Parents Speak

Introduction

 

(top of page)

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system has been in place since its development in 1968 as a regulatory replacement for the defunct Production Code. Whereas the Production Code limited the content of motion pictures, the rating system was developed to limit film attendance and viewing by minors.   The main purpose of the ratings, according to late MPAA chair Jack Valenti, was to "offer parents some advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they want their children to see or not to see."1 The MPAA cites on its website statistical data collected by the Opinion Research Corporation citing 78% of parents with children under 13 years of age found the ratings to be "very useful" to "fairly useful" when making movie-going decisions. 2 However, very little academic research has been conducted to test the validity of this privately collected survey data. This study uses focus groups with parents of children of all ages to determine levels of parental use of the MPAA rating system as a decision-making tool. It also serves as a gauge of parental satisfaction with the current ratings. 

Criticism of the MPAA Rating System

 

(top of page)

While some have praised the rating system as a more democratic form of content regulation as compared to its predecessor, the Production Code,3 several industry professionals, special interest groups, parents and media researchers have been vocal critics of the system.4 Stephen Farber was one of the first to voice his concerns about the MPAA rating system, claiming that films tend to be rated based on what adults find offensive, rather than using harmfulness to children as a criterion.5 Farber claimed G-rated films were not necessarily the best suited for children, they were just films that adults found the least offensive.6 Farber charged that movies containing sex and nudity received more restrictive ratings than ones containing violence, because parents were more likely to be "disturbed" by the sexual content.7

Jenkins argued that ratings are merely value judgments, not objective scientific standards.8 Therefore, there is always the question of whose morals are being reflected. 

"The Lion King may demean minorities, for example, but be rated as appropriate for all ages; fundamentalist parents may object to the witchcraft in Harry Potter books. One parent objects to a single swear word; another figures kids hear that on the playground anyway. Other parents worry about animal abuse, homophobia and sexism, alcohol consumption, anti-intellectualism or blasphemy. No ratings system could accurately reflect all the different (and often contradictory) criteria. Ratings enforcement requires weighing some of these concerns over others."9

In Great Britain and Canada, age ratings for films are enforced by local governmental officials.  Several issues beyond sex, violence and profanity can be the subject of rating restrictions, including cruelty to animals, racial slurs, and the "presentation of controversial lifestyles."10

A common complaint voiced by critics is that the MPAA takes a tough stance on sexuality, but seems to tolerate violence.  This occurs despite the fact that public opinion polls show that Americans worry more about violence in the media than about sex or bad language.11 It has been argued that the rating system "demonizes sex".12

Sandler (2007) argued in his book The Naked Truth: Why Hollywood Doesn't Make X-Rated Movies that the MPAA sees its function as more than just a system to provide information about film content to parents.  Instead, Sandler argues that the MPAA takes on an "affirmative cultural function."13 Under this guise, the rating body for the film industry takes on an expanded role that includes both political and economic responsibilities. Viewing the MPAA in this light shifts film raters' objectives when evaluating film content in such a way that raters become more protective of audience sensibilities rather than the freedom of expression of filmmakers.  The added layer of political and economic pressure leads to a more restrictive mode of film content evaluation and a homogenization of mass-marketed film content within the Hollywood system.  Sandler argues these pressures have practically eliminated the relevance and feasibility of the adults-only NC-17 rating.14

Of course, the MPAA film rating system, as well as its predecessor, The Production Code, was implemented in part as a form of industry shield from thinly-veiled threats of government intervention. It has always been the argument of those involved in film content regulation that it is better to have a "voluntary" system of monitoring content in place, rather than a censorship system imposed by government bureaucrats.15

Prior Research on the MPAA Rating System

 

(top of page)

Thompson and Yokota compared content based scores for different movie rating systems, including the MPAA ratings, Screen It! and Kids-In-Mind.  Both Kids-In-Mind and Screen It! are independent Internet consumer information services, while the MPAA relies on the judgments of a board of raters which consists of a group of American parents. The study found large variability in the types of content that receive MPAA ratings, but good correlation between the content-based scores assigned by Kids-in-Mind and Screen It!16 In other words, the private Internet-based ratings were found to be more consistently applied than were the MPAA ratings.  

Additionally, Thompson and Yokota found that the MPAA applied increasingly more lenient criteria for its age-based ratings as a function of time over the last decade.17Their research found increases from 1992-2003 in violence content in PG and PG-13 rated films, significant increases over time in sexual content in PG, PG-13, and R rated films, and significant increases in profanity in PG-13 and R rated films. However, Kids-In-Mind raters were found to have assigned higher scores (representing more restrictive ratings) in later years, possibly indicating increased sensitivity by their raters over time. This study also found significantly more violent content in animated G-rated films than in non-animated G rated films.18

Wilson, Linz and Randall recommended changes to the motion picture rating system based on their findings that the MPAA system did not seem to take into account the harmfulness of particular types of content on children. Instead, research found ratings to be based mainly on how "offensive" parents found the subject matter.19They prescribed a new film rating system based on harmful effects of material on children of different ages. Their proposed system groups children into three groups (3-7 years, 8-12 years, and 13-17 years of age) and restricts children's exposure to content according to studied social effect of horror, violence, sex and sexual violence.20

Leone used survey research to investigate parents' opinions on movie content based on feelings of offensiveness and fear of imitation by minor children.  Leone surveyed 368 adults in Onondaga, New York, using a telephone survey. Adult respondents were slightly more offended by graphic sex in movies than by graphic violence, but believed that children were more likely to imitate violent behaviors.21

Research Questions

 

(top of page)

This study used focus group research to determine the extent of parental use of the MPAA ratings as well as parents' opinions of the rating system.

            Research Question #1:  Do parents use the MPAA rating system to make decisions about their child(ren)'s film viewing?
Answering this question was the first step in determining the usefulness of the MPAA system. If parents reported they did not use the system, the effectiveness of the system is compromised. However, it is impossible to draw the conclusion that the system is effective based solely on the fact that parents use the system.  Because it is one of the only systems available to parents to use, it is possible that parents would like to see improvements to the system, despite the fact they regularly use the system.

            Research Question #2: Are parents satisfied with the current MPAA rating system? Why or why not? The focus groups allowed parents to voice their likes and dislikes about the current rating system. It also allowed them to consider how they, as parents, would like content ratings to be assigned and presented. 

Method

 

(top of page)

Focus group research is similar to group interviewing and is often used to understand attitudes and behaviors.22 However, there is a key difference between the two methods. Group interviewing involves interviewing a number of people at the same time with the emphasis on questions and responses between the researcher and participants. Focus groups rely on interaction within the group based on topics that are supplied by the researcher.23

Others define focus groups as organized discussion,24collective activity,25 social events26 and interaction27. An advantage to focus groups is that the technique allows researchers to collect preliminary information about a topic or phenomenon in a comparatively quick time frame. The information gathered can be used later to help develop a survey instrument or another tool of inquiry. However, that is not to say that the data gathered from focus group research is not able to stand alone as valuable research. Focus groups are a way to better understand how people feel about a particular issue, product or service.28

Focus groups call for respondents to interact with one another in formulating their responses to interviewers' questions, which makes it a unique methodology.29The advantage to such a technique is that group members are able to corroborate or challenge opinions and responses of others, while reminding each other of personal experiences, stories and opinions. 30Whereas survey instruments or individual interviews are lead by the questioner, focus groups allow participants to lead the process.31 The opportunity to be involved in decision making processes, to be valued as experts, and to be given the chance to work collaboratively with researchers can be empowering for many participants.32 If a group works well, trust develops, and the group may explore solutions to a particular problem as a unit rather than as individuals.33That makes the methodology a vehicle for change in some instances.34

This study concentrated on the effectiveness of the MPAA's content rating system, as well as parental use of satisfaction with the rating system.  While dealing with these issues it was important for participants to feel comfortable voicing their opinions, which, at times, related back to their personal child-rearing philosophies. Past survey research regarding the MPAA ratings has limited the expression of parents' personal opinions with the use of fixed-response questionnaires. The use of focus groups allowed for an open and frank discussion of the MPAA rating system. 

This research study utilized a multiple category focus group design in order to determine adults' opinions of the current MPAA ratings system and the types of filmic content they believe should be more or less restrictively rated. Every focus group consisted of five to eight participants. The groups were comprised of adults (18 years or older) who shared characteristics such as parental status and the general age range of their children.

The focus group categories were based upon the following parameters:

• Group A: Mothers and fathers of children under eight years of age
• Group B: Mothers and fathers of children ages 8 to under 13 years of age
• Group C: Mothers and fathers of children ages 13-21 years

The reason for this delineation in focus group participant composition is that it allowed for possible differences in perceptions and opinions to rise to the surface based on the age of the participant's child.  It was also set up to mirror, to a certain extent, the film rating categories utilized by the MPAA.  Children under thirteen are not allowed to attend films rated PG-13 or more restrictively rated films without adult supervision.  However, using an age range of birth to 13 years old seemed too inclusive.  Taking into consideration general maturity levels, school attendance, and developmental stages, it was decided that the parents of younger children (under 8 years of age) would be grouped together, as would parents of children 8-12 years of age.  Parents of teenagers and older children were gathered into a separate focus group, seeing as it was assumed that parents of teens were dealing with different issues related to child-rearing than would parents of young children. 

The focus groups were recorded using audio and video recording devices in a prepared environment.  Participants were paid a small sum ($15) for their participation in the group.  There were also two door prizes awarded at each of the focus groups based on a random drawing.  The focus groups were approximately 90 minutes in length and participants were asked approximately twelve questions.  The moderator used a standardized set of questions for each group. 

Focus Group Composition

 

(top of page)

For this research, three focus groups were held. The first group included eight parents of children under the age of eight. Five mothers and three fathers participated in the group. The average age of participants was just over 32 years of age. While some parents had only one child, other participants had multiple children, some outside of the age group in question. The average age of the children of participants was 4.77 years of age.  While parents were prompted by the moderator to focus their discussion toward their child or children that fit the age-based  parameters of the specific group, they were allowed to bring up relevant observations and answers that related to their other children outside of the age group in question. This was true of parents in each of the focus groups. By allowing this input, the focus group members were able to compare and contrast the way they use the rating system for children of various ages. 

Another focus group was held with eight mothers and fathers of children between the ages of eight and twelve years of age. The gender of participants was evenly split in this group, with four fathers and four mothers taking part in the focus group. The average age of the participants was 39 years three months. All participants in the 8-12 year old group had at least two children. The maximum number of children was four. The average number of children per participant was 2.375 while the median age of the children was 10.63 years. 

The third focus group held was comprised of five parents of children aged 13 and older. This group was the most difficult to recruit participants for, possibly because of family responsibilities of parents of teenaged kids.  While all other focus groups were recruited using flyers and word of mouth, this particular group required newspaper advertisements to recruit our five participants. Unfortunately, even with the newspaper ads, fewer eligible participants than originally desired were in attendance. Due to this fact, all five participants in this group were mothers.  No responses were fielded from fathers for this portion of the research. The average age of participants in this group was 44.6 years (range of 33 to 51) and participants all had at least three children, with a maximum of five children.  The average number of children per participant was 3.8 and the average age of the children was 18.84 years of age. 

Findings

 

(top of page)

The responses generated in the three focus groups with parents were used to answer the research questions.  Some of the information gathered within the groups has been summarized by the researcher, while several direct quotes from participants have also been used to illustrate parents' opinions and attitudes. The first research question probes parents' use of the MPAA rating system.

RQ #1:  Do parents use the MPAA rating system to make decisions about their children's film viewing? 

Parents of children of all ages indicated that they were familiar with the MPAA rating system, and all parents illustrated a general knowledge of the age-based categories used by the MPAA to rate films. While several parents asked questions about specific functions, duties and origins of the system, most self-reported a general understanding of the system as a whole. 

As for parental use of the system, parents reported varying degrees to which they utilized the system. Some parents indicated that they controlled their children's viewing using specific ratings as a limitation, including these two mothers from the under 8 group.

Mom 4 (0-7 group): I wouldn't take my son, or rent anything, or let him see anything that wasn't rated G, I guess. So, I mean, he's so little, he's only three.  So, for us, I guess, if it's not on PBS, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, whatever...I'll watch my shows when I want to, after he's asleep.

Mom 3 (0-7 group):  I agree. I wouldn't take my daughter to anything not rated G.

However, it became clear that mothers in the under eight group more strictly followed the rating system than did the fathers represented in that same group. Dads appeared to be more influenced by other forms of information and, specifically, by marketing and advertising when making viewing decisions for their children:

Dad 2 (0-7 group): I'm more influenced by the marketing than by the rating.  Sure, if it's something I think might be questionable, like Pokemon violence or something, maybe I'll go in and check [the rating], but it's always secondary to the marketing of the film.

Dad 3 (0-7 group): I'm more interested in the movie itself than the rating

Dad 1 (0-7 group): I think you can kinda get an idea of what kind of things are gonna be geared for kids just by, like, the trailers and commercials and stuff like that.  If you're renting a movie, a lot of times you can see things and they're placed in the children's section or they've got some sort of children's marking on them, so that you don't really need the rating system, and you know, it says 'childrens' on it somewhere and you read about it, and I can handle that.

Parents of children in the 8-12 year old group for the most part stated that they used the rating system as a mere guideline, rather than establishing a specific rating as a concrete cut-off point for their kids. 

Mom 2 (8-12): I see it as a guideline. Um, I might continue to, um, investigate what is the content of the movie.  Even if it is, for example, PG-13, I may decide to read what it has to say about the movie and I still may tell my 15 year old, I don't think so. 

Mom 1 (8-12): I think the only time it comes into play for me is when it's a R rating.  What constituted the R and what is involved in the R? Cause, the R tends to be a little more adult.  Too much adult for my children.  The rest, I think, is pretty mild, so, comparatively to what's out there.

Dad 2 (8-12):  I'd say that's one of the variables.  And, the higher, the more adult the rating, the more likely I am to gather more information about why or what.

Although parents within the 8-12 year old group were less rigid in their rating-based limits for film viewing, most parents indicated that they were wary of their children seeing films rated R or more higher. The following excerpt gives an illustration of the diversity of viewpoints within the group regarding rating limits for children's movie viewing:

Mom 3: Usually PG, but then some PG-13 I'll look into it and why it got the rating, and if I don't seem to think it's too severe, then that's okay.

Mom 4: I definitely think, uh, after investigating, there's only been one R rated movie that we've allowed our son to go to, but that wasn't the only criteria for deciding.

Dad 2: I wouldn't have said that we, or I, have any firm guideline, but I know I've never taken the younger son to see an R rated movie or watched an R rated film with him.  But, I don't have that as any firm guideline.  I think that's just how it happened.

It was the parents of teenaged or older children who had the widest variety of techniques used for restricting their children's viewing. While some parents' children had aged out of the ratings system (were 18 years of age or older), others had younger teenagers at home. Two of the moms whose offspring were all ages 18 or over reported that they no longer limited their children's viewing, but did when they were younger. One mother did not allow her children to watch R rated movies until they were 16 years old, while the other said her limit was based more on the content that gave the film the R-rating, rather than the rating itself

Mom 4:  If it was war, they could watch it, because war is R.  Sexual stuff I prefer them not to watch that for as long as I can get away with that.  I always told them it [sex] was not a spectator sport.

The statement from this mother implies not only are certain types of content more acceptable or appropriate for younger viewers (regardless of rating), but that certain genres of film are also more acceptable. She seems to argue that films that fall within the "war film" genre, perhaps because of their ties to history or world events are more appropriate than other forms of violence in film. No mention was made of other typically more violent genres such as action or horror films. 

One of the mothers of a 15 year old girl stated that she absolutely would not let her daughter watch R rated movies, nor did she allow her other older children to watch R rated films until they were out of high school. A concern raised in all three of the parental focus groups with parents of children of all ages was with home viewing of films on DVD or cable television. While parents had a strong sense of what types of content they would allow or disallow their children to view, they were worried about their children's viewing at friends' homes whose parents might enforce different standards for movie content. The following is an excerpt from the discussion of this topic in the parents of 8 to 12 year old focus group:

Mom 3: And, but also, it's like you said earlier, it's hard when they leave your realm what they're exposed to. I've been dealing with that lately.

Mom 2: You know what though? I think a parent, when they go, should call a home...

Mom 3: ...Which I would. If I were going to show an R-rated movie while someone else's kids were at my house, I would okay it first...

Dad 4: You can't necessarily trust the parents, though. Like, some parents, their kid has a room downstairs and they really don't pay attention to what they're doing. So, if you call and ask if they're watching an R rated movie they say, 'Oh no, I would never let them do that', but that doesn't mean they're not. 

While the parents of younger children were more concerned with the content itself their kids might be viewing, especially violent content, the parents of older kids were more concerned with social stigmas and peer pressure that might result from their standards. This exchange from the focus group with mothers of teenagers and older illustrates the concern well:

Mom 3: Our middle child just turned 18 and our youngest is just about to be 15 and we still won't let her see R. I mean, how ridiculous of a statement? But, um, it seems there are lots of parents who do. I kind of have to fight that and hold the line because a lot of times, and it's more so not even at the movie theater but at the home, home movies that kids are watching. 

Mom 5: I agree with that

Mom 3: Kids are going, [pause] She's been going to sleepovers where they have R movies, I mean, for years. And I've said, you just have to tell them you can't watch this and you have to excuse yourself if you need to, but it's not okay. She went to a house where there was a 15 year old and a 13 year old and they were watching Pulp Fiction. I was astonished. Well, they said, it's okay 'cause we've already seen it.  So, it's really hard. It's hard when, even if you feel a certain way about it, there's going to be a lot of pressure

Mom 2: Yeah, especially because your kids are going to say, 'Hey, it's just a movie'.

Mom 5: Right, right. My kids would get excluded because they knew I would not allow certain, you know, they couldn't see certain movies; more so when they were younger. The PG-13, when they were younger, that was my cut off. Or I would see it first and decide whether or not, why I thought it was PG-13 and whether or not I thought it was appropriate content. As they got older I had to go see the R movies they wanted to watch before they turned 17 before I'd let them go, and it would just infuriate them. "But, but, everyone else"...yeah, whatever.  But I stuck with it, and you're right.  You end up becoming one of those moms, but I don't care. Sue me. You can see it when you're out of the house and can rent it on your own. It'll still be around.

Clearly, these mothers wanted to make sure their children followed the viewing standards established within the family unit, but, at the same time, hated to see their children ostracized due to those standards. A genuine sense of concern for their children's ability to fit-in and remain true to their family values was expressed.  Generally, mothers felt that their children's friends had much less stringent guidelines established for media consumption than their own family did.

Another mother shared her experiences raising a 13 year old son and much younger children in the same household. When her son was young, this mother was much more permissive in her viewing decisions, but due in part to a subsequent second marriage and a newfound religious conviction, she was beginning to limit not only her son's film viewing, but viewing for the entire household of children, which ranged in age from 3 to 17 years old. This mom, who was only 33 years old herself, explained how her own upbringing influenced her child-rearing and the way she dealt with media content.

Mom 1 (13+): I was raised in a home by my mom, she was a single mom, she was never there.  I watched whatever I wanted, did whatever I wanted. And even my son, who is 13, when he was young I let him watch pretty much whatever, because when I was a young mom it didn't make any difference to me.  I didn't even understand the value of boundaries, and now I struggle with him for that reason because there's movies that he's seen that are way worse than anything I let him watch now. But, there are younger kids in the home now and it just makes a big difference.

A recurring theme in the focus groups was the need to gather additional information about a film from a variety of sources in order to make sound judgments regarding their children's access to particular films.  As one of the fathers in the under 8 group stated, it's ultimately the parents' responsibility to determine the suitability of a film for their child or children.

Dad 3 (0-7 group): I think the rating system can only be a very, very general guideline. I think you can add the L's and the V's [for language and violence], but the onus is on us. It's on the parents to say, not only what can my child handle, but what do I want my child to see? We need to be better consumers and better prepared. I don't think the rating system is meant to take our place in parenting. I think we have to be responsible in terms of what our children see. The responsibility's on us and not on the rating system.

Some of the other sources parents reported using to find out content information about films, in addition to the MPAA rating system, included websites such as moviemom.com, imdb.com, rottentomatoes.com, and pluggedinonline.com. Other parents mentioned recommendations from friends and family members as an additional method of determining content of films, as well as reading critical reviews in the newspaper or in magazines. Some parents stated that they regularly view films themselves before they allow their children to see them. A mother in the 8-12 year old group was one of the parents who did this on a regular basis.

Mom 4: I guess I just don't trust them enough, so that I usually go see the movie in the theater myself, make my decision, and then go rent the video if I think it's something I feel [is appropriate].

Several parents expressed similar fears regarding the film rating system. In each focus group, anywhere from one to three parents (a total of five) said they felt that the ratings were not a satisfactory method of determining the appropriateness of a film for their child, therefore, they didn't use the system. 

Research Question #2:  Are parents satisfied with the current MPAA rating system?  Why or why not?

Overall, parental support of the MPAA ratings system was tepid at best.  Not one of the twenty-one participants in the three focus groups praised the system or expressed complete satisfaction with the current system.  The response to the system from parents of the youngest children (under eight years of age) could best be summarized by the phrase "it's better than nothing," as illustrated in the following excerpt:

Mom 4 (0-7 group): It's good to have a general guideline.

Mom 5 (0-7): It's better than nothing.

Mom 3 (0-7): Yeah, It's better than nothing.

Dad 2 (0-7): But I don't know if it's better than nothing.

Mom 3 (0-7): You think nothing would be better than having this?

Dad 2 (0-7): I'm here to advocate anarchy. Because, I do agree, that yes, it's nice, you can see the G, okay, okay, but, we've all explained instances that we've went and saw that this was G but it didn't fit our value systems. So how is it that we can devise a system that will fit everybody's values? Maybe the better thing is just to not have a system and put the onus on the parent.

Dad 1 (0-7): I would have to endorse that. I think nothing (emphasized) would be better than this rating system. I don't use it. It doesn't tell me anything. 

Parents in the 8-12 year old group were even less enthusiastic when discussing the value of the MPAA rating system. Not one parent was complimentary of the MPAA during our discussion. A father of two daughters who fit within that age category characterized the ratings as...

Dad 3 (8-12): Not descriptive enough, not extensive enough, not targeted enough.

The question of why parents were, as a group, displeased with the MPAA rating system could be answered in several ways.  The main criticisms parents had of the current film ratings were as follows:

• The apparent inconsistency of application of the ratings
• The over-reliance on age as the main justification for ratings, coupled with the inability of the system to account for a child's individual level of maturity
• The lack of specific information regarding the content of films

• The apparent disconnect between raters' and individual parents' values systems

Inconsistency of Application

 

(top of page)

Parents in all of the focus groups voiced concerns about the inconsistency of the rating system. The following is an excerpt from a father in the under eight focus group.

Dad 1 (under 8): I watch most of my movies at home. Um, and it's kind of difficult with just the rating because they're rated in ways for so many different things. You might have a PG movie that's rated PG for violence that's a lot worse for a kid to watch than an R rated movie, because there could be something happening in the movie that a 4 or 5 year old might not understand. So, it's kinda hard to use the ratings as just letters, you know, to determine what's proper for a kid or not. You might have a PG movie that you watch and go, I can't believe this is PG. Then you have an R rated movie and you're like, well, my son can watch this and he's just not going to understand it.

Dad 1 (0-7): That's why the rating system hasn't had any value to me for years. You see things and say, well I can't jive this with this rating and I can't jive this, there's no...there's no set structure of how things are...it just seems like a lot of times it's very arbitrary. For me, it hasn't had any value for a long time. I just read up. I spend a lot of time just reading up.

Similar concerns regarding consistency were also voiced by parents of 8-12 year olds.

Mom 4 (8-12): I'm wondering why they change so drastically every few years. I just don't think they're reliable year to year. 

One mother of teenagers discussed her experiences of going to see some movies at the theater with her kids when they were younger and finding herself questioning the ratings that had been assigned.  More than once she was forced to leave the theater before the end of the film, children in tow, because she felt the content was too adult for them to be exposed to. 

Mom 5: Sometimes we'd get in there and I would think, what was this rated?  And I would actually get up and go look and think, ooohh, I disagree. You gotta be kidding me! This isn't PG or PG-13... this is R. 

Parents in all three focus groups questioned the consistency of the assignment of film ratings and expressed concern that they could never be sure what to expect from particular ratings.  Concern for ratings creep tied into this concern, which is the phenomenon of films with similar content being rated less restrictively as time passes.  A quote from a parent of older children (in the 13+ group) expresses a concern echoed by other parents.

Mom 5 (13+):  It seems like every couple of years they up the ante of what they're going to stick in there, and if this producer does a movie where there's blood and guts, then the next, and it sells, every year you get more and more and more. 

Some parents in the 8-12 year old group mentioned that they would possibly allow their children to view R rated films from the 1970s and 1980s, when they were growing up, because they felt they would be rated less restrictively if released today. Parents across the board felt that material, whether it was violence, language or sexuality had become more commonplace in the media in general, resulting in a lessening of standards.  Overall, a majority of parents felt raters were much more lenient and allowed more risqué materials to seep into less restrictively rated films than they had in the past.

Maturity Levels vs. Age Constraints

 

(top of page)

Other participants were concerned that the ratings focused too heavily on the age of the child, without taking the child's maturity or personal development level into account. An example of an exchange from the under-eight group clearly illustrates this major parental concern:

Dad 3 (under 8): I really think it depends on the child, 'cause we have a daughter, she's just a little bit outside of this group, she's 8, and a son who's seven, but she can handle a lot more information and stuff  than our son can. I mean, he sees something scary and he'll have nightmares. So, I think you have to look at not only the age of your child but how your child handles movies and information and how they process that stuff...their own maturity is just as important as age.

Parents of teenaged children were less concern with the maturity level of individual children, but were concerned with other individual emotional characteristics that they felt impacted their children's ability to deal with specific types of content. The mothers of teenaged sons, specifically, were concerned with aggression and anger that they had witnessed in their sons. Therefore, they were concerned with violence and language more than parents. These moms felt that the age-based rating designations as they now stand were less helpful than they could be, because they didn't allow them to make sound judgments as to what their sons should be allowed to see. These moms felt unable to base their decisions on age alone. They wanted specific content information that would allow them to take the emotional state of their kids into consideration, much like the parents of younger children who wanted to take overall maturity levels into consideration. 

Lack of Specificity

 

(top of page)

A related concern that emerged from the focus group discussions was that several parents felt that the film ratings did not provide enough specific information about the content of films. Rather than providing parents with a clear rundown of the types of content in individual films, the broad, age-based rating categories were characterized as vague by most participants. The following excerpt from the under-eight focus group shows that parents are looking for more specific information from the ratings. 

Dad 3 (0-7): I think more than the rating, I want to know why it's rated that. What is the content it's rated PG-13 for? And if that's the content I think is acceptable for a child, then I would let the child see that.  But if it's one thing, it might be okay. If it's rated PG-13 for some profanity and very mild violence, that's different if it's rated PG-13 for other things.

Mom 5 (0-7): I like how, well, I haven't read a TV Guide for a coon's age now because I have the guide channel on cable, but it used to have, like, um, a V for violence and N for nudity, and that kind of stuff.  And, I really think that would depict a more accurate picture.  It's still one letter per item, so it'll have DU for drug use or DR for drug reference, you know that kind of stuff. It doesn't take up the whole screen to sit there and say "because of drug use or violence" whatever.  And it still gives you a more accurate picture of what's going to be in that film. You'll see a V and you won't go see it. And that would be more accurate.

This lack of specificity in relation to content, or the vagueness of the definitions of each rating category, is seen as problematic to many parents. Parents would rather know exactly what content is included in a given film, rather than referring to an age-based guideline. This issue relates to another complaint that parents voiced, which is the difference between the MPAA's values based assessments and parental values.

Value Systems

 

(top of page)

Another issue that arose from the focus groups was the idea of a discrepancy between evaluative criteria used by the MPAA raters and the value systems of actual parents.  Because the MPAA rating system is evaluative in nature, rather than descriptive, many parents feel the MPAA's age-based rating decisions are not representative of their personal family value systems.  The following excerpt of a conversation within the under-eight focus group speaks to the issue of values-based ratings.

Dad 3(0-7): I think that our puritanical forefathers tended to have much greater consternation over nudity rather than violence, and I'd rather have him [his seven-year old son] see partial nudity than a murder.

Dad 2(0-7): The word is "value system," that a lot of times we don't hold the same values as the MPAA and their rating system.

This same sentiment was echoed in the focus group involving parents of children ages eight to twelve.

Mom 4 (8-12): You know, as we can see here, we all have different values and it's wonderful to be able to, you know, to have different values, and that's great. But these ratings aren't explaining what values are being shown in the movie at all, really. As long as you've got these random categories, instead of saying there's too much violence for this age group...

Overall, parents wanted to find a way to be able to reinforce their own family values and personal value systems, rather than exposing their kids to materials that were in conflict with those values. More than that, parents just didn't feel that the rating decisions made by the MPAA were necessarily appropriate. Many parents expressed their belief that violent content should be rated more restrictively, while other incidental content should be allowed in less restrictively rated films. 

Summary of focus group findings

 

(top of page)

While it was expected that some parents would be unhappy with the current rating system employed by the Motion Picture Association of America, the negative reaction to the system was overwhelming.  Nearly every participant in the three focus groups was highly critical of the system. A few parents felt the ratings were a helpful tool, but still had problems with the way films were rated.  It's important to note, though, that despite the near unanimous dislike of the system, several parents reported that they did in fact limit their children's film viewing based at least in part on a film's rating. Therefore, there was limited utilization of the system, despite the dissatisfaction expressed. Utilization levels were highest for mothers of children under the age of eight. Mothers of teenagers also expressed higher levels of use of the system than did other focus group participants. Fathers were less likely to use the MPAA rating of a film alone as a decision-making tool than were mothers, regardless of the age of the child involved.

The main criticisms of the current MPAA rating system revolved around the lack of specificity of the ratings in terms of what types of content were found in individual films. Parents stated they would prefer a system that was more informational, that specified the content included in each film, to a system that sets vague age limits. Parents felt the age limits took for granted that parents' values would be similar to that of the MPAA raters, and most did not agree with the standards utilized by the MPAA. Furthermore, parents felt the ratings were applied inconsistently, making it more difficult to rely on the ratings as a credible tool. 

Conclusions

 

(top of page)

While this study is a significant first step toward investigating parental use of and satisfaction with the current MPAA rating system, it must be viewed as a pilot study. Due to the nature of focus group research, the number of participants is relatively small and the results are based on the views of parents from a single Midwestern town. However, the results from this study give us a starting point for constructing a large scale survey instrument to help gauge parental views in a more generalizable format. It is also one of the first academic studies that allowed parents to voice their opinions of the film ratings in their own words, without conforming to preconceived categories on a closed-ended survey. As such, the results shed light on why parents may rate the MPAA system as something they are "fairly satisfied" with when they are not allowed to elaborate on their opinions of the system. 

When looking more in depth at parents' views of the system, although parents see the system as somewhat useful, they would like to see improvements made to the ratings that give them more specific information about the types of content they can expect to find in individual films. Parents also expressed concern over perceived inconsistencies in the ratings process. It is hoped that this study will not only lead to additional research on the MPAA ratings, but will serve as a guide to the MPAA itself in improving the usability and reliability of the rating system.

---