ABSTRACT
In part because of the sheer volume of evidence now available, researchers looking at the effects of media violence or sexually explicit materials sometimes resemble the legendary blind men who examined an elephant. The men came to many different, contradictory conclusions as they examined different sections of the animal’s body. Depending on research questions (e.g., the impact of media violence on young children or adolescents) and sometimes on rather subtle variation in methods used, the findings vary tremendously. In addition, perhaps more so than in other areas of effects research, political (and perhaps religious) agendas often have influenced (if not determined) the specific topics investigated. In particular, changes in the political agenda of U.S. liberalism clearly have been important because most social scientists work in an academic culture dominated by it (see the discussion in L. Berkowitz, 1971). For example, during the 1960s, many liberals viewed sexually explicit materials as a healthy form of rebellion against old-fashioned, Puritanical values. Indeed, U.S. leftists often idolized macho revolutionary heroes such as Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara, and ads for sexual materials provided a significant source of support for countercultural newspapers. Liberals expressed concern about media violence, especially John Wayne-type movies depicting the virtues of U.S. territorial conquest. They nonetheless tended to treat adult sexuality in almost all its forms as politically correct. Early research was quite congenial to this view. Concerns about media sex came primarily from conservatives, some of whom displayed a religious agenda that rather dogmatically considered sexual materials harmful prima facie. By the mid-1970s, the influence of feminism became extremely pronounced in progressive academic circles, and some researchers began pursuing research questions suggested by some of the more radical (and puritanical) feminists. Not surprisingly, as the questions changed, so did the answers.
