| The Dangers of Pornography? A Review of the Effects
Literature
Copyright © - All
Rights Reserved by Christopher D. Hunter - Defining
Pornography and Conceptualizing Effect
- The
Powerful Effects of Pornography
- Criticisms
of the Experimental Results
- Other
Approaches to Studying Pornography
One constant in the
study of mass communication has been the never ending battle between the
limited and powerful effects paradigms. Like the eternal debate about Bud
Light -- tastes great vs. less filling -- communication scholars have been
debating the relative power of the mass media to shape opinions and social
structure for some 50 years.
The limited effects model, often cited as the dominant paradigm in the
field (Katz, 1987), is identified with the Columbia election studies
(Lazarsfeld et al., 1944; Berelson et al., 1954) and Hovland's research
into the effectiveness of Army training films (1965). These studies
generally asked the question "what do the media make people think/do?" In
the case of the election studies this meant voting behavior, and with
Hovland's research whether films could change soldiers morale and
willingness to fight. Both studies found that the media did provide
information, but that it had little effect in changing people's opinions
or behavior. These limited effects findings were summarized by Klapper
(1960) who concluded that:
Klapper's summation, and the limited effects paradigm in general, has
been blamed for driving sociologists away from the study of media
resulting in a "famine" of communication research during the 1960's (Gans,
1972).
Unsatisfied with the limited effects paradigm, beginning in the 1970's
a number of scholars came forward to reconceptualize effect, and call for
new powerful media effects. Katz (1987) summarizes these new theories as
institutional, critical, and technological. Institutional theories argue
that the media don't tell us "what to think" so much as "what to think
about." Chief among institutional theories is agenda setting which claims
that the media set an agenda which the public follows (McCombs and Shaw,
1972). Critical theories argue that limited effects findings are actually
an attribute of a larger hegemonic social system which encourages no
change at all. To critical theorists, the media serve as legitimating
tools of a capitalist status-quo, keeping the public blissfully unaware of
their subordination (Gitlin, 1978; Hall, 1973; Horkheimer and Adorno,
1973). Finally, technological theories argue that the very nature of mass
media help to determine social structure. Examples of this theory include
Eisenstein's argument that the printing press led to the Protestant
Reformation, and Carey's finding that the telegraphy helped create a
nation wide marketplace for American business. The classic statement of
this paradigm is Marshall McCluhan's oft quoted aphorism, "the medium is
the message (1964)."
A very interesting subset of traditional media effects research is the
study of "pornography effects." While the limited effects - powerful
effects debate has largely been confined to the halls of academia (with
the notable exception of media violence) the pornography debate is
infinitely public and political. Indeed, the pornography issue has served
as a lightning rod for attention and polemics over the past 30 or so
years. The debate has brought out religious conservatives, political
conservatives, feminists, anti-porn feminists, anti-censorship feminists,
civil libertarians, free speech advocates, and a host of other interested
groups. All have engaged in an intense and ongoing debate about the
potential harms of pornography, and whether or not such content should be
censored.
Interest in pornography effects began during the 1960's as the U.S. and
a number of other industrialized nations began to see a sharp rise in the
quantity and availability of pornography and other forms of sexually
explicit entertainment. This rise occurred concurrently with what is often
referred to as the "sexual revolution (Goldstein and Kant, 1973; McNair,
1996)." The rise in pornography led to a number of studies investigating
pornography's role in sexual arousal, and sexually deviant behavior. In
particular, early research asked if exposure to pornography was related to
sex crimes, and oddly enough, the truancy of minors. Early concerns over
pornography's effects culminated in the 1968 appointment of the United
States President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. The Commission
was charged with understanding "the effect of obscenity and pornography
upon the public and particularly minors, and its relationship to crime and
other antisocial behaviors (U.S. Commission, 1970: 1)." After two years of
study and testimony, the Commission concluded that pornography had no
discernibly harmful effects on society:
In fact, the Commission made the argument that pornography likely had a
cathartic effect for citizens, pointing out that the majority of sex
offenders surveyed had come from sexually repressive homes where
pornography was not available. Similar conclusions were reached nine years
later by the Williams Committee in England (Home Office, 1979). Due to
these "no effect" results, the Johnson and Williams Commissions are
largely analogous to the Columbia school of limited effects. And just like
the Columbia school, the "limited porn effects" findings came under
enormous criticism.
Politicians and feminist scholars alike simply could not believe the
limited effects conclusions of the two commissions. Their objections,
along with a general agreement among scholars that pornography was
becoming more and more violent, led to a reassessment of the limited
effects of pornography. In the U.S. the relationship between violent
pornography and attitudes and crimes towards women was taken up by a group
of experimentalists (Donnerstein, Malamuth, Linz, Zillmann, Bryant, etc.)
who attempted to find new powerful effects. Their "powerful porn effects"
findings (although this will be shown later to be an exaggeration)
culminated in the 1985, Attorney General's Commission on Pornography,
otherwise known as the Meese Commission. The Meese Commission concluded
that "the research shows a causal relationship between exposure to
sexually violent material and aggressive behavior toward women" and that
such material "leads to greater acceptance of the 'rape myth' it its
broader sense -- that women enjoy being coerced into sexual activity, that
they enjoy being physically hurt in sexual context (1986, p. 327)." The
Commission additionally concluded that even some forms of "non-violent"
pornography resulted in anti-social behavior (Linz, 1989). Despite a great
body of criticism for the Meese Commission, it is still identified by many
as the statement of "powerful pornography effects."
Concurrent with experimentalists attempts to find powerful effects for
pornography, anti porn feminist scholars (Dworkin and MacKinnon) developed
their own answer to the limited effects of the Johnson and Williams
Committee findings. They developed what is often referred to as the
"ideological" view of pornography's effects, which argues that pornography
is the main weapon by which a patriarchal society maintains dominance over
women. As such, the ideological view of pornography can operate without
causal findings of harm, although anti porn feminists do use experimental
evidence to support their larger theory. This ideological/hegemonic view
of the effects of pornography would seem very similar to the critical
school in traditional mass communication research.
This brief overview of the history and development of the pornography
effects literature shows just how similar it is to traditional
conceptualizations of the mass media effects debate. The pornography issue
started out with findings of limited effects (similar to the Columbia
school), these findings were questioned, and effects were retested and
reconceptualized. This resulted in the emergence of two powerful effects
traditions, one experimental (similar to the cognitive revolution) and one
ideological (similar to the critical school). Still other off shoots of
pornography effects research has investigate how people use pornography
(similar to uses and gratifications), and how groups receive and
manipulate pornographic texts (reception theory).
The goal of this paper is to outline a number of powerful, limited, and
alternative conceptualizations of pornography's effects. Powerful effects
of pornography include arousal, desensitization, increased aggression,
attitude change towards women, catharsis, and male hegemony. Limited
effects generally encompass research which questions claimed powerful
effects. Finally, alternative conceptions such as uses and gratification
and reception analyses attempt to go beyond the effects "muck" and find
out what people actually do, both socially and politically, with
pornography.
On the surface, the
study of the effects of pornography would seem relatively straight
forward. After all, the word pornography is widely held as a pejorative
term that must have negative effects on society. Despite this generally
held belief (just like the general belief in powerful media effects), the
term pornography and the conceptualization of its supposed effects has
sparked intense debate. This has taken the form of a definitional debate
about the term pornography, and a conceptual debate about different types
of pornography effect.
The debate about what constitutes pornography has occurred among all
levels and institutions of society for years. For example, writing in
1936, D. H. Lawrence commented "what is pornography to one man is the
laughter of genius to another (1936, p. 11)." Others have casually
observed that "one person's erotica is another person's pornography (cited
in Russell, 1993)." Within a legal context, Justice Stewart of the Supreme
Court provided the now famous statement "I know it when I see it
(Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964)." These comments point to the difficulty in
defining something as subjective as what arouses individuals sexually into
specific categories.
The first, and easiest definitional issue is that between obscenity and
pornography. The term obscenity, whose Latin root, obscensus, means
"filthy" or "repulsive", was originally used by 18th century English
judges to describe and censor sexually suggestive poems and stories. In
the U.S. the term has taken on a very specific legal meaning, such that
any content deemed obscene by the Miller test (Miller v. California, 1973)
is considered illegal. This is in contrast to pornography -- whose Greek
root pornographos, which means "writing about harlots" -- which is given
full protection under the U.S. Constitution (Tedford, 1993). Thus, despite
pornography's pejorative connotation, it is entirely legal and separate
from the legalistic "obscenity."
Attempting to address the issue of "bad" pornography vs. "good"
erotica, is Gloria Steinem. She argues that the word origin of erotica is
"eros" which means passionate love or yearning for another person. Thus,
erotica is defined as "a mutually pleasurable, sexual expression between
people who have enough power to be their by positive choice." This is in
contrast to pornography, whose root is about prostitution, and therefore
connotative of the objectification and dominance of women. This leads
Steinem to conclude that pornography's message "is violence, dominance,
and conquest. It is sex being used to reinforce some inequality, or to
create one, or to tell us that pain and humiliation are really the same as
pleasure (1978)."
Steinem's feminist definitions of erotica and pornography begin to hint
at power, objectification, and subordination as key elements. These ideas
are taken up wholeheartedly by several anti porn feminists who have
formulated an ideological definition of pornography. For example,
Catherine Mackinnon (1983) defines pornography as the very embodiment of
dominance:
Stepping as far away as possible from the feminist politicization of
pornography, most experimentalists have come to define the term as meaning
"those explicit sexual depictions whose purpose or effect is to bring
about sexual arousal in the ordinary viewer or reader (Williams, 1979:
196; Malamuth and Donnerstein, 1982: 105; Garry, 1983: 62)."
This plethora of definitions for pornography, erotica, and obscenity
resulted in a meaning gridlock that is reflected in the Meese Commission's
rather humorous attempts to deal with the terms. First the Commission
noted that pornography had an "undoubtedly pejorative" connotation, and
would therefore attempt "to minimize the use of the word" in its report.
The Commission then concluded that erotica had a similarly negative
connotation and it would also minimize the use of this term. Finally, it
concluded that obscenity was a purely legal term (Hawkins and Zimring,
1988: pp. 23-24). Thus, the Meese Commission on Pornography couldn't come
up with a usable word to describe the main subject of its own inquiry and
report!
Despite years of definitional debates, and attempts at clarification,
Justice Stewart's "I know it when I see it" explanation is still probably
the best description we have. This is likely because so many historical,
legal, and cultural issues are involved in defining pornography. As McNair
(1996) notes, "Pornography, and the elements said to comprise it, are
shifting, slippery things, changing their content and meaning over time
and between cultures (p. 57)."
Conceptualizing Pornography's Effects
Similar to the definitional debate about pornography, many groups have
argued about the types of effect pornography has on society. Three groups
in particular have engaged in this debate: liberals, feminists, and
religious conservatives (Einsiedel, 1988).
The liberal view of pornography's effects is intimately tied up with
their respect for free speech. They argue that unless a causal
relationship can be shown between pornography and harm to women or
children, then such content should be legal. Indeed liberals often point
to the positive and supposedly causal cathartic effects of pornography as
justification for its availability. Thus, for liberals, effect largely
means an X causes Y type relationship.
In contrast to the causal view of effect adopted by liberals, anti porn
feminists argue for an ideological conceptualization of effect. They claim
that causality is beside the point, and that pornography doesn't cause
anything, but literally enacts male dominance over women. As such,
pornography's main effect is to "deny women full equality (Einsiedel,
1988: p. 113)."
Religious and political conservatives adopt a very similar ideological
conception of effect. However, they choose to flip the feminist argument
and argue that pornography is destroying (rather than enforcing) their
cherished and institutionalized "Judaeo-Christian family values, which
stress the virtues of the nuclear family, monogamous sexual relationships
within marriage, and the reproductive rather than recreational functions
of sexual behavior (McNair, 1996: p. 49)."
In sum, the liberal view of effects is tied to a causal "weak effects"
tradition, while feminist and conservatives (although on different sides
of the same fence) argue for a powerful "ideological" conception of
effect.
As mentioned earlier,
experimentalists and feminists took strong objection to the Johnson and
Williams Commissions findings of limited pornography effects. As such,
they set out to prove that powerful causal and ideological effects did
exist, and that such results should not be ignored. This section will
outline research in the following claimed powerful effects of pornography:
(1. sexual arousal, (2. aggression, (3. desensitization, (4. attitudes
towards women, (5. decline in family values, (6. causal model of rape, (7.
feminist ideological effects, and (8. catharsis.
A simple, yet consistently found powerful effect of both visual and
literary pornography is its ability to sexually arouse males and females.
This effect has been shown both mentally and physically.
Early research into arousal was conducted by Kinsey (1948) who found
that males and females reported sexual arousal from material portraying
nudity or sexual acts. Levitt (1969) attempted to take Kinsey's findings
one step further by creating a scale of sexual arousal for men and women.
This self report data has been backed up by physiological research
which shows that penile tumescence measures, urinary acid phosphate,
vaginal vasocongestion, blood pressure, and genital temperature are all
related to pornography exposure (Zuckerman, 1971; Kelley and Byrne, 1983).
Further studies have shown that arousal is caused by a combination of
cognitive and imaginative processing (Geer and Fuhr, 1976; Przbyla and
Byrne, 1984), and that arousal can result from self-generated erotic and
non-erotic fantasies (Henson and Rubin, 1971).
Related to the idea of arousal is the idea that exposure to pornography
leads men to greater levels of aggression towards women. Bandura (1973)
hypothesized that emotional arousal would intensify aggressive behavior. A
number of experimental studies have tested this hypothesis.
Malamuth (1978) conducted a study using three male experimental
conditions. One group would read aggressive pornography (depicting a
rape), one nonaggressive pornography (loving interaction between a man and
woman), and the third neutral stimuli (National Geographic articles).
After exposure, all subjects were insulted by a female and were then put
in a situation where they could aggress against this woman via the
ostensible delivery of electric shocks. Half of the group was told it was
permissible to be as aggressive as they wished (disinhibitory
communication), while the other half were given a message to make them
self conscious about aggression (inhibitory communication).
No results were found in the inhibitory group, but in the disinhibitory
group the highest levels of aggression were recorded for those who had
been exposed to the aggressive pornography.
Similar studies using the Buss paradigm (1961) where electrical shock
against an experimental instigator is the operational definition of
aggression, have been conducted by Donnerstein. For example Donnerstein
and Berkowitz (1981) conducted an experiment placing males into one of
four experimental film viewing conditions: aggressive pornography with
positive outcome (depiction of a rape where the woman enjoyed the
encounter), aggressive pornography with negative outcome (rape where the
woman reacted negatively), nonagressive pornography (willing sexual
intercourse), and a neutral stimuli. Before watching the film,
participants were either angered or treated neutral by a female.
Results found that nonangered males who viewed the positive-aggressive
film increased their aggression against the female. Among angered males,
both the aggressive-positive and aggressive-negative films produced an
increase in aggression towards the female instigator. From this,
Donnerstein and Berkowitz conclude "that aggressive pornography can
directly influence aggression against women (cited in Malamuth and
Donnerstein, 1984)."
Using a similar design, Donnerstein attempted to gauge the effect of
aggressive pornography relative to non-pornographic aggressive material.
Male subjects were first angered or treated neutral by a female
accomplice, and were then assigned to watch one of three films; aggressive
pornography (similar in content to those used in previous studies),
aggressive non-pornography (woman is tied up but no nudity or sex), and
finally a consensual sex film.
Results found that the combination of angered subject and aggressive
pornography produced the highest aggression levels. Significantly, the
study also found that the aggressive non pornographic film produced higher
levels of aggression than did the purely sexual film. This leads
Donnerstein to again conclude that violent pornography is related to
aggression against women, but that this may be a factor of the violence in
the film, not its sexual content: "Again we see that aggressive
pornography is a strong contributor to violence against women. The main
factors in this aggressive facilitation, however, seems to be the
aggressive nature of the film (Malamuth and Donnerstein, 1984: pp.
74-77)."
Limited effects data
for pornography are largely confined to experiments which find no
relationship between exposure to pornography and some dependent variable
like aggression or attitudes towards women. This is especially true of
studies measuring men and women's attitude changes after exposure to
nonviolent and violent pornography.
Nonviolent Pornography Exposure
Almost no studies have been able to replicate Zillmann and Bryant's
(1982) finding of negative attitudes towards women after exposure to
nonviolent pornography. For example, Padgett and Brislin-Slutz (1987)
conducted a nearly identical study, massively exposing male and female
participants to 5 straight days of nonviolent pornography, and then
assessing their attitudes towards women and rape. Their results found no
difference between pre and post test measures, and no difference between
the porn viewing group and the control.
Similarly, many other studies -- including the Donnerstein and Linz
(1985) study described earlier -- exposing participants to several
experimental conditions (violent porn, nonviolent porn, control) have
found that exposure to nonviolent porn produces few or no adverse
attitudes towards women. From a review of this literature, Linz (1989)
notes "We would have to conclude that the data, overall, do not support
the contention that exposure to nonviolent pornography has significant
adverse effects on attitudes toward rape as a crime or more general
evaluations of rape victims (p. 74)."
Despite Donnerstein and Linz's conclusion that violent pornography
likely has some effect on negative attitudes towards women, a number of
studies have found no such results.
Malamuth, Reisin, and Spinner (1979) exposed male and female
participants to magazine portrayals of aggressive (sadomasochism and rape)
and nonagressive pornography. Next, they were exposed to a videotaped
interview of an actual rape victim, and then asked to answer a
questionnaire assessing perceptions of the victim, and attitudes towards
rape. Results found no significant differences between participants
exposed to the violent pornography and those exposed to the nonviolent
pornography.
In a similar study, Malamuth, Haber, and Feshbach (1980) exposed
participants to either a sadomasochistic or nonviolent pornographic story.
Next, participants read a description of a rape where the victim clearly
opposed the assault, and were then asked to recommend a prison sentence
for the offender. Results yielded no main effects for exposure to the
sexually violent story and attitudes towards rape as measured by the
sentencing question.
Finally, Krafka et al. (1997) exposed female participants to either
feature length violent pornography, nonviolent pornography, or mildly
sexual slasher films. Participants were pre and post tested for
self-perception attitudes like self-esteem and fear of victimization.
Results showed no significant reductions in self esteem between the
experimental groups.
Taken together, these results cast doubt on the asserted link between
violent pornography and negative/antisocial attitudes towards women.
A number of very
cogent criticisms have been leveled against the experimental results
described above. These criticisms are particularly relevant considering
that many anti porn feminists and conservatives site the experimental
literature as proof that pornography does have harmful effects.
Perhaps the most cogent criticism of the experimental literature is the
inability to generalize results beyond the college students who
overwhelmingly make up the participants in these studies. Indeed, the vast
majority of results on the effects of pornography have been obtained from
only a handful of U.S. universities (notably the University of Wisconsin,
UCLA, and UC Santa Barbara). Studies have shown that students who
volunteer for such studies are more liberal, more sexually experienced,
and have less objections to pornography than do nonvolunteers (Einsiedel,
1992: p. 268). This in addition to the obvious fact that most of the
population is not college aged.
In the real world few people are exposed to pornography in groups.
Instead, pornography is usually consumed individually in the comfort of
the home. Further, experiments testing aggression after exposure to
pornography provide participants with the completely artificial option of
shocking an instigator. Brannigan and Goldenberg (1987) argue that such
experimental designs also provide no real world sanctions to the
expression of negative attitudes.
Differing Stimuli and Definitions
From experiment to experiment a great deal of difference can be found
in the stimuli provided to participants. In most cases researchers use
different pornographic films which they independently decide are violent -
nonviolent, permissive - nonpermissive, consensual - non-consensual, etc.
Thus comparing a study which used Debby Does Dallas to a similarly
designed study using Long Dong Silver may be spurious (Linz, 1989: pp.
79-80).
Unfortunately, only studies which report significant findings are
normally published. As a result, a great number of studies showing no
effects, and thus supporting the limited effects model, never make it to
public view (Pally, 1994: p. 28).
The powerful vs.
limited effects debate about pornography has led to an often personal and
political stalemate, where feminists and conservatives argue for powerful
effects, while experimental researchers take a more cautious stance. As a
result of this effects quagmire, a number of scholars have chosen to study
pornography for its entertainment value and for its personal and political
uses.
Given the fact that the pornography is a $10 billion a year industry
(McDonald, 1997), some consumers must be finding its content entertaining.
Despite this, almost no studies have attempted to describe the attributes
that lead to enjoyment of pornography.
An interesting exception, is the work of Lopez and George (1995) who
set out to understand what makes males and females enjoy pornography. They
conceptualized pornographic enjoyment as a function of two things. First,
as a scale for erotophobia (fear of the erotic) vs. erotophilia (enjoyment
of the erotic) which is comprised of variables relating to sexual
experience, sexual inhibitions, and sex guilt, and secondly as a function
of gender-specific sex norms (i.e. men are more likely to initiate sex,
men enjoy pornography more, etc.). These variables were measured by a
pretest of 26 male and 12 female volunteers. After the pretest,
participants were individually exposed to pornographic slides, and asked
to rate each for enjoyment. Results showed that erotiphilic men enjoyed
the pornography more than erotiphilic women whose gender based norms
inhibited their enjoyment (p. 279).
Uses and Gratifications of Pornography
The classic formulation of the Uses and Gratifications theory is that
it asks not "what the media do to people" but "what people do with the
media." As such, uses and gratifications is perfectly suited to asking why
people use pornography, and what they get out of this use.
A number of studies have inventoried particular uses of pornography.
For example, a Newsweek poll found that 52 percent of respondents believed
that sexually explicit content provided information about sex and that 61
percent found such material entertaining (Press et al., 1985). Similar
studies have found that individuals find adult movies humorous, and as
material for fantasizing about unrealistic women (Winick, 1971).
In a more recent study, Perse (1994) asked what reasons college
students gave for using erotica? She found four specific uses: (1. sexual
enhancement - related to information and foreplay, (2. diversion - related
to escape, relaxation, and entertainment, (3. sexual release - related to
fantasizing, and finally (4. substitution, or using pornography as a
substitute for sex (i.e. masturbation). Of these uses, diversion was found
to be the most strongly endorsed.
Reception and Oppositional Readings of
Pornography
Similar to uses and gratifications, reception theory asks how people
receive and decode media messages. Reception theory is also interested in
the author's encoding process.
In terms of pornography research, these ideas have been picked up by
feminist scholars who claim that pornography -- far from being evil -- is
used oppositionally by some, and as a legitimating and empowering tool by
oppressed or marginalized groups. In terms of oppositional readings,
Willis (1984) questions why females must read pornography as a
subordinating and degrading text. Why can't a woman read pornography as an
expression of her own repressed sexual fantasies?
This paper has
provided an overview of the limited effects - powerful effects debate
about pornography. From this presentation, it should be clear that just
like debates about television violence or the effect of the mass media in
general, there are no clear answers. As such, it would seem that the best
conclusion one can reach about the effect of pornography is that it "does
not serve as a necessary and sufficient cause of audience effects, but
rather functions among and through a nexus of mediating factors and
influences (Klapper, 1960)." Thus bringing us full circle, back to the
limited effects conclusion that sparked pornography research in the first
place.
Abramson, P. and
Hayashi, H. (1984). Pornography in Japan: Cross-cultural and theoretical
considerations. In N. Malamuth and E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography
and sexual aggression. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
American Booksellers v. Hudnut. (1986). 106 S. Ct. 1172.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. New
York: Prentice-Hall.
Baron, L. and Straus, M. (1984). Sexual stratification, pornography,
and rape in the United States. In N. Malamuth and E. Donnerstein (Eds.),
Pornography and sexual aggression. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., and McPhee, W. (1954). Voting.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brannigan, A. and Goldenberg, S. (1987). The study of aggressive
pornography: The vicissitudes of relevance. Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, 4: 262-283.
Briere, J. and Malamuth, N. (1983). Self-reported likelihood of
sexually aggressive behavior: Attitudinal versus sexual explanations.
Journal of Research in Personality, 17: 315-323.
Buss, A. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.
Byrne, D. and Kelly, K. (1984). Pornography and sex research. In N.
Malamuth and E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and sexual
aggression. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Donnerstein, E. and Linz, D. (1985). Presentation paper to the Attorney
General's Commission on Pornography, Houston, TX.
Donnerstein, E. and Berkowitz, L. (1981). Victim reactions in
aggressive- erotic films as a factor in violence against women. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 41: 710-724.
Dworkin, A. (1988). Letters from a war zone. New York: Dutton.
Einsiedel, E. (1992). The experimental research evidence. In C. Itzin
(Ed.), Pornography: Women, violence and civil liberties. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Einsiedel, E. (1988). The British, Canadian, and U.S. pornography
commissions and their use of social science research. Journal of
Communication, 38 (2): 108-121.
Faust, B. (1982). Women, sex, and pornography. Victoria,
Australia: Penguin.
Ferguson, F. (1995). Pornography: The theory. Critical Inquiry,
21: 670-695.
Gans, H. (1972). The Famine in American mass-communications research.
American Journal of Sociology, 77: 697-705.
Garry, A. (1983). Pornography and respect for women. In D. Copp and S.
Wendell (Eds.), Pornography and censorship. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Books.
Geer, J. and Fuhr, R. (1976). Cognitive factors in sexual arousal: The
Role of distraction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
44: 238-243.
Gitlin, T. (1978). Media sociology: The Dominant paradigm. Theory
and Society, 6: 205-253.
Goldstein, M. and Kant, H. (1973). Pornography and sexual
deviance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goodchilds, J. and Zellman, G. (1984). Sexual signaling and sexual
aggression in adolescent relationships. In N. Malamuth and E. Donnerstein
(Eds.), Pornography and sexual aggression. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Hall, S. (1973). Encoding and decoding in the television
discourse. In Hall et al. (eds.), Culture, media, language. (1980).
London: Hutchinson.
Hawkins, G. and Zimring, F. (1988). Pornography in a free
society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henson, D. and Rubin, H. (1971). Voluntary control of eroticism.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4: 37-44.
Home Office (1979). Report on the committee on obscenity and film
censorship. Williams, B. (Chairman), London: Her Majesty's Stationery
Office.
Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. (1973). The Culture industry:
Enlightenment as mass deception. In The Dialectics of
Enlightenment. London: Allen Lane.
Hovland, C., Lumsdaine, A., and Sheffield, F. (1965). Experiments on
mass communication. New York: John Wiley.
Itzin, C. (Ed.), (1992). Pornography: Women, violence and civil
liberties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacobellis v. Ohio. (1964). 378 U.S. 184.
Katz, E. (1987). Communication research since Lazarsfeld. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 51: S25-S45.
Kelley, K. and Byrne, D. (1983). Assessment of sexual responding:
Arousal, affect, and behavior. In J. Cacioppo and R. Petty (Eds.),
Social psychophysiology. New York: Guilford.
Kinsey A. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male.
Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.
Klapper, J. (1960). The Effects of mass communication. Glencoe,
IL: Free Press.
Krafka, C., Linz, D., Donnerstein, E. and Penrod, S. (1997). Women's
reactions to sexually aggressive mass media depictions. Violence
Against Women, 3 (2) : 149-181.
Kutchinsky, B. (1991). Pornography and rape: Theory and practice?
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14: 47-64.
Kutchinsky, B. (1987). Deception and propaganda. Society, 24 (5)
: 21-24.
Kutchinsky, B. (1985). Pornography and its effects in Denmark and the
United States: A rejoinder and beyond. Comparative Social Research: An
Annual, 8: 301-330.
Kutchinsky, B. (1970). Toward an explanation of the decrease in
registered sex crimes in Copenhagen. In U.S. commission on obscenity
and pornography, Technical Report, Vol. 8.
Lawrence, D. (1936). Pornography and so on. London: Faber and
Faber.
Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H. (1944). The People's
choice. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.
Levitt, E. (1969). Pornography: Some new perspectives on an old
problem. The Journal of Sex Research, 5: 247-259.
Linz, D. (1989). Exposure to sexually explicit materials and attitudes
towards rape. Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1): 50-84.
Linz, D., Donnerstein, E. and Penrod, S. (1988). The effects of
long-term exposure to violent and sexually degrading depictions of women.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55: 758-768.
Linz, D. and Malamuth, N. (1993). Pornography. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Lopez, P. and George, W. (1995). Men's enjoyment of explicit erotica.
The Journal of Sex Research, 32 (4) : 275-288.
Mackinnon, C. (1983). Pornography: A feminist perspective. Position
paper presented to the Minneapolis City Council.
Malamuth, N. (1978). Erotica, aggression and perceived appropriateness.
Paper presented at the 86th annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Malamuth, N. and Check, J. (1985). The effects of aggressive
pornography on beliefs of rape myths: Individual differences. Journal
of Research in Personality, 19: 299-320.
Malamuth, N. and Check, J. (1980). Sexual arousal to rape and
consenting depictions: The importance of the woman's arousal. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 55-67.
Malamuth, N. and Donnerstein, E. (Eds.), (1984). Pornography and
sexual aggression. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Malamuth, N. and Donnerstein, E. (1982). The effects of aggressive-
pornographic mass media stimuli. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology. (Vol. 15). New York: Academic Press.
Malamuth, N., Haber, S. and Feshbach, S. (1980). Testing hypotheses
regarding rape: Exposure to sexual violence, sex differences, and the
normality of rapists. Journal of Research in Personality, 14:
121-137.
Malamuth, N., Reisin, I. and Spinner, B. (1979). Exposure to
pornography and reactions to rape. Paper presented at the 87th annual
convention of the American Psychological Association, New York.
McCluhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: Extensions of man. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
McCombs, M. and Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda-setting function of mass
media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34: 159-170.
McDonald, D. (1997). Regulating sexually oriented businesses.
Brigham Young University Law Review, 339.
McNair, B. (1996). Mediated sex: Pornography and postmodern
culture. New York: Arnold.
Miller v. California. (1973). 413 U.S. 15, 24 .
Padgett, V. and Brislin-Slutz, J. (1987). Pornography, erotica and
negative attitudes towards women. Unpublished manuscript, Marshall
University, Huntington, West Virginia.
Pally, M. (1994). Sex and sensibility. Hopwell, NJ: Ecco Press.
Perse, E. (1994). Uses of erotica and acceptance of rape myths.
Communication Research, 21 (4) : 488-515.
Press, A. et al. (1985, March 18). The war against pornography.
Newsweek, pp. 58-66.
Przbyla, D. and Byrne, D. (1984). The mediating role of cognitive
process in self reported sexual arousal. Journal of Research in
Personality, 18: 54- 63.
Russell, D. (1993). Making violence sexy: Feminist views on
pornography. New York: Teachers College Press.
Smith, B. (1988). Sappho was a right-off woman. In G. Chester and J.
Dickey (Eds.), Feminism and censorship: The current debate. London:
Prism.
Steinem, G. (1978, November). Erotica and pornography: A clear and
present difference. Ms. .
Tedford, T. (1993). Freedom of speech in the United States. New
York: McGraw Hill.
U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. (1970). Report.
Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Justice (1986). Attorney General's commission on
pornography. Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Winick, C. (1971). A study of consumers of explicitly sexual materials:
Some functions served by adult movies. Technical report of the
commission on obscenity and pornography, Vol. 4: 245-262.
Zillmann, D. and Bryant, J. (1989). Pornography: Research advances
and policy considerations. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zillmann, D. and Bryant, J. (1982). Pornography, sexual callousness,
and the trivialization of rape. Journal of Communication, 32 (4) :
10-21.
Zuckerman, M. (1971). Physiological measures of sexual arousal in the
human. In Technical reports on the commission on obscenity and
pornography. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing
Office.
|