A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychology Public Policy and Law
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
The Threatening Nature of “Rap” Music
Adam Dunbar, Charis E. Kubrin, and Nicholas Scurich
University of California—Irvine
Rap music has had a contentious relationship with the legal system, including censorship, regulation, and
artists being arrested for lewd and profane performances. More recently, rap lyrics have been introduced
by prosecutors to establish guilt in criminal trials. Some fear this form of artistic expression will be
inappropriately interpreted as literal and threatening, perhaps because of stereotypes. Only a handful of
studies have examined whether rap lyrics are evaluated using stereotypes, yet these studies were
conducted in the 1990s—a period of heightened scrutiny for rap—and used nonoptimal methods. This
study presents 3 experiments that examine the impact of genre-specific stereotypes on the evaluation of
violent song lyrics by manipulating the musical genre (rap vs. country) while holding constant the actual
lyrics. Study 1, a direct replication of previous research, found that participants deemed identical lyrics
more literal, offensive, and in greater need of regulation when they were characterized as rap compared
with country. Study 2 was a conceptual replication (i.e., same design but different stimuli), and again
detected this effect. Study 3 used the same approach but experimentally manipulated the race of the
author of the lyrics. A main effect was detected for the genre, with rap evaluated more negatively than
country or a control condition with no label. However, no effects were found for the race of the lyrics’
author nor were interactions were detected. Collectively, these findings highlight the possibility that rap
lyrics could inappropriately impact jurors when admitted as evidence to prove guilt.
Keywords: stereotypes, decision making, evidence, criminal law, rap music
Rap music is rhymed storytelling that represents the political
and social experiences common to inner-city communities
throughout the United States (Perry, 2004;Rose, 1994). Scholars
consider rap an outgrowth of the slave trade (Gilroy, 1995),
originating from a tradition of African storytelling (Keyes, 2002),
that is often used as a vehicle to express the economic and social
frustration of the Black community (Rose, 1994). These charac-
terizations, in one way or another, all emphasize that rap is a form
of cultural expression that prioritizes Black voices.
Perhaps more than any other music genre, rap has had a con-
tentious relationship with the legal system. This is due, in large
part, to the perception that rap music is threatening and dangerous.
In an analysis of how the news media portray different music
genres, Binder (1993) found that rap is presented through a “dan-
ger to society” frame, based on the idea that listeners of the genre
are likely to become threats to society. Binder (1993) also found
that the media is more likely to characterize listeners of rap as
being prone to violence compared with listeners of heavy metal. In
voicing their opposition to rap, opponents commonly reference
studies that purport to show a link between listening to rap music
and acceptance of violence (Johnson, Jackson, & Gatto, 1995),
misogynistic attitudes (Gan, Zillmann, & Mitrock, 1997), and
antisocial behavior (Hansen & Hansen, 1990).
Not surprisingly then, from its inception, rap music has been
policed and monitored in exceptional ways. For example, early on,
rap music’s distribution was limited by legal sanctions and police
disruption, as law enforcement attempted to disrupt sales and get
records by rap artists pulled from store shelves (Hirsch, 2014). Some
of the music was also censored because it was believed that the lyrics
were obscene (Crenshaw, 1991;Dixon & Linz, 1997). In the late
1980s and early 1990s, artists across the country such as LL Cool J,
Too Short, and 2 Live Crew were arrested for performances that
authorities regarded as lewd or profane (Blecha, 2004;Crenshaw,
1991;Dixon & Linz, 1997), while other artists were denied opportu-
nities to perform in public venues, often because of police pressure
(Rose, 1994).
1
1
As just one example, in 1990, a case was brought against 2 Live Crew
based on the claim that their album, As Nasty As They Wanna Be, was
obscene under state law. A judge ruled that the lyrics met the legal
definition of obscenity because they: (a) had an excessive interest in sexual
matters, (b) described sexual conduct as defined by state law, and (c)
lacked serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (Skywalker
Records, Inc. v. Navarro, 1990). By defining the lyrics as obscene, the
album was barred from being sold in record stores and the music was
banned from being performed in concert. After ignoring the ruling, 2 Live
Crew was arrested for performing obscene material at an adult-only night-
club. During the trial, Henry Louis Gates Jr., an historian, literary scholar,
and cultural critic, testified that the songs purposefully used exaggeration
to critique stereotypes about Black hyper-sexuality and were merely satire.
While a jury acquitted 2 Live Crew, an appellate court maintained that the
album was offensive and provided no artistic value. Critics of the decision
believe that the obscenity label stemmed from stereotypes about rappers
and rap music that were not applied to other sexually explicit or offensive
material from White entertainers, such as Madonna or Andrew Dice Clay
(Crenshaw, 1991;Dixon & Linz, 1997).
Adam Dunbar and Charis E. Kubrin, Department of Criminology, Law
and Society, University of California—Irvine; Nicholas Scurich, Depart-
ments of Criminology, Law and Society, and Psychology and Social
Behavior, University of California—Irvine.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Charis E.
Kubrin, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, University of
California—Irvine, Social Ecology II Room 3379, Irvine, CA 92697–7080.
E-mail: ckubrin@uci.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © 2016 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 22, No. 3, 280–292 1076-8971/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000093
280