The Methods and Merits of Pornography Research

A critique by Daniel Linz, University of California, Los Angeles

and Edward Donnerstein, University of California, Santa Barbara
We read with dismay the recent exchange between Christensen and Zillmann
and Bryant on the effects of pornography (Journal of Communication,Winter
1987, pp. 186-188). First, we are disturbed by the tone of the exchange. We
find it disrespectful to both parties and to ourselves. Second, we are disturbed
that the debate appears to have ended with the findings of a single study
conducted in our laboratory assuming paramount importance in answering the
question of whether or not prolonged consumption of pornography that is not
overtly violent results in antisocial effects. To leave the debate at this point
ignores the fact that an individual research finding is most representative of
‘‘truth’’to the extent that it is replicable. Unfortunately, our original finding is
not-at least not so far.
As Zillmann and Bryant correctly note, we presented the findings of a pilot
study at the Symposium on Media Violence and Pornography sponsored by the
Media Action Group in Toronto in 1984 (11). We also report this Ending in our
recently published book The Question of Pornography Research Findings and
Policy Implications (2, p. 176). As we report there, and as we reported at the
conference, prolonged exposure to R-rated “slasher” films, X-rated violent
pornography, and X-rated pornography that was not overtly violent but that may
be demeaning or degrading to women resulted in subjects judging a victim
later portrayed in the videotaped reenactment of a rape trial as less physically
and emotionally injured compared to control subjects who viewed no films. In
that study we did not find that subjects exposed to all three types of material
were less sympathetic toward the rape victim portrayed in the trial or showed
less empathy for rape victims in general.
We reported the findings of the first study at the Toronto meeting because
we thought they were interesting and because we naively assumed that we
were being invited to a scientific conference where tentative findings could be
reported and appropriate caveats could be made. This was obviously not the
case.

Had we had the opportunity at the conference, we would have called

for more research before coming to any firm conclusion about the
effects of exposure to pornography. Indeed, in a second experiment that
we conducted after the symposium we found that subject empathy and
sympathy were affected by exposure to “slasher” films that combine sex and
violence but not by prolonged exposure to pornographic films. We also failed
to find significant effects on scales designed to measure endorsement of force
in sexual relations, belief in conservative sex roles, and the tendency to view
women as sexual objects. We also found no evidence for assignment of greater
responsibility to the rape trial victim, no sign of subjects’ willingness to excuse

180
Colloquy

the defendant in the rape trial, nor any change in verdict or defendant
sentence following prolonged exposure to degrading pornography. (Ironically,
we were unable even to replicate the original injury effect among subjects in
the “slasher” film conditions.)
As Zillmann and Bryant also correctly point out, we did not report on the X-
rated nonviolent or the X-rated violent pornography conditions in our article
published soon after the 1984 Toronto conference ( 5 ) . The theoretical focus of
the article was on desensitization to violence and the after-effects of this
desensitization on decision making about a rape victim. We theorized that
subjects’ emotional responses to the films would become blunted with
continued exposure to the most graphic forms of violence against women and
that we would see this blunted emotionality manifest itself in sympathy and
injury judgments about a female victim in another context. The results of this
study supported this theoretical position. Subjects exposed to “slasher” films
show significant declines in anxiety and depression (our primary indices of
desensitization) with continued viewing. As we indicated in the article, subjects
exposed to either violent or nonviolent pornography do not show these
desensitization effects. We also noted in the introduction to that article that the
effectsof exposure to violent pornography may be due to subjects’ responding
to the message that women enjoy or are sexually aroused by rape. Since this
possibility had been extensively explored elsewhere (see 10 for a review), we
omitted from the article the discussion of subjects exposed to these materials.

As for exposure to nonviolent pornography, yet a third process may be

at work. The effects obtained by Zillmann and Bryant (12), as they themselves
theorize, may stem from exposure to the idea that women are depicted in
many pornographic movies as sexually insatiable or the willing receptacles for
any male sexual urge. These ideas may then carry over to decision making
about other sexual activities such as rape. We see much merit in this reasoning,
but this was also not the focus of the 1984 article. Since that time we have
been unable to replicate the original Zillmann and Bryant findings or our own
finding regarding long-term exposure to nonviolent pornography. These
subsequent experiments have included both male and female subjects and
have usually involved exposing subjects to full-length unedited films (4, 6, 7).
In each of these studies we have found either main effects for exposure to
“slasher” films or interactions between films depicting violence and rape and
certain subject dispositions. In none of these studies do we find antisocial
effects for exposure to pornographic material that is not overtly violent. Other
investigators (e.g., 8) have also been unable to find differences between
subjects exposed to pornography over a prolonged period of time and subjects
in various types of control groups on critical dependent variables measuring
antisocial effects, including aggressive behavior (although it must be noted that
in this study aggressive behavior was measured after a longer time lag between
the last film exposure and the measurement of the dependent variable than has
generally been used by other investigators).
There are of course many reasons that certain findings are obtained within

181
Journal of Communication, Spring 1988

one laboratory but unattainable in another. One obvious explanation might be

differences in subject populations in one setting versus another. For example,
we know from previous research that some persons are more susceptible to the
effects of pornographic materials than others (9). It may be the case, for
example, that the students at Indiana University where Zillmann and Bryant
conducted their original 1982 study had a lower level of sexual experience and
thus were more susceptible to the ideas portrayed about women in
pornography than more experienced subjects.
However, a study conducted by Intons-Petersonet al. (3) with subjects from
Indiana University suggests that the differences between these subject
populations may not be large as we suspect. In this study one group of subjects
was exposed to an R-rated “slasher” film and another to an X-rated nonviolent
pornographic film. The subjects exposed to the “slasher” film showed a greater
increase in acceptance of myths about rape from a pretest to post-test phase
than did groups that saw either nonviolent pornography or nonviolent
nonpornography (the latter two groups did not differ from one another). This
would appear to support the idea that we should be much more concerned
about violent rather than sexual images and does so with subjects drawn from
the same population as those selected by Zillmann and Bryant. Our conclusion
that it is the violence rather than sexual explicitness per se that seems to
account for the negative social effects of exposure to certain forms of
pornography is the result of our examination of the data rather than any
preconceived notion that we now feel compelled to justify.
Ironically, Zillmann and Bryant cite the Surgeon General’s report in their
reply as a source of support for their contention that exposure to
“pornography”without the qualifier “violent” is causally related to antisocial
effects. Among the major consensus statements in the Surgeon General’s report
were the following: “Pornography that portrays sexual aggression as pleasurable
for the victim increases the acceptance of the use of coercion in sexual
relations” (p. 19); “Acceptance of coercive sexuality appears to be related to
sexual aggression” (p. 23) ; and “In laboratory studies measuring short term
effects, exposure to violent pornography increases punitive behavior towards
women” (p. 28). What is conspicuously absent from the Surgeon General’s
summary is an endorsement of the view that exposure to sexually violent
material leads to aggressive or assaultive behavior outside the conlines of the
laboratory or that exposure to anything other than violent pornography results
in any antisocial effects at all. In fact, the only consensus statement from the
Surgeon General regarding nonviolent pornography was that “prolonged use of
[this form of] pornography increases beliefs that less common sexual practices
are more common” (p. 17).

m a n n and Bryant also cite an experiment by Check as support for

their position, and, on the surface, it appears to be-but several
procedural problems limit the generabbility of this study. In Checks
study, a sample of male college students and other adult males from the
greater Toronto metropolitan area was solicited through newspaper

182
Colloquy

advertisements. Subjects were assigned to one of three conditions. Two of

these conditions consisted of 90 minutes of sexually explicit film clips-what
the authors labeled “nonviolent dehumanizing pornography” and “nonviolent
erotica.” The third condition was a no-exposure control group.
The results showed that exposure to pornographic film clips of this kind
affected subjects’ later self-reportsabout certain antisocial behaviors. Compared
to control subjects and to subjects exposed to the erotic film clips, subjects
exposed to the dehumanizing material were more likely to report that they
might commit a rape if assured that no one would know and they would not
be punished. A similar result was found for a scale constructed to measure the
degree to which subjects would use force to coerce a female into other forms
of unwanted sexual activity. This study suggests that relatively long-term
exposure to sexually explicit depictions of mutually consenting sexual activity
(“erotica”) probably does not facilitate negative changes in antisocial attitudes
among males. However, long-term exposure to dehumanizing or demeaning
depictions may have such effects.
Unfortunately, several aspects of the procedures used in Checks study
undermine the confidence that might otherwise be placed in its results. First,
the subjects in this study were recruited through newspaper advertisements
rather than being sampled from some specified population. As Check himself
notes, the likely volunteer for a study of this sort is someone who is already a
pornography consumer.
Second, subjects in this experiment were told that the evaluations of
pornography they would be giving in the study would be used by the
Parliament of Canada to help decide policy on the issue of pornography.
Subjects were told: “this is one of the rare opportunities which you will have to
say something DIRECTLY to the government of Canada” (emphasis in the
original). With instructions such as these given to subjects, it is quite possible
that the effects observed in the experiment arose not from the types of material
that subjects viewed but from their perception of how socially desirable their
ratings might appear. If subjects believed that their responses were going
directly to the government they might rate violent (deviant) forms of
pornography as less arousing, more degrading, and more obscene.
Third, the time periods during which subjects viewed the stimulus material
and the interval between the last pornographic film presentation and
completion of the dependent measures varied across subjects. Since there is no
assurance that the time intervals were randomly distributed across film-viewing
groups, and since these varying time periods are not considered as a factor in
the analyses of the results, it is difficult to assess their potential impact on
subsequent self-reports.Finally, Check used a series of sexually explicit
excerpts taken from feature-length X-rated films. The end result (as in Zillmann
and Bryant) is a long series of sexually explicit images with no context that
could provide viewers with information about the characters’ motivations, goals,
etc.
We do not chastise Zillmann and Bryant for taking a stand on what they feel
are harmful materials. We also do not blame them for marshaling as much

183
 Journal of Communication, Spring 1988

evidence for their position as they are able to accumulate. But in accumulating
evidence for a certain point of view it is only fair to report the studies that
show results as well as the ones that fail to reject the hypothesis of no
difference between subjects exposed to pornography and no-exposure control
groups. So far, our research as well as that of other investigators leads us to fail
to reject the null hypothesis.
It is misguided to single out pornography because of its negative message
about women. This leaves the impression that if only we could eliminate
pornography we would eliminate that material that most harms women in our
society. Why limit ourselves to objecting to the demeaning depictions of
women that appear only in a sexually explicit context? Our research suggests
that you need not look any further than the family’s own television set to find
demeaning depictions of women available to far more viewers than
pornographic material.

References
1. Check, J. V. P. The Effects of Violent and Nonviolent Pornograpky. Ottawa: Department of Justice
for Canada, 1985.
2. Donnerstein, E., D. Linz, and S. Penrod. The Question of Pornograpby: Research Findings and
Policy Implications. New York: Free Press, 1987.
3. Intons-Peterson, M. J., B. Roskos-Ewoldsen, L. Thomas, M. Shirley, and D. Blut. “Will Educational
Materials Offset Negative Effects of Violent Pornography?” Unpublished manuscript, Indiana
University, 1987.
4. &&a, C., S. Penrod, and E. Donnerstein. “Sexually Explicit, Sexually Aggressive, and Violent
Media: The Effect of Naturalistic Exposure on Females.” Unpublished manuscript, Federal Judicial
Center, Washington, D.C., 1987.
5. Linz, D., E. Donnerstein, and S. Penrod. “The Effects of Multiple Exposures to Filmed Violence
Against Women.” Journal of Communication 34(3), Summer 1984, pp. 130-147.
6. Linz, D., E. Donnerstein, and S. Penrod. “The Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Violent and
Sexually Degrading Depictions of Women.” Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los
Angeles, 1987.
7. Linz, D., E. Donnerstein, S. Penrod, and R. Collins. “Individual Differences in Hostility and
Psychoticism, Exposure to Sexual Violence and Reactions to a Victim of Sexual Violence.”
Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles, 1985.
8. Malamuth, N. M. and J. Ceniti. “Repeated Exposure to Violent and Nonviolent Pornography:
Likelihood of Raping Ratings and Laboratory Aggression Against Women.” Aggressive Behavior 12,
1986, pp. 129-137.
9. Malamuth, N. M. and J. V. P. Check. “Sexual Arousal to Rape Depictions: Individual Differences.”
Journal ofAbnomzal Psychology 92, 1983, pp. 55-67.
10. Malamuth, N. M. and E. Donnerstein. “The Effects of Aggressive-Pornographic Mass Media
Stimuli.” In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Eaperimental Social P ~ c h l o g yVolume
, 15. New
York: Academic Press, 1982.
11. Scott, D. (Ed.). Symposium on Media Violence and Pornography: Proceedings and Resource Book.
Toronto: Media Action Group, 1984.
12. Zillmann, Dolf and Jennings Bryant. “Pornography, Sexual Callousness, and the Trivialization of
Rape.” Journal of Communication 32(4), Autumn 1982, pp. 10-21.

184
Colloquy

A response by Dolf Zillmann, Indiana University

and Jennings Bryant, University of Houston

It was gratifying to learn that we were not in error about the existence of
particular data. We hope that the clarification offered will settle this issue once
and for all.
It was equally gratifying to learn that we are not the only party dismayed by
the tone of the exchanges concerning pornography research. The controversy
over effects of violent and nonviolent pornography alike has been unnecessarily
harsh and laden with false accusations (e.g., 3, 11, 18). It has the emotional
overtones that characterize the defense of highly valued, precious commodities.
Sound judgment is compromised on occasion, if not most of the time. In this
debate, persuasive efforts tend to dominate educational objectives, and
arguments are all too often placed in the service of political objectives.
However, notwithstanding the challenge of rationality manifest in these
conditions, the assault on the merits of pornography research also has had its
benefits. It has revealed weaknesses in research procedures (e.g., 4, 21),
prompted clarifications, and corrected erroneous accusations (e.g., 2, 25). We
believe that it will ultimately lead to better research and more meaningful
discussions, and it is in that spirit that we shall take issue with some of the
points made in the statement by Linz and Donnerstein. But some of our
responses will go beyond this statement and address the issue in more general
terms.
We notice that “failures to replicate” loom large in the review of the effects
of nonviolent pornography but are very much left alone in that of the effects of
violent pornography (see also 9, 13). The one-sidedly applied argument being
made is essentially this: Earlier positive findings were not obtained at a later
time; hence, the earlier positive findings must be in error. Such reasoning gives
a degree of power to null findings that they have never before enjoyed in social
science research. The convention has been (and, we thought, still is) that null
findings are unacceptable disproof because they can be generated far too
easily; uncounted procedural ineptitudes will produce them. In light of this,
the seemingly triumphant use of null findings as evidence is, at the very least,
surprising.

It is equally surprising to find studies that employed procedures that

Mered in numerous critical ways from those employed in the studies
that yielded positive findings listed under “failures to replicate." Why,
for example, is a study in which men’s retaliatory aggression against women
(measured in the delivery of electric shock) is the primary dependent variable
(14), and which produced no effects whatsoever, deemed a failure to replicate
findings concerning attitudes toward rape as a criminal offense? But we were
even more surprised to find a thesis by Krafka (12) continually listed as
another failure to replicate. For reasons unknown to us, Krafka used a two-
tailed t-test to evaluate the effect of nonviolent pornography on the acceptance
of the rape myth by women. The effect fell short of significance on that test.

185
Journal of Communication, Spring 1988

Given theory and prior findings, she would have been entitled to use a
directional test. Had she done so, she would have obtained significant results
and replicated earlier findings. Weaver (20) has provided a reanalysis of
Kraka’s findings and demonstrated the effect in question. Incidentally, this
investigator also integrated Linz’s data that Christensen (7) thought to be
nonexistent with the published data and reported parallel, significant effects for
violent and nonviolent pornography.
Elsewhere ( 2 2 ) we have proposed a number of explanations for the failure
to obtain positive results where such failure occurred (according to the
preceding statement by Linz and Donnerstein). All these explanations focus on
aspects of procedure. First, subjects rated each film of the exposure treatment
on numerous aspects of violence and sex, and they determined how
demeaning each film was to the one or the other gender. Such assignments
must have created a high degree of awareness about what the investigators
considered important media influences, and subjects may have guarded against
these influences. Second, in contrast to the earlier-used legal case in which
rape was brutal and never in doubt, the cases used later were highly
ambiguous. The rapist enjoyed mitigating circumstances. The initial issue was,
in fact, his guilt or nonguilt dependent on whether, in the subjects’ perception,
rape had or had not been committed. Such ambiguity can only increase error
variance and therefore must be considered to favor null effects. Third, prior to
rendering a verdict, the subjects had to respond to empathy questions
concerning rapist and victim. Subjects who initially may have felt little
sympathy for the victim may well have become sympathetic after responding to
such empathy requests. Any exposure effect may thus have been nullified by
procedurally induced affect.

186
Colloquy

Under these circumstances, the null results should be expected rather than
come as a surprise. Procedures that do not involve the subjects’ sensitization to
violence and suffering have, after all, consistently produced positive results (cf.
20, 2 2 ) .
Before the debate over pornography effects got out of hand, null findings
were treated as tentative, and investigators felt compelled to explore why
earlier positive findings were not obtained. Such proceeding proved very
productive in many cases. For instance, we failed repeatedly (28, 29) to
replicate the anger- and aggression-reducingeffect of mild erotica that Baron
(1) had observed. We succeeded eventually (17), however, and the reasons for
earlier failures became clear. Should we not seek to clarify null findings before
we treat them as ultimate proof?
Null findings have been used to urge caution and to call for clarifying
research (e.g., 9, p. 81). We have no argument with that. They have also been
used to declare, categorically, that nonviolent pornography is without
significant adverse effects (p. 85). We fail to see much caution in such
generalizations. They certainly don’t do justice to the available research
evidence. And they leave no doubt about the fact that null findings are treated
as evidence superior to that manifest in positive findings. Still, one might be
inclined to accept a stalemate-typeargument alleging inconsistent and, hence,
inconclusive evidence.

But our tolerance is stretched too far when we find that entirely
Merent criteria are applied in the consideration of violent
pornography and its effects. Is it prudent to come to firm conclusions here
and to project certainties (9)? Why, prior to admissions in the preceding
statement, is there no mention of failures to replicate? Why is the study by
Malamuth and Ceniti (14), whose null findings were used in efforts at
discrediting demonstrated effects of nonviolent pornography, not considered in
this context? The study dealt with violent pornography as well as with
nonviolent pornography, and it showed no effect for either type. And why were
the attempted replications of studies showing increased aggression against
women by men who had been exposed to violent pornography ignored (cf.
14)? The originally used procedures were closely adhered to by Fisher, but the
earlier observed effects (8) did not eventuate (cf. 10). The simple fact is that
failures to replicate can be found in the realm of both nonviolent and violent
pornography-as well as in virtually all other domains of effects research. Why,
then, are they used so eagerly to discredit research findings in one area but
deemed immaterial for those in an adjacent one? The partiality in this
reasoning is as unacceptable as it is obtrusive.
We also cannot help noticing that the debate over pornography effects got
uglier by involving a tactic describable as discreditation by insinuation. Accuse
first, and clarify later (or, if possible, not at all)! The recent exchange with
Brannigan ( 2 ; see also 3) is a case in point. Another is the insinuation that we
edited films to create “long series of sexually explicit images with no context
that could provide viewers with information about the characters’motivations,

187
Journal of Communication, Spring 1988

goals, and so forth” (9, p. 79). We wonder where our accusers get such ideas.
In the study in question we used intact films. These films were “state of the
art” at the time, and they left no doubt about the desires and motives of the
personnel featured in them. But even if we had used sequences of
“unmotivated” coital activities, the question remains as to how such a
circumstance would explain the findings that have been reported. The
insinuation implies that witnessing coition among unintroduced parties could
or would trivialize rape as a criminal offense, while the same action among
introduced parties could or would not. Why should introductions make a
difference?We are not told. Nonetheless, we are sure that a rationale could be
conjured up. But we are equally sure that we could come up with numerous
counter-rationales as well. The point is this: Although such insinuations prove
nothing to critical readers, they tend to be absorbed as damaging proof by the
casual, uncritical ones who are usually in the majority.
We were amazed to learn that insinuations are now applied to institutions
and subject populations. We know of no evidence that students who attended
Indiana University in the early eighties were sexually less active than students
elsewhere. What a desperate assumption to make-that they were! The effort at
discrediting our findings in these terms proves immaterial, however. The data
were collected at the University of Massachusetts. Our papers specify “a large
Eastern university” (23, p. 13; 24, p. 123), and Indiana University is obviously
not one.

We also would like to comment on the consensus statements of the

Surgeon General‘s Workshop on Pornography and Public Health. Linz
and Donnerstein (see also 9) give the impression that these statements,
presumably because they reflect their own position better than do the
generalizations offered by the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography
(19), are the result of a careful review of the pertinent literature as well as of
extensive discussion. This, regrettably, is not quite so. As one of us (DZ) was a
member of the panel responsible for these statements, we know that they were
generated in haste-in contrast to those in the report hrnished by the Attorney
General’s Commission that, additionally, had ample time to ponder an
enormous amount of relevant information. The Surgeon General’s panel was
charged, undoubtedly with the best of intentions, to reach agreement on some
general statements and recommendations, and it had about three hours to
accomplish that. Much valuable time was lost debating whether
recommendations should be made. It was eventually decided to refrain from
making any and to limit consensus statements to generalizations about effects.
In the deliberations toward that end it became quite clear that many panel
members simply did not know the social-psychologicalresearch on
pornography effects. Some had not even familiarized themselves with the
contents of the various review papers that the Surgeon General had
commissioned for the Workshop. Many members, then, had to rely on their
intuitive judgment in opposing or supporting effects statements. These

188
Colloquy

judgments were finally rendered in a rush similar to that toward the end of
exhaustive faculty meetings, and the results show it.
Furthermore, given that each and every panel member who cared to speak
against a proposed statement had the power to veto it, it should not surprise
anyone that much of what is shown by the research is “conspicuouslyabsent”
in the consensus statements. The conspicuous absence is not restricted to
effects of nonviolent pornography, however. Violent pornography was also
deemed inconsequential for the real world. The noted exception was the
artificial environment of the experimental laboratory!As Linz, Donnerstein, and
Penrod (13) report: “What is conspicuously absent from the Surgeon General’s
summary is an endorsement of the view that exposure to sexually violent
material leads to aggressive or assaultive behavior outside the confines of the
laboratory” (p. 950).
Incidentally, we never cited, as alleged, the consensus statements in support
of any argument we may have made. We merely cited one of our papers in the
Surgeon General’s report.

We have further been accused of citing an experiment by Check as

support of “our position.” What is meant is that we have given credence to
Checks findings (6) and dared to report the study as a demonstration of
certain not-so-positiveattitudinal effects of pornography. Specifically, Checks
findings show that prolonged exposure to nonviolent pornography facilitates
men’s self-acknowledgedwillingness to contemplate forcing women into
sexual activities to which these women object-or forcing sexual access
altogether. The fact that exposure to nonviolent pornography produced the
same effects, even stronger effects, than exposure to violent pornography (and
Check used violent pornography proper rather than horror films) is apparently
most upsetting to those committed to the belief that it is not the sex but the
violence that mediates the effects in question. Not surprisingly, the study is
quickly becoming the one most viciously attacked. We shall not attempt to
justify all aspects of a study that is not ours but merely point out once more
that insinuation is used to discredit findings that are troublesome-but not
others that use the same procedures.
The study is not alone in using newspaper advertisements to recruit subjects
nor in recruiting people other than students (e.g., 15). It is usually considered
desirable rather than inappropriate to do research with samples drawn from
nonstudent populations. Similarly, the study is not the only one with a variable
interval between exposure treatment and effects assessment. The
aforementioned study by Malamuth and Ceniti (14; see also 5 ) , which was used
as evidence despite null findings, has the same feature. The critical interval
varied nonsystematically in both studies, and a systematic bias favoring
particular experimental conditions, while not impossible, must be considered
highly improbable under these circumstances. Then there is the no-context
contention. But the detailed description of the materials that Check has
provided leaves little doubt that respondents were well appraised of the

189
 Journal of Communication, Spring 1988

protagonists’ motives and interpersonal dispositions.We are bewildered by the

suggestion that concentrating on what is at the heart of pornography
dissimulates pornography. It is the use of teenage horror movies that should be
regarded a dissimulation of violent pornography.
The insinuation that many subjects in Checks study may already have been
pornography consumers, together with the fact that subjects were told that their
response might have policy implications, is likely to be deemed most
damaging. But is it? A rationale is implied, but it is again not fully developed.
If it had been worked out, it would have become clear that the findings remain
unexplained by the insinuation. If, as speculated, a disproportional number of
subjects were fond of pornography and, hence, were consumers, should
exposure to pornographic material not have activated the apprehension that the
government might curtail their access to the material? Should they not have
tried to understate apparently asocial effects to ensure future access? The
findings were, of course, opposite to these projections.
Finally, we notice in the last section of the statement by Linz and
Donnerstein a curious maneuver to place pornography, for all practical
purposes, above reproach. We are told, essentially, that the elimination of
pornography would not do anyone any good because television would
continue to portray women in demeaning ways. Although this sweeping null-
effect assertion is astounding, we do not mean to challenge the attached belief
that pornography is only one of potentially many sources of women-degrading
information. Nor do we want to promote any policy favoring or opposing
pornography. We merely want to express our amazement at the attempt at
“shifting blame.” Surely, Linz and Donnerstein consider the violent variety of
pornography to propagate dispositions demeaning to women. Now we learn
that television drama does so, too-even more so, given the larger number of
viewers. The message to anyone who might take offense at pornography is to
leave it alone and to pick on TV drama first. Drama is made the scapegoat for
pornography’s effects. We consider this a gross oversimplification of the facts.
Pornography does more than show men degrading women by violent means.
Such degradation may well be featured on occasion. But there are numerous
effects of pornography consumption that have little, if anything, to do with the
violent degradation of women by men (cf. 16, 26, 27). The formula that “it is
all the fault of media violence” may be politically opportune, but it addresses
merely one salient aspect of pornography’s effects. It most certainly does not
tell the whole story.

References
1. Baron, R. A. “The Aggression-Inhibiting Influence of Heightened Sexual Arousal.”Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 30, 1974, pp. 318-322.
2. Brannigan, A. “Pornography and Behavior: Alternative Explanations.A Critique.” Journal of
Communication 37(3), Summer 1987, pp. 185-189.
3. Brannigan, A. and S. Goldenberg. “The Study of Aggressive Pornography: The Vicissitudes of
Relevance.” Critical Studies in h f m Communication 4,1987, pp. 262-283.
 Colloquy

4. Byrne, D. and K. Kelley. “Basing Legislative Action on Research Data: Prejudice, Prudence, and
Empirical Limitations.” In D. Zillmann and J. Bryant (Eds.), Pornography; Recent Research,
Interpretations, and Policy Considerations. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum, in press.
5. Ceniti, J. and N. M. Malamuth. “Effects of Repeated Exposure to Sexually Violent or Nonviolent
Stimuli on Sexual Arousal to Rape and Nonrape Descriptions.” Behaviour Research and Therapy
22, 1984, pp. 535-548.
6. Check, J. V. P. The Effects of Violent and Nonviolent Pornography. Ottawa: Department of Justice
for Canada, 1985.
7. Christensen, F. “Effects of Pornography: The Debate Continues. A Critique.” Journal of
Communication 37(1), Winter 1987, pp. 186-187.
8. Donnerstein, E. and L. Berkowitz. “Victim Reactions in Aggressive Erotic Films as a Factor in
Violence Against Women.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41, 1981, pp. 710-724.
9. Donnerstein, E., D. Linz, and S. Penrod. The Question of Pornography: Research Findings and
Policy Implications. New York: Free Press, 1987.
10. Fisher, W. A. and A. Barak. “Sex Education as a Corrective: Immunizing Against Possible Effects of
Pornography.” In D. Zillmann and J. Bryant (Eds.), Pornography: Recent Research, Interpretations,
and Policy Considerations. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, in press.
11. Jarvie, I. “The Sociology of the Pornography Debate.” Philosophy ofthe Social Sciences 17(2),
1987, pp. 82-94.
12. &aka, C. “Sexually Explicit, Sexually Violent, and Violent Media: Effects of Multiple Naturalistic
Exposures and Debriefing on Female Viewers.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1985.
13. Linz, D., E. Donnerstein, and S. Penrod. “The Findings and Recommendations of the Attorney
General’s Commission on Pornography: Do the Psychological ‘Facts’ Fit the Political Fury?”
American Psychologist 42, 1987, pp. 946-953.
14. Malamuth, N. M. and J. Ceniti. “Repeated Exposure to Violent and Nonviolent Pornography:
Likelihood of Raping Ratings and Laboratory Aggression Against Women.” Aggressive Behavior 12,
1986, pp. 129-137.
15. Mann, J., J. Sidman, and S. Starr. “Effects of Erotic Films on Sexual Behavior of Married Couples.”
In Technical Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, Volume 8. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971, pp. 170-254.
16. Mohr, D. and M. P. Zanna. “Treating Women as Sexual Objects: Look to the (Gender Schematic)
Male Who Has Viewed Pornography,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, in press.
17. Ramirez, J,, J. Bryant, and D. Zillmann. “Effects of Erotica on Retaliatory Behavior as a Function of
Level of Prior Provocation.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43, 1982, pp. 971-978.
18. Soble, A. Pornography, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986.
19. U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S
Department of Justice, July 1986.
20. Weaver, J. B. “Effects of Portrayals of Female Sexuality and Violence Against Women on
Perceptions of Women.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1987.
21. Williams, B. Report ofthe Committee on Obscenity and Film CensorshQ. London: Her Majesty‘s
Stationery Office, 1979.
22. Zillmann, D. ”Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography.” In E. P. Mulvey and J. L.
Haugaard (Eds.), Report of the Surgeon General’s Workshop on Pornography and Public Health.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General,
August 4, 1986.

191
 Journal of Communication, Spring 1988

23. Zillmann, D. and J. Bryant. “Pornography, Sexual Callousness, and the Trivialization of Rape.”
Journal of Communication 32(4), Autumn 1982, pp. 10-21.
24. Zillmann, D. and J. Bryant. “Effects of Massive Exposure to Pornography.” In N. M. Malarnuth and
E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1984,
pp. 115-138.
25. Zillmann, D. and J. Bryant. “Pornography and Behavior: Alternative Explanations. A Reply.” Journal
of Communication 37(3), Summer 1987, pp. 189-192.
26. Zillmann, D. and J. Bryant. “Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography on Family Values.”
Journal of Family Issues, in press.
27. Zillmann, D. and J. Bryant. “Pornography’s Impact on Sexual Satisfaction.” Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, in press.
28. Zillmann, D., J. Bryant, P. W. Comisky, and N. J. Medoff. “Excitation and Hedonic Valence in the
Effect of Erotica on Motivated Intermale Aggression.” European Journal of Social Pgchology 11,
1981, pp. 233-252.
29. Zillmann, D. and B. S. Sapolsky. “What Mediates the Effect of Mild Erotica on Annoyance and
Hostile Behavior in Males?”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, 1977, pp. 587-596.

Journal of
Communication
Please enter my subscription to Journal of Communication:
lyear 2 years 3 years
Individual 0 $25 0 $46 $63
Institutional 0 $50 0 $90 0 $135
Outside the US add $10.00per year for normal shipping, or $25.00per year for
air-expediteddelivery. Subscriptions start with Volume 38, Number 1,1988, and
include 4 issues per year. Single issues are $7.00 for individuals; $14.00 for
institutions.
Check enclosed, payable to Oxford University Press.
Please charge to my Mastercard 0VISA
Account No. Exp. Date
Signature
Name
Address
CityIStateRip
Send your order to Oxford University Press, Attn: Journals Department,
16-00 Pollitt Drive, Fair Lawn, NJ 07410

192