select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
before the headlines
Fiona fox's blog
A talk given at the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society’s Division of Forensic Psychology based on unpublished work reported on possible relationship between accessing soft-core pornography and attitudes towards women.
Dr Mark Limmer, Lecturer in Public Health, Lancaster University, said:
The comments that follow need to be considered in the understanding that they are based on the abstract and press release and it is possible that some of my concerns will be addressed within the full paper when it is available.
“I welcome the contribution to the debate over the impact of what the authors describe as soft-core pornography and agree with them that this is an under-researched area. It would, however, have been appropriate to delay the press release until after the full paper is available for comment. On the basis of the information provided the methodology is somewhat weak; the conclusions seem speculative and the implications are overstated.
“The research has the potential to add to the debate over the sexualisation of society that is represented in this case by Page 3. However, the way that the research has been presented and described is unhelpful in attempts to encourage a thoughtful and considered debate. The existing evidence base for a causal link between pornography (what the authors would characterise as hard core) and problematic sexual behaviours is not strong and the uncertainty is in part based on it being unclear whether men with negative attitudes and behaviours in relation to women are drawn to pornography or whether pornography directly impacts on those attitudes and behaviours. Dr Duff acknowledges this in the press release but the suggestion in the conclusion to the abstract that soft-core porn (SCP) could be seen as a public health threat seems to imply a causal relationship.
“Part of the difficulty arises from whether Page 3 type images should be considered problematic in the same way as depictions of sexually degrading and violent images available on free-to-view online sites. Whilst there is a strong argument (that I would endorse) that both reflect acceptance of troubling and problematic sexualised and misogynistic attitudes towards women; treating them as equal seems to me to be problematic.
“At this point it is difficult to comment on the methodology used in the research as we only have the abstract to draw on. However, for a study of this type the sample size is small and drawn from a particular social group (university students) and given this I’d expect to see much more caution expressed over the results and implications. The study includes both men and women, though this is not evident in the abstract, and I would have expected to see the results presented and discussed in relation to gender, especially given the evidence of gendered use of, and response to, pornography in the research literature.
“When published in full, this paper could add to the debate about the impact of pornography and may help to move the debate on to reflect on the impact of images that are often perceived as harmless. On one level, I agree that the sexism and misogyny represented by Page 3 contributes to attitudes that impede sexual health and wellbeing – but to present this in the language of a public health threat is, as the authors themselves recognise, “premature”; as well as being a distraction from the more thoughtful and reflective debate that is needed.”
Ms Wendy Macdowall, Lecturer in the Centre for Sexual and Reproductive Heath, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said:
“Increased exposure and access to pornography has been accompanied by growing concern for possible negative effects; increasingly these concerns are framed in terms of public health. Fears are expressed that exposure leads to misogyny and gender-based violence, creates unrealistic expectations and inappropriate models of sexual behaviour, and encourages risky sexual practices. The evidence behind the headlines, however, is often based on small, unrepresentative samples, and is thwarted by problems of definition, of attribution of causality and of potential confounding. All of these limitations apply to the unpublished findings presented today.
“My concern is that if the public discourse around pornography centres on un-peer reviewed, methodologically limited research, then the doors are open to misinterpretation and misinformation, and hyperbole and polarization of the debate prevails. There are important questions that need answering, but we don’t have the evidence to answer them yet. Globally, few population-level studies investigating pornography have been carried out, and research adopting a public health perspective is rare. Such research is needed urgently to help navigate this notoriously difficult terrain, and guide the scope and direction of public health interventions aimed at mitigating possible harmful effects.”
Dr Cicely Marston, Senior Lecturer in Social Science, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said:
“As it stands, this study seems poor and I’m not sure why it has been press released as it doesn’t seem to have been finished or published. The study’s sample size is tiny and unrepresentative, and the analysis, which is not explained fully, seems to have numerous flaws.
“It is not clear how exposure to what the authors term “soft-core pornography” was measured, but the study seems to rely on self-reports.
“Asking someone how much “soft core” pornographic imagery they remember having seen and then asking them what they think about it is a very unreliable way to assess the impact of that imagery. It requires them to remember what they have seen and when, and also to have the same idea about what is “soft-core pornography” as the other people in the study who are also trying to remember what they have seen. They then have to make a judgment on how “pornographic” it is, but this would obviously depend on what they remembered seeing and what they thought they were reporting on in the first place. The authors switch between ‘looking at page 3’ in particular and ‘images of naked and semi-naked female models’ in general and it is unclear how they define ‘SCP’ (soft-core pornography). It is unclear why they are only interested in naked female and not male models.
“The authors make very strong claims that do not seem to be backed up by the evidence. For instance, they say “exposure to page 3 appears to lead to desensitisation to it” but judging by the limited information provided, what they actually measured was “people who reported looking at ‘page 3’ also reported they saw it as ‘less pornographic’…” (whatever that means) “…or more appropriate for mainstream media”. If this is what they did (and it is not clear), then they are only really saying that people who look at pictures of bare-breasted women are more likely to say that these images are okay for mainstream media. Surely that is to be expected: it would be surprising to say you think images of bare-breasted women are completely inappropriate for mainstream media but then also report looking at them a lot.
“Also it is strange that they do not break down the ‘exposure to SCP’ and other parts of the analysis by gender if they are really asking about whether their participants are looking at ‘page 3’ type images. It could be expected that overall, women might report differently than men both on exposure and on attitudes.
“In the notes from the author supplied to the British Psychological Society press office, they say “people with less sophisticated attitudes about women [may] seek out SCP”. This may be true, but it’s certainly not possible to tell from this study, which does not look at whether ‘people’ (men?) seek out anything. All the authors seem to have is a self-report of how often they are ‘exposed’ to soft-core pornography (again, not clear what this means), not whether or not they seek it out.
“The conclusion in the abstract “exposure to SCP is related to our attitudes towards… women” does not reflect the study. They did not measure exposure, just self reports of how much of this material the participants viewed. Extrapolating from a small, unrepresentative sample of undergraduates to the entire population is unwarranted. To suggest that images of partially naked women constitute a public health threat seems entirely unjustified from the data presented. In addition, the authors provide such a vague definition of soft-core pornography that it is impossible to know where they believe the threat lies, or what the participants were reporting on viewing in the first place.”
Prof. Kaye Wellings, Professor of Sexual and Reproductive Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said:
“It is surprising that this has been press released. This research is unfinished at this stage and certainly isn’t enough to draw conclusions about cause and effect or about any public health threat. This is a conference abstract, not a published paper, so it has not been through any kind of peer review. There is extremely limited data available so we can’t know how robustly the research has been carried out. Those surveyed were a small sample of undergraduate students and are not representative of the population.
“The study in question is too small to have carried out the kinds of analysis that would be needed to draw strong conclusions or shed more light on the issue.
“As the authors point out, we can’t tell from studies like this whether exposure to soft-core porn leads to certain behaviours or attitudes, or whether there’s another perhaps pre-existing factor that makes some people more susceptible to both looking at soft-core pornography and to have certain thoughts, attitudes and behaviours.
“This study is not suitable for making recommendations about public health. To be able to mount public health action to help people deal with pornography, we need a better understanding of the drivers, and for that we first need bigger and better studies.”
Abstract title: ‘The effect of newspaper soft-core pornography on attitudes towards women and rape’ by Sophie Daniels and Simon Duff. This is a conference talk discussed at the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society’s Division of Forensic Psychology on Wednesday 15 June 2016. There is no paper as this is not published work.
Declared interests
Dr Cicely Marston: “I have received ESRC funding to conduct research in the area of young people’s sexual health (grant number RES-062-23-1756).”
None others received.