The Methods and Merits of Pornography Research

Abstract

We read with dismay the recent exchange between Christensen and Zillmann and Bryant on the effects of pornography (Journal of Communication, Winter 1987, pp. 186-188). First, we are disturbed by the tone of the exchange. We find it disrespectful to both parties and to ourselves. Second, we are disturbed that the debate appears to have ended with the findings of a single study conducted in our laboratory assuming paramount importance in answering the question of whether or not prolonged consumption of pornography that is not overtly violent results in antisocial effects. To leave the debate at this point ignores the fact that an individual research finding is most representative of ''truth'' to the extent that it is replicable. Unfortunately, our original finding is not-at least not so far.As Zillmann and Bryant correctly note, we presented the findings of a pilot study at the Symposium on Media Violence and Pornography sponsored by the Media Action Group in Toronto in 1984 (11). We also report this Ending in our recently published book The Question of Pornography Research Findings and Policy Implications (2, p. 176). As we report there, and as we reported at the conference, prolonged exposure to R-rated "slasher" films, X-rated violent pornography, and X-rated pornography that was not overtly violent but that may be demeaning or degrading to women resulted in subjects judging a victim later portrayed in the videotaped reenactment of a rape trial as less physically and emotionally injured compared to control subjects who viewed no films. In that study we did not find that subjects exposed to all three types of material were less sympathetic toward the rape victim portrayed in the trial or showed less empathy for rape victims in general.We reported the findings of the first study at the Toronto meeting because we thought they were interesting and because we naively assumed that we were being invited to a scientific conference where tentative findings could be reported and appropriate caveats could be made. This was obviously not the case.Had we had the opportunity at the conference, we would have called for more research before coming to any firm conclusion about the effects of exposure to pornography. Indeed, in a second experiment that we conducted after the symposium we found that subject empathy and sympathy were affected by exposure to "slasher" films that combine sex and violence but not by prolonged exposure to pornographic films. We also failed to find significant effects on scales designed to measure endorsement of force in sexual relations, belief in conservative sex roles, and the tendency to view women as sexual objects. We also found no evidence for assignment of greater responsibility to the rape trial victim, no sign of subjects' willingness to excuse 180

Regulating Pornography: A Public Dilemma

“…Donnerstein, whose work is frequently cited as evidence of pornography's negative social impacts, has repeatedly stressed that sexually explicit films have undesirable effects only when the sex is mixed with violence (7,15). Other scholars dispute this reading of the evidence and also raise methodological questions about various effects studies (e.g., 1, 4, 5, 8,12,19,20,21,22,23,24). Fueling the debate are the different interpretations of research findings made by those who advocate various theoretical models of pornography's functions and effects (13).…”

Per mill level control of the circular polarisation of the laser beam for a Fabry-Perot cavity polarimeter at HERA

“…The HBS: the beam sampler is a hologram in engraved relief on a transparent substrate (silica) inducing forward diffraction. The birefringence of the HBS alone has been measured before its installation in the cavity system and the result is compatible with zero [12].…”

Social Science and Public Policy:

“…The debates between researchers opposed to censorship and those whose studies demonstrated negative effects (and were perceived to be aligned with proponents of restrictions) were played out in the journal pages and sometimes reached a level of acrimony rarely seen on other issues (see Christensen, 1986Christensen, , 1987. A third type of reaction came from some of the social scientists prominent in the pornography research field who claimed misrepresentation of their data (Donnerstein, Linz & Penrod, 1987;Linz & Donnerstein, 1988). Researchers were harsh on their own methodological shortcomings, humble about their validity, headlining their pleas to limit effects to indirect ones (see Byrne & Kelley, 1989;Donnerstein, Linz & Penrod, 1987;Malamuth, 1986).…”