Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T18:12:16.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Backfiring Frames: Abortion Politics, Religion, and Attitude Resistance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2020

Scott Liebertz Open the ORCID record for Scott Liebertz [Opens in a new window]  and
Jaclyn Bunch
Scott Liebertz*
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Jaclyn Bunch
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Scott Liebertz, Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL36608. E-mail: sliebertz@southalabama.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following recent insight into how citizens respond to attempts to correct political and salient misperceptions (Nyhan and Riefler, 2010, Political Behavior 32 (2): 303–330), we also expect that certain characteristics will predispose citizens to react strongly to messaging on highly contentious issues. Specifically, we expect that respondents will express an opinion that is even stronger in line with their predispositions when exposed to frames that challenge their position. Using an experiment on abortion opinion embedded in the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we find little indication that Pro-Abortion Access and Anti-Abortion Access frames move opinion on abortion in the aggregate, but there is evidence that specific characteristics correlate with a “backfire” effect identified by Nyhan and Riefler (2010, Political Behavior 32 (2): 303–330). In particular, gender, religiosity, and “Born-Again” Christian affiliation are all predictive of responding to either the Anti-Abortion Access or Pro-Abortion Access frame by moving the opposite direction as intended on the feeling thermometer.

Type
Article
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 403 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The authors wish to thank Ray Block for essential assistance in the early stages of this project. We also thank the Political Science Department of Florida State University for allowing us to participate in the 2010 CCES.

References

Adamczyk, A. 2008. “The Effects of Religious Contextual Norms, Structural Constraints, and Personal Religiosity on Abortion Decisions.” Social Sciences Research 37 (2): 657–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, G. D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41(3):718–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. M., and Brehm, J.. 1995. “American Ambivalence Towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values.” American Journal of Political Science 39(4):1055–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alwin, Duane F. 1997. “Feeling Thermometers Versus 7-point Scales: Which Are Better?” Sociological Methods and Research 25(3):318–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Crigler, A. N., Holbrook, T. M., Huckfeldt, R., and Sprague, J.. 1999. Going Negative. How Political Advertisements Shrink & Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Barkan, S. E. 2014. “Gender and Abortion Attitudes: Religiosity as a Suppressor Variable.” Public Opinion Quarterly 78 (4): 940–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, G. F. 2004. The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Bumpass, L. L. 1997. “The Measurement of Public Opinion on Abortion: The Effects of Survey Design.” Family Planning Perspectives 29(4):177–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmines, E. G., and Stimson, J. A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74 (1): 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D. 1993. “How People Think, Reason, and Feel About Rights and Liberties.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D., and Druckman, J. N.. 2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, P. E., and Markus, G. B.. 1979. “Plus ca Change…: The New CPS Election Study Panel.” American Political Science Review 73 (1): 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, E. A., Jelen, T. G., and Wilcox, C.. 1993. “Measuring Public Attitudes on Abortion: Methodological and Substantive Considerations.” Family Planning Perspectives 25(3):118–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Detenber, B., Gotlieb, M., McLeod, D. M., and Malinkina, O.. 2007. “Frame Intensity Effects of Television News Stories About a High-Visibility Protest Issue.” Mass Communication & Society 10 (4): 439–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., Lewis, Andrew R., Jelen, Ted G., and Dahan, Charles D.. 2014. “Rights Talk: The Opinion Dynamics of Rights Framing.” Social Science Quarterly 95 (3): 652–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drukman, James N. 2001. “On the Limits of Framing Effects. Who Can Frame?” The Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2011. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, 3rd Edition. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Gross, Michael L. 1995. “Moral Judgment, Organizational Incentives and Collective Action: Participation in Abortion Politics.” Political Research Quarterly 48 (3): 507–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, D. P., and Meier, K. J.. 1996. “The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of the Conflict.” The Journal of Politics 58 (2): 332–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidt-Forsythe, E. 2017. “Morals or Markets? Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technology as Morality or Economic Policies in the States.” AJOB Empirical Bioethics 8 (1): 58–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertel, B. R., and Russell, M. C.. 1999. “Examining the Absence of a Gender Effect on Abortion Attitudes: Is There Really No Difference?” Sociological Inquiry 69: 364–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelen, T. G., and Wilcox, C.. 2003. “Causes and Consequences of Public Attitudes Toward Abortion: A Review and Research Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (4): 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitzer, R. J. 2015. “Politics and Morality in State Abortion Policy.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 15 (1): 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., and Rich, R. F.. 2000. “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.” Journal of Politics 62 (3): 790–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lizotte, Mary Kate. 2015. “The Abortion Attitudes Paradox: Model Specification and Gender Differences.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 36(1):22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luker, K. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: California University Press.Google Scholar
Lupton, Robert N., and Jacoby, William G.. 2016. “The Reliability of the ANES Feeling Thermometers: An Optimistic Assessment.” Southern Political Science Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Maxwell, C. J. 2002. Anti-Abortion Activists in America: Meaning, Motivation, and Direct Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. M., and Krosnick, J. A.. 2004. “Threat as a Motivator of Political Activism: A Field Experiment.” Political Psychology 25: 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, B., and Reifler, J.. 2010. “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior 32 (2): 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, B., and Reifler, J.. 2015. “Does Correcting Myths About the Flu Vaccine Work? An Experimental Evaluation of the Effects of Corrective Information.” Vaccine 33 (3): 459–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., and Ubel, P.. 2013. “The Hazards of Correcting Myths About Health Care Reform.” Medical Care 51 (2): 127–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popkin, Samuel L. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, N. C., and Presser, S.. 2003. “The Science of Asking Questions.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Jacqueline. 1998. “Generational Changes in Attitudes to Abortion: A Cross-National Comparison.” European Sociological Review 14 (2):177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J., and Schuman, H.. 1988. “Attitude Strength and Social Action in the Abortion Dispute.” American Sociological Review 53 (5): 785–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silber Mohamed, H. 2018. “Embryonic Politics: Attitudes About Abortion, Stem Cell Research, and IVF.” Politics and Religion 11: 459–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, A. F., and Jerit, J.. 2007. “Toward a Theory Relating Political Discourse, Media, and Public Opinion.” Journal of Communication 57 (2): 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steensland, B., Park, J. Z., Regnerus, M. D., Robinson, L. D., Wilcox, W. B., and Woodberry, R. D.. 2000. “The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art.” Social Forces 79 (1): 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, C., and Riches, J.. 2002. “Pills in the Public's Mind: RU 486 and the Framing of the Abortion Issue.” Women & Politics 24 (3): 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar