See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233088543

Rating Offensive Words in Three Television Program Contexts

Article  in  Mass Communication & Society · January 2011

DOI: 10.1080/15205430903359693

CITATIONS READS
13 1,249

3 authors, including:

Daniel Shafer
Baylor University
22 PUBLICATIONS   386 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Psychological and Physiological Factors Affecting Enjoyment of Virtual Reality Games: A Comparison Involving Consumer-Grade VR Technology View project

Interaction Fidelity in VR Videogames View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Shafer on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Rating Offensive Words in Three Television Program Contexts

BEA 2008, Research Division

Barry S. Sapolsky, Ph.D.

3129 UC
Department of Communication
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2664
850-644-8774
bsapolsk@mailer.fsu.edu

Daniel M. Shafer
3122 UC
Department of Communication
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2664
dms05c@fsu.edu

Barbara K. Kaye, Ph.D.

School of Journalism & Electronic Media
333 Communications Building
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996
865-974-1118
bkk@utk.edu

AV requirements: Computer running MS Powerpoint and projector, if available

Debut submission
 Abstract

Respondents were asked to rate the offensiveness of 20 expletives based on the television

context in which they were heard: broadcast TV, cable or satellite TV, or premium TV. Results show that

foul language is most offensive if heard on broadcast television, somewhat less offensive on cable or

satellite, and least offensive on premium channels. Women, conservatives, and those who attend

religious services regularly are more offended by profanities spoken in each television context. A

respondent’s attitude toward offensive language was also found to be positively related to personal use of

offensive language and tolerance of it on television.

 Rating Offensiveness of Words 1

Rating Offensive Words in Three Television Program Contexts

Introduction

Popular morning radio personality Don Imus, whose show was simulcast on MSNBC, was

recently fired by CBS for referring on-air to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-

headed ho’s.” In explaining the firing, CBS CEO Leslie Moonves stated that there was “much discussion

of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make

their way in this society” (Farhi, 2007). The “ho” remark triggered an avalanche of criticism of Imus and

the mainstream media (Mabry, 2007).

The American public is upset by the increasing presence of offensive language on television. At

least that is the strident message from parents, conservatives, watchdog groups and lawmakers. In a

1995 survey conducted by USA Today, 97% of respondents were concerned about vulgar language on

television (“Turned Off,” 1995). A more recent research study conducted by Time and Schulman, Ronca,

& Bucuvalas (2005) reported that 58% of viewers think there is too much cursing on television, while

another study points out that 70% of viewers believe that bad language on television is getting worse

(State Farm Insurance, Family Friendly Programming Forum, and Public Agenda Foundation, 2007).

Older adults, conservatives, and evangelical Protestants are most likely to complain that television

content has become raunchier (Pew Research Center, 2005).

One indicator of the public’s displeasure with the rise in offensive language on television is the

number of viewer complaints received by the FCC. Complaints soared between 2000 and 2004, in part

due to the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl, but the number of complaints

dropped by about 83% in 2005 (Federal Communications Commission, 2006b).

Viewers are primarily concerned that verbal vulgarities on television lead to more cursing in

everyday conversation and to a general breakdown in civility and personal values (Marks, 1996; “Turned

Off, “1995). One study reported that seven out of ten viewers hold these beliefs (Massachusetts Mutual

Life & Michaels Opinion Research, 1995).

The debate over the use of expletives on television has heated up in recent years, helped in part

by the singer Bono who excitedly exclaimed, “This is really, really fucking brilliant” on the live 2003
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 2

Golden Globe Awards show. These words set off a storm of protest by viewers who found the f-word

particularly offensive (“Scrubbing the Airwaves, 2005”). This incident is said to have ushered in the most

aggressive campaign against verbal profanity on the airwaves since the late 1970s when the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) identified the seven words that are too dirty to be said over the air

(Greenya, 2005).

Although the FCC has jurisdiction over broadcast television content, it cannot set limits on

indecent words heard on cable and satellite-delivered programs because these delivery systems do not

use the public airwaves (Baker, 2006; Federal Communications Commission, 2006a; Greenya, 2005;

Parsons & Frieden, 1998). Nevertheless, the outcry against coarse language has led to pressure on cable

and satellite providers to exclude profanities either by self-regulation or by expanding FCC powers over

these delivery systems (Achenbach, 2006; Ahrens, 2006).

This study examines perceptions of the offensiveness of words commonly considered to be crude

or indecent by the general public and the FCC. Specifically, respondents rated how offended they are by

expletives spoken within the context of broadcast, cable/satellite and premium channel programs. This

study also compares whether words that are too indecent to be uttered in the context of broadcast

television are acceptable when spoken on cable or satellite-delivered programs, including those on pay

channels. While this is a legal distinction, it is not clear whether the distinction exists in the minds of

viewers.

Public Perceptions

Many viewers claim that strong language should be banned from television, arguing that its

presence leads to a lowering of moral standards and teaches viewers that it is acceptable to use dirty

words in everyday life (Marks, 1996; Massachusetts Mutual Life & Michaels Opinion Research, 1995;

“Turned Off,” 1995). Others, however, believe that profane words have a cathartic effect and should be

allowed on television especially when used to evoke the drama or emotional depth of a situation

(Achenbach, 2006; Angier, 2005; Jay, 2000; Wajnryb, 2005). Still others believe that much is being made

of an issue that is fairly innocuous (Kerr, 2004). It is argued that people are not as offended by off-color

words as they claim and, moreover, they commonly use them in their own everyday conversations

(Marks, 1996; Moore, 1998; Noveck, 2006).

 Rating Offensiveness of Words 3

Fueling the debate over expletives on television is perceptions of their offensiveness. One study

discovered that 42% of viewers were bothered by adult language on television (Time and Schulman,

Ronca, & Bucuvalas, 2005), and Pew Research (2005) reported that 32% were offended, with about

twice as many women as men expressing personal discomfort with risqué language.

Research on sex differences in the use of and reaction to swear words has found that although

females are increasing their use of coarse language in everyday conversation, they are still less likely to

use such words (Bate & Bowker, 1997; De Klerk, 1991; Hughes, 1998; Risch, 1987) and they hold more

negative attitudes towards cursing in general (Jay, 1992; Pew Research Center, 2005; Rieber,

Wiedemann & D'Amato, 1979; Risch, 1987; Selnow, 1985; Wajnryb, 2005). There is also a difference in

the usage of off-color words directed at men or women. Men are more likely to be insulted by words that

imply they are sexually inadequate, social outcasts or otherwise undesirable such as “bastard”,

“motherfucker” and “pussy”, whereas women are insulted by words that imply they are socially or sexually

undesirable or condemn them morally such as “bitch” and “slut” (Jay, 1992; Preston & Staley, 1987;

Wajnryb, 2005). In general, public perceptions persist that swearing is more acceptable for males than for

females (Burgoon, Dillard, & Doran, 1983; Burgoon & Stewart, 1975; De Klerk, 1991; Jay, 1992; Mulac,

Incontro & James, 1985; Mulac & Lundell, 1980; Wajnryb, 2005).

Program Context

Broadcast television is the most restrictive context for language. After the landmark Pacifica ruling

(Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 1978) broadcasters relied on the definition

of indecency1 and the “seven dirty words”2 to know what could and could not be said on television

(Greenya, 2005), and stations were sometimes penalized for infractions.

Beginning in the late 1980s profane words occurred more frequently in scripted shows and on live

television. Bowing to public pressure, the FCC increased its enforcement of violations and expanded its

regulation of indecency by including the degree of explicitness, focus on sexuality, degree of titillation and

the time of day in which indecent material appears (Federal Communications Commission, 2001; Federal

Communications Commission, 2006a).

The FCC is legally prohibited from censoring broadcasters. Thus, it does not preview programs

and deem them acceptable for airing. But it does respond to viewer complaints (Federal Communications
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 4

Commission, 2006a). Even though the number of complaints has been decreasing since the Bono and

Janet Jackson incidents, lawmakers pressured by conservative watchdog groups and offended viewers

passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act in 2006. The bill increased FCC fines for indecency

violations to $325,000, a ten-fold jump. Moreover, the FCC is no longer limited to fining a station on a per-

program basis, but can now issue fines for each indecent incident (Achenbach, 2006; Ahrens, 2006;

Baker, 2006).

Broadcasters are now protesting, insisting that the FCC has overstepped its authority and that

penalties for airing an expletive are outrageously high (Greenya, 2005; Ho, 2006: Labaton, 2006).

Broadcasters further claim that it is unfair for them to be subject to restrictions when cable and satellite

services are not. Moreover, they worry that viewers will continue to abandon them for cable and satellite

networks, which are allowed to show programs laced with more adult content and strong language (Lane,

2006; Quello, 2006; “Scrubbing the Airwaves”, 2005). Broadcasters are turning to the courts for relief

from high fines and are seeking responsible self-regulation of indecency (Ahrens, 2006; Baker, 2006).

They also assert that if they must abide by indecency regulations so should cable and satellite networks.

Fundamentally, the broadcast industry believes that judgments of verbal indecency should not be based

on how a television program is transmitted (Clark, 2006).

In general, the recent FCC crackdown on verbal vulgarities on television stems from conservative

viewers who have pressured Congress to take action against smutty language. The broadcast industry

has expressed concern that the recent crackdown on verbal indecency is being instituted just to appease

a minor, but very vocal, conservative group of viewers (Ahrens, 2006; Baker, 2006; Clark, 2006; Scott,

2006; “Scrubbing the Airwaves,” 2005). Moreover, pressure groups supported by the religious right

threaten to mobilize their members in response to the growing use of objectionable language on

television (“FCC Crackdown on Indecency,” 2006; Parker, 2006; Pew Research Center, 2005).

Frequency of Indecent Language on Television

Despite public demands for less indecency, the television industry seems to have loosened its

standards by allowing certain offensive words to be scripted into programs. In the early 1990s producers

of the program Martin were permitted to use one “ass” per half-hour episode, and NYPD Blue was
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 5

allowed 37 expletives per hour as long as the words were from an agreed upon list (Friend, 2001), which

included “dickhead” and “bullshit” (Dunbar, 2006).

Additionally, live broadcast television shows have been lax in requiring tape delays to “bleep” out

incidents of verbal indecency. For example, Billboard Music Awards allowed the audience to hear Cher

mutter “fuck em” and Nicole Ritchie to state, “…it’s not so fucking simple,” without bleeping (Dunbar,

2006).

Cable and premium channels are not under FCC purview and therefore have more freedom to

pepper dialogue with profanities. For instance, Comedy Central’s South Park doused viewers with 162

mentions of the word “shit” in the same episode (although the word was used to parody the overuse of

cussing) (Friend, 2001). A Web site that tracks the HBO program Deadwood reports 1.56 f-words per

minute over three seasons (Achenbach, 2006; “The Number of Fucks,” 2006).

Academic research has monitored the amount and types of indecent language on prime time

television since the early 1990s (Kaye & Fishburne, 1997; Kaye & Sapolsky, 2001, 2004a, 2004b, 2005,

2007; Sapolsky & Kaye, 2005). Profanities were uttered on broadcast primetime television at the rate of

5.5 times per hour in 1990, 7.3 words per hour in 1994, 4.7 in 1997, 7.6 in 2001, and 9.8 in 2005.

Moreover, stronger words such as “bullshit” and “bitch” were much more prevalent in 2001 and 2005 than

in earlier years studied and excretory words spiked 905% percent from 1997 to 2005 (Kaye & Sapolsky,

2007).

Further, programs aired on cable networks in 2005 contained 15.4 profane words per hour (57%

more than aired on broadcast). Cable programs spewed the seven dirty words almost 12.5 times more

frequently than broadcast shows, and they are filled with more excretory, mild, and strong words (Kaye &

Sapolsky, 2007).

Several media watchdog organizations have also reported on the frequency and types of

indecent language on television. According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs (1999), during the

1998-99 season broadcast programs averaged 11 incidents per hour. Cable channels, including HBO

and Showtime, averaged 15 incidents per hour in their shows, but when the premium channels were

excluded the number of incidents dropped to 8 per hour. The Parents Television Council (2003) found

that “ass’ was the most frequently used word during the 2000-01 season, and that strong expletives such
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 6

as “bastard” and “son of a bitch,” almost tripled on network television between 1996 and 2001 (Littleton,

2001).

Hypotheses and Research Questions

Given the differential acceptability of offensive words in broadcast versus non-broadcast

television programming, it is hypothesized:

H1: Mean ratings of offensiveness for words will be highest in the broadcast context, lower in the

cable/satellite context, and lowest in the premium context.

While it may be expected that the seven dirty words are most offensive, it is unclear what other

profanities are judged highly offensive within each program context. Thus, the first research question

asks:

RQ1: Which words are judged to be the most offensive within broadcast, cable/satellite and premium

contexts?

Past research indicates that it is less acceptable for women to curse than men, that women are

more offended by off-color words than men, and that women are less likely to use such words in their

everyday conversations. Accordingly, it is hypothesized:

H2: Women will judge the words in each context more offensive as compared to men.

Polls indicate that viewers who consider themselves religious and to be politically conservative

are more likely to be offended by indecent language on television. Therefore, it is hypothesized:

H3: Respondents who attend religious services frequently will judge the words in each context more

offensive as compared to those who attend less frequently.

H4: Those who identify themselves as politically conservative will judge the words in each context more

offensive as compared to those who identify themselves as politically liberal.

Timothy Jay, a leading authority on the psychology of cursing, asserts that the more offensive a

word is judged the more likely it is to be considered taboo. Further, stronger perceptions of tabooness

lead to stronger inhibitions against using the word (Jay, 1992). Therefore, the final hypotheses state:

H5: There will be a positive correlation between a respondent’s ATOL (attitudes toward offensive

language) and the frequency of his or her use of offensive language.

 Rating Offensiveness of Words 7

H6: There will be a positive correlation between a respondent’s ATOL and his or her rating of the

offensive words within each context.

Method

Pretest

A pretest was conducted to determine which offensive words should be included in the main

study. Forty undergraduate students, four males and 36 females with an average age of 21.7 years,

participated in the pretest. Students were recruited from Communication classes at a major research

university in the southeastern United States. The respondents were asked to complete an online

questionnaire between January 30th and February 17th, 2006.

Words commonly found in recent content analyses of offensive language on television (e.g., Kaye

and Sapolsky, 2004a) were included in the pretest. A total of 27 words were pretested to determine which

were most offensive and should be included in the main study. Following the scheme developed by Kaye

and Sapolsky (2004a), the pretest included sexual words (e.g., “dick”, “boobs”, “jack off”, “pecker”,

“screw”, “suck”), excretory words (“ass”, “butt”, “crap”), strong words (e.g., “son-of-a-bitch”, “bullshit”,

“jackass”), and mild words (e.g., “Christ” or ”Jesus Christ”, “douche bag”, “God” or “Lord”, “bite me”, “hell”,

“pissed off”).

The seven dirty words were not pretested because of their established offensive nature. Five

other words, asshole, goddamn, pussy, bastard and bitch, were also deemed offensive enough to be

excluded from the pretest.

Participants rated the words on a scale of 1, not at all offensive, to 7, extremely offensive. Based

on the mean ratings of offensiveness, eight words with the highest ratings were selected for the main

study (with mean ratings in parentheses): “whore” (4.2), “slut” (3.88), “son of a bitch” (3.88), “Christ” or

“Jesus Christ” (3.83), “shithead” (3.73), “dick” (3.50), “douche bag” (3.43) and “God” or “Lord” (3.40).

Main Study

Measures.

The main study questionnaire included 20 potentially-offensive words: the seven dirty words

(“cocksucker”, “cunt”, “fuck”, “motherfucker”, “piss”, “shit”, and “tits”); words prejudged to be offensive
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 8

based upon past content analyses (“asshole”, “goddamn”, “pussy”, “bastard” and “bitch”), and the eight

words which received the highest offensiveness ratings in the pretest.

Respondents were asked to rate the offensiveness of words if heard in each of three prime-time

program contexts: over-the-air broadcast networks (Broadcast), non-premium networks airing on

cable/satellite (Cable/Sat.), and premium cable/satellite networks (Premium; e.g., HBO)3 Each word was

rated on a scale from 1, “not at all offensive” to 7, “extremely offensive”. Thus, respondents rated a total

of 20 expletives in three contexts yielding a total of 60 word ratings.

Respondents were then given a series of statements intended to gauge their attitudes toward

offensive language on television (ATOL) (I avoid watching TV programs I've never seen based on their

reputation for frequent use of offensive language; I will turn off a program I am watching because of the

strength of offensive language used; I will turn off a program I am watching because of the amount of

offensive language used; If an offensive word is spoken on TV I will probably notice it; I am offended

when I hear any offensive language spoken on TV; I am offended when I hear milder words spoken on

TV; I am offended when I hear stronger words spoken on TV). Responses could range from 1, “always”,

to 5, “never”. Respondents were also asked whether the choice of words they use in everyday

conversation is largely influenced by the words they hear used on TV. Demographic information was also

gathered from each respondent including political position (liberal – conservative), frequency of

attendance at religious services, gender, and English as a first or second language.

Participants.

Participants were recruited from undergraduate communication courses at two R1 universities in

the southeastern United States. Students were offered course credit for their participation. Data were

collected between March 30th and April 23rd 2006 and again between January 21st and February 13th,

2007. The sample (n = 511) is 57% female and 35% male (8% declined to answer); 70.8% White, 11.2%

Hispanic, 7.8% African-American, 1.4% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 1.8% other (2% declined to

answer). Native English speakers comprised 93% of the sample. A comparison of total offensiveness

ratings for native and non-native speakers (an independent samples t-test) found a difference between

the groups which approached significance (t (393) = 1.793, p = .074). Non-English speakers on average

found the words to be less offensive (M = 2.54, SD = 1.14) than English speakers (M = 3.01, SD = 1.31).
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 9

The 7% of respondents for which English is a second language were excluded from further analysis (n =

33). The final sample consisted of 478 cases.

Data Collection.

Data was collected via a Web-based survey. The URL for the survey was distributed to students

in large enrollment communication courses. They were asked to enter the link in their Web browser and

complete the survey. The data were later downloaded for analysis.

Results

To test H1, mean ratings of offensiveness for each word were compared across contexts using a

repeated measures MANOVA procedure. Results of the overall MANOVA’s for each word indicated

significant differences across contexts for each of the 20 comparisons (p < .001). Wilks’ Λ ranged from

.563 to .876. Degrees of freedom between groups = 2; degrees of freedom within groups ranged from 439

to 463 due to some respondents’ failure to provide responses for each item. F statistics for each test were

significant (p < .001), and partial η2 values ranged from .124 to .437.

Fisher’s Least Significant Difference post-hoc comparisons were performed for each word to

determine which contexts differed significantly. Means for each word in each context and their significant

differences are summarized in Table 1. Results of these analyses indicate significant differences between

means for each word in each context (p < .001). Respondents reported being most offended by expletives

heard on Broadcast, moderately offended by language heard on Cable/Sat., and least offended by strong

language heard on Premium. Given these results, H1 is supported.

-------------------
Insert Table 1 about Here
-------------------

RQ1 explored which words are considered by respondents most offensive within contexts. The

same six words, “cunt”, “motherfucker”, “cocksucker”, “fuck”, “pussy”, and “Goddamn”, were rated most

offensive in all three contexts. The specific rankings of “motherfucker”, “cocksucker”, “fuck”, and “pussy”

varied within the top six in each context, but “cunt” and “Goddamn” were ranked most offensive and sixth

most offensive in each context. Offensiveness rankings of the complete list of words are summarized in

Table 2.
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 10

-------------------
Insert Table 2 about Here
-------------------

Independent samples t- tests were used to analyze H2, H3, and H4. The t-test assumes

homogeneity of variances between populations (Glass & Hopkins, 1996). Levene’s tests for H2 indicated

a violation of this assumption for all three hypotheses. The t-test is not robust to the violation in this case,

due to unequal group sizes (Glass & Hopkins, 1996). Significance levels for situations in which equal

variances are not assumed have been used to assess the significance of these tests.

In order to test H2, the mean offensiveness rating within each context was compared for males

and females using independent samples t-tests. Results indicated support for H2. Females found the

words to be more offensive than males in all contexts except for “asshole” in the Cable/Sat. and Premium

contexts, and “shithead” in the Broadcast and Cable/Sat. contexts. Table 3 summarizes the means for

each word in each context.

-------------------
Insert Table 3 about Here
-------------------

In order to test H3, a word’s mean offensiveness rating within each context was compared based

on respondents’ reported frequency of attendance at religious services. Results of the t-tests indicated

support for H3. As seen in Table 4, respondents who frequently attend (at least once a month) religious

services consistently judge the words to be more offensive than those who attend less frequently (several

times a year or less) within each context.

-------------------
Insert Table 4 about Here
-------------------

H4 examines mean offensiveness ratings according to a respondent’s self-reported position on a

liberal-conservative political scale. Independent samples t-tests were used to compare mean scores for

each word within each television context. To more clearly differentiate respondents according to their

political beliefs, political moderates were excluded from this analysis, resulting in a smaller sample (n =

267). The analysis shows support for H4. Political conservatives consistently judged the words to be more

offensive than liberals in all contexts except for the words “slut” when heard on Broadcast TV, and “tits”
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 11

and “whore” when heard on both Broadcast and Cable/Sat. Table 5 summarizes the means for each word

within each context.

-------------------
Insert Table 5 about Here
-------------------

H5 and H6 consider the relationship between respondents’ ratings and use of offensive words

and their attitudes toward offensive language (ATOL). ATOL was determined by summing and then

averaging the respondents’ scores on the seven statements intended to gauge attitudes toward offensive

language on television (lower score = more favorable ATOL). For the purposes of this study, a favorable

ATOL indicates a respondent is less offended by foul language and is less likely to turn off a program

because of its presence. An unfavorable ATOL (higher score) indicates greater offense at and less

tolerance of expletives on television.

A bivariate regression analysis was performed to test H5. Results indicate a significant positive

relationship between respondents’ ATOL scores and their frequency of use of offensive language

(Pearson’s r = .429, F (1, 421) = 94.924, p < .001, R2 = .184). These results offer support for H5.

Respondents with more positive attitudes toward offensive language (ATOL) are more likely to report that

they use offensive language in everyday conversation.

To test H6, correlation coefficients were computed between respondents’ ATOL scores and their

mean offensiveness rating scores for each word. Pearson’s r values are reported in Table 6. Correlations

range from r = 0.353 to 0.625, indicating medium-to-strong effect sizes for ATOL on respondents’ ratings

of offensive words. All correlations are significant (p < .05) and H6 is supported. Respondents with more

positive attitudes toward offensive language rate words as less offensive than those with negative

attitudes toward offensive language.

Respondents were also asked if the offensive language they hear on television has any impact on

their personal use of expletives. Nearly six in ten respondents reported that hearing profanity on television

does not lead to increasing their own use of such words in everyday conversation. Only one in ten admit

to being influenced to curse more often by televised expletives; the remaining thirty percent claim

neutrality.
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 12

-------------------
Insert Table 6 about Here
-------------------

Discussion

This study asked participants to rate the offensiveness of expletives when heard in prime-time

programs on broadcast television, cable/satellite-delivered channels, or premium (pay) channels.

Broadcast television is the most restrictive context. Stations use the public airwaves and are, therefore,

subject to FCC fines for indecency violations. Cable and satellite channels are not governed by these

restrictions and their programs, particularly on premium channels, are free to use stronger language

without fear of costly fines. Viewers may be accustomed to the more permissive environment on cable

and satellite channels and, thus, are more tolerant of profanities heard in these contexts.

The first hypothesis predicts that viewers will be most offended by profane language heard on

broadcast TV, moderately offended by words heard on cable or satellite and least offended by words

heard on premium channels. The hypothesis was supported for all 20 expletives tested. For example,

“fuck” received an average rating of 4.72 if heard in a prime time broadcast television program (7 =

extremely offensive). The same word received an average rating of 3.79 if heard on cable/satellite and

3.05 for a premium channel such as HBO. The results indicate that, as expected, context matters and call

into question the broadcast industry’s position, as reported by Clark (2006), that method of transmission

should not have an effect on what is considered indecent language. It is not clear whether respondents

are aware that specific profanities permitted on cable/satellite programs are prohibited from broadcast

fare. Regardless, results of the present study indicate that respondents apply different decency standards

for each television context and rate foul language as more or less offensive according to context.

Research question 1 asks which words are judged most offensive within each context. The

results reveal that participants rated one word, “cunt”, as the most offensive in each context. Other words

consistently judged highly offensive in all three contexts include “cocksucker”, “motherfucker”, “fuck”,

“pussy”, and “goddamn”. Four of these words are among the so-called “seven dirty words” (cunt,

cocksucker, motherfucker and fuck). Surprisingly, two of the infamous seven dirty words, “shit” and “piss”

received very low offensiveness scores. Apparently, these words are not as troubling as their status as

indecent words banned from broadcast television would imply. Nearly all of the words rated most
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 13

offensive are sexual in nature, and the top-rated word, cunt, is particularly offensive to women. This

finding may in part be attributed to the sample: 57% of the study participants are female.

This study’s taboo ratings are similar to academic studies reported by Jay (1992) that examined

judgments of offensiveness of cuss words used in everyday conversation. In a 1977 study the top five

most offensive words as rated by college students were “motherfucker,” “cocksucker,” “fuck,” “pussy,” and

“cunt.” In a 1978 study, college students deemed “motherfucker” the most offensive word, followed by

“cunt,” “cockteaser,” “cocksucker” and “fuck.” In a study of sexual profanity conducted in 1978, college

students rated “cunt” the most abrasive word used in conversation (Mabry 1974). Generally, the same

words that are judged the most vulgar on television are also those that are deemed the most taboo in

general conversation.

The second hypothesis states that women will judge words within each context more offensive

than will men. Within each context female respondents assigned higher offensiveness ratings to 18 of 20

words. The two exceptions (“asshole” and “shithead”) are neither sexual words nor specifically

disparaging of women. The finding that females overwhelmingly rated words more offensive is consistent

with research on sex differences and profanity use. Females typically curse less than males and their

attitudes toward offensive language are generally more negative than males’ (Bate & Bowker, 1997; Jay,

1992; Rieber, Wiedemann & D'Amato, 1979; Selnow, 1985; Staley, 1978).

The third hypothesis states that respondents who more frequently attend religious services will

rate the words in each context more offensive. Frequency of attendance at religious services is often

used as an indicator of religiosity (Adlaf & Smart, 1985; Bottoms, Diviak, & Davis, 1997; Benda &

Toombs, 2000; Nonnemaker, McNeely & Blum, 2003). Frequent churchgoers assigned higher

offensiveness scores to all words in each context. Moreover, a post-hoc analysis revealed a moderately

positive correlation between attending religious services and ATOL (Pearson’s r = .389). More than three

quarters (80%) of those who infrequently attend religious services have a favorable ATOL. In contrast,

about one half (48%) of frequent churchgoers have a favorable ATOL. These findings are consistent with

a study conducted in Great Britain that found that a positive relationship between “religious inclination and

the propensity to take offence” to bad language on television (Independent Broadcast Authority, 1980, p.

15). When personal use of offensive language is considered, 51% of frequent churchgoers report that
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 14

they “almost never” or “never” use offensive language. Only 18% of those who attend services

infrequently report that they or “almost never” or “never” curse. A past study found that churchgoing

Protestants use strong profanity less frequently than those who do not attend (Staley, 1978). These

findings suggest that current religious practices tend to influence offensive reactions to mediated profanity

and curb the use of off-color language.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that politically-conservative respondents would be more offended than

liberals by expletives spoken within each television context. The results largely support the hypothesis.

These findings are not surprising. Conservative groups have been at the forefront of efforts to pressure

lawmakers for stronger regulations and penalties against indecent content, including offensive language,

on television (Parents Television Council, 2006; Bolden, 2006a; 2006b). Results of a post-hoc correlation

analysis showed a moderate positive relationship between political stance and attitude toward offensive

language (Pearson’s r = .301). For liberals, 79% have a favorable ATOL and 30% unfavorable.

Conservatives are more evenly divided, with 56% having a favorable ATOL and 44% having an

unfavorable ATOL. These results conform to expectations for liberals, who typically oppose efforts to

restrain expression on television. Considering that conservative watchdog groups have been a catalyst

for efforts to strengthen indecency laws, more unfavorable ATOL’s are to be expected among

conservatives.

Hypothesis 5 proposes a relationship between respondents’ attitudes toward offensive language

(ATOL) and their personal use of offensive language. ATOL was shown to have a moderate-to-strong

positive relationship with use of offensive language in everyday conversation. Those respondents who

are less offended by foul language on television also use such language more frequently in outbursts and

conversations. Similarly, Jay (1992) reports on two studies conducted in 1977 and 1978 that each found a

weak but significant inverse relationship between tabooness and frequency of a profane word - the

stronger the taboo against a word the less frequently it was used and milder words were used more

frequently. The current study and the studies reported by Jay (1992) support Jay’s contention that

stronger judgments of tabooness lead to stronger inhibitions against using certain words.

This study also examined the relationship between offensiveness ratings assigned to words in

each context and attitudes toward offensive language. The findings support the hypothesis that
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 15

respondents who are more tolerant of profanity judge indecent language on television less harshly. This

finding also furthers Jay’s (1992) assertion that there is a relationship between stronger judgments of

tabooness and inhibition of use.

Recent content analyses of prime time programming have found that the number of expletives

used on television is increasing (e.g., Kaye & Sapolsky, 2004a). Despite this increase, sixty percent of

respondents do not feel that the number of expletives on television influences their own language.

Hearing more frequent use of offensive words may be leading television audiences to become

desensitized to today’s levels of cursing.

Limitations

Several limitations to the research should be noted. First, the study respondents are

predominantly female (57%). Out of the 20 words used in this study, seven (“bitch”, “cocksucker”, “cunt”,

“pussy”, “slut”, “tits”, and “whore”) could be considered derogatory of women, and, as such, are likely to

be judged more offensive by females. This may have contributed, for example, to the rating of “cunt” as

the most offensive word regardless of context. The research was limited to 20 words. Numerous offensive

words, including “ho”, which brought down radio personality Don Imus, were not assessed in an effort to

limit the number of ratings required of participants. Also, respondents’ knowledge of regulatory

differences for broadcast, cable and satellite channels was not assessed. Respondents may not be aware

that specific profanities permitted on cable/satellite programs are prohibited from broadcast fare. A further

limitation is that, for many of the variables in this study, error variances were unequal. The assumption of

error variances is important in the t-test which was used for Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4. The violation was

accommodated by using the “equal variances not assumed” values in the t-test procedure.

Finally, a nonrandom sample was utilized for this study. Therefore, the degree to which these

findings can be generalized to the viewing public is uncertain. However, this method has been used in

published studies that also examined college students’ attitudes towards profanity (Fine & Johnson, 1984;

Foote & Woodward, 1983; Hamilton, 1989; Johnson & Fine, 1985; Mabry, 1974; Preston & Stanley, 1987;

Risch, 1987) and, thus, is a commonly-used and acceptable method of surveying a subset of a larger

population.
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 16

Suggestions for Future Research

The current study utilized 20 expletives that might be encountered in television programs on

broadcast, cable and satellite channels. These words were selected based on their patently offensive

nature and their frequency of occurrence based in prior content analyses of prime-time television

programming. There are additional words which could be tested (e.g., “ho”). Future researchers may also

want to consider using a written exemplar or stimulus materials that use offensive language in a

conversational context, rather than examining expletives in isolation.

 Rating Offensiveness of Words 17

Table 1: Mean Offensiveness Scores According to Context

Word Broadcast Cable/Sat. Premium

Asshole 3.27 2.39 1.98

Bastard 2.93 2.32 1.98
Bitch 3.43 2.68 2.27
Christ/JC 3.31 3.00 2.75
Cocksucker 4.88 4.20 3.54
Cunt 5.42 4.95 4.43
Goddamn 3.60 3.12 2.81
Dick 3.31 2.65 2.29
Douche bag 3.14 2.55 2.25
Fuck 4.72 3.79 3.05
God/Lord 2.80 2.58 2.43
Motherfucker 4.89 4.08 3.31
Piss 2.07 1.73 1.60
Pussy 4.58 3.87 3.28
Shit 3.02 2.36 2.02
Shithead 3.26 2.62 2.24
Slut 3.05 2.48 2.19
Son of a Bitch 3.09 2.45 2.14
Tits 3.10 2.44 2.18
Whore 3.25 2.65 2.34
Note: The scale ranged from 1 (not at all offensive) to 7 (extremely offensive).
For all words, the mean offensiveness rating for the Broadcast context is significantly greater than the
mean rating for the Cable/Sat context, which is significantly greater than the mean rating for the
Premium context. All differences were significant at p < .001 based on LSD post-hoc comparisons

Table 2: Ranking of Offensiveness According to Context

Rank Word Broadcast Word Cable/Sat. Word Premium

1 Cunt 5.42 Cunt 4.95 Cunt 4.43

2 Motherfucker 4.89 Cocksucker 4.20 Cocksucker 3.54
3 Cocksucker 4.88 Motherfucker 4.08 Pussy 3.28
4 Fuck 4.72 Pussy 3.87 Motherfucker 3.31
5 Pussy 4.58 Fuck 3.79 Fuck 3.05
6 Goddamn 3.60 Goddamn 3.12 Goddamn 2.81
7 Dick 3.31 Christ/JC 3.00 Christ/JC 2.75
8 Bitch 3.43 God/Lord 2.58 Whore 2.34
9 Whore 3.25 Whore 2.65 God/Lord 2.43
10 Asshole 3.27 Dick 2.65 Dick 2.29
11 Tits 3.10 Bitch 2.68 Bitch 2.27
12 Christ/JC 3.31 Shithead 2.62 Tits 2.18
13 Shithead 3.26 Douche bag 2.55 Douche bag 2.25
14 Douche bag 3.14 Slut 2.48 Shithead 2.24
15 Son of a Bitch 3.09 Son of a Bitch 2.45 Slut 2.19
16 Slut 3.05 Tits 2.44 Son of a Bitch 2.14
17 Shit 3.02 Asshole 2.39 Shit 2.02
18 Bastard 2.93 Shit 2.36 Asshole 1.98
19 God/Lord 2.80 Bastard 2.32 Bastard 1.98
20 Piss 2.07 Piss 1.73 Piss 1.60
Note: Values represent mean scores on a scale from 1 (not at all offensive) to 7 (extremely offensive)
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 1

Table 3: Mean Offensiveness Scores According to Gender

Word Broadcast Cable/Sat. Premium
Men Women Men Women Men Women

Asshole† 2.98 3.46 2.25 2.49 1.82 2.09

Bastard 2.56 3.17 2.00 2.54 1.61 2.22
Bitch 3.01 3.66 2.35 2.88 1.90 2.51
Christ/JC 2.88 3.54 2.52 3.25 2.23 3.04
Cocksucker 4.25 5.33 3.64 4.62 2.87 4.04
Cunt 4.65 5.96 4.06 5.56 3.41 5.15
Goddamn 3.15 3.91 2.68 3.41 2.33 3.11
Dick 2.69 3.72 2.17 2.96 1.85 2.59
Douche bag 2.66 3.45 2.18 2.78 1.90 2.49
Fuck 4.17 5.07 3.32 4.07 2.54 3.38
God/Lord 2.28 3.11 2.14 2.87 1.94 2.74
Motherfucker 4.32 5.24 3.56 4.40 2.72 3.69
Piss 1.75 2.31 1.45 1.91 1.29 1.80
Pussy 3.52 5.27 2.82 4.54 2.19 3.96
Shit 2.77 3.19 2.15 2.54 1.77 2.21
Shithead†† 3.13 3.39 2.49 2.74 1.99 2.43
Slut 2.58 3.38 2.08 2.75 1.74 2.50
Son of a Bitch 2.61 3.43 2.01 2.76 1.67 2.46
Tits 2.42 3.56 1.91 2.81 1.68 2.53
Whore 2.52 3.74 2.05 3.04 1.70 2.75
Note: Values represent mean scores on a scale from 1 (not at all offensive) to 7 (extremely offensive). †Men
significantly differ from women within Broadcast TV context only, p < .05. ††Men significantly differ from women within
Premium context only, p < .05. For all other comparisons, men significantly differ from women within all contexts, p <
.05

Table 4: Mean Offensiveness Scores According to Religious Service Attendance

Word Broadcast Cable/Sat. Premium
Infreq. Freq. Infreq. Freq. Infreq. Freq.

Asshole 3.06 3.71 2.15 2.89 1.70 2.58

Bastard 2.71 3.38 2.11 2.78 1.74 2.49
Bitch 3.08 4.11 2.32 3.41 1.92 2.99
Christ/JC 2.84 4.20 2.51 3.94 2.23 3.75
Cocksucker 4.69 5.39 3.91 4.94 3.18 4.42
Cunt 5.28 5.80 4.77 5.42 4.20 5.07
Goddamn 3.09 4.72 2.57 4.27 2.25 3.94
Dick 2.99 4.04 2.27 3.47 1.92 3.10
Douche bag 2.84 3.78 2.19 3.32 1.90 3.01
Fuck 4.40 5.40 3.37 4.65 2.56 4.08
God/Lord 2.35 3.70 2.14 3.51 1.96 3.39
Motherfucker 4.59 5.51 3.71 4.85 2.89 4.21
Piss 1.89 2.51 1.52 2.18 1.39 2.05
Pussy 4.43 4.95 3.63 4.40 2.94 3.97
Shit 2.72 3.67 2.07 3.06 1.73 2.68
Shithead 3.01 3.88 2.32 3.31 1.92 2.94
Slut 2.90 3.43 2.27 2.96 1.95 2.72
Son of a Bitch 2.83 3.70 2.12 3.20 1.79 2.90
Tits 2.84 3.72 2.12 3.17 1.85 2.92
Whore 3.10 3.64 2.43 3.12 2.08 2.89
Note: Frequent religious service attendance is defined as attending church services once a month or more. Infrequent
religious service attendance is defined as attending church services several times a year or less. For all words in all
contexts, mean offensiveness scores of respondents who report frequent religious service attendance are
significantly higher than scores of respondents who report infrequent religious service attendance, p < .05
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 1

Table 5: Mean Offensiveness Scores According to Political Standing

Word Broadcast Cable/Sat. Premium
Lib. Cons. Lib. Cons. Lib. Cons.
Asshole 2.94 3.56 2.09 2.91 1.65 2.55
Bastard 2.63 3.28 1.96 2.84 1.70 2.46
Bitch 2.81 3.76 2.18 3.23 1.83 2.86
Christ/JC 2.58 4.03 2.36 3.81 2.14 3.51
Cocksucker 4.44 5.32 3.67 4.97 3.03 4.43
Cunt 5.05 5.79 4.48 5.56 3.97 5.26
Goddamn 2.86 4.12 2.33 3.74 2.05 3.44
Dick 2.91 3.62 2.24 3.10 1.87 2.76
Douche bag 2.87 3.56 2.25 3.08 1.99 2.79
Fuck 4.26 5.24 3.17 4.59 2.40 4.02
God/Lord 2.28 3.36 2.06 3.15 1.89 3.00
Motherfucker 4.34 5.33 3.42 4.79 2.69 4.20
Piss 1.82 2.29 1.51 1.97 1.46 1.80
Pussy 4.30 4.79 3.57 4.24 2.91 3.80
Shit 2.68 3.28 2.07 2.81 1.77 2.46
Shithead 3.03 3.55 2.34 3.03 1.99 2.77
Slut† 2.88 3.14 2.29 2.79 1.98 2.52
Son of a Bitch 2.74 3.26 2.12 2.79 1.83 2.52
Tits†† 2.93 3.16 2.25 2.66 2.02 2.45
Whore†† 3.03 3.32 2.45 2.81 2.12 2.54
Note: Lib. = Liberal; Cons. = Conservative. Values represent mean scores on a scale from 1 (not at all offensive) to 7
(extremely offensive). †Conservatives significantly differ from liberals within Premium and Cable/Sat. contexts only, p
††
< .05. Conservatives significantly differ from liberals within Premium context only, p < .05. For all other
comparisons, conservatives significantly differ from liberals within all contexts, p < .05

Table 6: Correlation of ATOL with Offensiveness Ratings according to Context

Word Broadcast Cable/Sat. Premium

Asshole .463 .544 .555

Bastard .473 .525 .504
Bitch .501 .580 .564
Christ/JC .402 .454 .457
Cocksucker .422 .483 .532
Cunt .353 .406 .454
Goddamn .462 .498 .508
Dick .465 .560 .574
Douche bag .392 .489 .505
Fuck .474 .545 .593
God/Lord .412 .448 .438
Motherfucker .467 .568 .613
Piss .419 .489 .502
Pussy .429 .539 .568
Shit .490 .600 .623
Shithead .440 .573 .618
Slut .424 .525 .564
Son of a Bitch .510 .625 .622
Tits .464 .552 .596
Whore .471 .577 .595
Note: All correlations are significant, p < .05. ATOL = Attitude Towards Offensive Language
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 2

Footnotes:

1 The FCC defines indecency as, “language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by

contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs”

(Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 1978).

2 Seven dirty words include shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

3 Respondents read the following introduction to the rating scales: Rate each on a scale of 1 - 7 based on

how offensive you feel it would be if you heard the word in a primetime (8:00-11:00 pm) television show.

For each word rate the offensiveness if heard on broadcast network television shows (channels such as

CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox airing programs such as Desperate Housewives, CSI, Lost), cable or satellite

TV shows (channels such as MTV, Comedy Central, USA, and SciFi airing programs such as Real World,

Daily Show, Inside the Actors Studio), and premium cable or satellite shows (channels such as HBO,

Showtime and Cinemax with shows such as Sopranos, Deadwood, Sex and the City).
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 3

References

Achenbach, J (2006, June 25). Dropping the f-bomb. The Washington Post, pp. B1, B4.

Adlaf, E. M. & Smart, R. G. (1985). Drug use and religious affiliation, feelings and behavior.

Addiction 80(2) 163.

Ahrens, F. (2006, June 8). The price for on-air decency goes up. The Washington Post, pp. D1, D6.

Angier, N. (2005, September 20). Almost before we spoke, we swore. The New York Times, Retrieved

December 31, 2005 from Lexis Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com

Baker, P. (2006, June 16). Bush signs legislation on broadcast decency. The Washington Post, p. A6.

Bate, B. & Bowker, J. (1997). Communication and the Sexes. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Benda, B. B. & Toombs, N. J. (2000). Religiosity and violence: Are they related after

considering the strongest predictors? Journal of Criminal Justice 28(6) 483-496.

Bolden, J. (April 24th, 2006a). Valenti pushes TV industry-wide $300 million parental control

initiative as "family" groups pressure senate on indecency. Retrieved April 9th, 2007 from

http://www.emmys.tv/news/2006/april/nab_family.php

Bolden, J. (June 8th, 2006b). Congress ups indecency fines tenfold. Retrieved April 9th, 2007 from

http://www.emmys.org/news/2006/june/fines.php

Bottoms, B. L., Diviak, K. R. & Davis, S. L. (1997). Jurors' reactions to satanic ritual abuse

allegations. Child Abuse & Neglect 21(9) 845-859.

Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. & Doran, N. (1983). Friendly or unfriendly persuasion. Human Communication

Research, 10, 283-294.

Burgoon, M. & Stewart, D. (1975). Empirical investigations of language intensity: I. The effect of sex of

source, receiver and language intensity on attitude change. Human Communication Research, 1,

244-248.

Center for Media and Public Affairs (1999, July). The rude and the crude. Retrieved December 5, 2002,

from http://www.cmpa.com/archive/rudeandcrude.htm

Clark, D. (2006). All television must be free from television indecency rules. The Institute for Humane

Studies. Retrieved September, 15, 2006 from http://www.theihs.org

De Klerk, V. (1991). Expletives: Men only? Communication Monographs, 58, 156-169.

 Rating Offensiveness of Words 4

Dunbar, J. (2006, November 7). FCC: Foul language on TV OK. The Washington Post, Retrieved

November 15, 2006 from http://www.washingtonpost.com

Farhi, P. (2007, April 13). Don Imus is Fired by CBS Radio: Racial Slur Doomed Shock Jock’s Broadcast.

The Washington Post, Retrieved May 1, 2007 from http://www.washingtonpost.com

FCC crackdown on indecency. (March 16, 2006). PBS Online NewsHour. Retrieved August 4, 2006 from

http://www.pub.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june06/fcc_3-16.html

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (1978). 438 U.S. 726.

Federal Communications Commission (2001). Industry guidance on the Commission’s case law

interpretation 18 U.S.C. §1464 and enforcement policies regarding broadcast indecency. File No.

EB-00-IH-0089.

Federal Communications Commission (2006a). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved September, 14,

2006 from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html

Federal Communications Commission (2006b). Indecency complaints and NALs: 1993-2006. Retrieved

September, 14, 2006 from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/Welcome.html

Fine, M. G. & Johnson, F. L. (1984). Female and male motives for using obscenity. Journal of Language

and Social Psychology, 3 (1), 59-73.

Foote, R., & Woodward, J. (1973). A preliminary investigation of obscene language. The Journal of

Psychology, 83, 263-275.

Friend, T. (2001, November 19). You can’t say that. New Yorker, 44-59.

Glass, G. V. & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology, 3rd ed. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Greenya, J. (2005, November). Can they say that on the air? The FCC and indecency. DC Bar For

Lawyers. Retrieved September, 14, 2006 from

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/Washington_lawyer/November_2005/indecency.cfm

Hamilton, M. A. (1989). Reactions to obscene language. Communication Research Reports, 6 (1), 67-69.

Ho, D. (2006, April 15). Networks appeal TV indecency rulings. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, pp. b1,

b5.
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 5

Hughes, G. (1998). Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English,

London: Penguin.

Independent Broadcast Authority (1980). Offence and defence in the home: Some reasons for viewers’

reactions to bad language on television. Special Report. Audience Research Department.

Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Jay, T. (2000). Why we curse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Johnson, F. L., & Fine, M. G. (1985). Sex differences in uses and perceptions of obscenity. Women’s

Studies in Communication, 8 (Spring), 11-24.

Kaye, B. K., & Fishburne, L. M. (1997). NYPD Blue and Media Hype: An Analysis of Sex and Indecent

Language. The New Jersey Journal of Communication, 5 (1) 84-103.

Kaye, B. K., & Sapolsky, B. S. (2001) Offensive language in prime time television: Before and after

content ratings,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 45 (spring): 303 - 319.

Kaye, B. K., & Sapolsky, B. S. (2004a). Offensive Language in Prime Time Television: Four Years after

Television Age and Content Ratings. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 48 (4). 554-

569.

Kaye, B. K., & Sapolsky, B. S. (2004b). Watch Your Mouth! An Analysis of Profanity Uttered by Children

on Prime Time Television. Mass Communication and Society. 7 (4) 429-452.

Kaye, B. K., & Sapolsky, B. S. (2005). Talking a Blue Streak: Context of Offensive Language in Prime

Time Network Television Programs. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81 (4), 911-

927.

Kaye, B. K. & Sapolsky, B. S. (2007). Taboo or Not Taboo? That is the Question: Offensive Language on

Prime Time Broadcast and Cable Programming. Presented to the University of Tennessee

College of Communication and Information 29th Annual Research Symposium. Knoxville, TN,

February.

Kerr, J. C. (2004, December 12). Broadcasters are scared into playing it safe. Tallahassee Democrat, p.

2E.

Labaton, S. (2006, April 18). U.S. networks turn to the courts in search of clearer rules. International

News Herald, p. 16.

 Rating Offensiveness of Words 6

Lane, F. S. (2006). The decency wars. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

Littleton, C. (2001, August 7). Watchdogs rap TV offenders. Hollywood Reporter. p. 63.

Mabry, E. A. (1974). Dimensions of profanity. Psychological Reports. 35, 387-391.

Mabry, M. (2007, April 12). The Ugly Truth. Newsweek. Retrieved April 16, 2007 from

www.msnbc.com/id/18062462/site/newsweek

Marks, J. (1996, April 22). The American uncivil wars. U.S. News & World Report, pp 66-72.

Massachusetts Mutual Life & Michaels Opinion Research (1995). The Roper Center for Public Opinion

Research, the iPOLL Databank, University of Connecticut. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ipoll.html

Mulac, A., Incontro, C. & James, M. (1985). Comparison of the gender-linked language effect and sex-

role stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1098-1109.

Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. (1980). Differences in perceptions created by syntactic-semantic productions of

male and female speakers. Communication Monographs, 47, 111-118.

Moore, M. T. (1998, December 31). For mature audiences only. USA Today, p. 3A.

Nonnemaker, J. M., McNeely, C. A. & Blum, R. W. (2003). Public and private domains of

religiosity and adolescent health risk behaviors: evidence from the National Longitudinal

Study of Adolescent Health. Social Science & Medicine 57(11) 2049-2054.

Noveck, J. (2006, March 28). Poll: Americans see, hear more profanity. Associated Press-Ipsos poll.

Retrieved March 29, 2006 from http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060329/D8GKU61GO.html

Parents Television Council (1998 – 2006). Broadcast indecency campaign. Retrieved April 9th, 2007 from

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/fcc/main.asp

Parents Television Council (2003). The blue tube: Foul language on prime time network TV Retrieved

October 4, 2003, from

http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/stateindustrylanguage/exsummary.asp

Parker, K. (2006, September 7). 9/11 attacks were indecent, not the firefighters’ language. The

Washington Post, p. 5E.

Parsons, P. R., & Frieden, R. M. (1998). The cable and satellite television industries. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.
 Rating Offensiveness of Words 7

Pew Research Center for the people & the press (2005, April, 19). Support for tougher indecency

measures. Retrieved September 25, 2006 from http://people-press.org/reports

Preston K., & Staley, K. (1987). What’s the worst thing…? Gender directed insults. Sex Roles, 17 (3/4)

209-219.

Quello, J. H. (2006, September, 5). Airtime, Let broadcasters be free. Broadcasting & Cable, Retrieved

September 15, 2006 from http://broadcastingcable.com.

Rieber, R. W., Wiedemann, C. & D'Amato, J. (1979). Obscenity: Its frequency and context of usage as

compared in males, nonfeminist females, and feminist females. Journal of Psycholinguistic

Research, 83 (3), 201-223.

Risch, B. (1987). Women's derogatory terms for men: That's right, 'dirty" words. Language in Society, 16,

353-358.

Sapolsky, B. S., & Kaye, B. K. (2005). The Use of Offensive Language by Males and Females in Prime

Time Television Entertainment. Atlantic Journal of Communication. 23 (4) 292-303.

Scott, K. (2006, June 16). Law ups FCC fines for lewd TV, radio. Tallahassee Democrat, p. 6A

Scrubbing the airwaves. (2005, July 21). The Economist. Retrieved September 14, 2006 from

http://www.economist.com/business

Selnow, G. W. (1985). Sex differences in uses and perceptions of profanity. Sex Roles, 12, 303-312.

State Farm Insurance, Family Friendly Programming Forum, and Public Agenda Foundation (2007). The

Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, the iPOLL Databank, University of Connecticut.

Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ipoll.html

The number of fucks on deadwood. (2006). Retrieved September 25, 2005 from

http://www.thewvsr.com/deadwood.htm

Time and Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (2005, March 15 - 17). The Roper Center for Public Opinion

Research, the iPOLL Databank, University of Connecticut. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ipoll.html

Turned off (1995, June 2-4). USA Weekend, pp. 4 - 6.

Wajnryb, R. (2005). Expletive deleted. New York: Free Press.

View publication stats