Efficacy of film and computer game classification categories and consumer advice a comparative analysis of public opinion
Public perception of classification categories and consumer advice
Yüklə 1,21 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Perceptions of classification systems as a whole
- Perceptions of the RC classification category
- Perceptions of assigned classifications – General
- Parents’ and young peoples’ perception of classification and rating systems
- Perceptions of mid-level classifications
Public perception of classification categories and consumer advice
There has been a consistently high level of support for the existence of a classification system in Australia, with few members of the general public (including academics and engaged stakeholders) disputing the benefits of system that allows individuals to make fully informed decisions about the media they (and their children) consume (Dalton & Schubert, 2011). For example, research undertaken by Newspoll for the Australian OFLC in 2002 suggested an almost universal recognition of the benefits of classification advice, with 94% of surveyed members of the general public agreeing with the following statement: It’s useful to have classification symbols for movies and computer games.11 In addition, 85% of respondents agreed that the OFLC played an important role in providing classification advice on movies and computer games, and 75% agreed that they have confidence in the office’s rating decision making abilities (Newspoll, 2002). More recently, the 2005 Classification Study concluded: ‘Nine in 10 Australians agree that the OFLC plays an important role in providing classification advice on movies and computer games’ (Galaxy Research, 2005, p.31)12. The findings of these relatively recent and empirically sound Australian studies are supported by similar research internationally, with findings consistently suggesting strong backing for and confidence in classification and rating systems. In particular, quantitative research for the UK report Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 found that just over 6 in 10 (62%) members of the general public, and 82% of BBFC website visitors, felt that the BBFC was effective in its role of proving reliable film classification and advice (Hardie, Goldstone, & Slesenger, 2009)13. In addition, accompanying qualitative research concluded (p.25): The BBFC was thought to be fallible and did not always get decisions right; however this was seen as inevitable given the diversity of views on the subject and the credibility of the organisation was never questioned. Whilst respondents do not always agree with every classification decision, on the whole the BBFC were thought to be doing a difficult job well. The IFCO’s Film Classification Survey – Parental Attitudes 2013 provided further evidence of public confidence in classification systems: 85% of the parents interviewed indicated that the IFCO is effective in providing film classifications that could be relied upon (IFCO, 2013).14 Further to this, as part of the US study Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children 2007 surveyed parents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with ESRB rating system: 33% indicated that they were ‘very satisfied’, 51% indicated that they were ‘somewhat satisfied’, 9% indicated that they were ‘somewhat dissatisfied’, and only 3% indicated that they were ‘very dissatisfied’.15 Finally, the 2011 research, Understanding the Classification System: New Zealanders’ Views, concluded that public perceptions of the New Zealand OFLC were, on the whole, positive, with 75% of adults (weighted to the New Zealand population) indicating that the classification office was doing either a ‘good’ (60%) or ‘excellent’ (15%) job (OFLC, 2013).
Despite broad Australian community and stakeholder support for the existence of a classification system, opinions are far less unanimous regarding specific elements of the system; most notably, the RC category (see Hartley, Green, & Lumby, 2010). As noted in the Classification - Content Regulation and Convergent Media report, RC is the highest classification that can be given to media content in Australia at present. Access to such content is restricted by way of prohibitions on sale and distribution contained in State and Territory classification laws. Put simply, content classified as RC is effectively ‘banned’ and may not be sold, screened, provided online, or otherwise distributed. The issues surrounding the relationship between classification and censorship are complicated and varied, especially in a convergent media environment (see Crawford and Lumby, 2012 for overview of issues; see also Chapter 6, below). There appears to be no one reason why an individual or group is for or against the capacity of government to ban selected media content, including media accessed online. There are, however, some consistent arguments on both sides of the debate. One of the most common arguments for restricting access is the view that certain media (especially films and computer games) may be harmful – both at the individual and community level. It is also commonly argued that that restrictive classification helps to protect children from possible harm. A widespread case put forward for the abolishment of the RC classification category (and similar) is that Australia is essentially a free society where adults should be able to see, hear, and read what they like, as expressed in the Classification Act (see for example Hartley, Green, & Lumby, 2010). It is not possible to reach a conclusion about community attitudes to the RC classification (or more broadly to the capacity of the Australian government to ban or restrict access to certain material) as it has not been recently assessed via quantitative research with a representative sample of adult Australians. Qualitative research undertaken by Urbis Pty Ltd for the ALRC, however, suggests that members of the general public have mixed views on what (and indeed whether) material should be banned or restricted. For example, after viewing film scenes including explicit sex and fetishes, a minority of participants felt that the material should be restricted to those aged 21+ and only a few felt that it should be banned. In contrast, there was a general consensus that a piece of content that included online solicitation of a child should be banned, but participants expressed concern about how such material could be banned (Urbis Pty Ltd, 2011). International studies examining community attitudes toward the capacity of a governing body to ban material have produced mixed results. As part of the questionnaire completed by parents for the IFCO’s study, Film Classification Survey – Parental Attitudes 2013, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: ‘There is no longer a need for film censorship (i.e., the banning of films)’.16 The results of the survey revealed that 82% of respondents disagreed with this statement, suggesting support amongst Irish parents for the capacity of the IFCO to ban films (IFCO, 2013). In contrast, a 2005 survey of public opinion commissioned and published by the BBFC found that a clear majority of British community members were against any form of film censorship, with 66% of respondents agreeing with the following statement: ‘Adults (over 18) should be able to watch whatever they want on film and video/DVD’ (BBFC & TNS Media, 2005).17 This finding is further supported by more recent qualitative research commissioned by the BBFC in 2009 (Hardie, Goldstone, & Slesenger, 2009, p.38): Whilst respondents had very mixed ideas about film classification they agreed with two key principles; that films should continue to be classified and that there should be no censorship of film in a free and democratic society. In short, there was a great deal of support for the premise that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment, providing it is legal. Stakeholders consulted as part of the review of the Australian National Classification Scheme criticised the RC classification for being vague and too broad. This view is echoed in relevant academic and ‘grey’ literature (see for example Dunstan, 2009). As noted in Crawford and Lumby (2012; see also Hartley, Green, & Lumby, 2010), Peter Leonard – a partner at Gilbert and Tobin – argues that RC material is a porous category that is subject to political whim and ‘scope creep’. Crawford and Lumby (2012) further question the definition of RC included in the Commonwealth Classification Act, which, as noted above, makes reference to items that ‘offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally acceptable to reasonable adults’. The researchers note (p.46): In this scenario, it is only the opinion of the Classification Board that is taken into consideration – and what constitutes standards of morality, decency and propriety are not properly defined. Moreover, much of the material deemed as RC in Australia would not be refused classification in other Western democratic liberal countries. As with all aspects of the RC classification, the extent to which these views exist in the broader community remains unclear.
Surveys have consistently shown that members of the Australian general public tend to agree with the classifications and consumer advice assigned to films and computer games.
Broadly comparable results were also reported for computer game consumers, with 70% of interviewed consumers indicating that classifications for computer games are about right.20 It should be noted that in the three studies listed above, men were more likely to report that film and game classifications are too strict. For example, in the 2002 study 26% of male respondents disagreed that the OFLC has a good perspective on movies for different ages (compared to 19% overall) (Newspoll, 2002). Similarly, members of the general public surveyed in comparable jurisdictions mostly agreed with classifications or ratings assigned to films and computer games. As part of the 2005 study Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005, members of the general public were asked to indicate how frequently they disagreed with a film’s classification.21 Around two thirds of respondents (66%) indicated that they had either never or rarely disagreed with a classification decision, 30% indicated that they had disagreed quite often, and 3% indicated that they always or almost always disagreed (BBFC & TNS Media, 2009). This question was again included in the survey undertaken for the 2009 study Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 – on this occasion, 38% of surveyed members of the general public indicated that they had never disagreed with a classification decision, 44% indicated that they sometimes disagreed, and 18% indicated that they disagreed either quite often or always (Hardie, Goldstone, & Slesenger, 2009).22 While changes in the response scale make it difficult to compare across survey waves with certainty, taken together the results of the 2005 and 2009 studies suggest that frequent disagreement with classification decisions has decreased over time, with around a third of the general public sample indicating that they frequently disagreed in 2005 compared to around one fifth of the sample in 2009. Further findings of note from comparable jurisdictions include the following:
Parents Public opinion research has consistently shown that parents (and other primary caregivers) are more supportive of classification and rating systems when compared to the general public. Indeed, parents are so widely acknowledged to be engaged stakeholders that some regulatory agencies only survey this respondent group for views on classification or rating systems. The Classification Usage and Attitudes Study reported that 98% of Australian parents agreed that it is useful to have classification symbols for movies and computer games, compared to 94% of adults and 93% of youths (Newspoll, 2002).26 Parents were also significantly more likely to agree with the following statement: ‘Classification symbols are one of the ways to decide on the suitability of movies and computer games for yourself’(88% of parents agree compared to 71% of adults). Broadly comparable results were also reported by the BBFC in 2009: 76% of surveyed parents (compared to 62% of the general public sample) rated the BBFC as (very or quite) effective in its role of providing reliable film classification advice to consumers (Hardie, Goldstone, & Slesenger, 2009).27 In 2007 the US Federal Fair Trade Commission (US FTC, 2007) undertook a telephone survey of parents and children to assess awareness and efficacy of the ESRB system (US FTC, 2007).28 Although more than half of parents familiar with the system (60%) indicated that the rating system does a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ job informing them about the level of violence in a computer game, 36% indicated that it does a ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ job. Parents reported similar levels of satisfaction for the levels of sexual content and profanity included in games. As noted in the final report, the Commission’s survey also included items designed to measure parents’ general level of agreement with ratings assigned to games with which they are personally familiar. Among parents familiar with the ESRB system, 64% agreed that most or all of the time computer game ratings match their personal view of whether a game may be suitable for children in the age group indicated in the game’s rating. The US Federal Trade Commission undertook further relevant research with parents in 2009 – this survey of approximately 1,000 parents of children between the ages of 7 and 16 focussed on parents’ awareness of and attitudes toward the practice of releasing unrated DVDs (US FTC, 2009).29 A majority of interviewed parents expressed some concern about the release of unrated DVDs with more violence or other adult content than the rated theatrical version, with 58% of parents indicating that they had some concerns, 20% indicating that they had no concerns, and 22% indicating that they did not have an opinion either way. This suggests that US parents generally have a preference for classification markings on all DVDs, and best-practice approach to classification should take this preference into consideration. Young people Public opinion research suggests that young people across jurisdictions are generally supportive classification systems; however many youth believe that assigned classifications are too strict. The Classification Usage and Attitude Study undertaken for the Australian OFLC in 2002 included a representative survey of youth aged 13-17 years residing in Sydney and Melbourne (AC Nielsen, 2002).30 The results of this survey suggested that the youth segment largely felt that classification symbols were useful, with 93% of respondents agreeing with the following statement: It’s useful to have classification symbols for movies and computer games. In addition, 80% of respondents agreed that OFLC has good perspective on what kinds of movies/ computer games are suitable for people of different ages. It should, however, be noted that only around 6 in 10 respondents agreed that the classification symbols assist them to ascertain the suitability of movies and computer games for personal viewing. In 2004 the IFCO surveyed a broadly representative sample of secondary school students on their film-related experiences, including attitudes to and views on the current classification system (Dublin City University & Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art Design and Technology, 2005).31 The results of this survey revealed the following relevant findings:
More recently, the New Zealand OFLC undertook an online survey with 507 young people aged 16-18 (Colmar Brunton & NZ OFLC, 2013).32 Views on the classification system reported via this survey were mixed, with 47% of respondents indicating that, in their view, the system was ‘about right’, 40% indicating that the system was ‘too strict’, and only 5% indicating that the system was ‘too lenient’. Of those who felt that that the current system was too strict, only 5% believed that it was ‘much too strict’. It should, however, be noted that more than 8 in 10 respondents (85%) were of the view that restrictions are at least ‘quite a good idea’ for people their own age (i.e. 16-18 years), and 90% believed the same for those younger than themselves.
As noted above, research from a number of agencies found a relatively poor understanding of mid-level classifications or ratings. This issue appears to be especially pronounced when similar symbols or terms are adopted for mid-level classifications – examples of such practices include M and MA 15+ (in Australia), 12 and 12A (in the UK), and PG, 12PG and 15PG (in Ireland). Along with being less understood, research suggests that members of the general public are less satisfied with mid-level classifications, especially when compared to lower-level classifications. For example, research undertaken with Irish parents in 2004 showed the following (Lansdowne Market Research, 2005):33
There is also evidence of dissatisfaction with mid-level classifications amongst the British public. As part of a 2009 survey of the general public, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with films included in the various classification categories.34 Only 59% of the general public sample indicated that they usually or always agreed with 12A classifications (compared to 80% for U, 72% for PG, 61% for 16, 72% for 18, and 63% for R18) (Hardie, Goldstone, & Slesenger, 2009). Regarding mid-level classifications more generally, the researchers concluded (p.39-40): Interestingly, the most difficult and potentially controversial classification category was ‘12A’; teenagers were thought to mature very differently and respondents could also have quite diverse views about was and was not appropriate viewing for this age group. ’15’ was another area of concern, partly because this was recognised as being a vulnerable group where the peer group could lead the child astray and partly because once again, respondents had different views about how ‘adult’ a teenage was at this age. The Guidelines around these two key age groups were scrutinised and the BBFC was not always thought to have got it right. By contrast the issues around ‘U’ and ‘PG’ and ‘18’ seemed clearer cut. At the lower end, film rarely challenged and the parent felt that he or she was still in control. At ‘18’, respondents were relaxed about the Guidelines and how film could impact an adult audience who were free to make their own decisions.
|