Applying social science research to film ratings: A shift from offensiveness to harmful effects

Abstract

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) provides ratings for the majority of commercially released films. The MPAA system is based largely on estimates of what types of film content may be offensive to most parents. We identify four assumptions that underlie the current rating system and show how these assumptions are inconsistent with social science research regarding the impact of media portrayals on young viewers. Finally, we offer an alternative scheme based on what is harmful to children rather than what is offensive to parents. The expansion of cable television and the availability of videocassette recorders have increased the diversity of the home media environment for most families (Dorr & Kunkel, 1990). These new media technologies have also increased the possibility that children will view material that is not necessarily considered appropriate for younger age groups. For example, one survey found that up to 77% of the 14-and 15-year-old respondents reported that they had viewed a number of R-rated films supposedly restricted to viewers over age 17, either in the theater or on videocassette (Creenberg et al., 1986). The vast quantity of adult material now available on cable and on videocassettes places many parents in the position of having to make daily decisions about what their children should and should not view. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) attempts to provide information to viewers, specifically parents, about the content of various movies. This information is conveyed inthe form of ratings that accompany most commercial films and are publicized on most videocassette copies of these 443 444 JOBEM 34:4 Falli 990films. At first glance, the rating system appears to be a useful guide to assist parents in monitoring their children's viewing. The MPAA scheme, however, suffers from a number of problems that limit its utility for parents.We identify four assumptions inherent in the MPAA scheme. We then show how those assumptions are inconsistent with research evidence on the impact of certain media portrayals on young viewers. Finally, we offer an alternative classification scheme that would lead to considerably different ratings than those currently given by the MPAA.

An Evaluation of the Motion Picture Association of America’s Treatment of Violence in PG-, PG-13–, and R-Rated Films

“…Many have argued that a content-based rating system would offer parents the information that they need to make informed decisions about which films to allow their children to view. 7,8 Reflecting this view, a meta-analysis of 4799 parents found that Ͼ64% preferred content-based instead of age-based ratings categories. 9 With the introduction of content descriptors in 1990, the CARA system made an effort to combine the age-based with content-based ratings into a more comprehensive descriptive system.…”

“…[3][4][5][6] For instance, in a study on the validity of the various rating systems for media products, parents found CARA to be "too lenient," with the PG-13 category being the most problematic in this regard. 7 In one of the few studies that have examined the CARA rating system, Wilson et al 8 found the ratings categories to be misleading and lacked specificity in regard to content, such that PG-13 films can contain multiple scenes of violence or have no violence at all but can be loaded with vulgar language. Many have argued that a content-based rating system would offer parents the information that they need to make informed decisions about which films to allow their children to view.…”

Rated sex: An analysis of the MPAA's use of the R and NC‐17 ratings

“…This study supports widely held beliefs about the different treatment of these two elements by the MPAA when assigning a rating to a movie. Researchers who have examined the film rating system (Wilson et al, 1990;Linz et al 1992) assume that a bias exists in the MPAA's treatment of sexuality and violence. Leone (2002) tested this assumption by analyzing the material removed from films in order to secure an R-rating, and found that more sexual content was removed than violent content.…”

“…Farber (1972), an original CARA member, was one of the first to claim that movies containing sex and nudity received more restrictive ratings than ones containing violence: "Much of the classification [of movies] was actually done with an eye to what disturbs adults, G-rated [suitable for general audiences] movies were not necessarily those most suitable for children; they were the ones the board considered least likely to offend adults" (p. 31). Wilson et al (1990) and Linz et al (1992) employ a nearly identical rationale in their critiques of the ratings system, with an important addition: Due to this "double standard," the MPAA allows children easier access to violent content, which is more harmful to them than sexual content, a finding supported by Donnerstein, Linz, and Penrod (1987), who, in their touchstone study of the effects of pornography on viewers, conclude that exposure to sexual content aloneeven graphic depictions -does not facilitate aggression. Further, Comstock and Scharrer (1999), in their meta-analysis of the effects of television violence on antisocial behavior, saw a causal link between various types of violent portrayals and a range of aggressive and antisocial behaviors among children and young adults.…”

“…Criticisms of the ratings system have also come from CARA members themselves (Farber, 1972) and the scientific community (Linz, Wilson, & Donnerstein, 1992;Wilson, Linz, & Randall, 1990). Farber (1972), an original CARA member, was one of the first to claim that movies containing sex and nudity received more restrictive ratings than ones containing violence: "Much of the classification [of movies] was actually done with an eye to what disturbs adults, G-rated [suitable for general audiences] movies were not necessarily those most suitable for children; they were the ones the board considered least likely to offend adults" (p. 31).…”