Efficacy of film and computer game classification categories and consumer advice a comparative analysis of public opinion
Yüklə 1,21 Mb.
|
Conclusions
There is broad backing for and confidence in classification systems, both in Australia and in comparable jurisdictions. There is broad backing for and confidence in classification systems, both in Australia and in comparable jurisdictions – the general model of age-restrictions or recommendations and content advice is an expected, and highly-valued, component of media distribution. Two further points are worthy of note: first, backing for and confidence in classification does not appear to differ significantly depending on whether the system is administered by a government or non-government organisation; and second, there is little evidence of confidence or backing waning over time, suggesting the public continue to see a role for classification in a convergent media environment. There is a high awareness of the NCS and categories/ markings amongst the Australian public; however, quantitative research undertaken in this area is dated. Awareness of classifications and ratings amongst the general public varied considerably across jurisdiction. Due to significant differences in methodological approaches (including sampling) and fieldwork dates, it was not possible to directly compare the performance of the jurisdictions included in this review; however it appears that the Australian public has a particularly high (and consistent) awareness of the different classification symbols. Most notably, an admittedly dated survey of the Australian public revealed (Galaxy Research, 2007):
Understanding of classification categories and markings amongst the Australian public (and amongst the public in comparable jurisdictions) appears to be limited, with significant variation observed across categories/ markings.
Recognition of a classification symbol does not necessarily equate to an understanding of that symbol, and understanding a symbol’s meaning is essential to ensuring a classification system is successful. In contrast to awareness, reported understanding of film classification categories amongst the Australian public (and amongst the public in comparable jurisdictions) appears to be limited, with significant variation observed across symbols. In particular, while lower- and higher- level classifications are generally well understood, there is consistent cross-jurisdictional evidence to suggest that members of the public are confused about the meaning of mid-level classifications, with a significant proportion of qualitative and quantitative research participants either expressing confusion or demonstrating that they possess incorrect knowledge. This issue is especially pronounced when similar symbols or terms are adopted for mid-level classifications – examples of such practices include M and MA15+ (in Australia), 12 and 12A (in the UK), and PG, 12PG and 15PG (in Ireland). The Australian publics’ understanding of the consumer advice that accompanies classification symbols is incomplete, and sometimes compares unfavourably to the level of understanding observed in other jurisdictions. Members of the general public (especially parents) do not have time to research the content of all movies and value consumer advice – in addition to classification symbols – as a way of helping them to avoid undesired, inappropriate, and potentially disturbing material. That being said, evidence suggests that there are two significant gaps in consumer understanding of the advice that accompanies classification symbols in Australia:
Using separate classifications for sexually explicit films and other ‘adults only’ films can cause confusion. Unlike in selected comparable jurisdictions, the Australian classification system includes two classifications which place a legal restriction on people under the age of 18. These are expressed by the symbols R18+ and X18+, the latter applying to films that contain only sexually explicit content and which are not screened in cinemas. Evidence suggests that there is significant and ongoing confusion amongst Australian public (including consumers and non-consumers of this material) about the difference between these symbols. Two particular points of concern are (a) whether the symbols signify that the material is ‘legally restricted to adults’ or ‘suitable for adults’ and (b) whether or not X 18+ films include violence. Despite broad community and stakeholder support for the existence of a classification system, views on the RC category (and similar) are mixed. Few people dispute the benefits of a classification system that allows individuals to make fully-informed decisions about the media they (and their children) consume; however, there is ongoing debate about whether the government should have the capacity to assign an RC classification, which effectively bans the selling, public screening, and distribution of content. 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 abolition 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. Representative quantitative research is required to reach a conclusion about the extent to which these (and more moderate) attitudes toward RC classification exist in the Australian community; however, qualitative research undertaken by Urbis for the ALRC suggested that members of the general public have mixed views on what (and indeed whether) material should be banned or restricted. International studies examining community attitudes toward the capacity of a governing body to ban material have also produced mixed results, providing further evidence that additional robust research is required in this area. Classification decisions for films and computer games are broadly aligned with community standards, both in Australia and in comparable jurisdictions. Members of the Australian general public (and members of the public in comparable jurisdictions) tend to agree with the classifications and advice assigned to films and computer games, suggesting broad alignment between classification decisions and community standards. The following should, however, be noted:
Parents (and other primary caregivers) are more supportive of classification and rating systems when compared to the general public. Higher engagement and support amongst parents (and other primary caregivers) is to be expected – these groups consistently state in qualitative and quantitative research that they do not have the time to research the content of all movies, and that they value movies classifications (and accompanying advice) as a way of helping them avoid inappropriate, and possibly disturbing, material. 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 operation of classification and rating systems therefore are sometimes more likely to reflect parents’ views rather than the views on the general public. In order to avoid this situation, and help to ensure that a classification system is useful to all members of the general public, it is important that research include all segments of society, although it may be worthwhile to survey parents and other engaged stakeholders more often. Surveys undertaken with parents should, at minimum, be treated with caution, as their views on and use of the classification system will be systematically different to other members of the general public. Young people across jurisdictions are, on the whole, knowledgeable and supportive of classification systems; however, self-reported support may not translate into actual use of the system to avoid (or prepare to view) material, especially amongst older children and adolescents. Public opinion research has provided evidence that young people across jurisdictions are generally supportive of classification systems; however many youth believe that assigned classifications are too strict and that classification information is only relevant to children younger than themselves, suggesting that self-reported support may not translate into actual use of the system to avoid (or prepare to view) material, especially amongst older children and adolescents. Evidence further suggests that teens may more commonly use classification information to seek out, rather than avoid, specific material. Use of classification and rating information amongst the general public (especially parents) appears to be relatively high across jurisdictions, with Australia comparing favourably; however use amongst parents may be overestimated. Use of classification and rating information amongst the general public appears to be relatively high across the jurisdictions included in this review. Despite the evidence of limited understanding of consumer advice outlined above, there is also some, admittedly dated, research to suggest that Australians find the consumer advice that accompanies classification useful when selecting media. Use of classification systems appears to be higher amongst females and, not surprisingly, parents and other primary caregivers – this is especially true when children are younger. It should, however, be noted that research undertaken directly with children and young people has produced mixed results, with some studies providing further evidence of parental use of classification symbols and ratings information and other studies suggesting that use (and especially enforcement practices) may be overestimated by parents. It is, of course, also possible that children and young people underestimate parental use of classification systems. The inclusion of a Social Desirability Scale (such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale) in future survey-based research projects will allow for an assessment of the extent to which respondents (including parents and children) are honestly answering items assessing the use of classification systems.
There is an extensive academic and non-academic literature (which includes experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies ) examining the potential harmful impact of certain media content. The task of this review is not reach a conclusion regarding the potential harmful effects of media exposure, including exposure to violent content. A brief overview was included simply to remind readers 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. There is widespread agreement amongst community members that certain content is likely to be harmful (especially to children and young people); however the relative potential for harm is thought to be mediated by: Frequency; Duration; and Context. Sexual activity: International and Australian studies have suggested that the limits placed on sexual content in films could be relaxed, with members of the general public rarely indicating that they found general sexual content offensive (even at high-level classification levels), and many noting that sexual content is treated in an overly restrictive way by regulators, especially when compared to violence. It is, however, very important to note that support for depictions of sexual violence and solicitation of young people/ paedophilia 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. Violence: Evidence suggests that violence continues to be a major concern for members of the general public, with research participants consistently expressing concern for the potential negative impact of screen violence on individuals and society. Violence is generally considered to be more impactful if it is (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, (c) explicit (blood, distress) and unexpected. Members of the general public felt that depictions of violence were especially problematic when the consequences of the violence were either not shown or inaccurately depicted. Drugs, alcohol, and crime: The general public remains concerned about depictions of drugs and drug-taking, with a number of research studies suggesting that the public believe that it is one of the most important, if not the most important, element for classifiers to consider. As with violence, the public is especially concerned about depictions of drug-taking that either show no consequences or inaccurately depicted consequences. It was, however, noted that depictions of drug-taking that show negative consequences could positively impact children, and therefore should not be classified as strictly as depictions that do not show these consequences. Attitudes toward drug taking mirror broader attitudes toward crime, with community members suggesting that depictions of crime without punishment/ consequences are unsuitable for younger viewers. Offensive language: While on the whole community members 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. International research suggests that the word ‘cunt’ still has the power to shock and should not be included in films/ computer games assigned mid-level classifications. There is broad community support for the inclusion of selected fetishes in higher-level, restricted content. While reported level of offense differed significantly depending on specific content, Australian and international studies with the general public and expert stakeholders have consistently shown broad community support for the inclusion of additional fetishes (excluding sexual violence) in higher-level, restricted content. With regard to Australian community attitudes to fetishes, two further points are worthy of note:
There are concerns that exposure to gambling and non-illicit drug use (i.e. alcohol and tobacco) via films and computer games may be harmful, both at an individual and societal level. It is therefore worth considering (a) the inclusion of a specific ‘ Gambling’ element within the NCS, and (b) the expansion in scope of the ‘Drug use’ element to including portrayals of smoking and alcohol consumption. There is evidence to suggest that depictions of smoking and alcohol have the potential to be harmful both at an individual and societal level, especially to children and adolescents. In addition, commercial video gaming technologies provide young people with unrestricted access to realistic (but money-free) gambling and gambling-like activities, which may promote further interest in gambling and increase the likelihood of gambling with real money. There is, therefore, solid evidence that these themes should be incorporated into the Australian NCS, either through the inclusion of additional elements (as is the case for ‘Gambling’) or through the expansion in scope of existing elements (as is the case for depictions of smoking and alcohol consumption). Specific warnings about gambling have been successfully incorporated into classification systems in comparable jurisdictions, and although it has not been comprehensively (or recently) examined, there appears to be broad community and stakeholder support (at least in the United States) for the inclusion of public health warnings, including smoking, within classification systems.
|