What people think about film
classification systems (2002-2012)
WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT FILM CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS (2002-2012)
A Literature Review
Office of Film and Literature Classification
Te Tari Whakarōpū Tukuata, Tuhituhinga
PO Box 1999, Wellington 6140
Phone
04 471 6770
Fax
04 471 6781
Email
[email protected]
Web
www.censorship.govt.nz
ISBN: 978-0-477-10389-3 (PDF)
October 2012
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Summary of Main Findings ....................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Awareness and understanding of classification and rating systems .................................................... 5
Main findings ......................................................................................................................................... 5
General awareness ................................................................................................................................ 5
Awareness of lower level classifications or ratings ............................................................................... 7
Comparison to New Zealand ............................................................................................................... 13
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 15
2. Public perceptions of classification and labelling systems ................................................................. 17
Main findings ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Perceptions of classification systems as a whole ................................................................................ 17
Perceptions of the classifications or ratings assigned......................................................................... 19
Young people’s perceptions of classification systems ........................................................................ 21
Perceptions about ‘mid level’ classifications ...................................................................................... 22
Perceptions about R18 explicit sex classifications .............................................................................. 23
Satisfaction with consumer advice/descriptive notes ........................................................................ 23
Comparison to New Zealand ............................................................................................................... 24
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 25
3. Use of classifications, ratings, and content advice ............................................................................. 27
Main findings ....................................................................................................................................... 27
General use and influence of classification systems ........................................................................... 27
Adults choosing for children and young people ................................................................................. 28
Use of content advice when choosing for young people .................................................................... 30
Use of content advice to choose for yourself ..................................................................................... 31
Comparison to New Zealand ............................................................................................................... 32
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 34
4. Content that concerns viewers ........................................................................................................... 35
Main findings ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Can content in films or games be harmful to young people? ............................................................. 35
What should be restricted ................................................................................................................... 37
Sexual activity .................................................................................................................................. 37
Violence ........................................................................................................................................... 38
Sexual violence ................................................................................................................................ 39
Drugs, alcohol and crime ................................................................................................................. 40
Offensive language .......................................................................................................................... 41
Views about ‘R18’ content .................................................................................................................. 43
Views of young people about content that concerns ......................................................................... 44
Does the format/medium change people’s views? ............................................................................ 45
Comparison to New Zealand ............................................................................................................... 46
Sex and violence .............................................................................................................................. 46
Sexual violence ................................................................................................................................ 47
Offensive language .......................................................................................................................... 47
Does the format/medium change people’s views?......................................................................... 47
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 47
5. Public recommendations about classification systems ...................................................................... 49
Main findings ....................................................................................................................................... 49
Age restrictions.................................................................................................................................... 49
Adult choice ......................................................................................................................................... 49
Content advice..................................................................................................................................... 50
Parental accompaniment and choice .................................................................................................. 51
Universal ratings and convergence ..................................................................................................... 51
Comparison to New Zealand ............................................................................................................... 52
Age restrictions ................................................................................................................................ 52
Adult choice ..................................................................................................................................... 53
Parental accompaniment and choice .............................................................................................. 53
Universal ratings and convergence ................................................................................................. 53
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 54
Reference List .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix: Classification and Ratings Systems Explained ....................................................................... 59
Introduction and summary of main findings
Introduction
The purpose of this review is:




to compare New Zealander’s views of classification and rating labelling systems with overseas
respondents’ views from research published in the past 10 years (2002-2012)
to understand the kinds of classification and rating labelling systems that people think best
communicate the intended protective or warning information to film and game audiences
to help inform us about classification system changes and trends in other countries
as a reference for future developments in the New Zealand classification system
The review examines a selection of public opinion research by classification and rating agencies and
independent researchers. Published research was collected from agencies in Britain, Ireland, the
United States, and Australia. The review includes a comparison of other countries’ findings with New
Zealand findings.
Summary of Main Findings
Public awareness and support
 Awareness and understanding of classification and rating labelling systems varies substantially,
however, New Zealanders have a high level of awareness and understanding of their classification
labelling system.
 Overseas agencies, and the classification or rating labels they assign, generally have strong
support from the public. The Classification Office in New Zealand maintains a high level of public
support relative to other jurisdictions.
 Parents in the jurisdictions examined, and in particular parents with younger children, tend to be
more supportive of, and are more likely to rely on, classification and rating labelling systems than
the public in general. This is also true in New Zealand.
Perceptions of classifications
 As in New Zealand, men in other jurisdictions are more likely to think classification and rating
decisions are too strict, and women to think that they are too lenient.
 Young people generally support classification and rating labelling systems, but are also more likely
to consider the decisions overly strict.
 Young people are less likely than the public in general to consider classifications or ratings
influential in their entertainment choices.
1
What works and what doesn’t
 In New Zealand, as elsewhere, ‘mid-level’ classifications (such as ‘M’) and variations of similar
classifications (such as ‘12A’ and ‘12’) tend to be less well understood, and people tend to be less
supportive of them.
 Research into public understanding and recommendations about content advice on classification
labels suggests that the New Zealand descriptive note format is effective relative to other
jurisdictions.
 People generally support application of a single set of rating or classification labels regardless of
the entertainment format.
What concerns
 There is wide agreement that certain content is likely to be harmful, especially to children and
young people.
 People tend to see violence in film and video games differently.
 In some countries, depictions of drug use are considered the most important content of concern
in terms of classification labelling decisions.
Who’s responsible?
 People generally agree that certain content should be age-restricted, but there is significant
disagreement over whether parents or industry or the state should enforce restrictions.
Methodology
A search for relevant research was conducted using:
 internet search engines (Google and Google Scholar)
 the Classification Office library database
 databases accessed via Wellington City Libraries (www.mygateway.info)1
 document research websites2
 websites of media/classification authorities3
Some examples of search terms used:
 “film/movie/video”
 “label/labels/labelling”
 “classification/s”
 “rating/s”
1
Proquest’s Academic Research Library, Ebsco Masterfile Premier, Gale Onefile
fulltextreports.com, www.docuticker.com
3
These included: Ofcom, Australian Classification Board, BBFC, CARA, MPAA, ESRB, IFCO, ISFE, PEGI, FTC, ACMA, Ontario
Film Review Board
2

“research” “survey” etc
Research was confined to the last 10 years because:
 most of the research at least partly analogous to the kind of research (general/public opinion) we
did in 2007 and 2011 was from the period 2002-2012
 this time period was long enough to include repeat research from the same organisations allowing
for comparisons over time
 the nature of the entertainment industry (and how classification systems relate to it) has changed
rapidly in the last ten years therefore research becomes less relevant beyond a 10-year timeframe
The original scope of the review included research published in academic journals. However, the
research most relevant for this review was either commissioned by or carried out by:
 ratings/classification regulatory agencies themselves (such as the BBFC)
 other government agencies with regulatory role (such as the FTC)
 other industry groups with regulatory role (such as ISFE)
Research previously published by the Classification Office was also used.
3
Awareness and understanding of classification and rating systems
1. Awareness and understanding of classification and rating systems
This section includes research from Australia, the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States, Ireland
and New Zealand, published between 2004 and 2011. The findings presented are mainly quantitative.
Research dealing with awareness and understanding also tends to cover people’s use and perception
of classification systems.
Main findings








General awareness of classification and rating systems varies substantially across the jurisdictions
examined
American parents have a good understanding of the CARA film rating system, but many are
unaware that films or DVDs can also be released unrated
People are less likely to understand mid-level classifications or ratings – these tend to cause
confusion as they often appear similar (for example, represented using a similar symbol or term)
Separate ‘adults only’ classifications for sexually explicit titles are poorly understood
Non-specific/abstract content advice is poorly understood
In Australia, there is confusion about the relationship of a classification to content advice
New Zealand compares well in terms of the public’s awareness and understanding of classification
labels
As in the other jurisdictions, there tends to be less understanding of the mid-level classifications
such as M, RP13 or RP16
General awareness
General awareness of classification and rating systems varies substantially across the jurisdictions
examined.
The 2005 report Classification Study for the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification
(Australian OFLC) found that ‘awareness of the symbols used to classify film is very high’ amongst
Australian adults, with 97% acknowledging awareness of at least one classification (p. 17).
A question in the report for the Australian Attorney-General's Department, Classification Decisions
and Community Standards 2007 asked film consumers:
Thinking now about new release films. As far as you are aware, are there any classification ratings on
films? (p. 13).
Answers to this unprompted question showed that:
Overall, 92% Australian film consumers are aware that there are classifications for films. Amongst
respondents who speak a language other than English, 75% are aware that there are classification
5
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
symbols for films. Awareness is lower amongst 15-17 year olds (85%) than those aged 18 years or older
(94%) (p. 13).
When shown the classification symbols and asked which of them participants were aware of ‘before
today’, acknowledged awareness of the classifications was generally high. The report states that:
Overall, 99% of film consumers are aware of at least one category. Although less than half (47%) of
consumers are aware of all five categories, this is reduced by the relatively low awareness of the X18+
classification (p. 15).
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) report Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005
asked respondents how often they ‘noticed’ the classification on a film before deciding to watch it.
The figure for those always noticing it, 40%, in 2004 was little different from that found in the 2000
survey. Slightly more women than men claimed always to notice the rating, but more people with
children said they did, rising to nearly three-quarters (73%) of people with children aged 12-14 (p. 5).
The Interactive Software Federation of Europe (ISFE) runs the PEGI (Pan European Game Information)
game rating system and carries out periodic research into Europeans’ understanding and perception
of the system. The 2010 research Video Gamers in Europe divided the results about ratings awareness
into gamers and non-gaming parents.
When shown the rating symbols themselves, 75% of gamers and 55% of non-gaming parents
recognised the PEGI age rating labels. From the research:
While there is less awareness of the age rating scheme and of PEGI there is much higher recognition of
the PEGI age rating labels, presumably helped by their consistency with other rating systems for films
etc. Therefore there is a practical understanding of the system of rating even if there is less awareness
of the details or management of the system (p. 58).
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has undertaken reviews and produced reports for the United
States Congress about industry practices in the motion picture, music and games industries called
Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children. Among other things, the reviews gauged the
effectiveness of industry-run age rating systems. For the 2007 report, the FTC carried out an
‘undercover shopper survey’ to assess whether retailers were abiding by the rating labels assigned by
industry-run groups such as the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB, for games) and the
Classification and Rating Administration (CARA, for films). They also surveyed parents to assess their
familiarity, use and ‘views on the validity’ of game ratings:
Nearly nine in ten parents (87%) and 75% of children said they are aware that the game rating system
exists…More than eight in ten parents claimed to be aware of and at least slightly familiar with the
system. Three quarters of parents claiming familiarity with the video game rating system correctly
6
Awareness and understanding of classification and rating systems
indicated that the system provides both an age rating and content descriptors…In addition, half of the
parents familiar with the rating system named, unaided, three ESRB ratings (E, T, or M) (p. 27).
Survey results for the FTC’s 2009 report (Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children) found:
A very high level of parental awareness and use of the MPAA rating system. Nearly all parents (94%)
were aware that a rating system exists, and almost as many (88%) correctly indicated that an R rating
was more restrictive than PG-13 (p. 16).
The meaning of an ‘unrated’ film in the US is poorly understood
Rulings by the US Supreme Court have found that legal restrictions on films and games are
unconstitutional, and so industry bodies provide a framework for ratings, age restrictions and advice.
A consequence of this system is that, unlike the other jurisdictions covered in this review (including
New Zealand), films can be supplied to the public in the US on video or DVD without carrying a rating:
In contrast to the high familiarity with the rating system, many parents were unaware that a movie
rated for theatres could be released as an unrated version on DVD. One third of parents (34%) were
unaware and either believed that a rated movie could not be released as an unrated DVD or responded
that they did not know. Even among those who were aware of the practice, nearly half expressed
uncertainty about how an unrated DVD might differ from the rated theatrical version. In response to an
open-ended question, 45% of parents said they did not know or were unsure. Only 29% of those parents
who were aware of the practice mentioned that the unrated DVD might contain more violence or other
additional adult/explicit content (p. 17).
Awareness of lower level classifications or ratings
Recognition of a classification symbol does not necessarily mean it is understood, and understanding
a symbol’s meaning is essential in order to ensure that a classification system is successful.
The 2005 report Classification Study for the Australian OFLC found that recognition of the G (97%) and
PG (99%) classification symbols was high (p. 17). However, when they gauged participants’
understanding of what the individual symbols meant, they found that of the six classification symbols
only the G classification was ‘widely understood in the strictest sense’ (75% gave a ‘strictly correct’
interpretation) (p. 21).4
4
The 2005 report Classification Study for the Australian OFLC gauged public understanding of the different classification
symbols using the following coding system:
Strictly correct = where a respondent recalled all criteria for a particular classification description. Eg,
“Recommended”
“For mature audiences”
“15 years and over”
Conceptually correct = where the response was not strictly correct but it was clear that the respondent had a conceptual
understanding of the classification description
Incorrect = where the description included errors
(OFLC Australia & D&M, 2005, pp. 21, 23)
7
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
The research states that:
Where there is any misunderstanding it is in the belief that the G symbol indicates that it is a movie for
children, which is not always the case. The two groups most likely to interpret G to mean children’s
movies are 14-17 year olds and 35-49 year olds, these represent recent kids and people of the age to be
parents of young children (p. 21).
People’s definition of the PG symbol was 5% ‘strictly correct’, 62% ‘conceptually correct’ and 33%
‘incorrect’ (p. 22). The PG symbol was commonly understood as ‘Parental Guidance’ rather than the
full ‘parental guidance recommended for people under 15 years’ (p. 23). The report noted that:
A common error, for both the young and old, is the belief that children need to be supervised or
accompanied by a parent to watch a PG movie (p. 23).
The report for the Australian Attorney-General's Department, Classification Decisions and Community
Standards 2007, found that the majority of film consumers could name the G (69%), PG (71%), and M
(64%) classifications unprompted (p. 14).
UK qualitative research for Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 found that there was limited
awareness of the ‘Uc’ classification, and that people were surprised there could be a lower
classification than ‘U‘ (p. 32).5
People are less likely to understand mid-level classifications or ratings
The 2005 report Classification Study for the Australian OFLC found that there was a high level of
recognition of both the M (93%) and MA15+ (93%) symbols (pp. 18-19). However, when participants
were asked what the M and MA15+ symbols meant, a relatively low level of understanding was found.
People’s definition of the M symbol was 4% ‘strictly correct’, 54% ‘conceptually correct’ and 42%
‘incorrect’ (p. 22). Regarding the M classification:
Misunderstanding is highest among those aged 14-17 years. This is typically because these young
people think more of the symbol as defining the content of the film rather than the audience (p. 23).
People’s definition of the MA15+ symbol was [2%] ‘strictly correct’, [1%] ‘conceptually correct’ and
[97%] ‘incorrect’ (p. 22). Regarding the MA15+ classification:
Understanding of the MA15+ classification symbol is almost non-existent. Only 2% of those who claim
to be familiar with the symbol are able to recall its strict definition and 1% have a conceptual
understanding. For the most part the responses volunteered for this question were very similar to the M
symbol… (p. 24)
5
Note that the ‘Uc’ classification no longer exists (http://www.pbbfc.co.uk/faqs.asp#What are the differences between
the 'U' and 'Uc' categories?)
8
Awareness and understanding of classification and rating systems
… there is little understanding of the ‘accompanied’ and legally restrictive elements of MA15+. A
significant proportion erroneously consider MA15+ to involve an absolute restriction on under 15s (p.
25).
These findings were broadly consistent with similar research published by the Australian OFLC in 2002
finding that ‘there is widespread confusion about the difference between M and MA15+ symbols’,
and that the ‘correct understanding of MA15+ remains almost non-existent’ (p. 27).
The report for the Australian Attorney-General's Department, Classification Decisions and Community
Standards 2007, found that:
Although only 23% named MA 15+, and just 12% named R18+, the majority got close enough (59% for
MA15+ and 66% for R18+) to imply knowledge of these classifications (p. 14).
Variations of a similar classification or rating tend to cause confusion
Qualitative research in the UK, Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009, found that:
Most of the discussions revolved around ‘12A’, a relatively new category for the BBFC and the public.
Attitudes were mixed and comprehension also varied with some sections of the public remaining rather
confused as to what a ‘12A’ classification really meant (p. 33).
The Irish Film Classification Office (IFCO) found similar confusion in Ireland around ‘mid-level’
classifications.
…there exists a considerable amount of confusion about the definition of PG (and hence when combined
with 12 and 15). Parents debated the meaning of PG— Parental Guidance or is it Parental
Accompaniment or a combination of the two? Or is ‘Older’ adult accompaniment (and if so what age
should this person be?) Is accompaniment compulsory or discretionary? Who is there to enforce
‘guidelines’— the cinema owners or rental outlet? (Lansdowne Market Research, 2004, p. 7)
Some parents presumed that 12PG and 15PG were ‘steps up’ from PG but, on the whole, the more
they thought about it the less obvious and easy was the interpretation of this category (p. 7).6
However, in another study, IFCO found that adolescents (ages ranged from 12 to 17 years with a
mean age of 14 years) had a much clearer understanding of the various ‘PG’ film classification
symbols.
Young people appear to have a good grasp of the classifications used by the censor. 82% (n=834)
interpreted the meaning of 12PG correctly. It might be noted that the parents of these young people
reported being confused about the terminology. A larger portion of the younger age group than the
older age group interpreted the 12PG correctly. As might be expected there was a high correlation
6
These classification categories used by IFCO have been changed since this report was published: 12PG and 15PG have
been replaced by 12A and 15A (see appendix)
9
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
between those that use the classification system and knowledge of the categories. (Dublin City
University & Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art Design and Technology, 2005, p. 9)
Separate ‘adults only’ classifications for sexually explicit titles are poorly understood
Unlike in New Zealand, the Australian classification system includes two classifications which place a
legal restriction on people under the age of 18. These are expressed by the symbols R18+ and X18+,
the latter applying to films that contain only sexually explicit content and which are not screened in
cinemas.
The 2005 report Classification Study for the Australian OFLC found that recognition for both of these
classification symbols was relatively low, with R18+ being recognised by 86% and X18+ by only 53% (p.
17). The report noted that:
While awareness of the X18+ symbol shows little variation across regular and infrequent cinema goers,
which makes sense given that X18+ films are not shown in cinemas, there is slightly higher recognition
(58%), among regular video/DVD viewers than among those that rarely or never watch videos or DVDs
(p. 20).
When participants were asked what the R18+ and X18+ symbols meant, they had a relatively low level
of understanding of them. Participants’ definition of the R18+ symbol was 48% ‘strictly correct’, 16%
‘conceptually correct’ and 37% ‘incorrect’ (p. 22). Regarding the R18+ symbol:
Around half of those aware of the R18+ symbol understand it to mean that it is for a restricted audience
aged 18 years and over. A further 16% understand the concept of the symbol. The most common error
is the belief that the symbol indicates ‘suitability’ for adults aged 18+ rather than a legal restriction.
While overall 37% of the population have an incorrect interpretation of the R18+ symbol, the figure is
47% among those aged 14-17 years. Again, this is primarily due to young people describing the content
of R18+ films rather than the intended audience.
While awareness of the R18+ symbol is slightly higher among those that visit the cinema most often
these people have no greater understanding of the meaning of the symbol than infrequent cinema
goers (p. 25).
People’s definition of the X18+ symbol was 16% ‘strictly correct’, 18% ‘conceptually correct’ and 52%
‘incorrect’ (p. 22). Regarding the X18+ symbol:
A majority of those aware of the X18+ symbol (52%) have an incorrect understanding of the
classification. Only 16% of those aware of the symbol can recall the strict definition of the X18+
classification symbol, although a significant proportion understand the concept of the symbol or the
content of such films.
10
Awareness and understanding of classification and rating systems
Among those that do not know the meaning of the X18+ symbol the most common error, similar to
R18+, is the reference to ‘suitability’ for adults aged 18+ rather than a legal restriction. There is also a
significant proportion, 18%, that are of the incorrect opinion that X18+ movies contain violence
Consistent with the findings for the R18+ symbol, the group with the highest level of awareness for the
symbol, in this instance, regular video/DVD viewers, demonstrate no greater understanding of the
meaning of the symbol than other consumers (pp. 25-26).
These findings were broadly consistent with similar research published by the Australian OFLC in 2002
which found that:
While knowledge of the X18+ symbol is at a lower level, a significant proportion have an understanding
of the type of material that will be included in a film classified in this way (p. 27).
The report for the Australian Attorney-General's Department, Classification Decisions and Community
Standards 2007, also found a lack of understanding of the X18+ classification:
The X18+ classification was named correctly by 3% of film consumers and correctly or almost correctly
by 18%. The lower proportion of consumers spontaneously mentioning this classification is not
surprising as restrictions on the sale of films classified X18+ would reduce the number of times most
consumers come into contact with this classification (p. 14).
Regarding the UK classification ‘R18’, qualitative research Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines
2009 found that:
Whilst there was little (claimed) spontaneous awareness of ‘R18’, most respondents were aware of
porn and that there was a category above ‘18’ that denoted more sexually explicit works (p. 33).
Awareness and understanding of content advice
The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) games rating system used in the US and Canada
includes content descriptors such as ‘alcohol reference’, ‘fantasy violence’, and ‘comic mischief’. The
Federal Trade Commission’s 2007 report Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children found that
parents were less aware of the meaning of the ‘content descriptors’:
Slightly more than half (55%) of parents familiar with the ESRB system said they are moderately or very
familiar with the content descriptors, and another 31% claimed to be slightly familiar (p. 27).
Non-specific/‘abstract’ content advice is poorly understood
The Australian equivalent of the descriptive note used on New Zealand classification and rating labels
is called consumer advice. While on the face of it this advice has the same function and purpose, the
Australian advice has significant differences to the description used in New Zealand. One difference is
11
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
the use of the word themes in a number of phrases on Australian consumer advice. The Australian
report Classification Decisions and Community Standards 2007 defined ‘themes’ as:
…what the storyline or images are about. For example, a film or a game set in a haunted house may
have supernatural themes (p. 17).
Participants were asked if they knew the meaning of the word themes in consumer advice, and to
describe what they thought it meant. It was found that a majority of the Australian public
misunderstood the intended meaning of ‘themes’.
Overall, Australian consumers have a limited and often incorrect understanding of the word ‘themes’.
Although around half (54%) of film consumers are able to attempt a definition, just one in four (24%)
film consumers provided a definition which was correct or mostly correct, and 7% gave examples of
themes.
Almost as many (19%) described or gave examples of other classifiable elements—demonstrating that
there is a great deal of confusion about the word ‘themes’. Other common misinterpretations of the
term included repeating the phrase ‘adult themes’ without demonstrating any understanding of it (5%)
and describing / giving examples of genres and DVD shop classifications (5%) (p. 16).
In Australia, there is confusion about the relation of a classification to consumer advice
The qualitative research 2004 Community Assessment Panels noted public confusion about whether
the same advice meant the same level of a ‘classifiable element’ regardless of the classification. The
report noted that:
Panellists were not always clear on whether consumer advice is based on the standards operating in
each classification category, or whether there is a wider framework that all advice fits into. To illustrate,
some people did not know that ‘Medium Level’ depends on the acceptable standards within each
classification range, and that the impact of ‘Medium Level Violence’ varies according to the
classification of the film or game in question (p. 34).
However, the report also noted that participants:
…generally considered their preferred consumer advice in the context of their preferred classification,
and understood that the same content might correspond to differing consumer advice if assessed at
different classification levels. (2005, p. 34)
Where content advice is seen, the 2005 report Classification Study for the Australian OFLC found that
the public were most likely to see advice in trailers (65%), followed by ads in newspapers (51%), and
film reviews in magazines or newspapers (44%) (p. 34).
12
Awareness and understanding of classification and rating systems
The PEGI system in Europe uses symbols to indicate content in games
The PEGI age ratings system for games marketed in Europe includes content symbols as opposed to
variations of the descriptive note format used in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and for
films in the United Kingdom. These symbols represent content such as violence, sex or gambling.
In the Interactive Software Federation of Europe (ISFE) research Video Gamers in Europe 2010,
gamers and non-gaming parents were shown the PEGI content symbols and asked if they were aware
of them, or had ever seen them. The results showed that:

Average awareness across all the labels is 34% for Gamers and 22% for Non-Gaming Parents

Violence (46%-27%), Sex (38%-29%) and Gambling (38%-25%) are the most recognised labels, which
may in part reflect the use of the widely used symbols adopted rather than their specific use on
games (p. 60)
Participants who recognised one or more of the symbols were then asked if they understood what a
game carrying these symbols would include. The research found that:

On average in 93% of cases Gamers aware of a symbol also claim to understand what a game
carrying it would contain

Non-Gamers are almost as confident at 87%

Both groups are least likely to be confident about ‘Nudity’ (83% and 78%)

Non-Gamers are less confident about ‘Drugs’ 80% and ‘Online’ 83%
Clearly the descriptive word on each label contributes to the understanding of its meaning (p. 61)
When all gamers were shown the PEGI content symbols and asked if the meaning of the symbols was
clear (indicating clarity on a scale of one to five), the research found that:
Although the vast majority of Gamers claimed they understood the symbols only 70% scored them as
very or extremely clear (p. 63).
Comparison to New Zealand
General awareness and location
New Zealand compares well in terms of the public’s awareness of classification labels, and noticing
the labels. New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification 2011 research, Understanding the
Classification System: New Zealanders' Views, asked respondents if they had seen the classification
labels, and where they had seen them.
13
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Nearly all respondents said they had seen the classification labels somewhere. Just 0.4% indicated they
had never seen them.
…the vast majority of respondents had seen the classification labels on DVDs and videos (97%), movie
posters (90%) and on movie trailers (88%)…Large proportions of New Zealanders had also seen the
classification labels in other places, such as on print media other than movie posters (64%), on TV
advertising (57%), and on the internet (46%) (p. 33).
However, New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification 2011 qualitative research, Guidance
and Protection, found that few participants recalled seeing any information about the system itself.
Few participants recalled seeing any information about the classification system itself, with only a
couple mentioning having seen the classification label poster which all suppliers of films and video
games are legally required to display (p. 22).
Understanding of classifications
Due to significant differences in methodological approaches (and dates of publication) it is not
possible to attempt a direct comparison of this kind of data among the jurisdictions covered in this
review. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the New Zealand public has a particularly firm understanding
of the different classifications used.
Low-level classifications are well understood
The 2011 research Understanding the Classification System: New Zealanders' Views found that 94% of
New Zealanders were able to define the G classification label, and 80% could define the PG label (p.
30).
Understanding of mid-level classifications and variations of similar classifications are not so well
understood
New Zealanders, like their overseas’ counterparts, tend to have a relatively low understanding of midlevel classifications such as the M classification. The 2011 research Understanding the Classification
System: New Zealanders' Views found that:
Understanding of the M classification is lowest, with 61% of respondents correctly defining this
classification…Those who defined this label incorrectly were most likely to favour the strictest option,
and say that only people aged 16 and over can watch the film (19%) (p. 32).
Understanding of the New Zealand ‘RP’ classification was also low.
Overall, slightly under two-thirds of respondents (63%) chose the correct definition for the RP13 and
RP16 classifications as meaning that people under 13 or 16, respectively, cannot view the film without
an accompanying parent or guardian. Lower public understanding of this classification may relate
partly to the extent to which these labels are applied to films and games. In the year ending June 2010,
14
Awareness and understanding of classification and rating systems
the OFLC assigned an RP label to less than 1% of all classified publications. Further, the RP classification
was recently re-introduced in 2008 (p. 32).
The 2011 qualitative research, Guidance and Protection, found that:
Participants felt RP was not as ‘clear cut’ as the other classifications in terms of what sort of content to
expect, and who it was suitable for. It was described as something of a ‘grey area’ (p. 19).
As well:
There was confusion and concern over the M classification, both in terms of its definition as well as its
application. This is consistent with the findings of the 2011 survey of the public’s understanding of the
classification system. The survey shows that while New Zealanders have a clear understanding of most
of the classification labels, only 61% correctly identify the meaning of the M classification (p. 17).
Discussion


Research from a number of agencies found a relatively poor understanding of mid-level
classifications or ratings. Findings suggest that using similar symbols or terms for different
classifications causes confusion. Examples are M and MA15+ in Australia, 12 and 12A in the UK,
and PG, 12PG and 15PG in Ireland. This is also a cause for confusion in New Zealand, with the
classifications M (recommended for mature audiences 16 and over), RP16 (Restricted to those 16
and over unless accompanied by an adult) and R16 (restricted to those over 16 without
exception). The similarity of classifications is not the only reason why understanding may be
relatively poor. For example, in New Zealand, the RP classifications are less well understood, but
they were only recently reintroduced and are seldom used. In the UK, the use of 12 in cinemas,
and 12A on DVDs means that the same film will end up with different classifications. These and a
number of other things may contribute to the relative lack of understanding demonstrated in
different jurisdictions.
Some research from Australia and the UK may suggest that using a separate classification for
pornographic films and all other ‘adults only’ films is a cause for misunderstanding. However, as
above, the use of similar symbols or terms is just one of a number of factors that may lead to
confusion. With regard to explicit sex classifications in the UK (R18) and in Australia (X18+), a
relative lack of misunderstanding may be expected as films with these classifications are restricted
from view in ways that other films are not7 (as noted in the Australian research Classification
Decisions and Community Standards 2007).
7
In Australia, films classified X18+ can only be sold, hired or exhibited in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern
Territory provided certain conditions are met. For example, the film must be sold or hired in a restricted publications area
to which only people aged 18 and over are permitted to enter.
(http://www.classification.gov.au/Howtocomplywithclassificationlaws/Pages/Complianceforsaleorhireoffilms.aspx).
In the UK, films may only be shown to adults in specially licensed cinemas, and video works may be supplied to adults only
in licensed sex shops. (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/guidelines/r18/)
15
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)



16
Australian research reveals widespread misunderstanding of ‘abstract’ content advice using the
term themes (eg, ‘contains adult themes’). In comparison to advice such as ‘contains violence’ or
‘contains sex scenes’, it is not surprising that the ‘thematic’ notes are less well understood as they
are inherently subjective and open to interpretation. It seems likely that Australian-style thematic
advice would be equally misunderstood by New Zealanders.
Another cause for confusion in Australia is the relationship between a classification and
accompanying content advice. For example the prefix ‘low/medium/high’ before ‘violence’ or
‘offensive language’. As in New Zealand, there may already be confusion as to whether the same
note (‘offensive language’, for example) denotes stronger language when used with higher
classifications. By adding complexity to content advice, as in the prefixes described above, the
advice may have the opposite effect to what was intended.
The use of content symbols in content advice: it seems that the PEGI content advice may be wellunderstood only insofar as it is accompanied by a descriptive word explaining the symbol. It could
be argued that having a symbol and description is of use in terms of content advice, but it could
also be the case that including a symbol adds another level of information which may be
redundant to some extent. More specific written content advice, as is used by the other agencies
studied, gives more scope for detailed information about the content within a film or game.
Perceptions of classification and labelling systems
2. Public perceptions of classification and labelling systems
This section includes research from Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Ireland and New
Zealand, published between 2002 and 2011. The research is a mix of quantitative and qualitative
methodologies.
Main findings







As in New Zealand, there is strong backing for classification and rating systems in general, and
people tend to agree with the classifications or ratings assigned to films and video games
Parents tend to be more supportive of classification and rating systems – particularly parents of
younger children
American parents were concerned about the availability of ‘unrated’ films
Men tended to disagree with classifications more often
Young people are generally supportive of classifications systems, but are more likely to believe
classifications are overly strict
People tend to be less satisfied with mid-level classifications, eg ‘M’ ‘12’
People tend to think consumer advice and descriptive notes are useful
Perceptions of classification systems as a whole
The research covered in this review suggested strong backing for classification or ratings systems in
general.
People tend to hold positive views of specific agencies or systems. The 2002 Australian research
Classification Usage and Attitude Study found that:
The majority (85%) …believe the OFLC fulfils an important community role and have confidence (72%) in
its rating decision making abilities (p. 26).
And the 2005 Australian research Classification Study found that:
Nine in 10 Australians agree that the OFLC plays an important role in providing classification advice on
movies and computer games (p. 31).
Quantitative research for the UK report Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 found that 62%
of the general public, 82% of recent film viewers, and 86% of BBFC website visitors believed the BBFC
was effective in its role of providing reliable film classifications and advice (p. 28). The report noted
that:
The general public are less knowledgeable about the overall effectiveness of the BBFC, and so feel less
able to express either a positive or negative opinion (p. 28).
17
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Accompanying qualitative research found that:
The BBFC was thought to be fallible and did not always get classification decisions right; however this
was seen as an inevitable given the diversity of views on the subject and the credibility of the
organisation was never questioned. Whilst respondents do not always agree with every classification
decision, on the whole the BBFC were thought to be doing a difficult job well. (Hardie et al, 2009, p. 25)
The US study Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children 2007 asked parents how satisfied they
were with the ESRB age ratings system. 36% were ‘very satisfied’, 51% ‘somewhat satisfied’, 9%
‘somewhat dissatisfied’ and 3% ‘very dissatisfied’ (p. 30).
IFCO’s 2004 report, Parental Usage & Attitudes Survey of Film Classification, showed broad
satisfaction with the Irish system.
On the whole, parents are generally happy with the current IFCO classifications (G, PG, 12PG, 15PG and
18). IFCO’s classification ratings are seen as one of the main sources of useful information about film
content and are an important reference when deciding what their children should be allowed to watch
(p. 6).
Parents tend to be more supportive of classification and rating systems
In the Australian report Classification Usage and Attitude Study, 98% of parents agreed that ‘It’s
useful to have classification symbols for movies and computer games’ (p.29), compared with 94% of
adults (p. 26). The report noted that:
Parents are overall more positive towards the OFLC and classification than adults generally and the
youth segment (p. 3).
And that:
Of the three groups, parents tend to express more positive attitudes towards the various issues, in
particular the usage of classification symbols to decide on the suitability of movies or games (p. 29).
Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 found that:
Parents overall are more positive than other adults about the BBFC (76% of parents in the general
public sample, rate the BBFC as effective). This is particularly true for those with children aged 6-11
(88% rate the BBFC as effective) – the age at which cinema going starts to become a more regular
pastime (p. 28).
However, unrated films are a source of concern to US parents. In its report, Marketing Violent
Entertainment to Children 2009, the FTC outlined the concerns of US parents about the availability of
unrated films:
A majority of parents expressed some concern about the release of unrated DVDs with more violence or
other adult content than the rated theatrical version. Among all parents surveyed, 58% indicated that
18
Perceptions of classification and labelling systems
they had some concern about the practice, compared to 20% who had no concerns and 22% who had
no opinion either way. Parental concern was substantially higher among parents who had not
previously been aware that movies rated for theatres could be released as an unrated version on DVD.
Among these parents, 77% expressed concerns, while only 8% said they had no concern and 15% had no
opinion.
Parental concern was also significantly higher among parents who use the MPAA rating most often.
Nearly two thirds (63%) of parents who reported using the rating system all or most of the time
indicated that they were concerned about the practice of releasing DVDs with unrated or other adult
content not in the theatrical version, compared to 40% of parents who reported that they rarely or
never used the rating when choosing a movie for their child (pp. 17-18).
Perceptions of the classifications or ratings assigned
Members of the public in the various jurisdictions examined tended to agree with the classifications
or ratings assigned to films and video games.
The Australian report Classification Usage and Attitude Study found that 72% of adults, 77% of
parents, and 80% of young people agreed that the Australian OFLC ‘has a good perspective on what
kinds of movies/computer games are suitable for people of different ages’ (p. 29). In the later
research, Classification Study, 76% of adult Australians agreed that the Australian OFLC ‘has good
perspective on movies for different ages’ (p. 30); and the research Classification Decisions and
Community Standards 2007 found that ‘the majority (70%) of the computer game market believes the
classifications for games are about right’, and that:
The majority (77%) of film consumers believe the classifications for films are about right. More believe
that film classifications are too permissive (14%) than too strict (5%) …only a minority (6%) feel
classifications are much too strict or much too permissive— implying that classification decisions on
films reflect community standards and any changes to the classification system to bring it in line with
consumer perceptions should be incremental rather than large8 ( p. 29).
The 2005 UK study Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines asked participants how frequently they
disagreed with a film’s classification, and found
…two-thirds (66%) of respondents saying they had never or not very often disagreed with
classifications, while less than a third (30%) said they had disagreed quite often, and a tiny number that
they had always or almost always disagreed (pp. 6-7).
The question was asked again in Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009, which showed that
38% of the general public never disagreed with a classification, 44% occasionally disagreed, and 18%
quite often or always disagreed (p. 29).
8
The question excluded reference to the X18+ classification
19
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
In the US, the study Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children 2007 found that agreement with
ESRB ratings was high amongst parents who were aware of the ratings. 9 21% of parents agreed with
game ratings ‘all the time’, 43% ‘most of the time’, 24% ‘some of the time’, and 8% ‘never’ (p. 30).
More parents of younger children (26%) expressed agreement with ESRB ratings all or nearly all of the
time compared to parents of older children (12%) (p. 29).
Nevertheless, nearly all parents (94%) at least slightly familiar with the ratings reported that the
ratings were moderately or very easy to understand, and a similarly large majority (87%) of these
reported that they were either very satisfied (36%) or somewhat satisfied (51%) with the ratings (p.
29).
In Ireland, IFCO’s Parental Usage & Attitudes Survey of Film Classification found that:
On balance, it would seem that parents are in agreement with IFCO with regards to the specific ratings
(vis-à-vis film content). Overall they are accepted as being ‘about right’ (p. 6).
However, parents also felt that:
…more information about film content is required to better assist them in making decisions about what
their children should be allowed to watch (p. 7).
Men tend to disagree with classifications more often
Men are more likely to think film and game ratings and classifications are too strict. This is illustrated
in three Australian studies.
The 2002 research Classification Usage and Attitude Study found that:
There is also strong consensus (71%) that classification symbols are a means of deciding on the
suitability of a film or computer game for different audiences. There is a small proportion (19%) that is
in disagreement on this issue and this attitude tends to be more prevalent amongst males (26%), non
parents (27%), white collar (26%) and high income (35%) households… (p. 26).
The 2005 report Classification Study noted that:
While the community overwhelmingly believe that the OFLC has a good perspective on movies for
different ages there is a significant minority, 22%, that do not believe that this is the case. Consistent
with the study administered in 2002 these are typically males (p. 30).
9
Parents were the only respondents for this study
20
Perceptions of classification and labelling systems
And the report Classification Decisions and Community Standards 2007 found that:
… only a small minority (3%) feel strongly (much too strict / much too permissive) about the
appropriateness of computer game classifications. Indicative analysis by groups indicates that those
most likely to believe game classification decisions are too strict are younger and male. (p. 18)
Young people’s perceptions of classification systems
Young people are generally supportive of classification systems. 2002 Australian research
Classification Usage and Attitude Study found that 80% of young people agreed the Australian OFLC
‘has a good perspective on what kinds of movies/computer games are suitable for people of different
ages’ (p. 29).
The study also found that:
The youth segment is largely very positive towards the usefulness of classification symbols (93%), the
OFLC’s role in providing (85%) and deciding (80%) on appropriate film/game classifications. They also
strongly believe that there are systems in place to limit access to unsuitable content for children (p. 28).
Young people were the most supportive of the current systems in place to limit children’s access to
unsuitable material. The report noted, however, that:
This positive attitude may well be a function of a desire for no additional measures to be implemented
(p. 29).
IFCO’s Adolescents and Film: Attitudes to Film Classification found that in Ireland:
40% (n=375) of adolescents think that film classification is a good idea for their own age group and 92%
(n=867) think that it is a good idea for younger age groups. 59% of adolescents have used the IFCO
classification system when selecting films (n=609)…74% of these adolescents reported a general level of
satisfaction with the system. 62% of respondents are quite satisfied and a further 12% are very
satisfied. Satisfaction does not vary with age but does vary significantly with use. Those that check the
classification more often also tend to be more satisfied with the current system (p. 5).
Adolescents are more likely to find classifications overly strict
IFCO’s Adolescents and Film: Attitudes to Film Classification found that:
While there was a level of uncertainty, more than half of respondents felt that films in all age groups
were often or sometimes classified too strictly (p. 6).
Participants were more likely to think that films given a 15PG classification were classified too
strictly—28% thought the classification was ‘often’ too strict, and 31% that it was ‘sometimes’ too
strict. The report also noted that:
Almost half of respondents thought that films were rarely or never given too lenient a certificate (p. 6).
21
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
The report goes on to say that:
While the findings from the survey indicated that a large number of young people felt that classification
was unnecessary and overly strict, in the interview setting, participants moderated their views. They
could see the sense in having a classification system and thought that it was good to know ‘what you
might be letting yourself in for’ (p. 13).
While some advocated removing film classifications altogether, or at least stopping their
enforcement, most respondents felt that it was important to retain a system for under 12s, and some
felt it was also important for under 15s. However, many respondents argued that by the age of 15, or
at least 16, young people had reached maturity (p. 13).
The Australian research Classification Decisions and Community Standards 2007 found that:
Film consumers aged 15-17, who are young enough to have limited access to films, have a slightly
higher proportion who believe that classifications are too strict than believe they are too permissive –
however 74% feel they are about right (p. 30).
Perceptions about ‘mid level’ classifications
Along with being less well understood, people were generally less satisfied with a number of ‘midlevel’ classifications. IFCO’s Parental Usage & Attitudes Survey of Film Classification found that in
Ireland:
15PG rated films are often or sometimes seen as being too strictly rated by almost half of all parents
(45%) compared with just under 4 in 10 (or 38%) who, on occasion, felt that the classification is not
strict enough (p. 7).
Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 noted that in the UK:
The quantitative research findings also demonstrate the varying levels of overall agreement with the
appropriateness of films normally found at a particular category. The most controversial classification
level is ‘12A’ (pp. 34-35).
Regarding these mid-level classifications in general:
Interestingly, the most difficult and potentially controversial classification category was ‘12A’;
teenagers were thought to mature very differently and respondents could also have quite diverse views
about what was and was not appropriate viewing for this age group. ‘15’ was another area of concern,
partly because this was recognised as being a vulnerable age group where the peer group could lead a
child astray and partly because once again, respondents had different views about how ‘adult’ a
teenager was at this age. The Guidelines around these two key age groups were scrutinised and the
BBFC was not always thought to have got it right (p. 39).
22
Perceptions of classification and labelling systems
Perceptions about R18 explicit sex classifications
For the Australian research Classification Study, respondents were asked if they thought the X18+
classification was ‘too permissive, too strict or about right’?10
Overall, 58% of Australians were able to comment on the X18+ classification. Of these, the majority
(88%) feel the classification is about right (9% too permissive, 3% too strict). This suggests that the
classification decisions are reflective of community standards.
Females (7%) are more likely than males (4%) to feel the X18+ classification is too permissive. There
were no other substantial state or demographic differences evident in the data.
Many people would not choose to watch films rated X18+ at all, and are unlikely to encounter the X18+
classification with any regularity; however the views of these people are included in this question. No
attempt was made to measure the impact of X18+ films in a natural setting (p. 34).
Satisfaction with consumer advice/descriptive notes
The 2005 research Classification Study found that more than 9 in 10 Australians find consumer advice
to be useful. This comprises 46% that consider it very useful and a further 48% that rate it useful. The
report also found that ‘females and older people are more likely than males and young people to find
consumer advice very useful’ (p. 35).
The UK report Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 found that:
When shown examples of the sort of information that appears on the BBFC website, the majority of
respondents consider it and the information provided on DVD packs, to be useful (p. 37).
The extended classification information was considered useful or very useful by 58%, and the DVD
pack information by 79%11. The report goes on to note that:
There are lower interest levels among the general public sample, because this sample includes older
respondents who are less likely to be heavy web users per se and also less likely to be watching
films/playing video games (and therefore interested in this sort of classification information) (p. 37).
Satisfaction with the use of specific notes/advice
The report Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children 2007 found that 60% of US parents thought
the ESRB system did a ‘good or excellent job informing about violence in games’, 54% thought it did a
‘good job informing about sex in games’, and 57% that it did a ‘good or excellent job informing about
profanity in games’ (p. 30).
Although more than half of parents familiar with the system (60%) said that the rating system does a
‘good’ or ‘excellent’ job informing them about the level of violence in games, 36% said the system does
10
11
X18+ is only assigned to sexually explicit films
In the general public sample
23
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
a ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ job. Parents reported similar satisfaction for the levels of sexual content and profanity.
Although more than half of parents familiar with the system (60%) said that the rating system does a
‘good’ or ‘excellent’ job informing them about the level of violence in games, 36% said the system does
a ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ job. Parents reported similar satisfaction for the levels of sexual content and profanity
(p. 29).
The Australian research 2004 Community Assessment Panels noted confusion about, and
dissatisfaction with, content advice about sex.
While they generally agreed that advice on sexual content is necessary, they did not agree on the
appropriateness or clarity of the words used in the consumer advice (Urbis Keys Young, 2005, p. 38).
Comparison to New Zealand
People in New Zealand also tend to hold positive views about the New Zealand classification system.
The 2011 research, Understanding the Classification System: New Zealanders' Views, found that public
perception of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (the Classification Office) compare
favourably with perceptions of similar overseas agencies.
…the majority (75%) of New Zealanders believe the OFLC is doing a ’good’ or ‘excellent’ job, with 15%
saying the OFLC is doing an excellent job. A further 12% say the OFLC is doing a ‘fair’ job, while just 3%
say the OFLC is doing a ‘poor’ job. The remaining 11% say they don’t know enough about the Office to
make a judgement. When we exclude those who say they don’t know enough about the Office to make
a judgement, the proportion of New Zealanders who rate the OFLC as doing a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ job is
84% (p. 25).
Participants generally agreed with the classifications or ratings assigned. The 2011 research showed
that the majority of New Zealanders (69%) thought that ‘the classification system for films, videos,
DVDs and games’ was ‘about right’. 23% viewed the system as too lenient, and 8% view the system as
too strict (p. 35). This result is similar to comparable Australian research.
The New Zealand 2011 qualitative research, Guidance and Protection, found that:
Initial perceptions of the system also included feelings that it was straightforward and easy to
understand, though at times could be a little inconsistent—however, a lot of discussion around
inconsistency was in relation to television (p. 11).
And that:
While some participants felt that they personally didn’t benefit all that much from having a
classification system, the majority expressed appreciation of the benefits of the system to New Zealand
at a societal level (p. 13).
24
Perceptions of classification and labelling systems
As in other jurisdictions, there was dissatisfaction with mid-level classifications such as M. Guidance
and Protection found that:
Some said that they felt confused at times about why a film was given a particular classification, and
queried the consistency of classifications across films. Often this discussion included reference to
unrestricted films, such as those with an M classification (p. 13).
In New Zealand’s ‘traffic light’ system where G (green label) means ‘go’ and R (red labels) means ‘stop,
restricted’, participants felt that the M label didn’t fit well into the yellow ‘caution’ category. They
suggested the definition ‘suitable for mature audiences 16 and over’ gave the impression that the film
was only for (as in restricted to) people 16 and over (p. 34).
Further, there was dissatisfaction in New Zealand, not noted elsewhere, about classifications on
games.
Parents of primary school-aged children said that they generally agree with the classifications assigned
to films, but not to games. This was because games have changed dramatically over the last 20 years in
terms of both content and execution (p. 21).
As elsewhere, men tended to disagree with classifications more often. Understanding the
Classification System: New Zealanders' Views showed that New Zealand men were more likely to view
the system as too strict with 12% of men believing the classification system is too strict, compared
with 5% of women (p. 39).
Discussion


Public opinion research into classification and rating systems suggests that – notwithstanding
significant international differences in regulatory approaches – the general model of agerestrictions or recommendations and content advice is an expected, and highly valued,
component of the distribution of media entertainment.
Parents are invariably more supportive of classification and ratings systems when comparisons are
made with the general public. This is to be expected, as parents are recognised by regulators as
particularly important stakeholders – reflected by the fact that some agencies only survey parents
for views on classification or ratings systems. Being that the views of parents are surveyed more
regularly, it follows that the operation of classification and rating systems are more likely to reflect
parents’ views rather than the views of the general public. It may also be expected that the higher
use of classifications and ratings amongst parents would lead to more support, as they are relied
upon to a greater extent by this group.
25
Use of classifications, ratings and content advice
3. Use of classifications, ratings, and content advice
This section includes research from Australia, the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States, Ireland
and New Zealand, published between 2002 and 2012. This section focuses more on quantitative
findings. Research dealing with people’s use of classification systems also tends to cover perception,
awareness and understanding of those systems.
Main findings



There is generally a high level of use of classification and rating information in the jurisdictions
covered. New Zealand compares favourably. This is particularly true of parents, especially parents
of younger children
Classification information is also used by adults, with relatively more women finding the
information useful
Young people in Australia and New Zealand are less likely to be influenced by classification
information when choosing entertainment
General use and influence of classification systems
Classification symbols
The 2005 report from the Australian OFLC, Classification Study, found that:
Three quarters of Australians use the classification symbols to decide on the suitability of movies… (p.
31)
Video Gamers in Europe 2010 states that:
76% of Gamers and 89% of Non Gaming Parents who are aware of the system find the PEGI age rating
system quite-extremely useful (p. 59).
In the UK, Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 asked how often people checked the
classifications for films and games. For films, 46% always checked the classification and 25%
sometimes did; for games, 28% always checked the classification and 18% sometimes did (p. 27).12
Content advice
Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 asked respondents (who said they had ‘noticed’
consumer advice) if they found the advice useful. 42% found the advice very useful (‘I always look at
the consumer advice’), 44% found it quite useful (‘I use it when deciding what my children should
watch’), and 11% did not find it useful (p. 17).
12
Note that 51% of those 45+ checked the classification on all films. The report noted that this age group are more likely
to be parents (p. 27).
27
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Adults choosing for children and young people
Parents tend to use classifications and ratings more when their children are younger.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) survey conducted for the report Marketing Violent
Entertainment to Children 2007 found that 61% of US parents used the ESRB rating icons ‘most or all
the time’ when choosing games for their children (p. 27). In the United States, parents are legally
allowed to give any game to their children, including games which are age-restricted at the point of
sale, due to the country’s industry self-regulation system.
However, the survey found that parents and children differ in their opinion of how well the ratings are
enforced in the home.
…85% of parents said that they restrict the video games their child can play, compared to 65% of
children who reported that their parents restrict their games. As in 2000, the data show that parents
are more likely to restrict younger children (those between ages 8 and 13) compared to older children
(those between ages 14 and 16). About one quarter (24%) of all parents reported restricting based on
the game’s rating…
Forty percent of parents familiar with the ESRB system reported that they either sometimes (34%) or
generally (6%) allow their child under age 17 to play M-rated games. Children reported an even higher
level of parental permissiveness; 57% reported that they are sometimes (36%) or generally (21%)
allowed to play M-rated games, including 37% of child respondents between the ages of 8 and 10 years
(p. 28).
An ESRB website page Consumer Research reports that 70% of US parents regularly checked a game’s
rating before purchasing a game for their children and that:
88% of parents feel the ESRB rating system is either ‘very helpful’ or ‘somewhat helpful’ in choosing
games for their children (p. 1).
Regarding influential factors amongst parents, the Australian report Classification Usage and Attitude
Study noted that:
Classification rating plays a strong role in influencing choice of film for children, both at the general and
most influential level, 61% and 18% respectively. The classification rating is the second most important
film selection factor for parents after child request (p. 15).
When looking at sources of influence for parents choosing films according to the age of children, the
research also found that:
There are some variations in the prominence of factors selected by parents depending on the age of the
child. Child’s request remains the most frequently mentioned selection factor across all age groups with
highest registration amongst parents with children aged 5 to 9 and 10 to 12 years. Across the board all
factors are generally lower amongst parents with children under 5 years.
28
Use of classifications, ratings and content advice
The majority of parents (61%) indicate the classification rating forms part of their film selection decision
for their children. The highest level of mention occurs with parents of children aged 10 to 12 years (75%
compared to 61% overall). This suggests it may be more difficult for parents to choose films that are
suitable for 10 to 12 years based on marketing communications and use the classification rating to
assist vetting and selection. Inclusion of classification rating as an influential factor decreases markedly
as children move into teen years (p. 16).
The FTC’s more recent US research Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children 2009, focused on
parental use of the MPAA’s13 film rating system (known as ‘CARA’14).
Parents’ reliance on the rating in making movie selections for their children was also high. Three
quarters (76%) reported using the rating system all or most of the time when deciding whether to let
their child buy, rent, or watch a movie for the first time. Only 9% of parents indicated that they rarely or
never use the rating system (p. 16).
Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 (UK) states that:
When asked about deciding to see a film in the company of young people, more than three-quarters
(76%) of respondents said they found ratings useful (p. 6).
And found that parents were more likely to find classification information useful:
Among those with no children, 73% said they found the ratings useful, whereas among those with
children the figure was 85%, and for people with children aged 6-11 it was 93%.
The overall responses were almost the same when people were asked about deciding what to view with
young people on video or DVD...More of the respondents known to have children said they found
ratings useful when deciding what to view on video/DVD (84%), and the figures were higher still when
the children were young: 90% among those with children aged 6-8, and 88% among those with children
aged 9-11 (p. 6).
Referring to the PEGI age-rating symbols, Video Gamers in Europe 2010 found that:
89% of Non Gaming Parents who are aware of the system find the PEGI age rating system quiteextremely useful (p. 59).
The Irish study Parental Usage & Attitudes Survey of Film Classification found that:
Most parents (70%) ‘always’ check the classification rating on video/DVD before allowing their children
to watch it. Perhaps an expected perception of the parent: child relationship is that 4 in 10 believe that
their children are not that happy about the ‘nanny-check’ of their film viewing. In general though,
dialogue between parents and children about films is evident among at least half of this audience (p. 9).
13
14
Motion Picture Association of America
Classification and Rating Administration
29
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
The report drew a link between parents’ high use of classification information and their likelihood of
letting underage children watch restricted films.
In this context, it is perhaps not too surprising that the majority of parents are happy to allow their
children to view some films with a higher/older classification rating. There is a strong sense that parents
fully accept responsibility for this decision and are happy to do so. In fact, the majority of parents (86%)
believe that they should have the final say on what their children can and cannot watch on film and
video/DVD. Parents readily acknowledge that the current classification rating is an important guide but
that ultimately the final decision is theirs (p. 9).
From the young person’s viewpoint, the Irish study Adolescents and Film: Attitudes to Film
Classification found that:
85% (n=874) of respondents reported that their parents at some stage checked the classification
certificate of films when they were younger. This ties in with the findings from the IFCO/Lansdowne
survey where 93% of parents reported that they regularly check the ratings. A sizeable number of the
younger age group report that their parents still do so (42%). The mean age at which parents ceased to
check the classification, as reported by the adolescents, is approximately 11 years. While a sizeable
minority were annoyed that their parents checked the certificate (41%), and only a very small number
(3%) were happy that they checked the certificate, the majority didn’t mind either way (56%) (p. 9).
Use of content advice when choosing for young people
Participants in the Australian OFLC qualitative research, 2004 Community Assessment Panels, felt that
content advice was ‘useful’ and ‘particularly important in selecting material for younger people or for
family viewing’ (p. 29).
Referring to the PEGI content symbols, Video Gamers in Europe 2010 found that:
58% of Gaming Parents and 59% of Non-Gaming Parents consider the labels are very/extremely useful
in helping them to decide upon a games purchase (p. 63).
Respondents in the research Video Game Regulation in the UK: The View of Adults and Parents were
shown two images: Image 1 showed the BBFC labels including age symbol and content descriptor,
Image 2 showed the PEGI age symbols and content symbols. Looking at these separately, respondents
were asked to what extent they agreed with the statement ‘I find/would find content advice like this
useful when choosing games for children’: when shown Image 1 (BBFC), 84% either ‘agreed’ or
‘strongly agreed’ with the statement, and 3% either ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’; when shown
Image 2 (PEGI), 68% either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’, and 17% either ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly
disagreed’ (p. 13).
The US Federal Trade Commission survey conducted for the report Marketing Violent Entertainment
to Children 2007 found that 54% of US parents were familiar with and used ESRB content descriptors
‘most or all the time’ when choosing games for their children (p. 27).
30
Use of classifications, ratings and content advice
Qualitative research for Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 found that fathers were
particularly sensitive to certain content and sought labelling advice accordingly.
Fathers were particularly sensitive to the embarrassment of watching sexual content or references with
teenage offspring and used classifications and Consumer Advice to avoid this situation (p. 26).
Use of content advice to choose for yourself
The UK report Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 found that:
When respondents were asked about deciding to watch films alone or in the company of other adults,
64% said they found the rating useful, 20% said they did not, and 15% said the question did not apply to
them—because they seldom or never went to films. The findings are closely similar to those found in
2000.
Asked the same question in respect of videos and DVDs, slightly fewer people (60%) than for films said
they found the rating useful (p. 5).
Participants in the Australian study 2004 Community Assessment Panels felt that while content advice
was ‘particularly important’ when choosing films or games for children and young people (p. 29), it
was also:
…important for people who wish to avoid, or who seek, films or games with significant amounts of a
particular classifiable element such as violence or sexual activity (p. 29).
When it comes to young people using classifications and ratings to choose for themselves, the
Australian OFLC report Classification Usage and Attitude Study found that:
There are no major differences across the demographic groups on sources of influence [on choosing
films] with the exception of classification rating. The 16 to 17 year old age group is less likely to
nominate as an influential source, 24% compared to 38% for younger respondents (p. 20).
The Irish Adolescents and Film: Attitudes to Film Classification study found that:
59% of adolescents have used the IFCO classification system when selecting films (p. 5)
At least some of whom did so in order to ‘self-regulate’ to avoid unsuitable material:
…while they may be in a minority, there is a significant number who do use the system to avoid seeing
certain challenging films (35%; n=305). This is significantly higher for the younger over the older age
group (p. 5).
However, most respondents in the study had seen films restricted to older viewers.
Despite their knowledge of the classification system, young people reported viewing films for age
groups older than their own … A total of 71% of respondents reported having seen films for older age
31
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
groups when they were 12 years old; 81% reported seeing films for over 15 year olds when they were
not yet 15 years of age and 57% reported seeing over 18s films when they were underage (p. 10).
And many regretted this afterwards:
A sizeable minority of respondents (43%, n=388) reported having seen a film that scared them and that
they wished they hadn’t seen. The majority of the adolescents were in the 11-13 year age group when
they saw the film that disturbed them. There was no age difference in that older respondents were just
as likely as younger respondents to have seen such a film. The top three films mentioned are listed
below (p. 11).
The top three films mentioned by respondents were The Ring, The Exorcist, and The Texas Chainsaw
Massacre (p. 11).
On the use of content advice, the Irish study of adolescents and film found that:
Respondents reported that the reason for checking the classification is more often in order to see
specific material (65%; n=573). 72% of 15-17 year olds and 61% of younger age groups, who check the
classifications, are doing so in order to see those films (p. 5).
Comparison to New Zealand
On the usefulness of classification labels, New Zealand 2011 qualitative research, Guidance and
Protection, found that:
Participants also thought that the New Zealand classification labels were useful as an instant indicator
of a film’s content, particularly the use of ‘traffic light’ colours— red (R18, R16, etc) signifying ‘stop—
not everyone can have this’, yellow (M, PG) meaning ‘slow down, caution’, and green (G) signifying ‘go,
anyone can watch or play this’ (p. 13).
Parents felt that if there was no classification system, it would be harder for them to make decisions
about films and games for their children. They suggested that they would have to watch the movie first
to determine whether or not it was appropriate for children to see (p. 28).
On the usefulness of descriptive notes, Guidance and Protection found that:
There was strong support in the group discussions for the use of descriptive notes, with many examples
given of how they contribute to people’s viewing and gaming decisions.
Participants indicated that descriptive notes were crucial to help them understand why a particular
classification had been assigned to a film. They felt they added another layer of protection from harmful
content, or content they personally would not want to see or have their children see. They explained, for
example, having a particular dislike for offensive language, but being okay with violence in a film (p.
14).
32
Use of classifications, ratings and content advice
New Zealand survey findings, Understanding the Classification System: New Zealanders' Views, also
found that:
…women and those who watch DVDs and videos less frequently tend to see classification labels and
descriptive notes as being very important in their decisions for children and young people (p. 49).
As with the findings from other jurisdictions discussed in this chapter, New Zealand parents tend to
use classifications and ratings more when their children are younger. Understanding the Classification
System: New Zealanders' Views found that:
New Zealanders appear to be especially mindful of the content that very young children are exposed to,
as the age of the children living in the home is a significant factor in the importance placed on
classification labels and descriptive notes … those with younger children at home are more likely to say
that the classification labels are very important in their decisions for children and young people.
Classification labels appear to become slightly less important for those making choices for older
children, although the majority still indicate they are very important and the average importance score
is above 8.5 out of 10 for all three groups (p. 48).
When it came to adults using the classification and descriptive note to make personal viewing and
gaming choices, the 2011 New Zealand study Understanding the Classification System: New
Zealanders' Views found that:
… the importance of both the classification and the descriptive note in personal viewing and gaming
decisions tends to be higher for those aged 35 years or over, and the importance of the descriptive note
tends to increase with age from that point (p. 45).
This study found that women (10%) were more likely than men (6%) to find both the classifications
and descriptive notes ‘very important’ in their viewing choices. This is similar to findings from
international research (p. 45).
As in Australia, young New Zealanders are less likely to be influenced by classifications when choosing
films (or games). New Zealand research Young people's use of entertainment mediums – 2010 found
that:
40% reported they are never influenced by classifications in making film choices, and 48% are never
influenced by classifications when choosing games. Classifications had a similarly low ranking influence
on young people’s game and film choices in 2006. ( [OFLC3] 2010, p. 8)
33
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Discussion
Parents or guardians are more likely to rely on classification information when their children are
younger. There are a number of reasons why this may be the case:
a) unrestricted, low-level classifications tend to be less varied and easier to understand – the
BBFC, CARA, Australian Classification Board, IFCO and the New Zealand Classification Office all
use G/U and PG (‘parental guidance’) ratings or classifications and the distinction is easy to
recognise;
b) the large number of films and games with one of these few low-level classifications means
they are highly visible to the public;
c) the meanings of these low level classifications tend to change little, even as other ratings or
classifications are added, changed or dropped by regulators;
d) parents tend to be particularly careful about what younger children view or play as they are
considered particularly impressionable and/or likely to be harmed by certain content;
e) parents tend to have more variable views on what material is appropriate for different ages
during adolescence;
f) parents are more likely to take direct responsibility for purchasing or hiring entertainment
media for young children, as older children increasingly make their own viewing choices.
34
Content that concerns viewers
4. Content that concerns viewers
This section covers research from Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and New Zealand, published
between 2004 and 2011. It focuses mostly on qualitative findings. Some of the research covered in
this section was carried out as part of a review of standards and policies relating to the operation of
classification systems.
Main findings






There is wide agreement that certain content is likely to be harmful, especially to children and
young people
Young people in Ireland did not believe some restricted-level content, including explicit sex, would
be harmful to younger viewers and their views on what content their parents found most
concerning were very different to parents’ actual views
People tend to see violence in films and video games differently
In some countries, people were most concerned about drug use in terms of a film or game’s
classification
People hold highly nuanced views about the relative harm from how films or games deal with
matters such as sex, violence or offensive language, depending on context
Some studies note that sexual content is treated in an overly restrictive way by regulators,
compared with violent content
Can content in films or games be harmful to young people?
Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 presented respondents with three statements and asked
whether they agreed, disagreed, or were neutral.
“Watching criminal or dangerous activity in films can sometimes lead to copycat behaviour in real life”
The survey showed that a majority (69%) agreed with the statement … More women than men
expressed agreement (77% vs 59%), as did younger people compared with older people (53% of those
aged 18-24 vs 84% of those aged 65+).
“Watching violence in films generally makes people more likely to be violent in real life”
In the case of this statement, 45% said they agreed, 27% that they were neutral, and 28% that they
disagreed. Again, fewer men than women expressed agreement, as did younger people compared with
older people.
“As people move from childhood to adulthood, they are better able to cope with disturbing imagery in
films”
35
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
A majority of people in the survey (60%) said they agreed, 21% were neutral, and 18% disagreed. The
only demographic difference was between men and women, with more men than women agreeing
(67% vs 54%) (pp. 7-8).
A survey for the BBFC research, Video Game Regulation in the UK: The View of Adults and Parents,
asked respondents a more general question as to whether they agreed with a statement that ‘video
games may affect the behaviour of some children’. The research found that 73% of the British public
either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’15, and only ten percent either ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’16
(p. 5).
In depth interviews for the Australian research Classification Decisions and Community Standards
2007 found that the context of ‘classifiable elements’ (such as sex, violence, etc.) were important (p.
33). The examples given indicated particular concern about the affects certain material may have on
children and young people. These concerns included:
Desensitisation. If people became desensitised to things, they appear normal and this can affect
people’s behaviour (particularly children)…
Role modelling. If a hero character is seen as doing something unsavoury, this is often seen as
inappropriate. This is particularly important for films which are available and targeted towards
children. This applies mainly to violence and sex—particularly if the role modelling can be seen to
encourage sex to start at a young age…
Instructional. If the movie provides information on how to do something immoral or illegal, this is seen
to warrant a higher classification. This is important for topics where information is not readily available
to the uninitiated, such as drug use, car theft and suicide (p. 33).
An earlier Australian qualitative study, 2004 Community Assessment Panels, found that violence was a
major concern for participants (p. 25). One of the reasons being that:
Films and computer games that were seen to ‘promote’ or tacitly approve of violent behaviour were
viewed in an especially negative light, because of their potential to influence impressionable young
minds (p. 25).
The Irish research, Parental Usage & Attitudes Survey of Film Classification, noted that:
There is a significant proportion of parents who believe that the media in general can cause potential
harm to young people—harm as defined by imitability, loss of innocence, nightmares, ‘immature
interpretations’ and ‘foistering’ of so-called accepted norms of behaviour and views (p. 10).
15
16
43% and 30% respectively
7% and 3% respectively
36
Content that concerns viewers
Young people’s views
The Irish Adolescents and Film: Attitudes to Film Classification study found that many young people
did not believe some of the restricted-level content was generally harmful.
None of the participants felt that the films containing bad language, drugs or sexual content, that they
had seen, had caused them any emotional concern or had a lasting impact on them (p. 14).
Young people did, however, consider that violence and horror can have a lasting impact.
While ‘slash’ films scared younger viewers, older participants reported that the most disturbing films
are those that have a psychological impact—that ‘mess around with your mind’; that are ‘confusing’ or
‘disturbing’ (p. 14).
What should be restricted
The level of concern about specific content is broadly similar across the countries examined.
Sexual activity
Australian respondents to the survey Classification Decisions and Community Standards 2007 were
asked about the classification of a newly released film they had seen or game they had played, and
about specific content or ‘classifiable elements’ within the film or game. Sexual activity was discussed
by some respondents.
Similar to nudity, only a small proportion believe the amount of sex in the last new release film is
beyond the limits of acceptability. The MA15+ category is again the main offender, however as this only
applies to 4% of consumers of this category of film, it is unlikely to cause widespread problems (p. 45).
The Australian qualitative research, 2004 Community Assessment Panels, showed film and game clips
to members of the public, and then asked participants for their views on how different classifiable
elements should be classified. Regarding people’s opinions about depictions of sexual activity, the
report noted the significant ‘division across all the Panels’:
…with some Panellists appearing to have a higher tolerance for references to normative heterosexuality
than what they saw as ‘deviant’ sex: homosexuality, masturbation and even pre-marital intercourse.
Other Panellists were much less concerned about sex generally (regardless of the ‘type’ of sex), and
commented on what they perceived to be the Board’s overemphasis on sex in a number of classification
decisions (p. 32).
The report found that, overall:
Panellists identified sex and sexual references as important considerations for classification purposes,
but sometimes felt that the Board was more sensitive than necessary to the impact of sexual content in
individual films (p. 29).
37
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Violence
Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 asked people how different settings affected how
acceptable they considered violent content.
When asked if violence was more acceptable in comic settings and in ‘terror’ settings, just under 40%
said it was, and the same proportion said it was not. When asked about historical or fantasy settings,
however, a slightly higher proportion of people (44%) said those settings made violence more
acceptable, while a slightly lower proportion (30%) said they did not (p. 13).
Participants in the Australian research, Classification Decisions and Community Standards 2007, were
asked for their opinion of the level of violence in film they had recently watched.
One in ten Australian film consumers believes the amount of violence in the new release MA15+ film
they saw is more than should be allowed. This is higher than for the M (5%), PG (5%) or G (2 %)
categories (p. 43).
However, violence was a major concern for Australian participants in the research 2004 Community
Assessment Panels. The research noted that ‘a variety of issues was seen to have a bearing on the
impact of on-screen violence’ (p. 25), and that:
Of all the classifiable elements, violence generated the most discussion and was the subject of the most
concern from Panellists. While feedback on the other elements was highly variable, Panellists generally
agreed that violence—and particularly graphic or prolonged violence—was inappropriate for viewing
by younger people (p. 29).
One important issue was the motivations for violence by characters in films and games, with
‘menacing violence and threatening behaviour regarded as adding to the impact’ (p. 25). Another
issue was the consequences of violence. The report notes that:
Blood, injury or death were all deemed to add to the impact of violent scenes and regarded as
inappropriate for children to witness. Scenes in which the depiction of the consequences of violence are
prolonged or graphic were viewed as having a greater impact (p. 25).
It was also noted that:
…if a film ended ‘happily,’ and the eventual consequences of violence were less serious, Panellists
appeared to be more lenient in their assessments (p. 25).
Also important was the ‘identity, gender, character and status’ of both those who carry out violence,
and victims of violence. With regard to figures of authority:
They commented on the higher impact of violence committed by figures of authority, particularly that
carried out by policemen (p. 25).
38
Content that concerns viewers
Regarding victims of violence:
Panellists also viewed violence against vulnerable victims as more serious…violence by men against
women…against animals…and against children... was all regarded as having relatively high impact (p.
26).
The research also found that:
Along with frequent and unnecessary violence, Panellists observed that violent scenes with ‘shock’ value
had a greater impact on the viewer. The ability to shock was seen to derive from both the explicitness of
a particular scene (blood, distress, etc) and the unexpected depiction of violence (p. 26).
And that, in contrast, people were:
…more willing to accept violence that they saw to be in context and significant to the plot of a
movie…Panel members also appeared to be more likely to describe violence as ‘in context’ if it was of a
milder nature rather than frequent, sudden or explicit (p. 26).
Participants expressed nuanced views about the perceived impact of violence in video games, as
opposed to films:
Panellists believed that the manner of ‘death’ of computer game characters— i.e. whether ‘actual
death’ is shown, whether there are visible injuries, and how the return to ‘life’ is depicted—can affect
the impact of the game significantly (p. 25).
Regarding video games, participants had particular concerns about imitability. The report notes that:
…the dangers of children imitating the behaviour that they ‘perform’ through gaming were raised in
relation to virtually every computer game used for the research (p. 27).
And that
Although Panellists also acknowledged the dangers of children imitating film violence, they did not
consider these dangers to be as pressing as those presented by imitable activity in computer games (p.
28).
Sexual violence
Qualitative research for Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 found that ‘even those people
who claimed to be de-sensitised to violence’ found the subject of sexual violence disturbing (p. 12).
…because, they said, it relates to the power relationships between men and women. It was disturbing
for women because it felt too real, and because they saw it as something that might happen to them.
Respondents thought the offensiveness of sexual violence in films was unlikely to be mitigated by
fantasy or by comic contexts (p. 12).
39
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Qualitative research for Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 found that the ‘concept of
sexual violence’ was problematic for people with regard to films classified ‘12A/12’.
There was…some resistance to the idea of briefly / implied / discreetly indicated sexual violence at ‘12A’
as a result. It depended on what respondents imagined the content to be. Many accepted that it could
be a fleeting, verbal reference and easy for younger children to miss. However others were anxious that
a child or younger teenager might pick up on sexual violence references and felt quite strongly that they
did not want to embark on a discussion about this theme with their child (p. 43).
At the ‘15’ level, parents worried about guidelines stipulating that ‘scenes of sexual violence must be
discreet and brief’.
The clips shown in the groups to illustrate just how brief these moments in a film could be did little to
assuage these anxieties and it was clear that sexual violence has potential to shock, irrespective of how
discreetly it is handled. Respondents did accept that context can be a mitigating factor and that verbal
references would be easier to dismiss than visual ones—however brief (p. 44).
The Australian 2004 Community Assessment Panels found that sexual violence was seen as a
particularly important factor in how films (or games) are classified.
Panellists thought the depiction of and even references to sexual violence to be highly confronting.
Sexual violence was also generally thought to be an ‘adult’ theme and not suitable for younger people,
even if only hinted at and not explicitly shown (p. 26).
Drugs, alcohol and crime
Parental Usage & Attitudes Survey of Film Classification asked Irish parents how important different
types of content should be when IFCO decides on a film’s classification. Drugs and drug taking topped
the list of concerns.
Parents believe that drugs/drug-taking and violence, followed by racial references and underage
drinking of alcohol, contained in films, are of greatest importance when IFCO are rating a film (p. 9).
Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 also found ‘Drugs and drug taking’ to be the most
important element in terms of a film’s classification, with 75% considering this to be ‘very important’.
In descending order, the other material considered ‘very important’ were: violence (65%), ‘sexual
activity’ (56%), ‘swearing and strong language’ (49%), ‘racial references which might be offensive to
some people’ (46%), and ‘religious references which might be offensive to some people (34%) (p. 10).
Qualitative research for Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 found that, while people
recognised that 15 year-olds had been exposed to drugs or at least knew about them, it was
important not to glamorise drugs.
‘drug taking may be shown but the film as a whole must not promote or encourage drug misuse’ (p.
48).
40
Content that concerns viewers
Participants in the Australian research 2004 Community Assessment Panels believed that ‘material
featuring prolonged alcohol and (legal and illicit) drug use’ was unsuitable for younger viewers (p. 31).
Participants also emphasised ‘…the need for such depictions to be taken into account for classification
purposes and in consumer advice’ (p. 32). A particular concern was ‘…when alcohol and drug use was
presented as acceptable and without negative consequence’ (p. 31).
Of criminal activity in general, the Panels found that:
The portrayal of criminal activity was regarded in most cases as unsuitable for younger viewers,
particularly where the perpetrators remain unpunished. The impact of criminal activity was considered
particularly great in [the film] Intermission, in which crime was seen to be portrayed as a normal way of
life (p. 29).
Offensive language
Concerns about offensive language were explored in Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005
(UK). The report noted the:
… widespread view that ‘bad’ language was becoming more prevalent. …and they said it was
impossible to protect children from its influence, and therefore to control their use of bad language (p.
14).
Compared to participants other concerns, the report referred to offensive language as ‘a pervasive
micro-problem’:
The qualitative research supported the survey research in showing concern to be greater among women
than among men, and greater among older people than among younger people. Younger people, men,
and people with older children were more relaxed in their attitudes, or perhaps simply resigned to bad
language (p. 14).
Language linked with violence was of particular concern:
People thought it inevitable that bad language should accompany violence, but nevertheless found it
disturbing and almost unacceptable in that context (p. 14).
Nevertheless, there is a place for bad language in some films.
Respondents thought it proper that films should contain bad language when it was part of the reality
being portrayed, and distinguished such use from what was seen as gratuitous use, which was thought
to glamorise bad language and to make it the more imitable (p. 14).
The kinds of characters and situations using bad language affect the impact of the language used.
It was acceptable when protagonists were the same gender, or age, or race, or were friends, but less so
when it was from a man to a woman, an adult to a child, or an aggressor to a victim (p. 14).
41
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Qualitative research for Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 found that mild bad language
could be acceptable for young children to hear, again depending on context and storyline.
The main concerns at ‘U’ and ‘PG’ are that young children should not be exposed to new ‘bad’
language, beyond what they heard at home (or in the car!)…Respondents also envisaged that mild bad
language would be mitigated by both context and storyline (p. 40).
However, some words are seen as unacceptable.
The word ‘cunt’ still has the power to shock and many disliked even seeing the word in the Guidelines at
‘15’ and could not bring themselves to accept why it would be used by film-makers at all. Clearly the
word ‘cunt’ is the last taboo for strong language and provokes a strong visceral response in many
people (p. 41).
And respondents agreed that ‘continued aggressive use of the strongest language is unlikely to be
acceptable’ in a film classified ‘15’.
Whilst they recognised that most 15 years-olds would have been exposed to strong language by this
age, repeated use of the strongest of words was thought to have an impact on the overall tone and feel
of a film, especially if it was accompanied by violence (p. 42).
And, related to the use of offensive language, the BBFC study found that people were concerned
about racism, bigotry or other forms of discrimination and were not comfortable with younger people
being exposed to this material if it is given a ‘12/12A’ classification.
In many respects, racism or bigotry had the same status as sexual ‘bad’ language; it could be extremely
shocking and once again parents were keen to prevent younger children or teenagers from being
exposed to these terms of abuse (p. 51).
Participants in the Australian qualitative research, 2004 Community Assessment Panels, considered
language to be ‘a particularly important element’ in terms of film classification, but there was ‘marked
variation in Panellists’ responses to language in different films and at different classification levels’
(pp. 29-30). Participants concerns included:
The frequency of language increases its impact, and that frequency should be a consideration in the
classification process. Tone was also a consideration, with Panel members noting that in those films in
which coarse language was a major feature the language was often used aggressively (p. 29).
Regarding the type of language acceptable at different classification levels, participants were:
… not greatly concerned with the impact of language at the MA15+ category, and did not think that
coarse language, in itself, should push a film into an R18+ Classification (p. 29).
42
Content that concerns viewers
Views about ‘R18’ content
Respondents in the UK Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 study were told that
‘Videos/DVDs given the special ‘R18’ rating (Restricted 18) contain explicit, real sex between
consenting adults. These films are available only through licensed sex shops, and can be obtained only
by adults over the age of 18.’ The respondents were asked if they agreed with the following
statements:
‘There should be no limits on what can be shown in R18 videos/DVDs, providing they do not contain
sexual violence, or break the law’.
The results showed that:
In the case of the first statement, which expresses the position of the BBFC, a narrow majority agreed,
while nearly a third disagreed.
The second statement was that ‘there should be no limits on what can be shown in R18 videos/DVDs’:
With regard to the second, extreme, statement, however, less than a quarter agreed and a very clear
majority disagreed (p. 11).
In Australia, the Classification Decisions and Community Standards 2007 study ‘sought to assess the
level of actual sex and violence that the community considers is acceptable in films classified R18+’.17
Respondents were asked:
‘Assuming that the film was labelled with appropriate warnings, and regardless of whether or not you
personally would choose to see such a film. Is there anything which should not be allowed in a R18+
film?’ (p. 52).
The research found that:
The majority (57%) of adults were not able to name anything that should not be in a movie rated R18+.
This does not necessarily mean they believe anything is acceptable, rather they were unable to think of
any such elements in the context of a telephone interview (p. 52).
The authors noted ‘The issue of whether or not to allow actual sex in films rated R18+ has split
community attitudes’ as:
46% of the population believe that actual sex should not be allowed in R18+ films (regardless of their
views on X18+) cf. 48% who believe it should be (without restriction or if it meets a strict set of criteria)
(p. 56).
The results showed a significant difference in the opinions of men and women, and between older
and younger people:
17
In Australia X18+ is reserved for sexually explicit material. R18+ is for ‘high level content’ (www.classification.gov.au)
43
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Women (56%) are more likely than men (36%) to believe that actual sex should not be permitted under
any circumstances. Age is also a strong predictor with 33% of 18-24 year olds believing actual sex
should not be permitted, cf. 39% of 25-39 year olds, 46% of 50-64 year olds and 54% of people aged 65+
(p. 56).
The report concludes:
We can state with certainty that community attitudes do not support allowing actual sex in R18+ films
without restriction, as just 11% hold this view. The data does suggest that actual sex might be
permissible if it meets strict criteria. Assuming that it is to be published amongst a class of persons who
are not likely to object, there may be some situations where actual sex is permissible (p. 58).
However,
Sex with children (including realistic depictions thereof) is seen as off limits. Some participants
volunteered that bestiality falls into the same category. A further 1% mentioned sexual perversions /
kinky sex, which in the context of the question is likely to refer to extreme sexual perversions (p. 53).
The report noted that:
Sexual violence was a touchy area—particularly if it is seen to condone sexual violence or rape.
Furthermore, if violence is introduced into a highly sexual context, it can be seen to normalise sexual
violence, which many people believed was inappropriate. It was acknowledged that sexual violence may
be allowable in some movies, for example, a movie portraying the negative consequences of rape (p.
53).
Half of respondents (51%) believe sexual violence should not be allowed in films classified R18+, with
a further 10% feeling it should be allowed once only, and 27% believe it is appropriate to include it
occasionally in films (p. 55).
Views of young people about content that concerns
The Irish study Adolescents and Film: Attitudes to Film Classification asked young people about how
films with specific types of content should generally be classified (p. 4).18 The research found that
young people consider the use of hard drugs the single most important element in terms of what
should be restricted:
10% believe it is never OK at any age group and a further 34% believe that such content is only suitable
for over 18s (p. 9).
18
Respondents were aged 12-17 with mean age of 14
44
Content that concerns viewers
Other content that young people were more likely to think should be restricted to adults were:
explicit sex (18%), violence rewarded (13%), nudity (15%), and implied sex (12%). A slim majority of
young people (51%) believed that explicit sex should be given the 15PG classification (p. 9).19
Young people generally had more liberal views about violence than sexual content: the majority
thought that stylised violence (93%), realistic violence (62%), and violence seen as normal (62%)
should be classified 12PG or lower.20 However, only 38% thought that ‘violence rewarded’ should be
classified 12PG or lower (p. 9).
Overall, a majority of the young respondents agreed that a 15PG restriction, or lower, was deemed a
sufficient restriction regardless of the type of content in a film (p. 9).
Young people were also asked for their opinion about what their parents’ major concerns were in
terms of classifiable content. Sex was chosen by 88%, followed by violence (59%), drugs (58%), and
bad language (56%) (p. 10). There was a significant difference noted between young people’s opinions
and the stated concerns of parents:
While adolescents might be most concerned about the depiction of hard drug use, they believe that
their parents are primarily concerned with sexual content … Parents themselves only ranked sex in fifth
place as a cause for concern (IFCO/Lansdowne survey) (p. 10).
Does the format/medium change people’s views?
The 2011 Australian study Community Attitudes to Higher Level Media Content found that:
The prevailing attitude was that the internet operated under a different set of rules with many of the
opinion that people should be free to access whatever content they wished online and not be restricted.
This view was more pronounced amongst younger participants (p. 62).
Also in Australia, 2004 Community Assessment Panels found that participants perceived a number of
differences between the impact of violence in video games and violence in films. However, there was
a clear difference of views amongst those who played games more or less often.
The anxieties of less experienced gamers tended to be much stronger in relation to computer game
violence than film violence, with many arguing that the greater degree of involvement that the player
has in the gameplay heightens the impact of any violence…More experienced gamers, on the other
hand, maintained that the challenge of playing the game generates a certain distance between players
and what is shown on-screen, reducing the impact of the violence that they are witnessing compared to
film (p. 27).
19
15PG is like Australia’s MA15+— a restriction to those 15 or over unless accompanied by an adult. Now known as 15A.
Now ‘12A’ meaning, ‘they can also be seen by younger children—provided they are accompanied by an adult who has
deemed the film appropriate viewing for that child.’ (www.ifco.ie)
20
45
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
The Irish 2004 study Parental Usage & Attitudes Survey of Film Classification asked parents about the
‘general source of harm from different mediums.
…television is considered to be the most potentially harmful medium particularly for children under 12
year olds. Parents acknowledge that they are reliant on the ‘watershed’ and schedule in general to help
them ‘monitor’ what their children are exposed to. Overall there is a sense of invasiveness with this
medium, which is increasingly showing ‘inappropriate’ material for young people (p. 10).
Following television, films are seen as the medium that can potentially cause harm to young people.
Parents, however, believe that they have a reasonable amount of ‘control’ over this medium with film
reviews, classification ratings and word of mouth being the primary reference sources for information
about films (p. 10).
Overall film is seen as less invasive than television but, similar to this medium, violence and imitability,
loss of innocence and bad language are all perceived to be sources of potential harm (p. 11).
Comparison to New Zealand
Sex and violence
As is the case in other countries, sex and violence are important to members of the New Zealand
public in terms of how films and games should be classified. Our 2011 qualitative research, Guidance
and Protection, found that:
There was a perception that sex and violence are treated inconsistently by the Classification Office—
while sexual content receives high restrictions, violence is allowed through more readily. Participants
felt that a reversal in this situation could be beneficial, with violent depictions seen to be more harmful
to society than (most) sexual content (p. 15).
Research published with the Broadcasting Standards Authority, Viewing Violence (2008), found that:
… discussion by participants on violent content in entertainment inevitably led to talk about violence in
reality. Participants perceived a strong link between an escalation in violence in society and an increase
in media depictions of violence (be they on the news, or in film or television entertainment) (p. 28).
A few participants talked about changed attitudes or beliefs and gave some examples. There was
concern that younger viewers did not have the maturity or capacity to differentiate between right and
wrong. If they were presented with a situation on screen, they may be likely to develop anti-social
attitudes (p. 33).
There was concern from many participants about imitation. This was particularly mentioned in relation
to younger viewers, who, again, were perceived as lacking the ability to differentiate right from wrong,
and to be less likely to differentiate violent audio-visual depictions from real life (p. 33).
46
Content that concerns viewers
Sexual violence
The Viewing Violence research found, in relation to a clip with sexually violent content:
All adult participants (but particularly those who spoke of having daughters) considered there was harm
in showing the clip to their teenage daughters. This was because it introduced the concept of rape and
killing to their children and as parents they wanted to protect them from these realities for as long as
possible (p. 34).
Offensive language
Overseas respondents’ view that the context of offensive language is important is also reflected in
New Zealand findings. The Viewing Violence study found that:
Participants considered that the language used in some clips and, more importantly, how it was used,
either enhanced the perceived degree of violence, or caused offence. Participants did not generally
consider that the offensive language in the clips was harmful. They thought that in some cases the
language added to the degree of violence, and was a factor that increased or decreased the perceived
level of violence (pp. 34-35).
Does the format/medium change people’s views?
As in other jurisdictions, there is concern in New Zealand that depictions of violence in games may be
more harmful in many cases than for films given a similar classification. Our 2011 qualitative research,
Guidance and Protection, found that:
Familiarity with games, or the lack thereof, seemed to impact on how participants viewed the way they
are classified. For some, the classification system becomes more important as a guide when they are
unfamiliar with the medium (p. 20).
Overall, there was a perception that games are more likely to have a higher level of violence in them –
for example, that an R16 game has more violence than an R16 film. So, games are considered to have a
stronger impact than films, and there is a perception that game players by controlling the action of the
game are more immersed and invested in what happens on the screen (p. 19).
Discussion



Widely held views that certain material can be harmful to young people is undoubtedly linked to
the high level of support enjoyed by ratings and classification systems. If films and video games
were generally not considered to be harmful to young people, the relatively complex regulation of
entertainment media could perhaps be viewed as largely irrelevant.
People’s nuanced views about what kind of content may be harmful to younger people make it
apparent how important this type of research is in terms of informing the decisions of media
regulators.
Widely varying views on the perceived harm of certain content may go some way towards
explaining why people tend to be relatively less satisfied with mid to high level classifications.
47
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)

48
Films and games with higher ratings or classifications increasingly deal with a complex textual
interplay of different elements such as violence, sex, or offensive language – all of which are seen
differently by different people, as is the perceived harm from films or games dealing with these
matters.
Public recommendations about classification systems
5. Public recommendations about classification systems
This section includes research from Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and New Zealand,
published between 2004 and 2011. The focus is more on qualitative findings. Some of the research
covered in this section was carried out as part of a review of standards and policies relating to the
operation of classification systems.
Main findings


People generally agree that certain content should be age-restricted, but there is significant
disagreement over whether parents or industry or the state should enforce restrictions
People generally support the application of a single set of rating or classification labels regardless
of the entertainment format
Age restrictions
Participants in the UK study Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 were asked if they agreed
with two similar statements:


‘the BBFC should classify films and videos/DVDs so that those under 18 were protected from
material which might cause them harm’
‘the BBFC should protect young people from ‘unsuitable’ material’ (p. 7).
Regarding the first question, the report notes that:
Overall, 94% of respondents said they agreed with the statement, and there was little or no variation
between demographic subgroups (p. 7).
Regarding the second question, the report notes that:
A very large majority of people (90%), although a slightly smaller proportion, agreed with this
statement. It attracted support from somewhat fewer men than women (85% vs 93%), and from fewer
younger people than older people ( 83% of those aged 18-24 compared with 95% of those aged 65+),
but from the same proportions of those with and without children (p. 7).
Adult choice
In the same study, participants were asked if they agreed with the statement that adults should be
able to see whatever they want in films and on video and DVD.
…. two-thirds (66%) agreed and about a fifth (19%) disagreed, with the remaining 14% being neutral...
More men than women agreed (73% vs 60%), as did younger people compared with older respondents
(80% of those aged 18-24, and 56% of those aged 55+) (p. 8).
49
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Participants were then asked if they agreed with the statement that ‘people over 18 have a right to
see graphic portrayals of real sex in films and videos/DVDs’. The results showed that:
Nearly 30% were neutral in their attitude (compared with 23% in 2000), while exactly half agreed
(compared with 46% in 2000) and only 22% disagreed (down from 31% in 2000) (pp. 10-11).
Content advice
Participants in the Australian research, 2004 Community Assessment Panels, expressed a desire for
‘consumer advice’ to be ‘more detailed and descriptive’ (p. 34).
Some suggested that there should be an Internet resource with extended consumer advice, perhaps on
the OFLC’s website (p. 34).
In relation to consumer advice noting ‘themes’, the research found that:
Panellists agreed that it is important to advise consumers on strong thematic content, but many found
the term ‘Adult Themes’ unhelpful and needed more of an indication of exactly what these themes are
(p. 36).
Participants felt that consumer advice about drugs did not need to be as specific as other elements:
Generally, Panellists appeared to require less detail in the consumer advice on drug use and drug
references than on some of the other elements. Although some people wanted to know if the drug use
was frequent or infrequent, most were satisfied with the advice that a film or game contains drug use
or drug references. However, if Panellists regarded the drug use as explicit rather than implied, even if
the actual moment of consumption was not shown, they believed that the advice should be ‘Drug Use,’
not ‘Drug References’ (p. 37).
Some participants thought that alcohol abuse should also be noted:
…some Panellists argued that advice on drug use should also cover the use of legal drugs, at least when
this is a prominent feature in a film. Suggested phrases included ‘Frequent Alcohol Usage’ and ‘Alcohol
Dependency Theme’ (p. 37).
Some were dissatisfied with the available consumer advice about sexual content:
For instance, ‘Sexual References’ was said to be so broad that it is difficult to use as a guide in deciding
whether material is suitable for younger viewers. Panellists observed that many ‘Sexual References’ are
not noticed by younger viewers, but that they would still be concerned about taking a child to a film
which was given this advice. These people said that more guidance is needed on the impact or strength
of any sexual references (p. 38).
Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 asked respondents whether they thought it would be ‘a
good idea to include…Consumer Advice for all films regardless of classification?’
50
Public recommendations about classification systems
A very substantial majority (87%) said they thought it would be a good idea, and only 10% disagreed,
with 3% not saying (p. 17).
Parental accompaniment and choice
Respondents in the UK survey for Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005 were shown this
statement:
‘Cinema films rated ‘U’, ‘PG’ and ‘12A’ should contain nothing likely to harm young children. Films
rated ’15 and ‘18’, however, may contain things which could be harmful to young children’ (p. 21).
They were then asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed that ‘people under 15 should be
able to see ‘15’ rated films if accompanied by an adult’. The survey found that:
…the proportion of people [in agreement] (32%) was broadly similar to the proportion endorsing the
BBFC’s ‘12A’ rule (32%). Attitudes to those under 18 being able to see ‘18’ films when accompanied by
someone of at least 18 showed more caution, but were far from being wholly hostile. (Figures for
‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly agree’ have been combined, as have those for ‘Disagree’ and ‘Strongly disagree’.)
(p. 21)
The Irish 2004 Parental Usage & Attitudes Survey of Film Classification study found that 86% of
parents either agreed or strongly agreed that ‘parents should have the final say on what their children
watch on film and video/DVD’; and 88% agreed or strongly agreed that ‘classifications are a useful
guide only—at the end of the day it should remain the responsibility of the parent or guardian’ (p. 10).
Universal ratings and convergence
Qualitative research for Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009 found that
Separate or different rules for games classification were viewed negatively. As well as being difficult for
respondents to consider what would be inherently different between the two sets of Guidelines, such an
approach was likely to cause a good deal of confusion among consumers (pp. 71-72).
Similarly, a survey for the BBFC research, Video Game Regulation in the UK: The View of Adults and
Parents, asked respondents whether they agreed with a statement that ‘it would help parents if video
games used the same rating system as films and DVDs’. The research found that 79% of the British
public either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’, and only three percent either ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly
disagreed’ (p. 13).
And a survey for the BBFC’s report, Downloading classification study, found that 84% of the public
‘want ratings on downloads’ (p. 5).
51
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
The Australian research Community Attitudes to Higher Level Media Content found that:
There were differing attitudes towards the reach and power of the internet, with comments including
‘we’re afraid of the internet because it’s so invasive’ and ‘it may be better to block material [on the
internet] because people find it more confronting to buy something in a shop’. At the same time,
participants questioned the means by which material on the internet could be “blocked” and recognised
that even if material were “blocked” in one country, it could be accessed via another.
And that:
‘if kids wanted to find the material on the internet, they would’ (speaking of sexually explicit material).
The prevailing attitude was that the internet operated under a different set of rules with many of the
opinion that people should be free to access whatever content they wished online and not be restricted.
This view was more pronounced amongst younger participants (p. 62).
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) research Digital Australians—
Expectations about media content in a converging media environment, found that there was a public
expectation that:
…community standards should apply differently to content type rather than the delivery channel (p. 52).
But that, on the other hand,
…user-generated content was expected to be consumed by a more limited number of individuals who
choose to do so. As such, participants generally considered that user-generated content should reflect
the principle of individual expression and consumption, meaning it did not necessarily have to conform
to community standards. Illegal content was the exception here (pp. 52-53).
With regard to professionally produced content:
Participants believed the classification and ratings information that applied to broadcast television
should also apply to on-demand television. They also considered that classification and ratings should
apply to movies and games available online, given that all professionally produced mass-consumed
content should be subject to community standards (p. 54).
Comparison to New Zealand
Age restrictions
New Zealand 2011 qualitative research, Guidance and Protection, found that:
Most participants, and particularly parents of primary school-aged children, supported the use of agerestricted classifications. They discussed the importance of these in maintaining the values of society,
preventing the harm that could be done by films and games, and protecting people from content they
did not wish themselves or their children to see (p. 25).
52
Public recommendations about classification systems
Adult choice
Research with the Broadcasting Standards Authority, Viewing Violence, found that:
For all of the participants, perceptions of freedom to view were strongly linked to the age of the viewer.
Adults considered themselves personally responsible for deciding what they should and should not
watch and they wished to be given the responsibility for this. However, participants recognised that
freedom to view was an adult concept, and that younger viewers needed to be protected from material
that might cause them harm (p. 36).
Parental accompaniment and choice
A question in our 2011 research, Understanding the Classification System: New Zealanders' Views,
aimed to find out whether New Zealanders agreed with the current system whereby it is illegal to
supply a film or game with a restricted classification, such as R16, to anyone under the age of the
restriction. We asked ‘whether or not New Zealanders feel that decisions about a young person’s
viewing or gaming should be placed more into the hands of their parents or guardians’ (p. 41). The
results showed that:
Between two-thirds and three-quarters of respondents feel that those under 16 years of age should not
be able to view films (66%) or a play games (74%) that are currently classified R16 even if accompanied
by, or given the approval of, a parent or guardian (p. 41).
However, Guidance and Protection found that parents themselves sometimes have a different view:
Parents of secondary school-aged children were supportive of restrictions in the public environment
where they felt retailers were not in a position to judge whether a particular film or game was suitable
for their young person. They were less sure about restrictions in the home. Some felt their knowledge of
their own children would enable them to judge what was okay for them to see or play. In contrast other
parents felt that, as with laws around other restricted items in New Zealand, it was important to have a
clear ‘line in the sand’ which is the same for all families (p. 26).
In general, New Zealanders are more supportive of legal restrictions than their overseas counterparts;
perhaps because it is the system they are accustomed to. That is, New Zealanders are comfortable
with a system that to some extent denies them the ability to decide themselves what their children
can view.
Universal ratings and convergence
Opinions about the desirability of across-all-formats classification were broadly similar internationally
to New Zealander’s views. Understanding the Classification System: New Zealanders' Views found that
in relation to games where currently unrestricted level games are exempt from labelling:
More than two-thirds of respondents (71%) would prefer that this system change so that all games sold
in New Zealand are required to have a New Zealand classification label. Among those who do not want
53
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
all games to have a New Zealand label, the most common preference is for the system to remain as it is
(18%) (p. 42).
The participants in groups for Guidance and Protection discussed the range of options for content
regulation here and in other countries.
Participants appreciated the simplicity of the [New Zealand] system, and felt that having one system
across different formats made it easier to understand (p. 12).
Older participants were more accepting of the practice of cross-rating. They felt that Australia and New
Zealand are similar enough that an M rating assigned to a film or game in Australia would match New
Zealander’s expectations of an M. Other participants felt it important to have classification decisions
made in New Zealand based on New Zealand society’s values and law (p. 18).
A few participants suggested that there could be an international system for film classification to
establish global consistency and understanding—something like the system for care labels on clothes.
However, many felt strongly that content that is acceptable in some countries is not acceptable in New
Zealand, and vice versa (p. 24).
They found merits in a range of approaches, but the consensus was that content, regardless of
format, should be regulated by the same system.
It was suggested during the group discussions that a single system would more easily keep up with
changes in technology and new formats.
The consensus was that all media should be regulated by the same system. One reason given was the
amount of ‘crossover’ that already exists between mediums, for example, films shown on television.
Participants also suggested that having one system would increase the public’s understanding of the
classifications which would potentially increase compliance with them (p. 36).
Discussion



54
Regarding enforcement, parental accompaniment, etc: people tend to support the way in which
their classification system works at present.
Studies from NZ, the UK and Ireland included questions about where responsibility should lie in
terms of enforcing age restrictions. People in the UK and New Zealand were much more inclined
than people in Ireland to agree that children and young people should not be given access to
restricted films even if accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Interestingly, in the UK, it was found that people disagreed about parental accompaniment even
for the specific 12A classification – it should be noted that this classification was only recently
added at the time of the research and it seems that people did not support the logic behind its
introduction.
Public recommendations about classification systems


Parental accompaniment classifications (such as 15PG, now replaced by 15A) are more common in
Ireland, and research showed that parents overwhelmingly thought they should be able to decide
on which films their children can view.
In the US, the film and videogame rating systems both operate under the principle that parents
should and will have final say about what their children can view or play; furthermore, the state is
legally prohibited from enforcing such measures of its own. This may mean that questions about
whether or not this kind of system is preferable may be seen as largely redundant, and they are
not raised in the relevant surveys.
55
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Reference List
British Board of Film Classification, 2009, Video Game Regulation in the UK: The View of Adults and
Parents, British Board of Film Classification, London. Accessed at
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/
British Board of Film Classification/TNS Media, 2005, Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2005,
British Board of Film Classification, London. Accessed at http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/
Colmar Brunton/Broadcasting Standards Authority/NZ Office of Film and Literature Classification,
2008, Viewing Violence, Broadcasting Standards Authority/New Zealand Office of Film and
Literature Classification, Wellington. Accessed at http://www.censorship.govt.nz/aboutcensorship/research-by-the-classification-office.html
Colmar Brunton/NZ Office of Film and Literature Classification, 2011, Understanding the Classification
System: New Zealanders' Views, New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification,
Wellington. Accessed at http://www.censorship.govt.nz/about-censorship/research-by-theclassification-office.html
Colmar Brunton/NZ Office of Film and Literature Classification, 2011, Guidance and Protection, Office
of Film and Literature Classification, Wellington. Accessed at
http://www.censorship.govt.nz/about-censorship/research-by-the-classification-office.html
Dublin City University & Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art Design and Technology, 2005, Adolescents and
Film: Attitudes to Film Classification, Irish Film Classification Office, Dublin. Accessed at
http://www.ifco.ie/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/lookupreports2/004B40C42F6E2A0F80256F9B00527140/
$File/IFCO+DOCUMENT+4.pdf?openelement
Federal Trade Commission, 2007, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children, Federal Trade
Commission, USA. Accessed at
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/070412MarketingViolentEChildren.pdf
Federal Trade Commission, 2009, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children, Federal Trade
Commission, USA. Accessed at http://www.narm.com/PDF/FTCReport_1209.pdf
Galaxy Research, 2008, Classification Decisions and Community Standards 2007, Australian AttorneyGeneral's Department, Canberra. Accessed at
http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Public/Media-And-StudentResources/Documents/Classification%20Decisions%20and%20Community%20Standards%20%20Final%20V.pdf
GfK Bluemoon/Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2011, Digital Australians—
Expectations about media content in a converging media environment, Australian
Communications and Media Authority, Canberra. Accessed at
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib410130/digital_australians-complete.pdf
Hardie, B., Goldstone, N., Slesenger D., 2009, Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines 2009, British
Board of Film Classification, London. Accessed at http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/
56
GameVision Europe, 2010, Video Gamers in Europe 2010, Interactive Software Federation of Europe,
Brussels. Accessed at http://www.isfe.eu/content/video-gamers-europe-2010-gamevisionstudy
Lansdowne Market Research, 2004, Parental Usage & Attitudes Survey of Film Classification, Irish Film
Classification Office, Dublin. Accessed at
http://www.ifco.ie/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/lookupreports2/E5FFF7290C1ACF8880256F5C00453129/
$File/parental+report.pdf?openelement
Newspoll/ Office of Film and Literature Classification—Australia, 2002, Classification Usage & Attitude
Study, Office of Film and Literature Classification, Sydney. Accessed at
http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Public/Media-And-StudentResources/Documents/80000CPB%20%20Classification%20Usage%20and%20Attitude%20Study%20(November%202002)%20%20Market%20Research256636.pdf
Office of Film and Literature Classification—Australia & D&M, 2005, Classification Study, Office of Film
and Literature Classification, Sydney. Accessed at
http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Public/Media-And-StudentResources/Documents/80000256540%20classification%20study.pdf
Office of Film and Literature Classification—Australia, 2005, Review of Consumer Advice for Films and
Computer Games, Office of Film and Literature Classification, Sydney. Accessed at
http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Public/Media-And-StudentResources/Documents/L0000CPB%20%20Review%20of%20Consumer%20Advice%20for%20Films%20and%20Computer%20Games%
20(June%202005)%20-%20Market%20Research.pdf
Entertainment Software Rating Board, 2012, Consumer Research,
http://www.esrb.org/about/awareness.jsp accessed August 2012.
Spratt, M., 2004, Community Attitudes Towards Media Classification and Consumer Advice, Office of
Film and Literature Classification, Sydney. Accessed at
http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Public/Media-And-StudentResources/Documents/80000CPB%20%20Community%20Attitudes%20Towards%20Media%20Classification%20and%20Consumer%
20Advice%20-%20Market%20Research256558.pdf
TNS/BBFC, 2007, Downloading classification study, British Board of Film Classification, London,
England. Accessed at http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/
UMR/NZ Office of Film and Literature Classification, 2010, Young people's use of entertainment
mediums – 2010, Office of Film and Literature Classification, Wellington. Accessed at
http://www.censorship.govt.nz/about-censorship/research-by-the-classification-office.html
Urbis Keys Young, 2005, 2004 Community Assessment Panels, Office of Film and Literature
Classification, Sydney. Accessed at http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Public/Media-AndStudent-Resources/Documents/80000CPB%20-
57
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
%202004%20Community%20Assessment%20Panels%20Report%20(February%202005)%20%20Market%20Research256567.pdf
Urbis, 2011, Community attitudes to higher level media content, for the Australian Law Reform
Commission, Urbis, Sydney, Australia. Accessed at
http://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/alrc_report_urbis__final_9_dece
mber_2.pdf
58
Appendix
Appendix: Classification and Ratings Systems Explained
Entertainment Software Ratings Board
The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a non-profit, self-regulatory body that assigns age
and content ratings for video games and mobile apps so parents can make informed choices. As part of
its self-regulatory role for the video game industry the ESRB also enforces industry-adopted advertising
guidelines and helps ensure responsible online privacy practices under its Privacy Online program. ESRB
was established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA).21
EARLY CHILDHOOD
Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older.
Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
EVERYONE
Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in
this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use
of mild language.
EVERYONE 10+
Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10
and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild
language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this
category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated
gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older.
Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or
strong language.
ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years
and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or
graphic sexual content and nudity.
21
http://www.esrb.org/about/index.jsp
59
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Pan European Game Information (PEGI)
The Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) age rating system was established to help European parents
make informed decisions on buying computer games. It was launched in spring 2003 and replaced a
number of national age rating systems with a single system now used throughout most of Europe, in 30
countries (Austria Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Norway, Slovenia, Belgium, Estonia, Iceland, Lithuania,
Poland, Spain, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Cyprus, France, Israel, Malta,
Romania, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovak Republic and the United
Kingdom).
The system is supported by the major console manufacturers, including Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo,
as well as by publishers and developers of interactive games throughout Europe. The age rating system
was developed by the Interactive Software Federation of Europe (ISFE).22
PEGI 3 The content of games given this rating is considered suitable for all age groups.
Some violence in a comical context (typically Bugs Bunny or Tom & Jerry cartoon-like
forms of violence) is acceptable. The child should not be able to associate the character
on the screen with real life characters, they should be totally fantasy. The game should
not contain any sounds or pictures that are likely to scare or frighten young children. No
bad language should be heard.
PEGI 7 Any game that would normally be rated at 3 but contains some possibly
frightening scenes or sounds may be considered suitable in this category.
PEGI 12 Videogames that show violence of a slightly more graphic nature towards
fantasy character and/or non graphic violence towards human-looking characters or
recognisable animals, as well as videogames that show nudity of a slightly more graphic
nature would fall in this age category. Any bad language in this category must be mild
and fall short of sexual expletives.
PEGI 16 This rating is applied once the depiction of violence (or sexual activity) reaches a
stage that looks the same as would be expected in real life. More extreme bad language,
the concept of the use of tobacco and drugs and the depiction of criminal activities can
be content of games that are rated 16.
PEGI 18 The adult classification is applied when the level of violence reaches a stage
where it becomes a depiction of gross violence and/or includes elements of specific types
of violence. Gross violence is the most difficult to define since it can be very subjective in
many cases, but in general terms it can be classed as the depictions of violence that
would make the viewer feel a sense of revulsion.
22
http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/28/
60
Appendix
PEGI content symbols23
Descriptors shown on the back of the packaging indicate the main reasons why a game has received a
particular age rating. There are eight such descriptors: violence, bad language, fear, drugs, sexual,
discrimination, gambling and online gameplay with other people.
Bad Language
Game contains bad language
Discrimination
Game contains depictions of, or material which may encourage, discrimination
Drugs
Game refers to or depicts the use of drugs
Fear
Game may be frightening or scary for young children
Gambling
Games that encourage or teach gambling
Sex
Game depicts nudity and/or sexual behaviour or sexual references
Violence
Game contains depictions of violence
Online gameplay
Game can be played online
23
http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/33/
61
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)
The British Board of Film Censors was set up in 1912 by the film industry as an independent body to bring a degree
of uniformity to the classification of film nationally.
Statutory powers on film remain with the local councils, which may overrule any of the BBFC’s decisions, passing
films we reject, banning films we have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories
for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction.
Video – In 1984 Parliament passed the Video Recordings Act. This act stated that, subject to certain exemptions,
video recordings offered for sale or hire commercially in the UK must be classified by an authority designated by
the Secretary of State. The President and Vice Presidents of the BBFC were so designated, and charged with
applying the new test of ‘suitability for viewing in the home’. At this point the Board’s title was changed to the
British Board of Film Classification to reflect the fact that classification plays a far larger part in the BBFC’s work
24
than censorship.
Suitable for all It is impossible to predict what might upset any particular child. But a ‘U’ film should
be suitable for audiences aged four years and over. ‘U’ films should be set within a positive moral
framework and should offer reassuring counterbalances to any violence, threat or horror. If a work
is particularly suitable for a pre-school child to view alone, this will be indicated in the Consumer
Advice.
Parental Guidance General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children.
Unaccompanied children of any age may watch. A ‘PG’ film should not disturb a child aged around
eight or older. However, parents are advised to consider whether the content may upset younger or
more sensitive children.
Suitable for 12 years and over Exactly the same criteria are used to classify works at ‘12A’ and ‘12’.
These categories are awarded where the material is suitable, in general, only for those aged 12 and
over. Works classified at these categories may upset children under 12 or contain material which
many parents will find unsuitable for them.
The ‘12A’ category exists only for cinema films. No one younger than 12 may see a ‘12A’ film in a
cinema unless accompanied by an adult, and films classified ‘12A’ are not recommended for a
child below 12.
The ‘12’ category exists only for video works. No one younger than 12 may rent or buy a ‘12’ rated
video work.
Suitable only for 15 years or over No-one younger than 15 may see a ‘15’ film in a cinema. Noone younger than 15 may rent or buy a ‘15’ rated video work.
Suitable only for adults No-one younger than 18 may see an ‘18’ film in a cinema. No-one younger
than 18 may rent or buy an ‘18’ rated video work.
To be shown only in specially licensed cinemas, or supplied only in licensed sex shops, and to
adults of not less than 18 years. The ‘R18’ category is a special and legally restricted
classification primarily for explicit works of consenting sex or strong fetish material involving adults.
Films may only be shown to adults in specially licensed cinemas, and video works may be supplied
to adults only in licensed sex shops. ‘R18’ videos may not be supplied by mail order.
24
http://www.bbfc.org.uk/about/
62
Appendix
Motion Picture Association of America (rating system known as CARA)
The MPAA partnered with the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) which supports and
enforces the system by requiring identification when needed and refusing admission to R-rated movies
by unaccompanied children or to NC-17 rated movies by children under 18. Today NATO's members
include the largest cinema chains in the country and hundreds of independent theatre owners,
representing more than 29,000 movie screens across the country. It is this participation that completes
the service the rating system provides to parents.25
G — General Audiences. All Ages Admitted.
A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or
other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger
children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a "certificate of approval," nor does it
signify a "children’s" motion picture.
PG — Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children.
A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger
children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may
consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that
decision.
G-13 — Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For
Children Under 13.
A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine
whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be
suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity,
sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category.
R — Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian.
An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult
material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard
language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other
elements, so that parents are counselled to take this rating very seriously. Children under
17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult
guardian.
NC-17 — No One 17 and Under Admitted.
An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most
parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No
children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean "obscene" or "pornographic" in the common or legal
meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating
simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience.
25
http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_Cara/#/about/ourPartners/
63
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Irish Film Classification Office (IFCO)
IFCO, a statutory body first established in 1923, is responsible for examining and certifying all cinema films and
26
videos/DVDs distributed in Ireland.
Irish law governing films and video/DVD censorship - at IFCO we prefer the word ‘classification’ - is set out in two
main acts: the Censorship of Films, 1923 and the Video Recordings Act, 1989.
General Certificate (film/video) A film classified as ‘General’ should be suitable for children of a
school going age. However, as not every child will respond in the same way to particular themes,
scenes and images, it is strongly recommended that parents/guardians - who know their own
children best - consult the consumer advice available on this website before deciding what is
appropriate.
PG Certificate (film/video) Generally, a film classified as ‘PG’ will be suitable for children aged eight
and over. However, as some elements within the film might be unsettling for some viewers, it is
strongly recommended that parents/guardians - who know their own children best - consult the
consumer advice available on this website before deciding on what is appropriate.
12A Certificate (film) Films classified 12A have been deemed appropriate for viewers of twelve and
over. However, they can also be seen by younger children - provided they are accompanied by an
adult who has deemed the film appropriate viewing for that child. In such cases, IFCO strongly
recommends that parents/guardians make informed decisions by accessing the consumer advice
available on this website.
2 Certificate (video) Video works classified 12 have been deemed appropriate for viewers of twelve
and over. It is offence for a retailer to sell or rent material classified 12 to anyone below that age.
15A Certificate (film) Films classified 15A have been deemed appropriate for viewers of fifteen and
over. However, they can also be seen by younger children - provided they are accompanied by an
adult who has deemed the film appropriate viewing for that child. In such cases, IFCO strongly
recommends that parents/guardians make informed decisions by accessing the consumer advice
available on this website.
15 Certificate (video) Video works classified 15 have been deemed appropriate for viewers of
fifteen and over. It is offence for a retailer to sell or rent material classified 15 to anyone below that
age.
Generally, films classified 16 on cinema release will be classified 15 on video release.
16 Certificate (film) Films classified in this category are suitable for persons of sixteen or over.
Those under sixteen will not be admitted to cinemas and it is the responsibility of each cinema,
under law, to ensure that this is the case.
18 Certificate (film) Films classified in this category are suitable for persons of eighteen or over.
Those under eighteen will not be admitted to cinemas and it is the responsibility of each cinema,
under law, to ensure that this is the case.
18 Certificate (video) Video works classified in this category are suitable for persons of eighteen or
over. It is an offence for a retailer to sell or rent a film classified 18 to any person below that age.
26
http://www.ifco.ie/website/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/web/mission?opendocument&type=graphic
64
Appendix
Australian Classification Board
Every film and computer game has to be classified before it can be legally made available to the public.
Some publications also need to be classified. There are limited exceptions to this rule.
In addition to commercial material, the Classification Board also classifies material submitted from the
police, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Australian Communications and
Media Authority (ACMA). The Board classifies internet sites referred by ACMA and video content
developed by for distribution over mobile phone networks. The Board also provides classifications to the
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service in relation to the importation of publications, videos
and computer games.
The Board does not classify TV programs or films for broadcast on TV.27
G – General There are no legal restrictions on the sale, hire or screening of films
classified G.
PG – Parental guidance recommended There are no legal restrictions on the
sale, hire or screening of films classified PG. It should be remembered however,
that films classified PG are not recommended for people under 15 without
guidance from a parent or guardian.
M – Recommended for mature audiences There are no legal restrictions on the
sale, hire or screening of films classified M. It should be remembered however,
that films classified M are not recommended for people under 15 years as these
contain content that is recommended for a mature audience.
MA15+ In all States and Territories (except Queensland) it is an offence to
exhibit an MA15+ film if a person aged under 15 years is present and they are
not accompanied by their parent or adult guardian. In Queensland, a person
aged between 2 and under 15 cannot be admitted to a MA15+ film unless they are accompanied by an
adult.
Films classified MA15+ can only be sold or hired to people aged 15 years or older, unless they are
accompanied by their parent or guardian, or in Queensland by an adult.
R18+ In all States and Territories (except Queensland) a R18+ film cannot be
exhibited in a public place in the presence of a person who is under 18 years.
In Queensland, people aged between 2 and under 18 cannot be admitted to a
R18+ film. In addition, in Tasmania a R18+ film cannot be screened if it can be seen from a public place.
Films classified R18+ can only be sold or hired to adults aged 18 years and over.
X18+ This classification applies to films that contain only sexually explicit
content.
Films classified X 18+ can be legally exhibited in the Australian Capital Territory
and the Northern Territory provided certain conditions are met.
For example, they can only be exhibited in a restricted publications area to which only people aged 18
and over are permitted to enter.
Films classified X 18+ can only be sold or hired in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern
Territory provided certain conditions are met. For example, the film must be sold or hired in a restricted
publications area to which only people aged 18 and over are permitted to enter.
27
http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/About-Us/Who-We-Are.aspx
65
What people think about film classification systems (2002-2012)
Office of Film and Literature Classification and the Film and Video Labelling Body
All films, DVDs and restricted games must carry New Zealand classification labels before be supplied or
exhibited to the public. The Film and Video Labelling Body can rate unrestricted films (G, PG or M) – this
is usually done by assigning a New Zealand equivalent to the Australian or British (BBFC) classification.
The Classification Office applies the classification criteria in the Films, Videos, and Publications
Classification Act 1993. It is an Independent Crown Entity and has the power to classify material in a
wide variety of media, including books, magazines, games, films and computer files. All restricted-level
films and games must be classified by the Classification Office before being supplied or exhibited.
G – suitable for general audiences
Films and games with a G label can be sold, hired, or shown to anyone.
PG – parental guidance recommended for younger viewers
Films and games with a PG label can be sold, hired, or shown to anyone.
M – suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over
Films and games with an M label can be sold, hired, or shown to anyone.
RP13 – restricted to persons 13 years and over unless accompanied by a
parent or guardian
A parent, shop or cinema is breaking the law if they allow unaccompanied
children to access these films.
RP16 – restricted to persons 16 years and over unless accompanied by a
parent or guardian
R13 – restricted to persons 13 years and over
It is illegal to sell, hire, show or give a film or game with an age restricted
label to anyone under the age specified.
R15 – restricted to persons 15 years and over
R16 – restricted to persons 16 years and over
R18 – restricted to persons 18 years and over
66