Theresa Webb, PhD (a), Lucille Jenkins, MPH (a), Nickolas Browne, EdD (b), Abdelmonen A. Afifi, PhD (a) and Jess Kraus, PhD, MPH (a)
a) Southern California Injury Prevention Research Center, UCLA School of Public Health
b) UCLA School of Film, Television, and Digital Media, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the violence content of the top-grossing PG-13 films of 1999 and 2000 to determine what percentage of it had potential for negative effects on young viewers and what percentage of it had potential for prosocial or beneficial effects.
METHODS. A large, multidimensional analytic instrument was designed for systematic coding of each act of violence and its contextualization by features that have been shown either to enhance or to protect against harmful effects that are associated with violent media exposure: perpetrators and victims of violence, motivation for violence, presence of weapons, degree of realism, and consequences of violence. Descriptive statistics by genre were performed for each film. An ordinal logistic regression model was used to examine the association between the seriousness of violence and weapons, motive, and genre.
RESULTS. In the sample of 77 PG-13 films, a total of 2251 violent actions were observed with roughly half (47%) of lethal magnitude. A total of 118 acts contained justified violence that were initiated by major characters and were extremely serious, and approximately two thirds of the films (49 [64%]) were rated PG-13 for reasons other than violence.
CONCLUSIONS. Violence permeated nearly 90% of the films in our study. Although only a small subset of this content contained violence that was associated with negative effects, only 1 film contained violence that was associated with protective or beneficial effects.
Key Words: violence • film • media • MPAA rating system
Abbreviations: MPAA—Motion Picture Association of America • FTC—Federal Trade Commission • NTVS—National Television Violence Study • OR—odds ratio
PEDIATRICS Vol. 119 No. 6 June 2007, pp. e1219-e1229
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/short/119/6/e1219
1 comment:
What i do not understood is in fact how you
are not actually much more well-favored than you may be right now.
You are very intelligent.
Here is my page: pain in back of knee
Post a Comment