Efficacy of film and computer game classification categories and consumer advice a comparative analysis of public opinion

Efficacy of film and computer game classification categories and consumer advice: A comparative analysis of public opinion

December 2013

Table of Contents

Efficacy of film and computer game classification categories and consumer advice: A comparative analysis of public opinion

December 2013 1

1. Executive summary 4

7. Background, objectives, and methodology 4

8. Public awareness and understanding of classification categories and consumer advice 4

9. Public perception of classification categories and consumer advice 5

10. Public use of classification categories and consumer advice 6

11. Classification categories and consumer advice: Alignment with current community standards 6

12. Conclusions 7

2. Introduction 10

2.1 Research context 10

2.2 Objectives 11

2.3 Methodology 11

2.4 Presentation of findings 13

3. Classification and rating systems 14

3.1 Australia 14

3.2 New Zealand 14

3.3 United States 14

3.4 United Kingdom 14

3.5 Canada 15

3.6 Europe 15

3.7 Ireland 15

4. Public awareness and understanding of classification categories and consumer advice 16

4.1 Overview of findings 16

4.2 Awareness of classification categories – Australia 16

4.3 Understanding of classification categories – Australia 18

4.4 Understanding of consumer advice – Australia 19

4.5 Noteworthy findings from comparable jurisdictions 20

5. Public perception of classification categories and consumer advice 23

5.1 Overview of findings 23

5.2 Perceptions of classification systems as a whole 23

5.3 Perceptions of the RC classification category 24

5.4 Perceptions of assigned classifications – General 26

5.5 Parents’ and young peoples’ perception of classification and rating systems 28

5.6 Perceptions of mid-level classifications 30

6. Public use of classification categories and consumer advice 32

6.1 Overview of findings 32

6.2 General use of classification systems 32

6.3 Use of classification categories when choosing for children and young people 33

6.4 Use of consumer advice when choosing for children and young people 36

6.5 Use of classification categories and consumer advice when choosing for self 37

7. Classification categories and consumer advice: Alignment with current community standards 38

7.1 Overview of findings 38

7.2 Can media exposure be harmful? 39

7.3 Current perceptions on what should be restricted 39

7.4 Other areas of concern 50

7.5 Current perceptions of ‘R 18+’ and ‘X 18+’ categories 54

7.6 Young people’s perceptions of current classification system 55

8. Conclusions 56

8.1 Review conclusions 56

9. References 62

10. Appendix A: Summary of classification systems 67

Australia 67

United States of America 71

United Kingdom 73

Canada 74

Europe 76

Ireland 77

1. Executive summary

7. Background, objectives, and methodology

Social research best-practice recommends that a comprehensive literature review be undertaken prior to the implementation of a new research program. Undertaking such a review assists in ensuring that the program (a) does not unnecessarily replicate existing research (including research that has been carried out in comparable jurisdictions) and (b) adheres to recognised methodological and ethical standards within the specific research area of interest. The results of a literature review can also be used to guide research priorities, especially when the proposed program is limited by budgetary and timing considerations. With this best-practice recommendation in mind, public opinion research covering the following topics was reviewed:

• 
  Public awareness and understanding of classification categories and consumer advice (Chapter 3);
  
• 
  Public perception of classification categories and consumer advice (Chapter 4);
  
• 
  Public use of classification categories and consumer advice (Chapter 5); and
  
• 
  Alignment of classification categories and consumer advice with community standards (Chapter 6).
  

The first stage of the literature review consisted of conducting database and website searches and collecting all relevant literature. Following the completion of searches, relevant articles were classified as:

1. 
   Research conducted in Australia and/or comparable jurisdictions (i.e. New Zealand, UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, and Europe).
   

1. 
   Qualitative studies
   
2. 
   Quantitative studies
   
3. 
   Mixed-method studies
   

2. 
   Research conducted elsewhere (excluded from the review).
   

In addition to this public opinion research, academic studies (including experimental and longitudinal designs) examining the potential harmful effects of media exposure, with a particular focus on exposure to violent video games, smoking, and gambling, were also briefly examined in the review. This literature was not reviewed systematically, and therefore relevant conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

7. Public awareness and understanding of classification categories and consumer advice

• 
  Awareness and understanding of classification categories and markings amongst the Australian community was comprehensively assessed via representative quantitative research in 2002 (AC Nielsen, 2002), 2005 (Galaxy Research, 2005), and 2007 (Galaxy Research, 2007). These studies showed:
  
  • 
    High unprompted and prompted awareness of film and computer game classification categories and markings; and
    
  • 
    Moderate understanding of film and video game classification categories and markings, with confusion most commonly observed for mid-level classifications.
    
• 
  Quantitative and qualitative research has further suggested that the Australian publics’ understanding of the consumer advice that accompanies classification markings is moderate (see for example Urbis, Keys and Young, 2004; Galaxy Research, 2007). Key areas of concern are as follows:
  
  • 
    The public appears to have a confused and often incorrect comprehension of the term ‘Themes’, which is included in selected consumer advice (e.g. Supernatural themes, Drug themes).
    
  • 
    The relationship between classification markings and consumer advice is poorly understood, with evidence suggesting that the public are not clear on whether consumer advice is based on standards operating in each classification category, or whether there is a wider framework that all advice fits into.
    
• 
  International studies have provided further evidence that film and computer game consumers find mid-level classifications to be the most confusing, especially when similar labels are used across multiple categories (see for example IFCO, 2013; Colmar Brunton 2011, 2011a).
  

7. 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.
  
  • 
    Despite broad 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.
    
• 
  Qualitative research suggests that the general public have mixed views on what (and indeed whether) material should be banned or restricted (Urbis Pty Ltd, 2011).
  
  • 
    Surveys have regularly shown that members of the Australian general public tend to agree with the classifications and advice assigned to films and computer games (see for example Galaxy Research, 2005; Galaxy Research, 2007; Newspoll, 2002).
    
• 
  International studies suggest that disagreement with classification decisions is most common for mid-level classifications (Hardie, Goldstone, & Slesenger, 2009; Lansdowne Market Research, 2004).
  
• 
  Parents (and other primary caregivers) appear to be more supportive of classification and rating systems when compared to the general public, both in Australia and in comparable jurisdictions (see for example Newspoll, 2002, US FTC, 2007; 2009).
  
• 
  Public opinion research suggests that young people across jurisdictions are generally supportive of classification systems; however many youth believe that assigned classifications are too strict (see AC Nielsen, 2002; Dublin City University & Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art Design and Technology, 2005).
  

7. Public use of classification categories and consumer advice

• 
  Use of classification and rating information amongst the general public appears to be relatively high across the jurisdictions included in this review.
  
  • 
    For example, research undertaken with the Australian public in 2005 concluded that around three quarters of Australians (76%) use classification symbols to decide on the suitability of movies, up from 71% in 2002 (Galaxy Research, 2005).
    
• 
  There is significant cross-jurisdictional evidence to suggest that parents and other primary caregivers use classifications and ratings when choosing (or assisting in choosing) media for children and young people – this is especially true when children are younger (see for example Newspoll, 2002; Colmar Brunton, 2002a; US FTC, 2007).
  
  • 
    Evidence of the use of consumer advice when choosing for children and young people is more limited; however advice is most often used by parents and other primary caregivers when it is comprehensive and easily understood.
    
• 
  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 (see IFCO, 2005; US FTC, 2007).
  

7. Classification categories and consumer advice: Alignment with current community standards

• 
  The potential harmful effects of media exposure have been examined in an extensive literature, including experimental and longitudinal studies.
  
  • 
    Evidence suggesting harm (or lack thereof) should be taken into account when assessing community attitudes and preferences toward media content.
    
• 
  Participants in quantitative research studies (both in Australia and in comparable jurisdictions rarely indicated that they find general sexual content offensive, and many noted that sexual content is treated in an overly restrictive way by regulators, especially when compared to violence (see for example Urbis Pty, Ltd, 2011; Urbis, Keys, Young, 2004).
  
  • 
    Australians and International studies have provided evidence of broad community support for the inclusion of selected fetishes in higher-level, restricted content Urbis Pty Ltd, 2011; BBFC, 2005) .
    
  • 
    Community support for allowing depictions of sexual violence and solicitation of young people/ pedophilia in higher-level, restricted films/ computer games is limited, with several caveats being placed on suggested acceptable content (Ipsos MediaCT, 2012; Urbis Pty Ltd, 2011; Galaxy Research, 2007; Urbis Keys Young, 2004).
    
• 
  Evidence suggests that violence continues to be a major concern for members of the general public, with research participants (both in Australia and in comparable jurisdictions) consistently expressing concern for the potential negative impact of screen violence on individuals and society (see for example Urbis Pty Ltd, 2011; OFLC & BSA, 2008; BBFC, 2005).
  
• 
  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 (see Urbis Pty Ltd, 2011; BBFC, 2009; IFCO, 2004; Urbis, Keys, Young, 2004).
  
• 
  While on the whole community members felt that offensive language was not as impactful as other classifiable elements, the impact of this element was generally thought to increase with frequency (BBFC, 2005; Urbis, Keys, Young, 2004)
  
• 
  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 the scope of the ‘Drug use’ element to including portrayals of smoking and alcohol consumption.
  

7. Conclusions

Review conclusions are as follows:

1. 
   There is broad backing for and confidence in classification systems, both in Australia and in comparable jurisdictions.
   
2. 
   There is a high awareness of the NCS and categories/ markings amongst the Australian public; however, quantitative research undertaken in this area is dated.
   
3. 
   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.
   
4. 
   Understanding of mid-level classifications amongst the Australian public is especially problematic, and sometimes compares unfavourably to the levels observed in comparable jurisdictions.
   
5. 
   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.
   
6. 
   Using separate classifications for sexually explicit films and other ‘adults only’ films can cause confusion.
   
7. 
   Despite broad community and stakeholder support for the existence of a classification system, views on the RC category (and similar) are mixed.
   
8. 
   Classification decisions for films and computer games are broadly aligned with community standards, both in Australia and in comparable jurisdictions.
   
9. 
   Parents (and other primary caregivers) are more supportive of classification and rating systems when compared to the general public.
   
10. 
    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.
    
11. 
    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.
    
12. 
    Empirical evidence assessing potential for harm should be critically considered in conjunction with data assessing community standards.
    
13. 
    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.

14. 
    There is broad community support for the inclusion of selected fetishes in higher-level, restricted content.
    
15. 
    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.
    

2.