Forbidden Fruit Hypothesis

The term forbidden fruit comes from the biblical account in which God tells Adam and Eve to help themselves to any fruit in the Garden of Eden except the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit anyway (or perhaps because God told them not to). If something is forbidden, people may want it even more. For example, they may conclude, “Anything I shouldn't have is probably really fun to have.” According to the forbidden fruit hypothesis, forbidding something only makes it more desirable and attractive. As applied to media, the forbidden fruit hypothesis suggests that warning labels and restrictions on media access to materials will make them more attractive.

The forbidden fruit hypothesis has much in common with the folk notion of “reverse psychology.” According to reverse psychology, the best way to get someone to do something is to tell them to do exactly the opposite. Many parents can testify that this approach has worked with their children. Social psychologist Jack Brehm proposed a more formal theory based on these ideas, called reactance theory. The central point of reactance theory is that people desire to have freedom of choice and therefore have a negative reaction to having some of their choices or options taken away by other people or by external forces. The term reactance is specifically used to refer to the negative feelings people have in response to loss of freedom (or threats of loss). When people lose a desired option, they respond by increasing their desire for that option, by trying to do what is now forbidden, or by aggressing against the person who deprived them of the option.

Media containing violence, sex, and profanity often contain warning labels (e.g., “Due to some violent content, parental discretion is advised”) and restrictive ratings (e.g., “TV-MA: [Mature Audiences Only]”). According to the forbidden fruit hypothesis, warning labels and restrictive ratings will increase rather than decrease the attractiveness of media containing objectionable content.

[Page 359]Reactance effects tend to be bigger when an authority figure tells us not to do something, perhaps because messages from authoritative sources produce more pressure to comply. Research has shown that warning labels are especially likely to backfire if they are issued by an authoritative source. For example, in a 1996 study by Bushman and Stack, a film warning about violent content from the U.S. surgeon general almost doubled the number of people who chose to watch the film.

A meta-analysis by Bushman and Cantor of research on media ratings in general showed that a variety of types of ratings make programming more attractive rather than turning viewers away. This analysis explored the effects of restrictive ratings and descriptive ratings (those that specify the presence of controversial content, such as violence and sex, without explicitly recommending restricted access). Overall, both types of ratings and advisories increased attraction to programs. In addition, the effects were stronger for male participants than for female ones. There was also a curvilinear relationship between the impact of ratings and the participants' age. Up to the age of 8, media ratings indicating restricted or controversial content reduced children's interest. Between the ages of 9 and 22, these ratings increased interest. In participants over the age of 36, media ratings again functioned as a deterrent to viewer interest. Although considerations of reactance might lead to the expectation that restrictive ratings would have a more enticing effect than descriptive labels, the meta-analysis showed that the two types of ratings did not differ in their impact. One explanation for this lack of difference is that, because violence and sex are generally considered taboo subjects, especially for young people, labels indicating their presence send an implicit message that the content deserves to be restricted.

...