What Parents Want in a
Television Rating System:
Results of a National Survey
Joanne Cantor, PhD
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Suzanne Stutman, MA, MSW,
BCD Victoria Duran, MSW, LCSW
IMHI
National PTA
(Released November, 1996)
“We don’t need anything fancy.
Just let us know what is in the show
and we can then decide.” -- Mother of two from Tyler, Texas
Since the very
beginning of discussions about ratings for television, one assumption
on which virtually everyone has agreed is that ratings are for
parents. Indeed, the section of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 that mandates the development of a rating system for use with the
V-chip is titled “Parental Choice in Television Programming.” The
fact that ratings are intended for use by parents has been fully
acknowledged and endorsed by the television industry, which on February
29, 1996, agreed to develop a rating system for television
programs. The industry group’s statement on that date placed
parents front and center (1). It referred to a plan to give
“more information about TV programs to the parents of America.”
It agreed that the ratings would be encoded to activate an electronic
device which responds to “parental choice.” And the industry
leaders declared themselves ready to participate in a national
voluntary enterprise that would be “useful and valuable to the parents
of America.”
Although many
experts and many groups have expressed their opinions about how the new
ratings should be designed (2), very little research has been
conducted to assess the needs, desires, and attitudes of the group the
ratings are being created to serve (3). If we want to
develop a rating system that U.S. parents will find helpful, we have
very little to go on. This research was designed to fill that
obvious void.
Our goal was
to identify a random sample of parents throughout the United States and
to assess what their preferences would be for the design of the new
rating system. Because we wanted to be able to go into some
detail regarding the issues and alternatives involved in creating a
rating system, we decided that a mailed, written questionnaire would be
preferable to a phone survey.
Our focus was
on asking parents to respond to our questions with regard to their own
children. Many previous surveys have asked parents to give their
opinions on television’s effects on children in general.
Typically, respondents expect the effects of the mass media to be
stronger on other people than on themselves or their own families
(4). Reports of the effects of television on one’s own children
are likely to be more accurate, given that parents are in a unique
position to observe what goes on in their own homes. Moreover,
since parents will use the rating system and the V-chip to protect
their own families, it seemed most reasonable for our purposes to ask
parents questions about their own children, rather than children in
general.
Our survey had two types of
questions. One group of questions dealt with the types of effects
of television that parents are most concerned about. The other
group of questions involved parents’ attitudes and beliefs regarding
television ratings.
Competing Approaches to Ratings Design
In current discussions about
different approaches to ratings, two distinct models have
emerged. One model, the one talked about most by the Ratings
Implementation Group, is based primarily on the MPAA (Motion Picture
Association of America) Ratings. These familiar ratings involve
four major levels: “G: General Audiences,” “PG: Parental Guidance
Suggested,” “PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned,” and “R: Restricted”
(5). These ratings, in general, suggest the appropriateness of a
movie for different groups of children. “G” suggests that all
ages may be admitted. “PG” does not refer to any particular age group,
but it implies that there may be some content that is inappropriate for
some young children. “PG-13” suggests that caution should be
exercised for children under 13. Finally, “R” indicates that
children under 17 should not see the film unless accompanied by a
parent.. The MPAA rating system does not indicate, however, what
type or types of content have caused a particular movie to receive its
rating.
The second model that has been
discussed for a rating system is one that has been introduced over the
past few years on the cable channels HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax.
This system is somewhat similar to one that has been used in Canada in
preliminary tests of the V-chip, and has a good deal of support among
academics and child advocates. This cable system provides a
series of letter codes and words to indicate the presence of different
types and levels of content. Specifically, a movie can be rated
“MV,” for “Mild Violence,” “V” for “Violence,” or “GV” for “Graphic
Violence.” It can also receive an “AC” for “Adult Content,” an
“SC” for “Strong Sexual Content,” an “AL” for “Adult Language, a “GL”
for “Graphic Language,” and/or an “RP” for rape. This
system provides information about content, but it does not make
recommendations or suggestions regarding the age or type of viewer who
should or should not see the movie.
Because these two prototypes of
rating systems are so prominent in current discussions, our survey
dealt with the major differences between them. Specifically, we
asked parents whether they prefer that a program receive one, overall
summary rating or that it receive separate ratings for different types
of content, such as sex, violence, and language. Second, we
asked whether parents are more interested in learning about the content
of a program or in receiving an indication of the age of the
child that the program is appropriate for. Third, we asked
whether ratings should be descriptive or evaluative, that is, whether
the rating system should say what is in the program, or provide a
warning or recommendation about it.
The questionnaire also gave
parents a chance to evaluate the MPAA ratings and the cable-type
ratings specifically, as well as other possible rating systems.
The last question on the survey gave parents an opportunity to write in
any comments or suggestions they had for the group conducting the
survey or the committee developing the new rating system.
Sample
In identifying a national group
composed of parents from which to draw our sample, the National PTA
seemed an obvious choice. It is the largest volunteer child
advocacy group in the United States, and the largest organization in
the country whose membership is composed primarily of parents.
Moreover, it is a nonprofit, noncommercial, nonsectarian, and
nonpartisan organization. The PTA offers programs and guidance in
developing family-centered programs and encouraging parent involvement
in all areas of a child’s life. In sampling from the membership
of the National PTA, we were not systematically drawing on parents who
are anti-television activists or who have unusual views about
television one way or another.
To draw our sample, mailing
labels were randomly selected from the local-unit membership list of
the National PTA. Questionnaires were sent out on September 5th,
1996. Recipients were asked to return the form in an enclosed,
postage-paid envelope by September 23rd to ensure that their responses
would be counted.
The questionnaire was four
pages long and had the logos of the National PTA, the Institute for
Mental Health Initiatives, and the University of Wisconsin at the top
of the first page. The survey was introduced as follows:
“As you may know, television industry
leaders recently agreed to develop a rating system for television
programs. This survey is designed to find out what type of rating
system would be most helpful to parents in guiding their children’s
viewing. The results of this survey will be sent to the industry
committee that is designing the rating system and released to the media
nationwide. Your answers will be completely anonymous.”
Characteristics of Survey Respondents
A total of 679 questionnaires
were completed and returned. Respondents first were asked
to indicate their sex, their age group (under 21, 21-35, 36-49, or 50
or over), and the city and state of their residence. The
respondents were predominantly female (93%), and mostly in the 36-49
age range (76%). Parents also indicated the age and sex of all of
their children within the range of 3 and 18 years. All of the
respondents had at least one child in that age range, with 17% having
one child, 52% having two children, and 31% having between 3 and 7
children.
The questionnaires were returned
from all fifty states and were ideally distributed to represent the
country at large. Specifically, when the states were grouped by
region of the country (as defined by Rand McNally) (6), the
composition of our sample was remarkably similar to the overall U.S.
population distribution in these regions. Figure 1 shows the
percentage of our sample that came from each of the four geographical
regions (Northeast: 19%, South: 33%, Midwest: 22%, West: 26%).
These percentages are very close to the percentage of the U.S.
population in each of these areas, as also shown in Figure 1
(Northeast: 23%, South: 32%, Midwest: 23%, West: 22%). These
figures are based on 1995 population estimates (7).
Questionnaire
As stated earlier, we wanted
parents to answer our questions, not in an abstract sense, but in terms
of how each question related to their own child. We recognized,
of course, that most parents would have more than one child. We
also were aware that television is likely to be perceived as affecting
children of different ages and sexes in different ways, and that
parents of different-aged children may have different views of rating
systems. Because it was important to us to be able to compare the
responses of parents of children in these different groupings, and
because it would be extremely time-consuming for parents to answer the
same questions repeatedly for each of their children, we asked each
parent to respond in terms of only one child.
To provide a random method for
selection of that one child, we created two versions of the
questionnaire. All questionnaires read, “If you have more than
one child in the 3-18 age group, we want you to select only one child
to think about when answering the questions.” One version went on
to read, “Please choose the child whose birthday falls earliest in the
year (starting with January 1).” The other version read, “Please
choose the child whose birthday falls closest to July 1 (that is, on
that date or the soonest date after it, counting from July 1 through
June 30th).” The questionnaire contained repeated reminders to
reply in terms of the one child who been selected. The two versions of
the questionnaire were distributed at random to the sampled names on
the mailing list. The questionnaires that were returned were
equally divided (50%-50%) between the two versions. There were no
significant differences between the two survey versions on any response.
The sample of children that this
procedure produced was 55% male and 45% female. Children of every
age from three to eighteen were included. For purposes of our
analyses, the children were grouped into three age ranges: the
“youngest,” age 3 to 7 (20% of sample), the “middle,” age 8 to 12
(52%), and the “oldest,” 13 to 18 ( 28%). These age groupings
were chosen because they correspond with those identified by child
development specialists as representing different levels of cognitive
development and understanding, and these differences are important
determinants of the effects television has on children (8).
Parents’ Concerns About the Effects of
Television on Their Child
After providing demographic
information on the first page of the survey, parents were asked to rate
their concerns about the effects of television on their child.
The questions were introduced as follows:
“Many parents want to shield their
child from certain television shows because they are concerned about
the effects that these programs may have. What kinds of effects
are you most concerned about for your child? In other words, how
concerned are you that watching what you consider to be inappropriate
programs would ...”
This introduction was followed by
a list of eight possible effects. For each effect, the parent was
told to circle one of four choices: 0, for “not at all concerned,” 1,
for “a little bit concerned,” 2, for “moderately concerned,” or 3, for
“very concerned.” Parents were also given the opportunity
to write in comments about other effects that concerned them (9).
To simplify the presentation of
the findings, we combined related items into composite measures
(10). A “violence” scale combined three items, based on the
most commonly discussed effects of viewing violence:
“...encourage your child to think violence is acceptable,”
“...stimulate your child to imitate the violence,” and “...cause your
child to be less sensitive to people who get hurt.” A “sex”
scale combined two measures, reflecting frequently discussed effects of
exposure to programs with sexual depictions or themes: “... teach your
child prematurely about sexual matters,” and “...encourage your child
to engage in sexual activity or inappropriately seductive
behavior.” Three other possible effects were assessed with
individual items: “...stimulate your child to use taboo language
or profanity” (profanity); “...frighten your child or cause nightmares”
(fright) ; and “...encourage your child to engage in illegal or risky
behaviors” (risk-taking).
The analysis of these data that
seems most relevant to the development of ratings is whether parental
concerns are generally the same across different sex and age groupings
or whether there are consistent differences between these groups.
An initial analysis of all groups together revealed that there were
substantial differences among the groups in terms of the effects
parents were most concerned about (11). p < .001; sex X
concern, F(4,656) = 10.16, p < .001. The age X sex X concern
interaction was not significant. As might
be expected, parents’ level of concern was highest for the youngest
group and became progressively lower as the age of the group increased
(youngest: 2.6, middle: 2.4, oldest: 2.1). Parents also showed
marginally higher concern for their daughters (2.4) than for their sons
(2.3). The overall level of concern was equal for boys and girls
in the younger two groups, but parents of children in the oldest group
showed significantly more concern for their girls (2.3) than for their
boys (1.9).
Because the patterns of concern
differed greatly as a function of the age and sex of the child, we
looked at the concerns within each age group separately. Figure 2
shows the concerns of parents of 3- to 7-year-olds. As can
be seen from the figure, for parents of both boys and girls, sex was of
great concern and profanity was of intermediate concern. Parents
of boys and girls differed greatly with regard to violence and fright,
however. Parents of boys were highly concerned about
violence-related effects but much less concerned about fright, while
parents of girls were most concerned about fright, but relatively
unconcerned about violence (12).
For parents of 8- to 12-year-olds
(Figure 3), effects on sex-related outcomes were again of great concern
for parents of both boys and girls. In this age group, parents of
boys were significantly more concerned than parents of girls about both
violence and risk-taking behaviors (13).
Only in the oldest group were the
patterns of concerns for parents of boys and girls parallel (Fig.
4). Parents were more concerned about effects on daughters than
on sons in all five areas. For both boys and girls, sex was of
highest concern, violence, profanity, and risk-taking were
intermediate, and fright was of lowest concern (14).
What these data reveal, then, is
that parents of different subgroups of children are concerned about
different effects of television. Even within the same age group,
parents have different concerns about their sons vs. their daughters,
and this is especially the case for the youngest and middle age
groups. These different areas of concern should be kept in mind
when determining how a rating system can best serve the needs of
parents.
Attitudes
About the Importance of Ratings
After indicating their concerns
about the effects of television on their child, parents answered three
questions regarding their feelings about the importance of
ratings. Each question could be answered by choosing 0, “not at
all important,” 1, “a little bit important,” 2, “moderately important,”
or 3, “very important.” The first question read, “How important is it
to you that there be a rating system for television programs?”
Looking at parents overall, 89% felt that a rating system was either
very important (62%) or moderately important (27%). The level of
importance did not vary as a function of the child’s age or sex.
Because there has been some
discussion in the press of exempting cartoons from the rating system,
we included a second question in this section, which read, “Given that
there will be a rating system, how important is it to you that there be
ratings for cartoons or animated programs?” Eighty-four percent
of parents thought that ratings for cartoons were either very important
(53%) or moderately important (31%). As might be expected, the
level of importance of rating cartoons decreased as the child’s age
increased, probably reflecting both the fact that cartoon viewing
decreases with age and the fact that parents likely perceive the
effects of cartoons as diminishing as the child’s age increases
(15).
Because there has also been some
speculation that reality-based programs might be exempted from ratings
as well, we included a third question, which read, “How important is it
to you that there be ratings for dramatized reality-based programs
(such as police, crime, and rescue shows)?” Ninety-two percent of
parents thought ratings for reality programs were very important (69%)
or moderately important (23%). These ratings did not vary as a
function of the child’s age or sex.
Preferences for Different Approaches
to Ratings
The major portion of the
questionnaire asked for opinions about how a rating system should be
structured. It began with the following introduction:
“Under the current plan for rating
television programs, members of the television industry will be the
ones who assign the ratings. Various issues are being debated
regarding how this system should look.”
Three issues were then
presented. The data for all three issues are presented in Figure
5. The first had to do with whether there should be “an overall summary
rating of a program,” or whether there should be “separate ratings for
different types of content, such as violence, sex, and language.”
The parent was asked which of the two types he or she would
prefer. Parents overwhelmingly chose separate ratings for
different types of content (80%) over one summary rating (20%)
(16). What is more remarkable, when the data were broken
down by every possible demographic or background factor, the strong and
significant preference for separate ratings was always there.
Specifically, a strong and statistically significant preference for
separate over summary ratings was observed among parents of boys and
parents of girls; among parents of children in the youngest, middle,
and oldest groups; among male and female respondents; among parents
under age 35 and those who were 36 and over; and among parents from the
Northeast, South, Midwest and Western regions of the U.S.
Moreover, this significant preference existed among parents with one,
two, and three or more children, and among people who returned the
questionnaire on the first two days as well as those who returned the
survey after the deadline.
The second question regarding
approaches to ratings asked whether a rating should indicate “what age
of the child the program is appropriate or inappropriate for” or
whether it should just indicate “what the content of the program is
(i.e., amount or type of sex, violence, and language).” As Figure
5 shows, parents again showed a strong, consistent, and highly
significant preference. With all parents combined, 80% preferred
content-based over age-based ratings. Again, the same significant
preference was observed within all subgroups into which the parents
were divided.
The third question regarding
approaches to ratings asked whether a rating system should provide
“content information (e.g., amount or type of sex, violence, and
language)” or “an evaluation (recommending a program vs. warning about
it).” Here again, parents showed a strong and significant
preference, even slightly stronger (82%) than what they revealed for
the first two questions, for content information over
evaluations. (Also in Figure 5.) Again, this strong and
significant preference was observed within all subgroups.
In summary, for all questions
regarding approaches to ratings, about four times as many parents chose
the approach exemplified by the cable model (indicating content and
specifying different types) as chose characteristics of the MPAA model
(providing one summary rating involving guidance for viewing by
different age groups). Moreover, this preference was
astonishingly consistent throughout all subgroups in the sample.
Among all the comparisons within all the subgroups of the sample, the
lowest percentage favoring the cable approach was 73%, leaving the
highest percentage preferring the MPAA approach at 27%. Even this
weakest split reveals a preference of almost three to one for the cable
approach.
Comparison With Other National Surveys
It is interesting to compare
these numbers with the one other national random survey of parents that
has been reported regarding preferences for a rating system
(17). A survey conducted between August 12 and 14 for U.S.
News & World Report asked parents which system would be most
useful, a system naming some specific age groups, like the MPAA
ratings, or a system naming content of the program, such as adult
language or violence. Overall, 62% of their sample favored the
content-based system and 27% favored an age-based system, a greater
than two-to-one preference. This strong preference for content
information over age-based advice was observed among both male and
female respondents, and among all age groups. The preference for
content over age guidelines was stronger among parents with children
age 12 and under (66%) than among those whose children were in their
teens (52%). This other, totally independent survey, shows how
pervasive the preference for content-based ratings is, even among
parents not involved in child-advocacy organizations such as the PTA.
Attitudes Toward Specific Rating
Systems
Another set of questions dealt
with parents’ attitudes about existing, proposed, or possible rating
systems. Two questions were asked about each system. The
first was a question about how “helpful” each type of rating system
would be for the parent in making a decision about whether his or her
child should watch a particular program. The second was a
question about how “objective (fair and impartial)” such a system would
be. The concept of objectivity was further explained in the
statement, “Remember that members of the television industry as well as
different viewers watching the same program need to be able to agree on
what a show’s rating should be.” The respondents were asked to
rate four different systems according to how helpful and objective they
would be. Choices for ratings of both helpful and objective were
0, for “not at all,” 1, for “a little bit,” 2, for “moderately,” and 3,
for “very.”
The four systems to be
rated were described as follows:
(MPAA): “A system like the one
currently used for movies, the MPAA ratings (G: General
Audiences, PG: Parental Guidance Suggested, PG-13: Parents Strongly
Cautioned, R: Restricted)”
(Cable): “A system like the one currently used for movies on some cable
channels (like HBO and Showtime), which specifies the type and level of
different types of content (e.g., mild violence, violence, graphic
violence; adult content, strong sexual content; adult language).”
(Ages): “An indication of what ages the program is suitable for (e.g.,
“age 8 and up,” “age 13 and up”).
(Effects): “An indication of potential effects of the program, e.g.,
‘may be frightening,’ ‘may induce copying’).”
An analysis computed on the
ratings of how helpful these four systems would be revealed that the
rating systems were evaluated very differently (18).
The cable system received significantly higher evaluations of
helpfulness than the other three systems. When the data were
again broken down into all the separate subgroups, the patterns for all
subgroups were again remarkably similar, with the cable system always
being the highest rated and always significantly higher than the other
three. Figure 6 illustrates this relationship, showing the
percentage of parents who would find each system “very helpful.”
Although the systems all received
lower ratings for “objectivity” than for “helpfulness,” a very similar
pattern emerged when systems were rated for how objective they would be
(19). Again, the cable system was always significantly
higher than the other three choices. This pattern was again
repeated within all subgroups. Figure 8 shows the percentage of
parents who rated each system as “very objective.”
Parents’ Additional Comments
Almost half of all respondents to
our survey (49%) took the opportunity to write in comments. These
comments are revealing because they amplify the thinking behind the
numerical ratings, and many of them reflect the intensity with which
parents hold their opinions. The letters in parentheses indicate
the state of residence of the writer.
Comments
about ratings in general. Although the overwhelming
majority of parents indicated in their numerical choices that they
considered ratings for television programs moderately or very
important, there were a few (11) who wrote in comments that were
critical of the idea. The most typical criticism was that ratings
would be unnecessary if parents just took the time to monitor what
their children were viewing, and that the most vulnerable children
would be unaffected by the presence of ratings. For example:
“The main reason that I’m not as
concerned about violence and sex on TV for my child is that I monitor
what she sees closely, and discuss what she watches (especially if
she’s seen something I’m uncomfortable with.) I think ratings
probably won’t help the children who need it most: the ones who watch
unlimited TV without supervision, or the ones where TV is a
babysitter.” (NE)
The idea of rating programs was
also criticized as not going to the core of the problem -- the content
of television:
“If the industry provided good
programming without sex, violence or bad language, it would be
watched. Try to encourage production of better content rather
than rating for questionable content.” (NY)
Only one parent seemed to think
that a rating system was an invasion of her rights:
“Please consider the millions of people
who DON’T want interference in viewing. I don’t as a parent of
four, want any subjective rating, explanation or recommendations on any
viewing involving my family whatsoever!” (KY)
Of the parents who wrote comments
about the idea of ratings, three out of four thought ratings were a
good idea. Of the 29 positive comments about ratings, many were
unabashedly enthusiastic. For example:
“Ratings for both movies and television
would be a true aid to parents and assist them in making wise choices
for their children, or in guiding children in making wise choices.” (GA)
“I think a rating system for television is an excellent idea!” (PA)
“Get this rating system into effect
ASAP.” (NJ)
“The sooner the better.” (IA)
“I would love to see a rating system developed!” (FL)
Others who were supportive of the
idea expressed the feeling that ratings were only part of the
solution. For example:
“These can only be used as
guides. Parents must take control and turn off TV.” (AR)
“The ratings would be helpful but better quality shows would help
more.” (UT)
“Ratings would be helpful but are so dependent on the rater!” (TX)
Comments About the Industry Rating Itself. A number of
parents (18) expressed skepticism about ratings that would be applied
by the industry to its own programs:
“I hope the fact that the television
industry itself does the ratings will not take away from the intent of
the ratings. Self-policing doesn’t often work, especially in an
industry where violence and questionable behavior and actions bring in
money.” (NY)
“I don’t think that people within the industry should rate
programs. It’s very difficult to be impartial of something you’re
involved in.” (PA)
Comments
About MPAA Ratings. Ten parents made favorable comments
about the MPAA ratings, although four of these comments advocated
making significant changes to the way they are currently
designed. The most common reason for support of the MPAA ratings
was that they are familiar. For example:
“I would prefer a parallel sytem to the
MPAA since we already know what to expect and it is very simple.” (CA)
The parents who supported the MPAA
system with changes advocated the addition of content-specific
information to the established MPAA rating levels:
“The system should be consistent.
A combination of the current rating system for movies with additional
information such as age appropriate and type/level of content would be
wonderful.” (OK)
Another parent advocating a
system similar to the MPAA ratings expressed her ambivalence as follows:
“A system the same or similar to movies
will make it easier to understand for parents, especially those who
aren’t very involved in the first place. Without input from child
development specialists, the system will only be half as accurate and
worthwhile as it could be. Of course, the industry wants people
to watch their shows!” (NV)
Even counting the ambivalent
comments about the MPAA ratings as favorable, there were more than
twice as many unfavorable (21) as favorable comments about the MPAA
ratings. The criticisms centered on not providing enough
information, on standards that are too lenient or have eroded over
time, and on disagreements with the criteria used by those who set the
ratings. For example:
“MPAA ratings do not give parents
information they need to make decisions. A movie could be rated
‘PG-13’ for many different reasons. Some may make the movie
unacceptable to us, others may not. Also the industry doesn’t
have a clue if my 12-year-old is mature for his age or not. So saying
it’s suitable for a certain age group means nothing to me.” (NC)
“The MPAA is useless. Their criteria is becoming more lax every
year.” (OR)
“As of now, I do not trust the MPAA’s ratings at all. Not even
G.” (CA)
“Our experience has been that PG-13 has little value. We find
some movies with that rating no less objectionable than the ones rated
R. Other PG-13 movies are like PG. No way to tell.
I’m very much in favor of more specific information about content.” (OH)
Comments
About Cable Ratings and Content Information in General.
Although the overwhelming sentiment in parents’ comments was for
information about specific content, three parents simply wanted
guidance without content information. For example:
“The system should be simple so that I
can say to my pre-teen, A&B ratings are okay but C,D,&E ratings
are not. Content is too confusing.” (PA)
The cable rating system was
mentioned explicitly by ten parents and all comments were
favorable. For example:
“I feel the rating system through
cable, such as HBO, is much more helpful than MPAA. I never know
what to expect with MPAA.” (TX)
“The ratings should deal only in facts, not moral judgments. The
HBO type of system has been very helpful in our house.” (FL)
Without specifically mentioning the cable system,
the largest group of comments reflected the opinion that what is most
valuable is information about the content of programs. There were
almost 50 comments of this type. Often parents indicated they
wanted information only and not a recommendation about who should see a
program. These are typical:
“I want to know the content, not
someone else’s opinion if it is suitable or not. What is
acceptable to many parents is NOT acceptable to me.” (TX)
“I feel a rating system would be wonderful. But everyone sees
violence and gory things differently. I want to know if there’s
that kind of thing in a program and I’ll decide whether or not my
children will watch it.” (CA)
“We need to know the type of content, then I can choose. I don’t
want to rely on someone else’s impression of what certain ages can or
should see.” (MI)
“We don’t need anything fancy. Just let us know what is in the
show (language, violence, sex) and we can then decide.” (TX)
“More specific information is better so that there is less discretion
for them and more available to us.” (NY)
Summary of Findings and Implications
The findings of this survey are
compelling and clear. Parents in the United States overwhelmingly
prefer ratings that tell them what is in a program, rather than those
that give them advice on whether any of their children should be
shielded from seeing it. One reason for this preference seems to
derive from the fact that parents know that different types of
television effects are of concern to different parents. Our data
showed clearly that parents of different age groups of children are
concerned about different effects, and that even within each age group,
there are important differences between parents’ concerns about their
sons vs. their daughters. More importantly, parents are of the
strong belief that they know their child better than anyone. They
want to be the ones who decide about the appropriateness of a
particular program for their child. They do not want to rely on
the opinions of others, particularly members of the television
industry, who have a stake in the impact of ratings.
On every question that compared
the MPAA model, based on one summary rating suggesting
age-appropriateness, to the cable model, giving specific
content information in several areas, parents overwhelmingly preferred
the cable model, and there were no exceptions to this preference, no
matter how the overall sample was divided. No age group or gender
group (of parents or of children), or region of the country was
an exception. There were no subgroups in which the two models
were even close. The preference for the cable model is as deep as
it is wide, as evidenced by the parents’ voluntary comments. One
typical parent’s comment sums up the majority view quite well:
“I don’t want to be told if it’s
appropriate for my child. I want to know what’s in it so I can
judge myself.” (CA).
Isn’t that the essence of our
American democracy?
As this report was going to
press, the Caucus for Producers, Writer, & Directors, an
organization of members of the creative community whose work supplies a
high proportion of network programming, approved a proposal for a
television rating system that is very much in line with parents’ wishes
(20). Their system would provide ratings that involve
separate labels for sex, violence, and language, and give a measure of
intensity with additional words such as “occasional,” “frequent,” or
“widespread.” This is a very welcome turn of events, given that
distinguished members of the creative community feel that an approach
that parents want is both appropriate and feasible.
In evaluating whether a rating
sytem will ultimately satisfy parents’ needs, we can look to food
labeling as an analogy. Because parents are concerned for
the physical well-being of their children, they appreciate the
information provided by food labels, which is based on nutritional
science. In other words, parents want to know how much fat and
sodium there is in a can of soup, for example, as well as the
availability of protein and carbohydrates. They also need to know
the effects of these various components of a food item on a
growing child so that they can make decisions that are in their child’s
best interest. But in the end, they value their freedom to create
their own family’s menus.
Likewise, parents are
seeking information on television content areas so they can reduce
their children’s access to programming that they consider
inappropriate. But, just as food labeling is not helpful without
any knowledge of the effects of various nutrients on the body, a
television rating system must also reflect what research has
shown about the effects of different aspects of media content on
different groups of children. Refinements in a rating system as
dictated by research findings will undoubtedly prove valuable, and
ultimately, very useful to parents. And any rating sytem will
need to be reinforced by public education about the risks posed by
different types of content.
But in the final analysis, the
system that is adopted must respond to the needs and desires of the
group that will use it. Parents have strong feelings about what
would be useful to them. It is pointless to develop a system that
parents will not use.
-------
Acknowledgements
Many people worked especially hard to bring this
project to fruition. Special thanks are due to Rhoda Baruch and
Michael Benjamin of IMHI for their thoughtful contributions and support
of this project. Many thanks are also due to Amy Nathanson and
Linda Henzl at the University of Wisconsin for the high levels of
intelligence and creativity they put into producing the survey and
preparing the report. Leaders of the National PTA are to be
commended for their insight, commitment, and dedication to the issue of
improving children's television programming and for working to address
the needs of parents. We are also indebted to the grassroots
members of the PTA for the opinions, suggestions, and feedback they
provided in this survey.
-------
Footnotes
(1) A statement by all segments of the television industry, February
29, 1996.
(2) See, for example, Rideout, V. Making television ratings work for
children and families: The perspective of children’s experts. Children Now Report, June 1996.
(3) The one current exception is a recent phone survey conducted by
U.S. News & World Report and reported in Silver, M. & Geier, T.
Ready for prime time? U.S. News
& World Report, September 9, 1996. The results of that
survey will be discussed in the context of the findings of this report.
(4) See Perloff, R. M. Third-person effect research 1983-1992: A review
and synthesis. International Journal
of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167-184.
(5) A fifth level, “NC-17: No Children Under 17 Admitted,” has recently
been added. However, it was not included in this survey because
it is so new, and because it has rarely been used even with
theatrically released movies.
(6) 1996 Commercial atlas and
marketing guide (127th Edition). Rand McNally, 1996.
(7) Population figures are estimates based on 1995 figures from The book of states, 1996-97
Edition. Vol. 31. Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments.
(8) See, for example, “Language, sex violence, children” Dialogue, 1996, 4(3). Institute for Mental Health
Initiatives.
(9) An analysis of these comments and other details of responses not as
relevant to the issues addressed in this paper will be included in a
later report.
(10) For the “violence” scale, alpha = .87; for the “sex” scale, r =
.62.
(11) A 3 (age group) X 2 (sex) X 5 (type of concern)
analysis of variance was performed, with the five different types of
concern as repeated measures. For the main effect of age
group, F(2,659) = 18.97, p < .001. For the main effect
of sex of child, F(1,659) = 2.67, p = .10. For the interaction between
age and sex, F (2,659) = 7.02, p < .001. The other
interactions were as follows: age X concern, F(8,1314) = 10.83,
(12) The precise patterns of differences among the means are as
follows: Ranked from lowest to highest, cells with no letter in
common are different (at p<.05). Comparisons are within gender
only: Youngest boys: fright (a), risk-taking (a), profanity (ab),
violence (b), sex (b). Youngest girls: risk-taking (a), violence
(a), profanity (ab), sex (b), fright (b).
(13) The patterns of mean differences are as follows: Middle boys:
fright (a), risk-taking (b), profanity (c), violence (cd), sex
(d). Middle girls: risk-taking (a), violence (bc), fright (c),
profanity (cd), sex (e).
(14) The patterns of mean differences are as follows: for oldest
boys, fright (a), risk-taking (b), profanity (b), violence (b), sex
(c). For the oldest girls, fright (a), risk-taking (b), violence
(bc), profanity (c), sex (d).
(15) In a one-way analysis of variance with three age-levels, the main
effect of age group was significant, F(2,673)=4.47, p=.01. Mean
levels of importance of rating cartoons were as follows: youngest, 2.5,
middle, 2.3, oldest, 2.2.
(16) When this outcome was compared to what would be expected by chance
if there were no overall preference in the population, the difference
was highly significant at p < .001 by binomial test. All
either-or preferences reported in this section were significant beyond
the .001 level.
(17) Silver, M. & Geier, T. Ready for prime time? U.S. News & World Report,
September 9, 1996.
(18) In the repeated measures analysis of variance on rated helpfulness
of the four systems, the main effect of type of system yielded F(3,646)
= 155.43, p<.001.
(19) The main effect of type of system on the ratings of objectivity
yielded F(3,608) = l05.84, p<.001.
(20) Dealing in V-chips.” The Los
Angeles Times, November 8, 1996.
Return to Joanne Cantor's Home Page
Return to Media Ratings Page
