in the learning of nonsense syllables by Ebbinghaus (1885) and found to be particularly relevant for measuring the impact of television advertising (Krugman, 1965). Some form of activation of the priming stimulus, which needs to be context specific, such as another viewing of the film or at least the relevant scene, seems to be required for choice to be affected by implicit memories