Egalitarian, sexist, and aggressive sexual materials: attitude effects and viewer responses.

Concern over possible antisocial effects of exposure to sexually explicit materials has led to two national commissions in the United States and dozens of experimental studies (cf. Davis & Bauserman, 1994). Despite this attention, controversy over the effects of sexually explicit materials continues among behavioral scientists (e.g., Fisher & Grenier, 1994; Linz, Donnerstein, & Penrod, 1987). Concern about effects of sexual materials has frequently centered on possible changes in attitudes toward women, rape, and sexual violence (Linz, 1989) and sexual relationships following exposure, suggesting that sexual materials may be considered a kind of persuasive message. Antipornography critics argue that such materials carry implicit messages about women and sex that directly or indirectly promote sexual aggression and acceptance of female subordination (Lederer, 1980; Russell, 1993). The extensive experimental research on attitude change following exposure (see Davis and Bauserman, 1994 for a review) appears to accept this view. Consequently, theoretical models of persuasion and attitude change should be useful in predicting and examining the effects of exposure to sexual materials. A major problem in pornography research to date is that few researchers have explicitly used theoretical models of attitude change such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

The Elaboration Likelihood Model is perhaps the best-known and most influential model of attitudes. The model incorporates two distinct routes to attitude change. The central route involves careful cognitive processing and elaboration of arguments. When individuals use this route, they carefully attend to arguments presented, relate them to other information in memory, and use related knowledge to elaborate upon those arguments. This route is more effortful and occurs when personal involvement in an issue is high and ability to elaborate on the message is also present. The peripheral route includes all processes that affect persuasion without affecting scrutiny of arguments. This includes heuristic rules, such as "experts are correct," and attitudes formed through various learning processes such as classical conditioning. Central-route attitude change is more stable and resistant to counterpersuasion than is peripheral-route change (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The two routes may not be mutually exclusive; an individual may use both, to different extents, in processing a message (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The processing route an individual follows depends on a number of individual characteristics, including the ability to attend to or retain the message, and motivation to process the message. If ability or motivation is lacking, then central-route attitude change may not occur.

Attitude change does not depend simply on cognitive elaboration or the presence of peripheral route cues. Affective reactions are important determinants of attitude change, regardless of the level of elaboration likelihood (Petty, Cacioppo, Sedikides, & Strathman, 1988). In high elaboration likelihood, affect may play two roles. Affect may serve as a persuasive argument because it is associated with a particular object. For example, if negative affect is seen as a necessary outcome of adopting a particular belief or behavior, then a person's attitude toward that belief or behavior may become more negative. Affect may also bias ongoing message elaboration; positive affect may produce more positive thoughts in response to a message, and negative affect more negative thoughts (e.g., Petty, Schumann, Richman, & Strathman, 1993). With low elaboration likelihood, affect may act as a peripheral cue. For example, positive affect may make an individual more receptive to a particular message without careful elaboration McGuire, 1985). Finally, with moderate elaboration likelihood, affect may influence the extent of elaboration. For example, positive affect may reduce argument processing and increase reliance on peripheral cues (e.g., Worth & Mackie, 1987).

Clearly, exposure to a sexual portrayal does not guarantee that the viewer will process or accept the messages implied by the portrayal. Instead, the viewers' cognitive processing and affective reactions will influence the extent (if any) of attitude change. If cognitive and affective responses are negative, then the messages presented in the portrayals are likely to be rejected. Conversely, positive thoughts and feelings in response to the portrayal are likely to lead to acceptance of the messages shown. How enduring the acceptance or rejection proves to be, however, depends on the amount of cognitive elaboration.

The characteristics of the Elaboration Likelihood Model have two significant implications for research on the effects of exposure to sexual materials. First, different types of sexual portrayals may carry very different messages about sexuality. For instance, a "rape myth" portrayal that showed sexual aggression against a woman, which resulted in sexual arousal and enjoyment for both the woman and the man, might carry the implicit message that sexual aggression is in fact rewarding and positive for those involved. In contrast, a portrayal that included elements of affection, such as hugging or kissing, and a lack of any aggression or coercion, might carry no implicit messages supportive of sexual coercion. Instead, the message perceived by viewers might emphasize the value of consent and affection in sexual contacts. Such divergent messages might be expected to have very different effects on attitudes and behavior, a view consistent with experimental research comparing violent and nonviolent sexual portrayals (cf. Davis & Bauserman, 1994). Compared with nonviolent portrayals, violent sexual portrayals are more likely to produce laboratory aggression against female targets (e.g., Donnerstein & Berkowitz, 1981; see Donnerstein, 1984, for a review) and, as shown in some reports, are more likely to produce undesirable attitude change toward victims and perpetrators of sexual aggression (e.g., Intons-Peterson, Roskos-Ewoldsen, Thomas, & Shirley, 1989; Malamuth & Check, 1980; see Linz, 1989, for a review).

The second implication is that individuals' affective and cognitive reactions to sexual portrayals will have an important effect on whether attitude change occurs. Positive reactions should increase acceptance of the behaviors and attitudes portrayed; negative reactions should decrease acceptance. This issue has not been adequately addressed by researchers in this field. Few researchers have examined affective reactions to different types of nonviolent sexual portrayals (e.g., egalitarian vs. sexist), and there has been no previous research on participants' specific cognitive reactions to the sexual materials with, for example, thought-listing tasks. Several researchers (e.g., Roberts, 1989; Saunders & Naus, 1993; Senn & Radtke, 1990) have studied reactions of male and female viewers to sexual materials with varying levels of sexism and aggression. Typically, both males and females have reacted most positively to relatively egalitarian portrayals and most negatively to portrayals involving force or violence. However, none of these researchers have examined possible attitude change toward women or sexual coercion. Thought-listing tasks were not included in these studies or in any other research on the attitudinal effects of pornography; all reactions were based on affective or evaluative scales. Thought-listing tasks, however, are an important part of research methodology in the study of attitude change: They provide an indicator of the extent of message elaboration and positive or negative biasing of thoughts during message elaboration (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

The present studies go beyond earlier research by including measures of attitude change following exposure to the sexual scenes and measures of evaluative and cognitive responses to different types of sexual scenes. I hypothesized that if peripheral-route attitude change occurred because of awareness and acceptance of implicit messages in sexual scenes, then (1) both the sexist scenes and the sexually aggressive scenes would increase attitudes and beliefs accepting of inequality and male dominance in relationships because both types of scenes present implicit messages of inequality and male dominance, and (2) only the sexually aggressive scenes would increase attitudes and beliefs accepting of rape myths and sexual coercion because only the aggressive scenes would present implicit messages supportive of sexual coercion. In accord with previous research (e.g., Saunders & Naus, 1993), I hypothesized that (3) participants' evaluative and cognitive responses would be most favorable following egalitarian sexual portrayals and least favorable following sexually aggressive portrayals. Responses to sexist portrayals were expected to fall between these extremes.

STUDY 1

Study 1 was conducted to identify sexual portrayals that differed in the extent of sexism and sexual aggression. These stimulus materials could then be used in Study 2 to examine attitude change. Egalitarian scenes would be low in both sexism and sexual aggression; sexist scenes would be relatively high in sexism, but low in aggression; and sexually aggressive scenes would be relatively high in both. Scenes with low sexism and high aggression were not included as a fourth condition because (a) I assumed that use of sexual force or coercion against females would be seen as intrinsically sexist; and (b) even though such a combination might be possible, as in consensual sadomasochism, the rape-myth portrayal has been a primary concern in pornography research.

Method

Materials. Sources for scenes included reference works on adult films (e.g., Rimmer, 1993) and methods sections of relevant studies (e.g., Roberts, 1989). These sources were used mainly to locate scenes containing sexual aggression or coercion because content analyses of sexually explicit films indicate that such elements are relatively rare (e.g., Palys, 1986; Yang & Linz, 1990). Films were gathered and viewed for potential scenes. Several content criteria were established: Each scene had to include only one male and one female, both participants had to be Caucasian, and the sexual activity could include both oral sex and vaginal intercourse, but not other sexual behaviors. These criteria were intended to prevent confounding of responses to the sexual interaction with other attitudes, such as racial bias, or with negative attitudes toward less common sexual behaviors, such as anal sex or group sex. I identified 12 potential scenes and copied them from the original tapes onto separate videotapes for each category.

Participants. Male raters (N = 20; mean age = 18.5 years; 70% Caucasian, 20% African American, and 10% Asian American) were recruited from an introductory psychology subject pool at Syracuse University. The raters participated in partial fulfillment of course requirements and signed up on an experiment description form which indicated that they might be exposed to sexual materials.

Measure. Participants rated characteristics of each scene on a 16-item film rating form. Raters indicated the extent to which each characteristic was present on a 7-point scale, anchored by not at all and extremely or very. Higher scores indicate that more of the construct was present.

For a 2-item aggression scale, participants rated the degree of physical force the male used against the female and the degree of coercion or pressure the male used. Scores could range from 0 to 12. An 8-item sexism scale included ratings of male and female enjoyment of the sexual behaviors (female enjoyment was subtracted from male enjoyment to form one item indicating discrepancies in enjoyment); unrealistic female eagerness to comply with sexual advances; unrealistic female responsiveness to sexual stimulation; male verbal abuse of the female; status differences between the male and female; portrayal of the female as subordinate or submissive; and a specific rating of how degrading the portrayal was toward the female. Thus, scores could range from 0 to 48. Definitions of what is sexist may be more value-bound and ambiguous than are definitions of aggression: For example, status differences may be much less clear than the presence of physical force. The sexism scale was intended to reflect common-sense ideas about inequality, feminist thought about what constitutes sexism in sexual portrayals (e.g., Lederer, 1980; Russell, 1993), and behaviors and activities identified as sexist by undergraduate populations in previous research (e.g., Saunders & Naus, 1993; Senn & Radtke, 1990). These include male dominance in the sexual activity, unrealistic portrayals of female sexual responsiveness and sexual availability, and actions by the male that belittle the female (such as verbal abuse). Cronbach's alpha was used to examine internal reliability of the aggression and sexism rating scales. Alpha was .91 for the 2-item aggression scale and .77 for the 8-item sexism scale, indicating good internal reliability.

Finally, additional items required ratings of male versus female control of the sexual behavior (which was not used in calculating sexism or aggression because the items were confounded with the use of coercion and physical aggression), the believability of each scene, the attractiveness of the male and female participants, and how arousing the scene would be for the typical college student.

Procedure. In two 1-hour sessions, raters viewed all scenes on a color television monitor attached to a videocassette player. A male experimenter conducted both sessions. The study was described as an effort to evaluate sexual scenes for use in future research, but no mention was made of any specific hypotheses or interest in the aggression or sexism present in each scene. The experimenter emphasized the importance of accuracy and honesty in responses and instructed raters not to speak so as to avoid influencing others' responses. Scenes were presented randomly. Participants watched all scenes as a group, and evaluated each scene before another was presented. The experimenter remained present to operate the VCR and to prevent any discussion among participants.

Results

To verify desired differences between scenes in each category, I conducted separate one-way ANOVAs to compare all scenes on sexism, aggression, arousal, believability, and attractiveness of male and female actors. Follow-up comparisons were used to identify differences between specific scenes, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons to control Type I error. Mean values for the six scenes selected for the main study are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Mean Ratings of Sexual Scenes in Study 1

                                 Scene Type

                                  Egalitarian

Measure                          #1            #2

Aggression (2 Items)        [1.17.sub.a]      [1.08.sub.a]
Coercion                    [0.75.sub.a]      [0.38.sub.a]
Physical Aggression         [0.42.sub.a]      [0.69.sub.a]
Sexism (8 Items)            [8.18.sub.a]      [9.61.sub.a]
Actress Attractiveness       3.50              4.46
Actor Attractiveness         1.33              2.92
Arousal                      3.25              4.46
Believability               [4.33.sub.a]      [4.46.sub.a]

                                   Sexist

Measure                       # 1              #2

Aggression (2 Items)        [5.25.sub.b]     [6.67.sub.b]
Coercion                    [3.58.sub.b]     [3.33.sub.b]
Physical Aggression         [1.67.sub.a]     [3.33.sub.b]
Sexism (8 Items)           [20.83.sub.b]    [22.58.sub.b]
Actress Attractiveness       4.42             2.83
Actor Attractiveness         2.50             2.92
Arousal                      4.83             4.33
Believability               [2.17.sub.ab]    [3.25.sub.ab]

                                 Aggressive

Measure                        #1              #2

Aggression (2 Items)        [11.50.sub.c]     [10.38.sub.c]
Coercion                     [5.75.sub.c]      [5.00.sub.bc]
Physical Aggression          [5.75.sub.c]      [5.38.sub.c]
Sexism (8 Items)            [33.92.sub.c]     [26.23.sub.bc]
Actress Attractiveness        3.25             3.92
Actor Attractiveness          2.00             1.00
Arousal                       3.92             3.23
Believability               [2.67.sub.ab]     [1.61.sub.b]

Note. Means in the same row that do not share a subscript are different at p [is less than] .05 (two-tailed tests).

As expected, sexism and aggression scores differed significantly across all twelve scenes, F(11, 137) = 32.9, p [is less than] .00001 and F(11, 138) = 39.2, p [is less than] .00001, respectively. The final six scenes (two for each category) were chosen by the experimenter based on these significant differences, their apparent fit with their category in terms of content, and a lack of significant differences in ratings of arousal or attractiveness of male and female actors. Although both the egalitarian and sexist scenes were significantly lower in aggression than were the aggressive scenes, the sexist scenes were rated significantly more aggressive than were the egalitarian scenes. Comparison on the physical aggression item left one of the two selected sexist scenes significantly higher. The egalitarian scenes were also lower than the other categories in sexism, but one of the aggressive scenes was rated significantly higher in sexism than both sexist scenes. The unplanned differences may have been due in part to the high correlation between sexism and aggression scores (r = .85, p [is less than] .0001). The scenes are described below in more detail.

STUDY 2

Method

Participants. Participants (N = 122) were undergraduate males recruited from an introductory psychology subject pool at Syracuse University (mean age = 19.2 years; 88% Caucasian, 8% African American, and 4% Asian American). The students could choose either to participate in the subject pool or to complete a term paper to fulfill course requirements, and chose participation in the present study from a variety of ongoing studies. Participants signed up on a sheet stating that they might be exposed to sexual materials.

Aggressive videotape. In both scenes, a woman is physically restrained by a male and verbally protests his behavior. However, as sexual activity begins, the woman appears to become aroused and finally acts as a willing participant. Both scenes appeared to fit the rape-myth portrayal of an initially struggling and protesting woman coming to enjoy the experience, despite the physical force. Ratings for sexism and aggression are shown in Table 1. Total running time for both scenes was 15 min. 33 s.

Sexist videotape. In the first scene, a female security guard is kissed by a male who enters the building and the couple rapidly proceeds to undress and engage in intercourse. In the second scene, a couple is having intercourse and oral sex in various positions with the male constantly calling the female derogatory names. In both scenes the male directs the behavior; the female asserts no control and does not object to any of the male's behavior. These scenes reflected male dominance and control, ready sexual availability of females, and verbal abuse and were rated relatively low on aggression and high on sexism (see Table 1). Total running time was 14 min. 43 s.

Egalitarian videotape. In both scenes, a couple begins by kissing and caressing, then proceeds to oral sex and intercourse in different positions. Both participants appear to enjoy the activity. The scenes featured minimal or no dialogue, no verbal abuse or commands, and a background music score. The scenes featured relatively high amounts of physical affection and were low on aggression and sexism (see Table 1). Total running time was 13 min. 2 s.

Attitude measures. Four measures were used to assess attitudes before and after exposure to the sexual scenes. First, beliefs and expectations about sexual aggression were measured with the Rape Myth Acceptance scale (Burt, 1980). This scale measures the extent to which individuals endorse beliefs supportive of sexual aggression. Respondents rated items relevant to rape myths (e.g., "In the majority of rapes, the victim is promiscuous or has a bad reputation") on 7-point scales anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. They also rated the extent to which they believe rape reports are false and to which they would believe rape claims from various types of individuals (e.g., friends). Some items were reverse-scored, and then items were summed to produce total scores ranging from 19 to 117. Higher scores indicate greater acceptance of rape myths. Internal consistency is reported to be high (Butt, 1980), and construct validity has been demonstrated through successful use in research on sexual aggression (e.g., Murphy, Coleman, & Haynes, 1986). In the present study, Cronbach's alpha was .84 for pre-exposure and .89 for postexposure Rape Myth Acceptance scores.

Second, responses to sexual aggression were assessed with the Attraction to Sexual Aggression scale (Malamuth, 1989a, 1989b). This scale is used to identify men who find the idea of sexual coercion arousing, by measuring the belief that such coercion is likely to be arousing for both the offender and the victim. Respondents indicated whether they had ever thought of rape or of forcing a female to do something sexual that she didn't want to do, and then rated these acts on 4- or 5-point scales according to how attractive they are, how arousing they are, and how likely the respondent is to perform the acts. They also reported the percentages of males and females they thought would be aroused by these acts (which was then divided by 10 to produce a 1 to 10 scale). Aggression items were embedded in similar items related to other sexual behaviors (e.g., oral sex, intercourse, group sex). Responses to aggression items were summed to produce total scores ranging from 6 to 80, with higher scores indicating greater acceptance of sexual coercion and aggression. Internal consistency is high, and construct validity has been demonstrated in several studies (Malamuth, 1989a, 1989b). In the present study, Cronbach's alpha was .90 for pre-exposure and .92 for postexposure Attraction to Sexual Aggression scores.

Third, beliefs about dominance and inequality in relationships were assessed with the Adversarial Sexual Beliefs scale (Burt, 1980). This scale is used to measure the expectation that heterosexual relationships are characterized by manipulation, control, and dominance. Respondents reacted to items such as "A woman will only respect a man who will lay down the law to her" on 7-point scales anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. Responses were summed to produce total scores ranging from 9 to 63, with higher scores indicating more adversarial beliefs. Again, internal reliability is high (Burt, 1980), and construct validity has been shown in research related to sexual coercion (e.g., Murphy et al., 1986). In this study, Cronbach's alpha for pre-exposure and postexposure Adversarial Sexual Beliefs scores was .74 and .80, respectively.

Finally, attitudes toward equality in male-female relationships were measured with the Sex Role Egalitarianism scale (Beere, King, Beere, & King, 1984). This scale is used to measure attitudes toward equal rights and treatment in a variety of areas. Only the marital and social-heterosexual subscales were used in order to focus on attitudes toward equality in heterosexual relationships. Respondents indicated agreement or disagreement with items such as "Both the man and the woman should feel responsible for financing a date" on 5-point scales. Responses were summed to produce total scores on each subscale (ranging from 19 to 95) and on the combined scales (ranging from 38 to 190), with higher scores indicating greater egalitarianism. Internal consistency has been reported to be high, and construct validity has been demonstrated (e.g., Beere et al., 1984; King & King, 1986). In the present study, pre-exposure and postexposure Cronbach's alphas were .78 and .83, respectively, for the social-heterosexual subscale and .84 and .89 for the marital subscale.

Response measures. Two measures were used to assess participants' evaluative and cognitive reactions to each scene. For evaluative reactions, participants completed a bipolar rating scale in which they rated the scene on the dimensions of good-bad, dirty-clean, valuable-worthless, sick-healthy, and pleasant-unpleasant, using 7-point Likert-type scales. Items were reverse-scored where appropriate and summed so that higher scores indicated a more negative evaluation of the scene. Cronbach's alpha for the evaluative response scale was .81 for responses to Scene 1 and .84 for responses to Scene 2.

For cognitive reactions, each participant completed a thought-listing task in which they were instructed to write down any thoughts they could remember having while watching the scene. Instructions emphasized that participants should not censor any thoughts and that any thoughts the participants had were acceptable. Thought-listing tasks are a common tool in attitude change research (cf. Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) and are used to examine both the extent of cognitive elaboration of persuasive messages and the direction (if any) of cognitive bias. Two male and two female graduate student raters who were blind to the experimental hypotheses and the condition for each participant coded the thought-listing responses for valence of the thought--positive, neutral, or negative--and for content--whether or not the target of the thought was the male actor; the female actress; specific sexual acts; some aspect of the scene as a whole, such as the music score; the participants' own potential behaviors; miscellaneous; and thoughts irrelevant to the scene. Each rater coded the responses of approximately 25 to 30 participants, and a subset of responses from ten participants were coded by all four raters to calculate interrater reliability. There was 86.6% interrater agreement for the valence of listed thoughts and 81.3% agreement for the content of thoughts. In cases of disagreement, the original rater's coding was retained.

Finally, proportions of positive, neutral, and negative thoughts for each participant were calculated for each scene viewed by dividing the number of thoughts in each category by the participant's total number of thoughts. The proportion of positive or negative thoughts was determined to be a more appropriate measure of cognitive responses than the total numbers of thoughts in each category: The proportion directly reflects how positively or negatively biased a participant's cognitive responses are regardless of the total number of thoughts.

Procedure. All participants completed two experimental sessions separated by approximately one week. All sessions were conducted by a male experimenter. In the first (pre-exposure) session, participants gathered in groups of up to 20 in a classroom large enough so that no participants were seated adjacent to each other, allowing some privacy. The experimenter explained that the purpose of the research was to examine how individuals with different personality traits and attitudes reacted to sexually explicit scenes, and distributed consent forms. No one declined to participate at this point. Participants then completed the measures of sexual attitudes and beliefs (Rape Myth Acceptance, Attraction to Sexual Aggression, Adversarial Sexual Beliefs, and Sex Role Egalitarianism). Next, participants selected a time to attend the second experimental session, which they were told could involve exposure to sexually explicit materials. Typically, follow-up sessions occurred one week later; due to scheduling needs, actual time to the follow-up session ranged from 6 days to 2 weeks for a minority of the participants. The delay between the first and second sessions was intended to minimize the possibility that participants would recall preexposure responses as a guide to their postexposure responses on the attitude measures.

Participants attended the second session in groups of three or four due to space and time constraints. The second session was held in a small conference room with seating for up to 10 people, allowing the experimenter to separate participants to provide privacy. A male experimenter conducted all sessions. Groups were randomly assigned to a category (egalitarian, sexist, sexually aggressive, or control).

The experimenter informed participants in the three exposure groups that they would be rating each scene they viewed and that accurate and honest responses were extremely important. Participants were also instructed not to talk with one another while viewing or rating the scenes. They then viewed the two scenes for their assigned category on a 21" color TV monitor attached to a VCR. The order of presentation for the scenes was counterbalanced to control any sequence effect. The experimenter was in an adjacent control booth and monitored the participants to ensure that there was no discussion. After each scene, participants completed the evaluative rating scale and the thought-listing task. After viewing both scenes, the experimenter asked participants to complete the attitude measures a second time and gave them a test booklet containing the three scales. Participants in the control group did not view any scenes. They completed the attitudinal measures at the beginning of their session and were then informed that they would not actually view the sexual scenes.

At the end of each session, all participants were debriefed, thanked, and requested not to discuss the experiment with anyone else they knew who might be participating. One hundred fifteen participants completed both experimental sessions; the remaining seven participants either could not attend the second session or did not complete their ratings or attitude measures.

Results

Attitude scales. Scores for the attitude measures both before and after exposure are reported in Table 2. To test the first and second hypotheses, I conducted separate between-group ANOVAs for the postexposure scores on each attitudinal measure. There was no significant effect of exposure category on any measure: F(3, 103) = 1.37, p = .26 for the Attraction to Sexual Aggression scale; F(3, 109) = 1.25, p = .29 for the Rape Myth Acceptance scale; F(3, 111) = 1.05, p = .37 for the Adversarial Sexual Beliefs scale; and F(3, 108) = 0.44, p = .72 for the Sex Role Egalitarianism scale. To control for pre-exposure scores, I conducted 2 (Time: pre-exposure and postexposure) X 4 (Exposure Group: control, egalitarian, sexist, aggressive) mixed-factor ANOVAs. Interactions between exposure group and time of measurement were nonsignificant for three measures: F(3, 103) = 0.75, p = .52 for Attraction to Sexual Aggression scores; F(3, 107) = 1.45, p = .23 for Adversarial Sexual Beliefs scores; and F(3, 106) = 1.50, p = .22 for Rape Myth Acceptance scores.

Table 2. Pre-Exposure and Postexposure Means and Standard Deviations for Attitudinal Scales

                                      Condition
                       Control - No Video     Egalitarian Video
                         Pre-     Post-         Pre-     Post-
Measure                Exposure  exposure     Exposure  exposure

Rape Myth                92.4      93.8         89.8      89.0
Acceptance              (14.1)    (15.5)       (10.8)    (12 4)

Attraction to            22.4      25.0         20.3      19.4
Sexual Aggression       (9.2)     (12.5)       (11.7)    (10.6)

Adversarial              38.3      39.9         38.7      39.0
Sexual Beliefs           (6.8)     (8.0)        (8.3)     (8.7)

Sex Role                149.7     148.7        140.3     144.3
Egalitarianism          (21.1)    (24.4)       (22.6)    (25.3)

n                        30                     28

                                      Condition
                          Sexist Video         Aggressive Video
                          Pre-     Post-         Pre-     Post-
Measure                 Exposure  exposure     Exposure  exposure

Rape Myth                94.1      94.1         90.5      88.2
Acceptance              (ll.0)    (12.6)       (15.9)    (17.4)

Attraction to            19.8      18.4         19.2      21.5
Sexual Aggression       (11.6)    (14.6)       (12.4)    (14.4)

Adversarial              42.9      42.3         40.0      42.1
Sexual Beliefs          (7.0)     (7.8)        (9.7)     (9.4)

Sex Role                150.8     152.2        151.9     148.5
Egalitarianism          (17.8)    (17.9)       (21.4)    (22.7)

n                        30                     27

Notes. Higher scores indicate greater rape myth acceptance, greater attraction to sexual aggression, greater adversarial sexual beliefs, and greater sex role egalitarianism on each of the corresponding scales. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses.

For the Sex Role Egalitarianism scale, the interaction was significant, F(3, 103) = 3.07, p = .031. Further analysis of change in each group over time revealed that participants in the egalitarian exposure condition increased their egalitarianism scores from pre-exposure to postexposure, F(1, 106) = 4.50, p = .036, d = .39, and participants in the sexually aggressive exposure condition showed a marginally significant decrease in egalitarianism scores, F(1,106) = 3.56, p = .062, d = .35. Changes for the sexist exposure and control group participants did not reach or approach significance.

Evaluative ratings. To test Hypothesis 3, I compared evaluative and cognitive responses to each category of sexual scene. Responses on the bipolar evaluative rating scale were analyzed according to order of presentation (first scene viewed and second scene viewed). These results are reported in Table 3. Although participants viewed a specific scene in their category either first or second, order of presentation rather than specific scene seemed the best basis for analysis because of possible desensitization and changes in arousal from the first scene viewed to the second.

Table 3. Mean Affective/Evaluative Ratings of Sexually Explicit Scenes by Exposure Group

                                  Exposure Group
                 Egalitarian                          Aggressive
Scene Order        Video          Sexist Video        Video

Scene 1           [19.4.sub.a]    [21.3.sub.a]        [24.0.sub.b]
                   (4.0)           (5.9)               (4.4)
Scene 2           [19.4.sub.a]    [22.5.sub.ab]       [24.3.sub.b]
                   (5.0)           (6.1)                (6.6)
n                  28              30                  27

Note. Lower scores indicate more positive affective responses. Standard deviations are shown in parenthesis. Means in the same row that do not share a subscript are different at p < .05 (two-tailed tests).

For both the first and second scenes viewed, evaluative ratings of the scenes across the three categories differed significantly, F(2, 82) = 6.31, p = .003, and F(2, 82) = 4.84, p = .01, respectively. For the first scene viewed, paired group comparisons showed that ratings of the egalitarian and sexist scenes were more positive than those of the aggressive scene, t(81) = 3.69, p = .0007, d = .98, and t(81) = 2.24, p = .03, d = .59, respectively. For the second scene viewed, paired group comparisons showed that ratings of the egalitarian scene were more positive than those of the sexually aggressive scene, t(81) = 2.89, p = .005, d = .77, and marginally more positive than those of the sexist scene, t(81) = 1.77, p = .079, d = .46.

Thought-listing responses. Proportions of positive, neutral, and negative thoughts for each scene viewed in each exposure category are reported in Table 4. Results were analyzed according to order of presentation of the two scenes viewed. For the first scene viewed, there were no significant differences in the proportion of any type of thought. For the second scene viewed, there were significant differences for both positive thoughts, F(2, 81) = 5.42, p = .006, and negative thoughts, F(2, 81) = 3.70, p = .029. Participants who saw the egalitarian scene generated relatively more positive thoughts than those who viewed either the sexist or aggressive scenes, t(58) = 3.07, p = .003, d = .80, and t(52) = 2.51, p = .013, d = .67, respectively. Participants in the egalitarian condition also generated relatively fewer negative thoughts than those in either the sexist or aggressive conditions, t(58) = 2.61, p = .01, d = .68, and t(52) -- 1.90, p = .06, d = .51, respectively, although the latter comparison is only marginally significant.

Table 4. Proportions of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Thoughts Listed in Response to Each Scene, by Exposure Group

                                      Exposure Group
Thoughts Listed       Egalitarian      Sexist         Aggressive
Scene 1 Thoughts      Video            Video            Video

Positive                .22             .28             .20
                       (.25)           (.29)           (.25)
Neutral                 .22             .29             .18
                       (.23)           (.21)           (.18)
Negative                .56             .43             .61
                       (.31)           (.30)           (.22)
Scene 2 Thoughts
Positive               [.47.sub.a]     [.24.sub.b]     [.27.sub.b]
                       (.34)           (.30)           (.24)
Neutral                 .19             .21             .23
                       (.21)           (.25)           (.21)
Negative               [.34.sub.a]     [.55.sub.b]     [.50.sub.ab]
                       (.30)           (.32)           (.30)
n                        28              30              27

Notes. Proportions in the same row that do not share a subscript are different at p < .05 (two-tailed tests). Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. Column proportions may not add to 1.00 because of rounding.

Reactions to scenes and attitude change. To the extent that differences in reactions to the different types of scenes might affect attitude change, 2 (Time: pre-exposure vs. postexposure) X 3 (Condition: egalitarian, sexist, or sexually aggressive) ANOVAs were performed with reactions to the scenes as covariates. Because the control group did not view any sexual scenes, the analysis with covariates could only include the three exposure conditions. The evaluative responses to the two scenes were averaged for each subject to form one evaluation covariate. The proportion of negative thoughts in response to each scene were also averaged to form a second covariate. Interactions between time and condition remained nonsignificant for three measures: F(2, 66) = .55, p =.58 for Attraction to Sexual Aggression; F(2, 79) = .46, p = .63 for Adversarial Sexual Beliefs; and F(2, 79) = 1.17, p = .32 for Rape Myth Acceptance. The interaction for the Sex Role Egalitarianism scale remained significant, F(2, 76) = 4.16, p = .02.

DISCUSSION

Hypothesis 1 was that both sexist and sexually aggressive scenes would increase acceptance of sexist attitudes; Hypothesis 2 was that only sexually aggressive scenes would increase acceptance of rape myths and sexual coercion. Hypothesis 1 received only partial and weak support, with a marginally significant decrease in Sex Role Egalitarianism in the sexually aggressive condition and no other changes in the sexist or aggressive conditions. Hypothesis 2 received no support, with no significant effects of exposure category on the Attraction to Sexual Aggression or Rape Myth Acceptance scales. Thus, there was minimal evidence for different attitudinal effects of egalitarian, sexist, and sexually aggressive scenes on measures of sexist beliefs and beliefs about sexual aggression. However, although not originally predicted, the increase in Sex Role Egalitarianism scores for the egalitarian condition is arguably consistent with the underlying model of attitude change. To the extent that the egalitarian scenes carried an implicit message of egalitarian sexual contacts as rewarding and desirable, they may have supported or encouraged accepting attitudes toward sexual equality.

Hypothesis 3 was that evaluative and cognitive reactions would be most favorable following egalitarian portrayals and least favorable following sexually aggressive portrayals. Consistent with this hypothesis, cognitive and evaluative responses were clearly different across the three categories of sexually explicit material. Significant differences in evaluative ratings occurred for both the first and second scenes viewed, and significant differences in cognitive responses occurred for the second scene. As hypothesized, on both measures participants reacted most positively to the egalitarian scenes and most negatively to the sexually aggressive scenes.

The lack of significant differences between conditions for almost all attitude measures may seem surprising in view of previous research that has reported significant attitudinal effects following exposure to aggressive or sexist sexual materials (e.g., Intons-Peterson et al., 1989). Other researchers, however, have been critical of reports of attitudinal change following exposure. For example, Fisher and Grenier (1994) reported no significant differences in attitudes following exposure to sexually violent pornography with positive or negative outcomes, erotica, or a neutral stimulus, and highlighted numerous inconsistencies in results of previous studies examining attitude change in response to aggressive pornography. Fisher and Barak (1991) have argued that it is unreasonable and oversimplified to expect transitory exposure to violent pornography to lead males to endorse attitudes inconsistent (in most cases) with a prior lifetime of learning.

Nevertheless, the lack of attitude change deserves further explanation. It may be inappropriate to argue that pornographic materials are a persuasive message, in the sense intended in the Elaboration Likelihood Model. In contrast to the messages used in attitude change research, no overt or specific arguments about female sexuality, sexual aggression, or other aspects of sexuality are presented to the viewer. However, messages do not have to be overt or explicit to lead to attitude change. For example, the literature on mere exposure demonstrates that repeated exposure to a stimulus, in the absence of any overt arguments or messages about the qualities of the stimulus, can lead to increased liking (Bornstein, 1989). Thus, the affective component of the attitude toward the object can change in the absence of explicit messages. Similarly, research about effects of exposure to videotaped or filmed nonsexual aggression shows that under certain conditions (such as rewards for, or lack of punishment for, the aggression), behavioral increases in aggression can take place (Bandura, 1973; Friedrich-Cofer & Huston, 1986). Exposure to scenes of sexual aggression has been shown to produce increased laboratory aggression as well (Allen, D'Alessio, & Brezgel, 1995). These findings show that behavioral reactions can be affected in the absence of specific, overt arguments for attitude change.

In addition, the literature on attitude change following pornography exposure implicitly assumes that viewing such material can produce change in beliefs. Findings of significant changes in measures such as Rape Myth Acceptance following exposure to sexual scenes are typically interpreted as evidence of belief or attitude change due to exposure (Allen, Emmers, Gebhardt, & Giery, 1995). Finally, in surveys of college students many males indicate that pornography has served as a source of information about sex (Duncan, 1990; Duncan & Donnelly, 1991). These males indicate that they have learned about various aspects of sexuality from pornography. Taken together, these lines of research indicate that affect, cognition, and behavior in regard to an attitude object or an action can change in the absence of specific arguments intended to produce such change. That pornography may be produced primarily as entertainment does not mean that individuals may not use it as a source of information in the absence of other sources, or that vicarious learning of outcomes of sexist or aggressive sexual behavior does not occur. However, any such change would necessarily be defined as peripheral route change by the Elaboration Likelihood Model rather than central-route change, which requires cognitive analysis and elaboration of specific arguments.

The differences in affective and cognitive reactions to the different types of sex scenes may be important determinants of how exposure to these scenes affects attitudes and beliefs in the framework of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (e.g., Petty et al., 1993), with positive reactions promoting attitude change and negative reactions impeding it. The differences in evaluative reactions to the various types of sexual scenes are consistent with previous research with both male and female participants (Roberts, 1989; Sanders & Naus, 1993; Senn & Radtke, 1990; Sinclair, Lee, & Johnson, 1995). The differences in cognitive responses, not directly examined in previous research, were consistent with the differences in evaluative responses. Evaluative and cognitive responses to the egalitarian scenes were relatively positive. However, the egalitarian scenes were the least likely to convey any antisocial messages about women or sexuality. These scenes involved no portrayal of force or coercion, and raters perceived little evidence of sexism. Consequently, one should not expect exposure to increase attitudes accepting of sexual coercion or sexual inequality. In fact, the significant increase in egalitarianism scores for participants in the egalitarian condition may mean that these viewers were accepting implicit egalitarian messages in the scenes they watched. The evidence for increased egalitarianism, however, is weakened because this change represents the only significant difference found in ANOVAs of four attitudinal measures.

In contrast, sexist and aggressive sex scenes may contain undesirable implicit messages about women and sexuality. These portrayals are those most criticized by opponents of pornography (e.g., Lederer, 1980) and those for which researchers most often report negative attitudinal and behavioral effects (e.g., Allen, D'Alessio, & Brezgel, 1995; Zillman & Bryant, 1984). The scenes used in the present study portrayed either male sexual force as leading to arousal and pleasure for the female, or male control and verbal abuse of the female leading to the same positive outcomes. Viewers reported relatively negative thoughts and feelings in response to these scenes. Negative affect would lessen viewers' receptivity to implicit messages and bias cognitive responses in a negative direction (e.g., Petty et al., 1988), leading to rejection of the messages. Thus, only one marginally significant effect on one of four attitude measures was found to indicate increased acceptance of sexism or sexual coercion.

It is interesting to note that there were no significant differences in cognitive responses to the three types of sexual portrayals for the first scene viewed; the significant differences appeared for the second scene viewed. For the evaluative responses, there was no difference between the egalitarian and sexist categories for the first scene viewed, but a significant difference emerged for the second scene. The participants may have initially focused on the sexual behaviors rather than the context of the behaviors; by the time they viewed the second scene, they may have focused less on the sex and more on the context of the sexual activity. Methodological aspects of the study may also have affected subject responses and the possibility of finding significant attitude change. Areas of possible concern include exposure time, the social nature of the group-viewing situation, and the self-selected nature of the sample. For exposure time, the total length of exposure in all three conditions was 12 to 15 minutes. However, previous researchers have used short-term exposures (including some of only several minutes), and have reported negative effects (cf. Linz, 1989). For example, Donnerstein, Berkowitz, & Linz (1986; as cited in Linz, 1989) reported that viewers exposed to only 4 minutes of either sexual or nonsexual aggressive films scored higher on rape-myth acceptance than those exposed to nonaggressive pornography. Furthermore, in the present research attitudes were assessed immediately after exposure, so even a very transitory change in attitudes or beliefs supportive of sexism and sexual aggression should have been detected. Nevertheless, amount of exposure remains an important concern. The current results do not discount the possibility that prolonged exposure to sexist or aggressive materials, extended over multiple viewing sessions, may result in significant attitudinal changes.

The group-testing situation may have had an impact as well, due to social presentation concerns among participants. For example, Norris (1991) found that arousal and positive affect in response to sexually violent materials were affected by a message about the responses of others. Similarly, Sinclair et al. (1995) found that negative affective reactions to a sexually nonviolent film increased following information about negative reactions by others. However, Saunders and Naus (1993) found that male viewers' perceptions and reactions to "erotic" and "pornographic" films were not significantly different when the films were viewed in the presence of another male, a female, or alone. Participants in the present study were monitored to prevent exchange of comments, and no such discussion took place. Thus, participants lacked verbal or written cues from the experimenter or other participants as to "appropriate" attitudes and reactions (although nonverbal cues cannot be ruled out). Mean scores for all measures as reported in Table 3 are closer to the midpoint of possible scores than to the most prosocial scores, arguing against a floor effect due to efforts to provide socially acceptable responses,

Finally, the use of a self-selected sample of undergraduates, all of whom were aware before the experimental sessions that they might be exposed to sexual materials, clearly limits the representativeness of the sample. However, this self-selected sample may be representative for purposes of studying effects of exposure to sexual materials because the consumers of such materials are also self-selected. Individuals who find explicit sexual materials objectionable would not be likely to purchase or otherwise expose themselves voluntarily to such material.

Another important issue is the possible impact of completing ratings of each scene on the subsequent completion of the attitude scales. In laboratory research on attitudinal effects of exposure to pornography (cf. Allen, Emmers, et al., 1995), participants typically do not rate their reactions to the scenes. Requiting evaluative and cognitive responses may have led participants to reflect on sexist and aggressive aspects of the scenes, and subsequently to avoid any appearance of endorsing or accepting such behaviors. This sort of demand characteristic cannot be ruled out, but also raises a further possibility: Participants in prior research may have displayed a priming effect, rather than actual attitude change, following exposure to sexist or aggressive material. In other words, the material may have primed sexist or aggressive thoughts that then affected completion of attitude measures because the participants did not have the opportunity to reflect on sexist and aggressive aspects of the scenes.

One strength of the present study was the use of a clear theoretical model, the Elaboration Likelihood Model, as a basis for predicting possible effects of exposure. Future research on attitudinal effects of pornography should be based on more carefully developed hypotheses about how and why laboratory exposure to pornography may lead to attitude change. Mainstream models of attitudes, such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model or the Heuristic and Systematic Processing Model (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993) can form the basis for such hypotheses. Another strength was the use of a thought-listing task to obtain cognitive responses, which provides new insight into viewers' processing of sexual portrayals and the possible effects of those portrayals on sexuality-related attitudes and beliefs. Future research should include measures of both cognitive and affective responses for a fuller understanding of the processing of sexual portrayals and their implicit messages. To identify possible differences in attitudinal effects, researchers could also compare viewers who react positively to sexist or aggressive sexual portrayals and those who react negatively. In addition, priming of sexist and aggressive thoughts must be disentangled from actual change in beliefs or attitudes. Focusing attention of viewers on sexist and aggressive aspects of a sexual scene may lead viewers who see themselves as nonsexist and nonaggressive to consciously reject or counteract the messages implied in such scenes.

The present research supports a somewhat optimistic view of the potential effects of sexual materials on viewers. In addition to the present research, several studies have found that male viewers report negative reactions to sexist and sexually aggressive portrayals (Roberts, 1989; Sanders & Naus, 1993; Sinclair et al., 1995). Increased rape education may have raised awareness among college students today about issues of sexual coercion or inequality (e.g., Fonow, Richardson, & Wemmerus, 1992), making them more likely to reject the implicit messages of sexist and sexually aggressive portrayals. Regardless of the reason, rejection of such portrayals by viewers may lead to more egalitarian sexual portrayals in the future as producers of sexual materials react to their market. Content analyses indicate that there has been no increase in the proportion of sexual materials containing violence throughout the late 1970s and the 1980s (Scott & Cuvelier, 1993; Yang & Linz, 1990). Not only are the most objectionable aggressive and sexist portrayals likely to remain a small proportion of the pornography industry, but such portrayals may have minimal impact on viewers who react negatively and, in turn, reject the implicit antisocial messages.

REFERENCES

Allen, M., D'Alessio, D., & Brezgel, K. (1995). A meta-analysis summarizing the effects of pornography II: Aggression after exposure. Human Communication Research, 22, 258-283.

Allen, M., Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery, M. A. (1995). Exposure to pornography and acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 5-26.

Bandura. A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice-Hall.

Beere, C. A., King, D. W., Beere, D. B., & King, L. A. (1984). The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: A measure of attitudes toward equality between the sexes. Sex Roles, 10, 563-576.

Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289.

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Davis, C. M., & Bauserman, R. L. (1993). Effects of exposure to sexually explicit materials: An attitude change perspective. Annual Review of Sex Research, 4, 121-209.

Donnerstein, E. (1984). Pornography: Its effect on violence against women. In N. Malamuth & E. Donnerstein reds.), Pornography and sexual aggression (pp. 53-81). New York: Academic Press.

Donnerstein, E., & Berkowitz, L. (1981). Victim reactions in aggressive erotic films as a factor in violence against women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 710-724.

Duncan, D. (1990). Pornography as a source of sex information for university students. Psychological Reports, 66, 442.

Duncan, D., & Donnelly, J. (1991). Pornography as a source of sex information for students at a private Northeastern university. Psychological Reports, 68, 782.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Fisher, W. A., & Barak, A. (1991). Pornography, erotica, and behavior: More questions than answers. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 14, 65-83.

Fisher, W. A., & Grenier, G. (1994). Violent pornography, antiwoman thoughts, and antiwoman acts: In search of reliable effects. The Journal of Sex Research, 31, 23-38.

Fonow, M. M., Richardson, L., & Wemmerus, V. A. (1992). Feminist rape education: Does it work? Gender and Society 6, 108-121.

Friedrich-Cofer, L., & Huston, A. C. (1986). Television violence and aggression: The debate continues. Psychological Bulletin. 100, 364-371.

Intons-Peterson, M. J., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Thomas, L., & Shirley, M. (1989). Will educational materials reduce negative effects of exposure to sexual violence? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology; 8, 256-275.

King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1986). Validity of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: Discriminating egalitarianism from feminism. Sex Roles, 15, 207-214.

Lederer, L. (Ed.). (1980). Take back the night: Women on pornography. New York: Morrow.

Linz, D. (1989). Exposure to sexually explicit materials and attitudes toward rape: A comparison of study results. The Journal of Sex Research. 26, 50-84.

Linz, D., Donnerstein, E., & Penrod, S. (1987). Findings and recommendations of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography: Do the psychological facts fit the political fury? American Psychologist. 42, 946-953.

Malamuth, N. M. (1989a). The Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale: Part one. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 26-49.

Malamuth, N. M. (1989b). The Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale: Part two. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 324-354.

Malamuth, N. M., & Check, J. (1980). Penile tumescence and perceptual responses to rape as a function of victim's perceived reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 528-547.

McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson reds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (3rd ed., pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.

Murphy, W. D., Coleman, E. M., & Haynes, M. R. (1986). Factors related to coercive sexual behavior in a nonclinical sample of males. Violence and Victims. 1, 255-278.

Norris, J. (1991). Social influence effects on responses to sexually explicit material containing violence. The Journal of Sex Research, 28, 67-76.

Palys, T. (1986). Testing the common wisdom: The social content of video pornography. Canadian Psychology, 27, 22-35.

Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Sedikides, C., & Strathman, A. J. (1988). Affect and persuasion: A contemporary perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 355-371.

Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5-20.

Rimmer, R. H. (1993). The X-rated videotape guide (Vols. 1-3). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

Roberts, L. (1989). Evaluations of sexually explicit films as a function of film type and selected personality variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.

Russell, D. E. H. (1993). Pornography as a cause of rape. In D. E. H. Russell (Ed.), Making violence sexy: Feminist views on pornography (pp. 120-150). New York: Teacher's College Press.

Saunders, R. M., & Naus, P. J. (1993). The impact of social content and audience factors on responses to sexually explicit videos. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 117-130.

Scott, J., & Cuvelier, S. (1993). Violence and sexual violence in pornography: Is it really increasing? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 357-371.

Senn, C., & Radtke, H. (1990). Women's evaluations of and affective reactions to mainstream violent pornography, nonviolent pornography, and erotica, Violence and Victims, 5, 143-155.

Sinclair, R. C., Lee, T., & Johnson, T. E. (1995). The effect of social-comparison feedback on aggressive responses to erotic and aggressive films. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 818-837.

Worth, L. T., & Mackie, D. M. (1987). Cognitive mediation of positive affect in persuasion. Social Cognition, 5, 76-94.

Yang, N., & Linz, D. (1990). Movie ratings and the content of adult videos: The sex-violence ratio. Journal of Communication, 40(2), 28-42.

Zillman, D., & Bryant, J. (1984). Effects of massive exposure to pornography. In N. Malamuth & E. Donnerstein reds.), Pornography and sexual aggression (pp. 115-138). New York: Academic Press.

Manuscript Accepted September 9,1997

This research was based on the author's dissertation, conducted while the author was at Syracuse University. The research was funded in part by the Graduate Student Committee, Psychology Department, Syracuse University.

Address correspondence to Robert Bauserman, Psychology Department, 1012 East Hall, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109; e-mail: [e-mail]