Sexual and Violent Content in Cinema and Its Effects on Audiences

Sexual and Violent Content in Cinema and its Effects on Audiences A persistent debate has harassed at motion picture decades. This debate regards sexual and violence content in film and whether they can have a damaging effect on audiences and society. In this assignment I shall research current thinking and draw up my own conclusion from my findings.
Public opinion currently holds the belief that violence and sex as portrayed in the media has led to a decline of moral values and has contributed to violent behaviour1. However, sceptical as I am that this is less the doing of the media and more the doing of society on a whole, I have conducted research of my own into this matter.
While I agree with the discretion of sexual and violent conduct in good story telling I can’t help but feel that violence has grown, perhaps shamelessly, to an unnecessary degree.
I begin with researching the current trends in cinema.

MPAA Ratings 1993-2007
MPAA Ratings 1993-2007

The graph above shows there is an increase in MPAA ratings from 1993 – 2007. There is a slight dip after 2001, perhaps in the wake of 9/11, however since that time those ratings have returned and resumed their upward cycle. This suggests that in this 14 year time fame films have gradually drifted towards an older audience. Nevertheless, this graph cannot prove that violence and sex are the main cause for a raise in ratings. However, when one examines the sex, violence and profanity rating for each different MPAA rating one can’t help but notice an upward trend also building.

All graphs from http://www.stcloudstate.edu/economics/documents/DoesSexSell.pdf
All graphs from http://www.stcloudstate.edu/economics/documents/DoesSexSell.pdf

The figures above show a definitive upward trend of movie content. There is not one average rating in sex, violence or profanity that is lower than in 2007 than it was in 1993. Interestingly the average sex rating for a PG-13 film in 2007 is exactly the same as the average sex rating for R rated films in 1993. Similarly the average sex rating for PG films released in 2007 is only slightly less than the average sex rating for PG-13 films released in 1993. Furthermore the average violence rating in G films realised in 2007 is exactly equivalent to average violence rating of PG films realised in 1993.
These results suggest one outcome. Films today contain more sex, violence and profanity than they did twenty-years ago. However, whether or not this increase has had a direct effect on society is hard to say.
The Hypodermic model, also known as the Hypodermic Needle theory, suggests that mass media has a direct and powerful effects on its audience. The mass media of the 40’s and 50’s are believed to have been monumental in influencing society change. Movements such as the African-American Civil Rights movement employed the media as a mechanism to reach a wider audience.
The theory hypothesises that mass media could influence a large group of people directly and uniformly by injecting them with appropriate messages. For this to work, the Hypodermic Theory contends the audience to be passive and manipulative; unquestioning of the message they have just seen. An example of this theory was illustrated by Orson Welles’ broadcast of the War of the Worlds. The broadcast was in the form of a news bulletin. It suggested to listeners that an invasion by Martians was currently in progress. In the days following the adaptation, there was widespread outrage and panic by certain listeners, who had believed the events described in the program were real events.
Supporters of the theory agree the audience is passive in receiving and interpreting media texts, especially if the audience includes young children. With the increase in sex and violence in the media, the media is seen as a leading contributor in the decline of standards within society.
However, only since the 1950’s have medical communities really studied the effects of media violence on audiences. One of the earliest acts in the matter came about in 1972, when the US Surgeon General issued a report on the public health and effects of media violence. Their main concern was what impact media violence could be having on young children2. Ten years later the National Institute of Mental Health issued their own review of the research on media violence and its effects. They outlined specific concerns about children’s psychological health3. In 2000, at a Congressional public health summit, several American health comities joined together to submit a joint statement on the impact of violence in children entertainment. Also in the same year the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report on school shootings. Violence in media was listed as one of the main aggravators4.
In 2003, at the request of the US Surgeon General, a panel of media-violence experts published a comprehensive report outlining the effects of media violence on youth. In their report they state that media violence is a significant “casual factor” in aggression and violence5. In 2007 the Federal Communications Commission released their own report agreeing with the theory that young children exposed to media violence from a younger age are more prone to become violent themselves6.
While such scientific evidence has been monumental in persuading the professional medical world and some of the public, the entertainment industry, the larger public and the governments are reluctant to accept their findings.
Further research has shown correlations between the exposure to media violence and mental health problems for both children and adolescents. These include aggressive and violent behaviour, bullying, and desensitization to violence, fear, depression, nightmares, and sleep disturbances7.
The Centre on Media and Child Health Care at Harvard lists more than two thousand research reports8. In these reports they suggest that the strength of the association between media violence and aggressive behaviour is: “greater than the association between calcium intake and bone mass, lead ingestion and lower IQ, and condom non-use and sexually acquired HIV infection, and is nearly as strong as the association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer”8.
As humans we all learn through imitation, we learn through observing and soaking in our environment. As a young child this is a key development stage, we all began by imitating and copying the behaviour of others around us, eventually we adopt these behaviours and they began to form our own personalities. To a certain extent we carry this process on to into our adult lives. Yet just as we imitate, learn and copy behaviours from others around us we carry the same process into what we absorb from the media. The vast majority of us can differentiate between what is socially acceptable and what is not, however, there are a select group in society where differentiating the two can be a difficulty. Some of the most vulnerable are children, and furthermore because children cannot discriminate between fantasy and reality they more at risk to some of these learning processes and may, thereby, be more influenced by media violence.
However, a clear cause-effect relationship between media violence and violence in society is complicated by the fact that people are exposed to various stimuli every day that could affect their behaviour. The Hypodermic Theory is seen as an inadequate representation of the communication between media and the audience, as it discounts the role of such things as family values, social interactions, and social values of peers, living conditions, mental health and public attitudes.
Another theory is the Gratifications model. In this theory the focuses is on why people consume particular media, rather than on the content. Theorists suggest that audiences have specific needs, and actively turn to the media to consume the various specific texts of satisfy these needs. In this way the audience are seen as been active, rather than passive.
In 1974 Elihu Katz and Jay G. Blumler suggested that there were four main audience needs, which are satisfied through the consumption of media texts. These are, Diversion; a form of escapism, Personal Relationships; where the viewer gains companionship, – either with the characters or through conversations with other about the media text – Personal Identity; where the viewer is able to compare their own life with the lives of the characters or situations in the media text – to reaffirm, explore, or question their personal identity – Surveillance; where the media is used for a supply of information.
The Gratifications model, however, still implies that messages are packages of information, that all the audience will read the same. It does not consider how the messages may be interpreted, or any other factors that may influence the audience’s interpretation. Please give an example
In contrast to both Gratification and Hypodermic theories, is the Reception theory. This theory places the viewer in context, taking into account the various factors that might influence how the viewer process and interprets the media text. The Reception theory argues that contextual factors influence the way in which the viewer interprets the media text, and meaning is created as the viewer watches and process the film. The viewer’s social, political and psychological stance play a large part in the interpretation of the text. Due to the fact that everyone’s mind works differently, everyone should have a slightly different interpretation on the text.
Some research does indicate that the context of how violence is portrayed can make the difference between learning about violence and learning how to be violent3. Films such as Saving Private Ryan treat violence for what it is – the lowest form of human behaviour that causes pain, suffering, grief and loss. In this context people learn not to celebrate violence but to understand the true cost and consequences of violent acts.
In my opinion unrealistic portrayals of sex and violence in the media is a major issue, and I 'm not the only one who believes this. A large area of the public and medical world are especially concerned with the increasingly unrealistic portrayals of sex9. Unrealistic depictions of sex could damage how we approach sex, and negatively influence our behaviour. Similarly unrealistic depictions of violence could desensitize and mislead viewers.
While all age groups are theoretically in danger of being affected by sexual and violent messages on television and film, younger people tend to be more vulnerable for a number of reasons. Firstly, teenagers are not cognitively developed to discern and critique messages given to them. Secondly, those messages are bombarding teens from every angle at a pivotal stage when they’re in the midst of discerning their own values and beliefs10.
A 1996 report by the Kaiser Institute looked into the average sexual content on television during family hour on American TV networks. Their report found that there was an average of 8.5 sexual interactions, a 270% increase from 1972, furthermore less than 9% of these scenes mentioned issues relating to sexual risks or responsibilities11.
According to recent surveys, around 40% of 15 – 19 year olds are having sex in the UK12. And little over a third of them use contraception of any kind13. A further study into the HIV/AIDS virus shows that a third of all new infections are among people aged 15 – 2214. To me this clearly highlights an increase in sexual activity, despite sufficient knowledge on the responsibilities and risks.
However, according to a government survey teen pregnancies are at their lowest point since the 1960’s15. Although this does not prove the decrease in sexual activity, it could suggest an increase in the use of contraception. Regardless, the UK remains at the top of the list for teen pregnancies in Western Europe16.
Having distinguished that there is an increase in sexual activity both on our screens and in our society, could these two possibly correlate together? Has our demand for more sex simply increased? Or has the media redefined how we see sex?
A handful of studies have assessed a connection between the degree and nature of adolescent exposure to sexual content via television and film and their sexual attitudes and behaviour. One survey of 391 youths showed that those who watched programmes and films high in sexual content were more sexually active than those who watched only a small or moderate amount17. Again this report does not prove that sexual content in the media influences people to have sexual intercourse. One could take the approach that sexually active teenagers seek out sexual content.
As we watch more and more sexual content in film, just as when we watch more and more violence, we start to become desensitized by its effects and meanings. What makes both these actions controversial is the fact that they can stir up certain emotions within us. Sixty years ago what was perceived as sensual has seemingly changed greatly as to what is preserved sensual today, likewise what was once seen as violent is today seen as tame. I believe it is this that desensitization that has pushed the boundaries of our own taboo. Sex and violence are a part of human society, history and future. Tragically violence is glorified and sex is portrayed unrealistically, and I do believe this has diluted people’s perception of reality. However, that is not to say we should do away with those things that make push our mind to fantasy. Perhaps more should be done to highlight the effects that idolised violence and sex do to a society. Unfortunately I don’t think the majority of people care, and we won’t see the true effects for decades to come.

Bibliography

1- N/A. (2007). Values and morals in American society: The 1950s versus today . Available: http://www.helium.com/items/610190-values-and-morals-in-american-society-the-1950s-versus-today. Last accessed 04/03/12. 2- US Surgeon General 's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior. Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence—Report to the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, US Public Health Service; 1972. Publication No. HSM 72–9090 3- Pearl D, Bouthilet L, Lazar J. Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health; 1982 4- O 'Toole ME. The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective. Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice; 2000 5- Anderson CA, Berkowitz L, Donnerstein E, et al. The influence of media violence on youth. Psychol Sci Public Interest.2003;4 (3):81– 110 6- Federal Communications Commission. In the matter of violent television programming and its impact on children: statement of Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate. MB docket No. 04–261, April 25, 2007. Available at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-50A1.pdf. Last accessed 04/03/12 7- Huesmann LR, Moise-Titus J, Podolski CL, Eron LD. Longitudinal relations between children 's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Dev Psychol.2003;39 (2):201– 221 8- Bushman BJ, Huesmann LR. Effects of televised violence on aggression. In: Singer D, Singer JL, eds. Handbook of Children and the Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001:223 9- N/A. (2009). Too Much Sex?. Available: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-198124.html. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 10- American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Communications Sexuality, contraception, and the media. Pediatrics. 1995;95:298–300 11- N/A. (1996). Sex, Kids and the Family Hour: A Three Part Study of Sexual Content on Television. Available: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/1209-index.cfm. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 12- Aislinn Simpson. (2008). Britain has worst underage sex rates. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574814/Britain-has-worst-underage-sex-rates.html. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 13- N/A. (2001). Teenage myths about contraception. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1441898.stm. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 14- N/A. (2011). About HIV/AIDS for Young People. Available: http://www.avert.org/aids-information.htm. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 15- Michelle Roberts. (2012). Teen pregnancy rate lowest since 1969. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17190185. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 16- N/A. (2007). UK has 'highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe '. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/uk-has-highest-teenage-pregnancy-rate-in-europe-397153.html. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 17- N/A. (2004). Does Watching Sex on Television Influence Teens’ Sexual Activity?. Available: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9068/index1.html. Last accessed 05 March 2013.

Bibliography: 1- N/A. (2007). Values and morals in American society: The 1950s versus today . Available: http://www.helium.com/items/610190-values-and-morals-in-american-society-the-1950s-versus-today. Last accessed 04/03/12. 10- American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Communications Sexuality, contraception, and the media. Pediatrics. 1995;95:298–300 11- N/A 12- Aislinn Simpson. (2008). Britain has worst underage sex rates. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574814/Britain-has-worst-underage-sex-rates.html. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 13- N/A. (2001). Teenage myths about contraception. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1441898.stm. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 14- N/A. (2011). About HIV/AIDS for Young People. Available: http://www.avert.org/aids-information.htm. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 15- Michelle Roberts. (2012). Teen pregnancy rate lowest since 1969. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17190185. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 16- N/A. (2007). UK has 'highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe '. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/uk-has-highest-teenage-pregnancy-rate-in-europe-397153.html. Last accessed 05 March 2013. 17- N/A. (2004). Does Watching Sex on Television Influence Teens’ Sexual Activity?. Available: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9068/index1.html. Last accessed 05 March 2013.