Efficacy of film and computer game classification categories and consumer advice a comparative analysis of public opinion
Classification categories and consumer advice: Alignment with current community standards
Yüklə 1,21 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Can media exposure be harmful
- Current perceptions on what should be restricted
- Other areas of concern
- Current perceptions of ‘R 18+’ and ‘X 18+’ categories
- Young people’s perceptions of current classification system
Classification categories and consumer advice: Alignment with current community standards
The potential harmful effects of media exposure (especially prolonged exposure to violent computer games) has been examined in an extensive literature, including experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies (see for example Anderson et al, 2010; Barlett and Rodeheffer, 2009; Bushman & Anderson, 2009; Ferguson 2007; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009; Mitrofan, Paul and Spencer, 2009). The task of the current literature review is not reach a conclusion regarding the potential harmful effects of media exposure, including exposure to violent content. It is, however, worth noting that there exists empirical evidence to suggest that exposure to certain types of media may (or indeed may not) be harmful, and therefore community attitudes and preferences should be interpreted with this literature in mind. Put simply, general acceptance of subject matter amongst the community is not enough for material to be deemed acceptable for government support and distribution (and/ or classification); rather evidence of potential harm to the community should also be considered.
Sexual content General Australian community attitudes to sexual content have been assessed via quantitative and, more recent, qualitative research. A survey commissioned by the Australian OFLC in 1992 found that 79% of a representative sample of Australian adults agreed with the following statement: ‘Sex and nudity, if handled sensitively and if screened on television at adult viewing times, is perfecting acceptable’. It should, however, be noted that 38% of that same sample agreed with the following statement: ‘For me, sex and nudity is a personal and private thing and should not be shown on TV’. As part of this study, respondents over 18 were also asked whether X-rated material containing scenes of actual sex between consenting adults should be available to Australian adults: 71% indicated that it should be available, 8% indicated that it ‘depends’, and 22% indicated that it should not be available (Frank Small & Associates, 1992).56 A more recent study undertaken AC Nielsen (2005) produced comparable results, with 76% of a representative sample of Australian agreeing with the following statement: ‘Films and videos primarily involving various forms of actual sex, including close-ups, should be available (on a restricted basis) to people aged over 18 who wish to view or purchase it’.57 In order to better inform itself about community standards relevant to classification, the ALRC commissioned Urbis Pty Ltd to conduct a series of forums to assess community attitudes to content that falls within the higher-level classification categories (Urbis Pty Ltd, 2011). Participants (including members of the general public and an expert reference group) were recruited for a one-day forum where they viewed and responded to content that ranged from MA 15+ to RC. Content in the ‘sex and nudity’ category included the following two-minute scene from the film Shortbus:
Of the 19 members of the general public who participated in the forums, only four indicated that they found this scene offensive (compared 19 who indicated that it was not offensive and seven who were unsure). The expert reference group members were also, on the whole, not offended by the scene, with five expert participants indicating that they found the scene offensive (compared to 23 who indicated that it was not offensive). Similar results were reported for non-interactive sexual content in a computer game, with only five members of the general public and six experts indicating that they found a scene from Grand Theft Auto: the Ballad of Gay Tony to be offensive. A more mixed response to sexual content was observed in the qualitative research 2004 Community Assessment Panels58, which was also undertaken by Urbis Keys Young for the Australian OFLC (Urbis Keys Young, 2004). As part of this research, members of the general public were shown film and game clips and asked their views on whether and how different elements should be classified. Regarding opinions on depictions of sexual activity, the final report noted ‘significant division across all the panels’, but concluded:
The observation limited offense amongst the general public to some sexually explicit material has also been observed in international studies undertaken in common law countries with broadly comparable classification systems. For example, a 2011 qualitative research project undertaken with the New Zealand public found that (Colmar Brunton & NZ Office of Film and Literature Classification, 2011, p.15): There was a perception that sex and violence are treated inconsistently by the Classification Office – while sexual content receives high restrictions, violence is allowed through more readily. Participants felt that a reversal in this situation could be beneficial, with violent depictions thought to be more harmful than (most) sexual content. Further, in a 2004 survey undertaken for the BBFC, a sample of the British general public were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: ‘People over 18 have a right to see graphic portrayals of real sex in films and videos/ DVDs’. The results revealed that half of respondents agreed (compared to 46% in 2000), 22% disagreed (compared to 31% in 2000), and almost a third expressed a neutral attitude (30%, compared to 23% in 2000), suggesting that the majority of the British public are supportive (or neutral) of a right to consume sexually explicit material, regardless of whether or not they choose to consume it themselves (TNS & BBFC, 2005).59 Fetishes The Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games provides that ‘gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent’ are to be classified as RC. The Guidelines also provide that the X 18+ classification for films cannot accommodate fetishes such as body piercing; application of substances such as candle wax; ‘golden showers’; bondage; spanking; or fisting. The Classification - Content Regulation and Convergent Media report concluded that Australians may be open to the X 18+ category accommodating additional mild fetishes, and that this one area in which the RC classification category could be narrowed. With these observations in mind, it is worthwhile specifically considering past and current community attitudes toward the depiction of fetishes, both in Australia and in comparable jurisdictions. As noted in the Classification - Content Regulation and Convergent Media report, the results of the of the qualitative study undertaken by Urbis Pty Ltd (2011) are not incompatible with the suggestion that mild fetishes could be incorporated into the X 18+ classification category without causing offence to the majority of Australians. As part of this research, participants were shown a series of brief scenes showing actual sexual activities (including fetishes such as bondage and ‘golden showers’) among consenting adults. While reported level of offense differed significantly depending on specific content, the majority of general public and expert participants were of the view that the material should not be banned (but perhaps restricted to people 16+, 18+, or 21+). With regard to Australian community attitudes to fetishes, two further points are worthy of note:
International studies provide further evidence of broad community support for the inclusion of selected fetishes in higher-level, restricted content. For example, as part of a 2005 survey of the British public, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagreed with the following statement: ‘There should be no limits on what can be shown in R18 videos/ DVDs, providing they do not contain sexual violence or break the law’.60 Just over half (52%) of respondents indicated that they agreed with this statement, 17% were neutral, and 31% disagreed. It should, however, be noted that only 23% of respondents agreed with the following statement (compared to 60% who disagreed): There should be no limits on what can be shown in R18 videos/ DVDs). Taken together these results suggest that while the majority of the British public would not advocate the banning of fetish material, they would not allow the inclusion of sexual violence or other illegal material. Violence General Respondents in the Australian study Classification Decisions and Community Standards 2007 were asked their opinion on the level of violence in a film that they had recently watched.61 One in ten surveyed film consumers indicated that the amount of violence in a recently viewed MA15+ film was more than should be allowed. This was higher than was reported for the M (5%), PG (5%), and G (2%) categories (Galaxy research, 2007). Violence was, however, a major concern for members of the general public who participated in the 2004 Community Assessment Panels. 62 The researchers noted that ‘a variety of issues were seen to have a bearing on the impact of on-screen violence’, and that (Urbis Keys Young, 2004, p.29): Of all the classifiable elements, violence generated the most discussion and was the subject of most concern from Panellists. While feedback on other elements was highly variable, Panellists generally agreed that violence – and particularly graphic or prolonged violence – was inappropriate for viewing by younger people. Consistent with the findings for sexual violence, many panellists felt that the impact of violence (both in film and computer games) varied depending on motivation, with ‘menacing violence and threatening behaviour regarded as adding impact’ (p.25). Another issue noted by the panellists was the consequences of the violence (p.25): Blood, injury, or death were all deemed to add to the impact of a violent scene and regarded as inappropriate for children to witness. Scenes in which the depiction of the consequences of violence is prolonged or graphic were viewed as having a greater impact. It was, however, the following was further noted by panellists (p.25): …if a film ended happily, and the eventual consequences of the violence were less serious, Panellists appeared to be more lenient in their assessments. Violence was also considered to be more impactful by panellists if it was (a) committed by someone in a position of authority, especially a policeman (b) committed against vulnerable victims – violence by men against women, animals, and children was all regarded as having relatively high impact, and (c) explicit (blood, distress) and unexpected. When asked specifically about computer games, panellists expressed specific concerns about imitability, leading the researchers to note (p.28): …the dangers of children imitating the behaviour that they ‘perform’ through gaming were raised in relation to virtually every computer game used for the research. In addition to being shown scenes from film, participants (including members of the Australian general public and experts who took part in the 2011 Community and Reference Group Forums (Urbis Pty Ltd, 2011) were asked to view and respond to brief footage from three computer games, including the following:
Around half of general public (50%) and expert (57%) participants indicated that they found this material offensive, and the final report further noted: The airport content in Call of Duty was identified as being as most offensive, generally noted as being due to it portraying violence directed at innocent people, e.g. ‘it’s too close to reality’. As part of the survey undertaken for the Public Opinion and BBFC Guidelines 2005, surveyed members of the general public were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that violence was more acceptable (a) in a comic setting, (b) in historical or fantasy settings, or (c) in a ‘terror’ setting.63 Forty-four per cent of respondents indicated that they thought violence is more acceptable in a historical or fantasy setting, compared to 38% who felt it was more acceptable in a comic setting and 39% who thought it was more acceptable in a terror setting. In 2008 the New Zealand OFLC and Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) undertook qualitative research (including online bulletin boards, focus groups, and in-depth interviews with the general public) to assess audience perceptions of violence in an audio-visual environment. Consistent with Australian studies, the results revealed community concerns regarding the potential for exposure to violent media to negatively alter attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour (Colmar Brunton, OFLC & BSA, 2008, p.33):
Research has consistently indicated that support for real and fictional depictions of sexual and sadistic violence in higher-level, restricted films/ computer games amongst the Australian community (and community members in comparable jurisdictions) is limited, with several caveats being placed on suggested acceptable content. As part of a survey of the general public undertaken in 1992, a representative sample of the Australian public were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: ‘Explicit sex scenes and sexual violence should not be shown on TV at any time’.64 Around three quarters (72%) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, suggesting a high level of disapproval for showing sexual violence at the time the survey was undertaken (Frank Small & Associates, 2002). Although it should be noted that this statement makes reference both to explicit sex and sexual violence, and therefore the results cannot be used to draw conclusions about sexual violence alone. More recently, 51% of a representative sample of Australian adults indicated that sexual violence should not be allowed in films classified R 18+, and a further 10% indicated that it should be allowed once only (Galaxy Research, 2007).65 Recent qualitative research has also suggested that the Australian community continues to view sexual violence as a particularly important factor for the classification of films and computer games, with the final report for the 2004 Community Assessment Panels research noting (Urbis Keys Young, 204, p44):66
As noted above, participants (including members of the general public and an expert reference group) in the study of higher-level media content undertaken by Urbis Pty Ltd (2011) as part of the ALRC review of Censorship and Classification viewed and responded to content that ranged from MA15+ to RC. Content in the ‘violence’ category included the following two and a half minute scene from the film A Serbian Film: A fully nude female is led to a bed and, spreadeagled on her belly, is forcibly cuffed by her wrists and ankles. The lead character, implicitly drug-affected, engages in realistically simulated rear-entry sexual intercourse with her. Through his earpiece, he hears a command: ‘Hit the bitch!’. He thrusts aggressively while explicitly slapping, and then forcefully punching, the female’s back. Bruising appears on the female's back in immediate post action visuals. He is handed a machete and, through a succession of detailed depictions, implicitly hacks the female’s head off. Blood and gore noted. He continues thrusting vigorously behind the headless female’s corpse before being pulled away by two males. After viewing, the vast majority of forum participants indicated that they found the material offensive, with all members of the general public (bar one) and experts (bar two) selecting ‘Yes, offensive’ when asked about their personal response to the material. Further, the majority of participants felt that the film should be banned, but a minority were unsure. Qualitative research undertaken for the Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 found that sexual violence was consistently viewed as offensive, with even participants who claimed to be desensitised to violence admitting that they found sexual violence disturbing, primarily because (TNS & BBFC, 2005, p.12): …it related to the power relationship between men and women. It was disturbing for women because it felt too real, and because they saw it as something that might happen to them. Respondents thought the offensiveness of sexual violence was unlikely to be mitigated by fantasy or comic contexts. More recent, qualitative research with the British public undertake for the BBFC in 2009 also addressed the issue of sexual violence. For films classified as 12A/12, the research found (BBFC, 2009, p.43):
Parents included in this research were also worried about the BBFC Guidelines stipulating that at the ‘15’ level ‘scenes of sexual violence must be discreet and brief’ (p.43): The clips shown in the research to illustrate just how brief these moments in a film could be did little to assuage these anxieties and it was clear that sexual violence has the potential to shock, irrespective of how discreetly it is handled. Respondents did accept that context can be a mitigating factor and that verbal references would be easier to dismiss than visual ones – however brief. The BBFC recently commissioned Ipsos MediaCT to undertake comprehensive qualitative research to inform a review of its sexual and sadistic violence policy. As noted in the final report the research was commissioned because ‘the BBFC consider an important determinant for identifying potential harm in the viewing of films with sexual and sadistic violence content, to be insights, opinions and attitudes of the adult general public aged 18 years and over’ (Ipsos MediaCT, 2012, p. 1). The methodology for this project included viewing selected films (including films that received a ‘Rejected’ classification), in-depth interviews, and discussion groups (in which additional material was viewed). The following relevant research findings were reported:
Based on the results of the research the authors concluded (p.5): The research findings suggest that there is public concern for the depiction of sexual and sadistic violence in films and their potential to contribute to harmful behaviour and attitudes in society and consequently a desire for the BFFC to intervene when appropriate. Primary concerns focused on the endorsement or normalisation of rape, the sexualisation of violence which could offer a distorted view of women and ‘normal’ sex, and presence of children in any sexual or violent scene. Drugs, alcohol, and crime Participants in the 2004 Australian research study Community Assessment Panels generally agreed that ‘material featuring prolonged alcohol and (legal and illicit) drug use’ were not suitable for younger viewers. Consistent with the results obtained for violence, panellists were especially concerned about scenes in which alcohol and drug use were presented without negative consequences, suggesting that these scenes send the ‘wrong’ message to young people.67 Based on these observations, the authors concluded (Urbis Keys Young, 2004, p.32): Panellists expressed concern over depictions over depictions of the excessive or dependent use of alcohol and emphasised the need for such depictions to be taken into account for classification purposes and in consumer advice. It should be noted that the Panellists’ views on drugs and drug-taking were aligned with broader views on criminal activity more generally, with the final report noting (p.31): The portrayal of criminal activity was regarded in most cases as unsuitable for younger viewers, particularly where the perpetrators remain unpunished. The impact of criminal activity was considered particularly great in ‘Intermission’, in which crime was seen to be portrayed as a normal way of life. Participants (including members of the general public and experts) in the more recent Community Attitudes to High level Media Content study were also shown and asked to comment on a number of scenes involving drug use (Urbis Pty Ltd, 2011). Amongst these scenes was the following two-minute excerpt from the French drama TV series ‘Spiral’: A man a women in an intimate relationship use heroin. The man has an apparent overdose and the woman flees the flat to call for help. The scene was generally reported to be minimally offensive; however, the explicit showing of the preparation and use of ‘hard’ drugs was seen by some to be impactful. Other participants regarded the footage as potentially positive as, in contrast the scenes viewed as part of the Community Assessment Panels, the drug use was not glamourised and the consequences of the drug use were shown. Participants in this study were also shown footage of ‘a drug attic and his friends injecting heroin and reciting aspects of his life’ from a documentary entitled ‘Life in Loops’. No participants reported that they found this material offensive, and it was again noted that viewing such footage (especially by teens) could be potentially beneficial, with the final report stating (p.44): ‘Many found the characters pitiful or miserable and for some this strengthened their view that the footage was potentially not harmful to young people, but could serve as a deterrence’. Despite this finding, international evidence suggests that members of the general public (especially parents) in comparable jurisdictions are concerned about graphic displays of illegal drug-taking in films and computer games, with studies consistently indicating that the public believe it is one of the most important elements (if not the most important element) to consider when classifying a film. For example, as part of the Parental Usage & Attitudes Survey of Film Classification, Irish parents were asked to indicate how important different types of content should be when the IFCO decide on a film’s classification, and ‘Drugs and drug-taking’ topped the list of concerns (Lansdowne Market Research, 2005, p.9):68
Research undertaken with the British public for the Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 study similarly found that ‘Drug and drug-taking’ to be the most important element for a films classification, with 75% of respondents considering it to be ‘very important’ (compared to 65% for violence, 56% for ‘sexual activity’, 49% for swearing and strong language, 46% for ‘racial references which might be offensive to some people’, 34% for ‘religious references which might be offensive to some people’69. In line with the results from Australian research, qualitative research with British general public in 2009 found that while community members generally acknowledge that most 15-year olds have been exposed to drugs (or at least knew about them), it was important not to glamourise drugs, with the final report noting: ‘…drug taking may be shown but the film as a whole must not promote or encourage drug misuse’ (Hardie, Goldstone, & Slesenger, 2009, p.48). Offensive language Attitudes toward and concerns about offensive language were explored in the 2004 Australian research study Community Assessment Panels.70 While on the whole Panellists felt that offensive language was not as impactful as other classifiable elements, the impact was thought to increase with frequency. In addition, the impact of offensive language was considered more pronounced when spoken (a) by an authority figure, (b) in the presences of children, and (c) with an aggressive tone. Regarding the type of language acceptable at different classification levels, the final report noted the following (Urbis Keys Young, 2004, p.30): Words such as ‘turd’, ‘bum’, and ‘bastard’ were regarded as acceptable within the PG category, providing they are used in context and not aggressively. The Board’s ruling on language in this category were generally thought to be reasonable or even a little conservative. Meanwhile, the Panel were not greatly concerned with the impact of language at the MA15+ category, and did not think that course language, in itself, should push a film into a R18+ Classification. In a survey of the general public undertaken by the BBFC in 2004, respondents were asked to indicate whether they thought the language standards included in the then current BBFC Guidelines were ‘Too strict’, ‘About right’, or ‘Not strict enough’(BBFC & TNS media, 2005).71 Just over half of respondents (51%) indicated that, in their view, the language standards were about right (compared to 43% who felt they were not strict enough and only 5% who felt they were too strict), suggesting that the British public were not concerned about the level of course language in films. The accompanying qualitative research revealed the following relevant findings (BBFC & TNS Media, 2005):
More recent qualitative research undertaken with the British public further revealed the following relevant findings (Hardie, Goldstone, & Slesenger, 2009):
The view that the context of offensive language is important is also reflected in findings from qualitative research undertaken with the New Zealand public, with the Viewing Violence study final report stating that (Colmar Brunton, OFLC & BSA, 2008, p.34-35): Participants considered the language used in some clips and, more importantly, how it was used, either enhanced the perceived degree of violence, or caused offence. Participants did not generally consider that the offensive language in the clips was harmful. They thought that in some cases the language added to the degree of violence, and was a factor that increased or decreased the perceived level of violence.
Under the current NCS, there are six classifiable elements forming the basis of classification criteria: Themes, violence, sex, language, drug use, and nudity. Recommendation 9–4(c) in Classification - Content Regulation and Convergent Media report specify that consideration should be given to additional classifiable elements. A number of international classification bodies consider additional elements under their classification schemes, including fear or scariness, gambling (including interactive gambling), animal cruelty, and health warnings for issues including tobacco and alcohol use. As an alternative, the scope of the existing elements could be refined or expanded. Note that prior to the addition or alteration of elements, a comprehensive program of quantitative and qualitative public opinion and stakeholder research (including a review of existing literature) is required – this will ensure that the elements are supported, understood, and aligned with current community standards and stakeholder expectations. Drawing on the existing literature only, the following two potential changes are explored, by way of example, below:
Gambling Empirical research studies carried out over the past five years suggest that children and young people are increasingly engaging in online gambling activities via digital devices including personal computers, smartphones, and portable tablets (e.g. Griffiths & Parke, 2010; McBride & Derevensky, 2009; Allen Consulting Group, 2009). For example, in recent study of British adolescents, 1% of surveyed 11-15 year olds reported that they had gambled on the internet in the seven days prior to completing the questionnaire (Ipsos MORI, 2009 as cited in King et al, 2012). There is also evidence to suggest that youth gambling represents a growing social problem, with up to 4% of youth in developed countries reporting a major gambling problem (see for example Volberg et al, 2010). Accompanying this expansion in online gambling, a diverse range of ‘gambling-like’ activities have become increasingly available on smartphones, social networking sites, and computer game technologies (see Owens, 2010). Gambling-like activities, according to King and colleagues (2012, p232), ‘refer to simulations of gambling activities that provide players with opportunities to practice or become more familiar with gambling activities without involving the spending of actual money’ (see also King et al., 2010). Although robust data on the use of such activities is not yet available, it is possible to estimate popularity based on download and use rates, which suggest high take-up – for example, at the time of writing, Zygna Poker had more than 6 million daily users. The link between engagement in gambling-like activities and uptake of (and indeed interest in) gambling with money has been examined in recent years (see for example Forrest et al, 2009; Ipsos MORI, 2011). For example, Forrest, McHale, and Parke (2009) used statistical modelling to conclude that gambling in money-free mode was best predictor of whether a child would gamble for money. Further, Hardoon, Derevensky, and Gupta (2002) reported that 25% of youth with gambling problems also play on ‘free play’ or practice gambling sites. It should, however, be recognised that gambling in adolescence (including money-free gambling) does not necessary lead to gambling during adulthood. Delfabbro, Winefield, and Anderson (2009), for example, tracked over 500 adolescents from age 15 through to adulthood and found no statistically significant association between gambling at 15 and during early adulthood. As noted above, current classifiable of computer games are themes, violence, sex, language, drug use, and nudity. Gambling content in Australia is classified within the category of ‘themes’, and consumer advice can be used to further describe the content as ‘simulated gambling’ or ‘gambling content’. Other rating systems such as the PEGI in Europe include ‘gambling’ as a separate category, in a similar manner to ‘sex’ and ‘violence’ – it has been suggested that this approach could also be adopted in Australia (see for example King et al, 2013). It should, however, be noted that despite evidence of potential harm, recent survey-based research suggests that the Australian community are not overly concerned about exposure (either by adults or children) to gambling-like activities via computer games:
A systematic review of research examining the effect of exposure to gambling-like activities via computer games and more comprehensive public opinion and stakeholder research is required prior to implementation any changes to the way this content is classified, including the inclusion of ‘gambling’ as a separate element. Smoking and alcohol Smoking In the ongoing public health fight against tobacco use, explicit or implicit pro-smoking messages in mass media are often cited as a cause of concern. Importantly, there is a growing body of empirical research to suggest that this concern is not unwarranted – this research includes both cross-sectional (see for example Dalton et al, 2003) and longitudinal (see for example Gidwani et al, 2002) studies. However, the most compelling evidence of this proposed media influence has come from a series of studies documenting the influence of portrayals of smoking in popular films (e.g. Dalton et al., 2003; Sargent et al, 2001; 2002). As noted by Thomson and Gunther (2007), these studies are distinguished by rigorous exposure measures. Typically, investigators first analyse the incidence of smoking in current films, then ask survey respondents to review a list of 50 recent films, and check off the ones they have seen. Data from these studies consistently suggest that exposure to smoking in films is associated with to increased smoking susceptibility. While a number of researchers and, especially, advocacy groups have used the evidence outlined above to argue that depictions of smoking should be banned from all films, it is more commonly suggested that all smoking scenes should cause a movie to be restricted – even when smoking in scenes is only implied. Relatively recent US survey-based research has provided evidence that placing restrictions on movies containing smoking in the manner described above has substantial community support. For example, a national representative survey of American adults revealed the following relevant findings (McMillen et al, 2006):72
The extent to which these views exist amongst the Australian public is currently unclear, and extensive research with the public (and stakeholders) is required prior to the inclusion of ‘Smoking’ within the ‘Drug use’ element. Alcohol Academics and policy-makers are in general agreement that alcohol misuse is a prominent problem worldwide, and one of the major risk factors for burden of disease and social harm (see for example Osterberg, 2006). Evidence suggests that adolescents in particular are adopting harmful patterns of alcohol consumption and are at high-risk of alcohol-related harm (see Schmid et al, 2003). For example, a recent survey of Australian secondary students revealed that 21% of 12 year olds had consumed alcohol in the past year (Cancer Council Victoria, 2011). During adolescence, alcohol consumption can lead to structural changes in the hippocampus (a part of the brain crucial to the acquisition of new information)(De Bellis et al, 2000) and at high-levels of consumption can permanently impair brain development (Spear, 2002). Drinking by adolescents and young adults is also associated with the following: automobile crash injury and death, suicide and depression, missed classes and decreased academic performance, loss of memory, blackouts, fighting, property damage, peer criticism and broken friendships, date rape, and unprotected sex (Bonomo et al, 2001). It has been widely suggested that effective, efficient interventions and policies in this area require an understanding of the multiple personal, social, and cultural influences on adolescent alcohol use and the influences most amenable to change (i.e. the most promising targets for intervention) (see for example Dal Cin et al, 2008). As a source of observational learning (Bandura, 1986), films provide information about the prevalence, acceptability, and function of alcohol in social life. There is therefore a possibility that exposure to alcohol via films could influence adolescents’ drinking-related beliefs and behaviour. Importantly, there exists substantial empirical evidence to support this claim – indeed the vast majority of studies examining the relationship between alcohol portrayals in films and subsequent alcohol consumption has focused solely on adolescents. For example, two systematic reviews of prospective cohort studies found an association between exposure to alcohol advertising or promotional activities (including product placement in films) and the initiation and amount of alcohol consumed by adolescents (Anderson et al, 2009; Smith & Foxcroft, 2009). Further, Sargent and his colleagues (2006) used a prospective cohort of 2400 never-drinking adolescents to show that exposure to alcohol in films was an independent risk-factor for the onset of alcohol use (see also Hanewinkel & Sargent, 2009). While the research outlined above assessed the long-term effects of alcohol depictions in films, a growing number of studies have directly examined the temporaneous effects. Researchers in this area have suggested that exposure to alcohol depictions via films may cue alcohol consumption in the same way that exposure to food commercials cues eating behaviour (Koordeman et al, 2010). For example, Engels et al (2009) exposed 40 pairs of males to two film conditions (many versus few alcohol depictions) for 60-minutes in a ‘bar-laboratory’ setting in which they had access to alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. Males who watched the movie containing many depictions of alcohol drank on average 1.5 more glasses of alcoholic beverages when compared to those who watched the film containing few depictions of alcohol. This led the researchers to conclude that exposure to alcohol depictions in films can lead to increased alcohol consumption while watching in males. It should, however, be noted that a more recent study failed to replicate this finding for female participants (see Koordeman et al, 2010). In conclusion, there is substantial empirical evidence (including rigorous meta-analyses and controlled experimental studies) to suggest that viewing films with alcohol consumption can increase likelihood and level of drinking in adolescents, both immediately and in the longer-term. Indeed, it has even been suggested that alcohol depictions in films may be more powerful than direct advertising because the message is not perceived as advertising (see for example Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In the majority of developed countries (including Australia), alcohol advertising is jointly regulated by government and industry. In contrast, few restrictions are placed on alcohol depictions in films and evidence suggests that depictions are commonplace across all classification levels. For example, a recent study calculated the total number of alcohol appearances in 300 films, comprising 15 highest grossing films at the UK Box Office each year over a period of 20 years from 1989 till 2008. The research found that at least one alcohol appearance occurred in 86% of films and at least one episode of alcohol branding occurred in 35% of films (Lyons, McNeil, Gilmore, & Britton, 2011). Researchers have suggested that the inclusion of alcohol warnings before the start of a film (including via classification information) could be a way to create more awareness and allow for informed decision-making. However, these researchers also acknowledge that the inclusion of alcohol warning icons may attract people (especially adolescents) to watch a particular film, and subsequently suggest that further empirical research is required in this area (see for example Koordeman et al, 2010). As with smoking, the extent to which the Australian public (and stakeholders) are supportive of the inclusion of alcohol in classification information (including via the ‘Drug use’ element) remains unclear and an extensive program of targeted research is required.
Australian research has supported the conclusion that the general public are, on the whole, satisfied with the material included in high-level classification categories. For example, as part of the survey undertaken for the Classification Decisions and Community Standards study (Galaxy Research, 2007), respondents who were able to comment on the X18+ classification (i.e. 58% of the sample) were asked to indicate whether they thought this classification category was too permissive, too strict, or about right. Almost 9 in 10 respondents (88%) felt that the classification is about right, with only 9% of respondents reporting that it was too permissive and 3% reporting that it was too strict.73 The perceived acceptable limits for R 18+ films was also assessed as part of the Classification Decisions and Community Standards study (Galaxy Research, 2007). As noted in the final report, this part of the research sought to assess the level of actual sex and violence that the community considers is acceptable in films classified R18+. Respondents were firstly asked to list elements that should not be allowed in R18+ films: the majority of surveyed adults (57%) were not able to name anything that should not be in a movie rated R18+. Amongst those respondents who were able to name an element two themes emerged: violence (which was mentioned by 31% of respondents) and sex (which was mentioned by 25% of respondents). Respondents aged over 18 years were then asked their opinion on (a) the current amount of violence permitted in R18+ films, and (b) whether actual sex should be permitted in R18+ films:
Consistent with findings on sexual violence outlined above, around half (51%) of respondents felt that sexual violence should not be allowed in films classified R18+, with a further 10% indicating that it should only be allowed once, and 27% believe that it is appropriate to include in films only occasionally. Perceptions of R18 content has also been addressed in research undertaken in the UK. Respondents in the Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines study were informed that ‘Videos/ DVDs given the special R18 (Restricted 18) contain explicit, real sex between consenting adults. These films are only available through licensed sex shops, and can only be obtained by adults aged over the age of 18’. As noted above, respondents were then asked the extent to which they agreed with the following two statements (BBFC & TNS Media, 2005, p.11):74
Around half (51%) of respondents agreed with the first statement while only 23% of respondents agreed this the second statement, suggesting that certain non-illegal material may need to be excluded from R18 DVDs to be in line with UK community standards.
As part of the Irish study Adolescents and Film: Attitudes to Film Classification, young people were asked about how films with specific content should be classified.75 The research found that young people consider the use of hard drugs to be the single most important element in terms of what should be restricted, with 10% of respondents indicating that it should never be shown and a further 34% indicating that it is only suitable for over 18s (Dublin City University & Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art Design and Technology, 2005). It is worth recalling at this point that evidence has suggested that depictions of hard drug use are also a concern for British (BBFC & TNS Media, 2005) and Australian (Urbis Keys Young, 2004) adult community members, especially parents. Other content that the surveyed Irish adolescents felt should be restricted to adults included: explicit sex (18%), violence rewarded (13%), nudity (15%), and implied sex (12%). Further, just over half of respondents (51%) were of the view that explicit sex should be given the 15PG classification. In contrast to adults, evidence from this survey suggests that young people generally had more liberal views about violence than sexual content. The majority thought that stylised violence (93%), realistic violence (62%), and violence seen as normal (62%) should be classified as 12PG or lower. Support for sexual content at the 12PG level was more limited, with 60% indicating that it was acceptable talk about sex at this level (and below), 41% indicating that it was acceptable to show implied sex, and 30% indicating that it is acceptable to show explicit sex. It should, however, be noted that the majority of the young respondents agreed that a 15PG (or lower) restriction was deemed a sufficient restriction for all possible content included in a film. Young people were also asked for their opinion about what classifiable elements their parents’ were most concerned about. Sex was the most popular element, with 88% of respondents selecting this option, followed by violence (59%), drugs (58%), and bad language (56%). Consistent with reporting regarding parental control of viewing, there was evidence of a discord between the opinions of parents and children, with the final report noting (p.10):
|