Lucrecia Mena-Meléndez1
Brandon L. Crawford1
Danny Valdez1
Kathryn J. LaRoche2
Ronna C. Turner3
Kristen N. Jozkowski1*- 1Department of Applied Health Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, United States
- 2Department of Public Health, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States
- 3Educational Statistics and Research Methods, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
The news is an efficient way to share information and plays an important role in shaping and reflecting cultural values and norms. However, research examining news consumption and abortion attitudes is limited. In this exploratory study, we analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of 886 US adults to assess whether self-reported frequency of news consumption—by news format (e.g., television, radio, newspaper, social media), news leaning (i.e., liberal, neutral, conservative), and total sum (i.e., total amount of consumption across leanings)—predicted abortion attitudes and complexity in attitudes. We conducted Poisson and negative binomial regression analyses controlling for demographic variables. We found that gender, political affiliation, Bible literalism, educational attainment, and abortion identity were significant predictors. While we did not observe a relationship between news format and abortion attitudes, we did find that the associations between news leaning and the total sum of news consumed varied across abortion identity. Our findings suggest that attitudes toward abortion may be differentially influenced by partisan news across abortion identity. After Dobbs v. Jackson, there is a need for advocates to tailor strategies to different sub-groups, promote media literacy, and encourage the use of diverse and balanced news sources to foster more informed views on abortion.
1 Introduction
Abortion remains a contentious social issue, with sharply divided ideological camps: “pro-life” (broadly conceptualized as anti-abortion) and “pro-choice” (broadly conceptualized as pro-abortion) (Adams, 1997; Cates, 2012; Solon et al., 2022). Increased polarization regarding abortion has happened through decades of partisan rhetoric and divisions across party lines (Evans, 2003; Vox, 2019), which has been historically attributed to traditional media (e.g., newspapers, magazines, radio, television) (Carmines et al., 2010; Condit, 1990), and exacerbated by the mass proliferation of modern media (e.g., Internet, digital media, and social media) (Mitchell et al., 2014; Mouw and Sobel, 2001). Indeed, some argue that abortion attitudes have become divided through the reliance on partisan news—news that covers stories that are “framed, spun, and slanted so that certain political agendas are advanced” (Jamieson et al., 2007) and that offer opinionated and distinct point-of-view coverage (Levendusky, 2013)—to spread ideological views on abortion (Prior, 2013; Tucker et al., 2018).
Both content and sources of news have an impact on political polarization, and partisan news is especially polarizing (Kubin and Von Sikorski, 2021). People who report higher news consumption also prefer attitude-consistent information (Garrett, 2009a; Knobloch-Westerwick and Meng, 2009), or content that reflects personal views (Hart et al., 2009). This “selective exposure” to news (Garrett, 2009b; Goldman and Mutz, 2011) may result in people’s abortion attitudes becoming more extreme and cohesive, reflecting the news discourse they consume. Exposure to news that reflects only one perspective may also result in a process of attitude polarization (Gvirsman, 2014; Iyengar and Hahn, 2009; Stroud, 2010) leading to “echo chamber” biases that may reinforce incorrect, misleading, or negative beliefs about an issue (Tucker et al., 2018; Garrett et al., 2016; Nguyen and Vu, 2019). That is, if people only engage with news depicting one perspective, they are more likely to believe, think, and act based on this information.
Cultivation theory posits that as people consume news—especially for prolonged periods of time—their worldviews are more likely to reflect the messages and framing they see portrayed, influencing their attitudes and behaviors (Gerbner, 1969; Gerbner et al., 2002). Research on other social issues, such as policing, crime, and sexual permissiveness, suggests that the frequency and format of media consumed can influence people’s beliefs (Callanan and Rosenberger, 2015; Intravia et al., 2018; Rosenberger and Callanan, 2011). Although research examining abortion attitudes and news consumption is quite limited, based on findings regarding the role of exposure to entertainment media on abortion and abortion attitudes (Sisson et al., 2021; Brooks et al., 2022; Herold et al., 2024; Mulligan and Habel, 2011), it seems possible that the framing of news content may influence abortion attitudes. For example, Simon and Jerit (2007) explored the relationship between the terminology and language used during the public debate on “partial-birth abortions” (PBA).1 They found that the media’s word choice influenced respondents’ support for, or opposition to, legislation restricting PBA.
Trends in US adults’ attitudes toward legal abortion have remained relatively stable since the 1970s, with the percentage of people throughout the decades divided similarly in their endorsement of legal abortion. For instance, from the 2000s and beyond, about half of adults indicated that abortion should be legal under some circumstances, about a third legal under any circumstances, and about a fifth that it should be illegal under all circumstances. These differences may be indicative of the polarization and politicization of abortion, as well as the way abortion has come to be both a partisan and debated issue (Evans, 2003; Vox, 2019; DiMaggio et al., 1996). We also observe stability, as well as polarization, in terms of identification with socio-political terms associated with abortion (e.g., pro-choice, pro-life), as US adults are relatively split between identifying as either pro-life or pro-choice, and these trends remain relatively stable over time (Gallup, 2024). So, in this sense, we observe polarization in how abortion is discussed, presented, and addressed in partisan media and political rhetoric across political ideologies, and at the same time, stability in people’s endorsement of legal abortion.
Cultivation theory also posits that media presents and reinforces the status quo rather than challenges it (Gerbner et al., 2002). The status quo regarding abortion is the perception of polarization, politicization, and contentiousness. However, some have argued that people’s attitudes are nuanced, and common measures used to assess abortion attitudes may not be adequately capturing such nuance and instead reinforce the notion of polarization (Bruce, 2020; Hans and Kimberly, 2014; Jelen and Wilcox, 2003; Jozkowski et al., 2018; Jozkowski et al., 2021). Indeed, researchers have argued that common measures inherently create a dichotomy regarding abortion attitudes, potentially overinflating the extent to which attitudes are polarized. There is a need, therefore, to concurrently use measures that may allow for more nuance or complexity in abortion attitudes (Jozkowski et al., 2021).
While abortion—up to fetal viability—was constitutionally protected for nearly 50 years, the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (i.e., Dobbs v. Jackson) decision returned authority over abortion to states. As a result, state lawmakers are now able to enact legislation that can further restrict abortion throughout pregnancy. With sweeping legislative changes to the abortion landscape, as well as a surge of news highlighting abortion (e.g., as a political issue; ballot initiatives), it is imperative to examine the association between news consumption—particularly through news format, leaning, and quantity—and abortion attitudes.
1.1 Current study
Understanding how abortion attitudes are formed and shaped, and specifically whether the news is an influential component in these processes, is important and has direct implications for health communication and promotion (Conti and Cahill, 2017), public and political knowledge regarding abortion (Simon and Jerit, 2007; Hunt et al., 2021), and sexual and reproductive health, more generally (Levine, 2011). Despite its relevance, limited research exists assessing the association between abortion attitudes and news, making this the first study—to our knowledge—to assess this relationship by examining frequency of news consumption by news format, news leaning, and news quantity. In this exploratory study, we hypothesize that abortion attitudes (i.e., both endorsement of legal abortion and complexity in attitudes toward legal abortion) vary depending on news consumption. We opted to measure abortion attitudes in these two ways to first capture abortion attitudes in the way most commonly assessed by social scientists (endorsement of legal abortion; see Adamczyk et al., 2020) as well as in a novel way, given calls for researchers to be more nuanced in assessing attitudes (e.g., Herold et al., 2024; Simon and Jerit, 2007). Given this context, we examined the following research questions:
1. Is frequency of engagement with different formats of news (e.g., print, radio, television, social media) associated with abortion attitudes?
2. Is greater usage of one leaning of news over another (e.g., liberal > conservative) associated with abortion attitudes?
3. Is the total sum of engagement with diverse news sources associated with abortion attitudes?
4. Is there an interaction between people’s abortion identity and (a) greater usage of one leaning of news or (b) the total sum of news consumption when measuring abortion attitudes?
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Participants and procedure
Our survey was administered in September 2020 to IPSOS’ KnowledgePanel, a nationally representative panel of US adults weighted to match US benchmarks for gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, census region, household income, home ownership, metropolitan areas, and Hispanic origin (IPSOS, 2021). A total of 919 participants met eligibility and data quality criteria, including a minimum response time and successful completion of a reading check question. We excluded 33 participants from the analytic sample for not completing questions related to the variables of interest. Table 1 provides an overview of the demographic characteristics of the analytic sample (N = 886). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Indiana University before data collection.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the analytic sample (N = 886).
2.2 Measures
2.2.1 Abortion opinion scores
Attitudes toward abortion legality (i.e., endorsement of legal abortion) were measured via responses to six items modeled after the abortion items on the General Social Survey (GSS), a commonly used data source for assessing abortion attitudes (Adamczyk et al., 2020). The item stem reads: “Please tell me whether or not you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion, if…” followed by six different circumstances (see Table 2). Consistent with the GSS, response options were “Yes” (scored as 1) and “No” (scored as 0). Scores were summed to create an abortion opinions scale score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of abortion legality.
Table 2. Weighted percentage support for legal abortion by circumstance and abortion identity (N = 886).
2.2.2 Abortion complexity scores
We also measured complexity in people’s attitudes toward abortion legality (Jozkowski et al., 2018; Jozkowski et al., 2021), using a multi-step process. First, drawing on the six aforementioned GSS items, we coded “Yes” as 1 and “No” as – 1. Thus, participants’ possible sum scores ranged between negative six and positive six in increments of two. The further away from zero a score is, the more theoretically polarized and less complex the participants’ views regarding legal abortion. Thus, scores of −6 or + 6 would be the least complex, and a score of zero would indicate that a person’s view is minimally polarized and thus most complex. Second, we recoded polarized scores (+6 and − 6) to be 0, indicating participants were “not complex” regarding their stance on abortion. Alternatively, we recoded a score of 0 for abortion opinions as 3 for abortion complexity because this score represented the most conflicted set of responses available—indicating abortion should be legal and not legal in three circumstances each. Thus, abortion complexity scores ranged from 0 to 3, with higher scores suggesting more complexity or conflict in views regarding legal abortion.
2.2.3 News variables
We assessed the frequency of news consumption across both format (e.g., television, radio, etc.) and leaning (e.g., liberal, neutral, etc.). For format, we asked, “How often do you use the following media outlets to seek news about current events and social issues?” (Never, Less than once a month, Monthly, Weekly, Daily), considering the following news formats: “Television, Radio, Print newspaper or magazine, News on social media, Online news sources” (Pew Research Center, 2016).
For news consumption by leaning, we asked, “How often do you seek information about current events or the news from media outlets that are considered (1) Liberal, (2) Neutral, and (3) Conservative?” with response options: Never, Less than once a month, Monthly, Weekly, Daily. We provided news outlet examples for each category (Ad Fontes Media, 2023). To assess the frequency of news consumption relative to each leaning, we created two variables (i.e., conservative-to-liberal and conservative-to-neutral) representing the frequency of consuming neutral and liberal news relative to conservative by subtracting the amount of conservative news from the amount of liberal and neutral news.2 This process resulted in two variables ranging from −4 to 4. For each variable, negative scores represent consuming more conservative news and positive scores represent consuming more neutral or liberal news. We compared consumption of neutral and liberal news to conservative news because we also used other conservative groups as the reference group for other variables included in the analysis (e.g., the Bible is the word of God, Republican, Pro-life). We also include a measure of the total sum of news consumption across leanings by summing the news consumption of all three leanings. Supplementary Table S1 provides an overview of the news variables.
2.2.4 Demographic variables
We explored several demographic variables, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, political affiliation, Bible literalism, education, and abortion identity (see Table 1). We selected these variables based on previous research (Adamczyk et al., 2020).
2.3 Analysis
All analyses were conducted using Stata MP versions 16 and 17. First, we examined descriptive statistics for demographics and participants’ consumption of news across format and leaning. Model diagnostics showed no issues related to multicollinearity. The residuals from OLS models were not normally distributed. To account for this, we used Poisson and negative binomial models. We then used the countfit command in Stata to identify which model better fits the data (Long and Freese, 2014). This command suggested the use of a Poisson model for abortion opinions and a negative binomial model for abortion complexity. Given previous recommendations for interpreting results for nonlinear models with interaction effects (Long and Freese, 2014; Mize, 2019), we used the margins command in Stata to examine predictions and tests of marginal effects. We present the average marginal effects (AMEs)—rather than coefficients—which summarize the effect of the independent variables in terms of the models’ predictions. To determine if there is a significant interaction effect (i.e., if the effect of news consumption differs across abortion identity labels), we examined the second differences, or the difference in AMEs for each group (e.g., ∆ pro-choice - ∆ pro-life ). For ease of interpretation, we also present the effects of the interaction terms graphically. Coefficient estimates for the models can be found in Supplementary Tables S2, S3.
3 Results
3.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 1 provides raw frequencies and percentages for the sample demographics after applying the weights. Mean abortion opinions scores were 3.77 (SD = 2.11), meaning that, on average, participants endorsed legal abortion in nearly four out of six circumstances; 39.45% indicated abortion should be legal in all six circumstances. Mean complexity scores were 1.11 (SD = 1.23). Nearly half of the sample (49.36%) were “not complex” (score of 0), while just over a fifth (21.15%) were most “complex” (score of 3). Table 2 presents weighted percentages of endorsement of legal abortion by each abortion circumstance and abortion identity.
3.2 Abortion opinions scores
Table 3 presents the average marginal effects (AMEs) for the Poisson regression model predicting abortion opinions scores by news format, news leaning, and total sum of news consumption, after controlling for demographic characteristics. We found that participants who believed the Bible is not the word of God (AME = 0.635, p < 0.001) or do not know (AME = 0.446, p < 0.05), identified as Democrats (AME = 0.481, p < 0.05) or other (AME = 0.310, p < 0.1), had some college education (AME = 0.434, p < 0.01) or more (AME = 0.526, p < 0.001), and identified as pro-choice (AME = 2.784, p < 0.001), equally both (AME = 1.934, p < 0.001), and neither (AME = 1.262, p < 0.001), had a higher probability of endorsing abortion legality.
Table 3. Average marginal effects from Poisson regression model predicting abortion opinions scores (N = 886).
With regard to the news variables, there were no significant effects of news format and news leaning, and barely a significant effect of total sum of news consumption (AME = 0.042, p < 0.1) on endorsement of legal abortion. Next, we examined the effect of the interaction of abortion identity and news leanings and total sum of news consumption on endorsement of legal abortion (see Supplementary Figures S1–S3 for visual presentations). Consuming more liberal-leaning news relative to conservative-leaning news increases the probability of endorsing legal abortion for those who identify as pro-choice (AME = 0.097, p < 0.1), whereas it decreases for those who identify as pro-life (AME = −0.165; p < 0.05). Consuming more neutral news relative to conservative-leaning news increases the probability of endorsing legal abortion for those who identify as pro-life (AME = 0.175, p < 0.05) and decreases it for those who identify as neither (AME = −0.356, p < 0.1). Finally, higher total news consumption increases the probability of endorsing legal abortion for those who identify as pro-life (AME = 0.071, p < 0.05) and equally both (AME = 0.091, p < 0.05). Supplementary Table S4 presents the second differences, or the difference in AMEs for each group, which suggest that the effect of news consumption (by leaning and total consumption) on endorsing legal abortion is significantly different across some abortion identity sub-groups.
3.3 Abortion complexity scores
Table 4 presents the AMEs for the negative binomial regression model predicting abortion complexity by news format, news leaning, and total sum of news consumption, controlling for demographic characteristics. We found that participants who identified as women (AME = −0.192, p < 0.05) and pro-choice (AME = −0.760, p < 0.001) had a lower probability of having complex views on abortion, while those who identified as equally both (AME = 0.346, p < 0.05) had a higher probability of having complex views on abortion.
Table 4. Average marginal effects from negative binomial regression model predicting abortion complexity scores (N = 886).
Although results suggested no significant effect of news format, higher consumption of liberal compared with conservative news (AME = −0.064, p < 0.1) and higher total consumption of news (AME = −0.056, p < 0.001) had a significant effect on predicting lower abortion complexity. Next, we examined the effect of the interaction of abortion identity and news leanings and the total sum of news consumption on abortion complexity (see Supplementary Figures S4–S6 for visual presentations). Consuming more liberal-leaning news relative to conservative-leaning news decreases the probability of abortion complexity for participants who identify as pro-life (AME = −0.119, p < 0.05). Additionally, consuming more news overall decreases the probability of complexity for those who identify as pro-choice (AME = −0.058, p < 0.001), equally both (AME = −0.128, p < 0.001), and neither (AME = −0.094, p < 0.01). Supplementary Table S5 presents the second differences, which suggest that the effect of news consumption (by leaning and total consumption) on having complex views regarding legal abortion is significantly different across some abortion identity sub-groups.
4 Discussion
The news can both shape and reflect cultural norms, which in turn may influence people’s attitudes, health beliefs, and behaviors (Collins et al., 2003; Dhar et al., 2017; Farrar, 2006; Wakefield et al., 2010). In this exploratory study, we investigated the relationship between self-reported news consumption and abortion attitudes in a nationally representative sample of US adults. Findings are consistent with previous literature documenting that certain demographic characteristics—Bible literalism, political affiliation, educational attainment, and abortion identity—were significantly associated with abortion attitudes (Adamczyk et al., 2020; Bartkowski et al., 2012). However, our study makes the novel contribution of exploring how news format, news leaning, and total news consumption may be associated with endorsement of legal abortion and complexity in attitudes toward legal abortion.
Notably, we did not find a significant effect of news format (e.g., television, print, online sources) on abortion attitudes and complexity. This finding differs from research on other social issues that finds specific news formats (i.e., the internet and traditional media) predicted attitudes (Callanan and Rosenberger, 2015; Intravia et al., 2018; Rosenberger and Callanan, 2011). We did find some significant effects of news leaning and total news consumption on abortion attitudes and complexity, particularly moderated by abortion identity (Carmines et al., 2010; Rohlinger, 2015).
Regarding abortion opinions, overall, participants identifying as pro-life had the lowest endorsement of legal abortion compared with the other three abortion identity subgroups. Higher consumption of liberal news was associated with lower endorsement of legal abortion for pro-life participants, but higher consumption of neutral news had the opposite effect—greater endorsement of legal abortion. In direct contrast, higher consumption of liberal news was associated with an increase in endorsement of legal abortion for pro-choice participants, while higher consumption of neutral news did not have a significant effect. Consistent with previous research (Carmines et al., 2010), these results may indicate that pro-life and pro-choice individuals appear reactive to news consumption about abortion, particularly depending on the partisanship of the news they consume. Indeed, when exposed to news that presumably conflicts with pro-life individuals’ attitudes, they may be prone to increase their commitment to preexisting beliefs (Bail et al., 2018), whereas neutral news may end up resulting in attitude shifts.
Turning to abortion complexity, participants identifying as equally both pro-choice and pro-life had the highest abortion complexity scores compared with the other three abortion identity subgroups. Our results also suggest that abortion complexity decreased with higher total news consumption for all groups except for pro-life participants. These results may indicate that abortion complexity is related to news consumption and that the amount of news consumed is possibly most salient. It is possible that as people are exposed to more news, disregarding leaning, they gain more information about abortion, which may, in turn, lead them to have less conflicting views on the issue.
Collectively, our findings suggest that news may have a different effect depending on the leaning of the news and the news consumer. Such findings underscore previous research demonstrating differential effects of information on people’s attitudes across abortion identity sub-groups (Crawford et al., 2021). Perhaps “selective exposure” to news (Garrett, 2009b; Goldman and Mutz, 2011), news content (Sisson et al., 2021), and news framing (Simon and Jerit, 2007) influence attitude formation, but in varied ways based on people’s abortion beliefs (Gvirsman, 2014; Iyengar and Hahn, 2009; Stroud, 2010). It may be that how abortion is framed, including the language used to describe abortion by news outlets of particular political leanings (Ball-Rokeach et al., 1990; Nixon et al., 2017; Andsager, 2000; Blaeser, 2023; Woodruff, 2019), may play an important role in attitude formation, disregarding the content or accuracy of information (Kann and Tulbert, 2019).
Importantly, to measure news leaning, we asked participants how often they sought information about current events or the news from media outlets considered liberal, neutral, and conservative (with examples of outlets in each category). While some research has found that people may have skewed perceptions of media bias (Coe et al., 2008; Feldman, 2011; Perloff, 2017), particularly when they conflict with their views (Vallone et al., 1985), other research has found that people generally selectively expose themselves to belief-confirming information (Hart et al., 2009; Knobloch-Westerwick, 2014) that further reinforces their understanding of news bias. Experimental research has found that participants attach certain meanings and values to news sources and may have an accurate understanding of the political orientation of these media outlets (Iyengar and Hahn, 2009; Baum and Gussin, 2008; Turner, 2007). A few polls have also found that a plurality of people correctly associate conservative and liberal news outlets (Pew Research Center, 2009). Nevertheless, people’s ability to correctly identify the leaning of news and media is influenced by their political sophistication and media literacy (Iyengar and Hahn, 2009; Prior, 2007; Tully and Vraga, 2018). In light of this, more research and polling are needed to assess people’s awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of the political leanings of news sources to refine survey instruments to best measure news consumption by leaning.
Greater knowledge about abortion has long been associated with more favorable attitudes toward legal abortion (Crawford et al., 2021; Esposito and Basow, 1995). In our study, people who relied solely on partisan news may have seen abortion content more frequently framed along partisan lines (e.g., against abortion to protect the “sanctity of human life” (Lockhart et al., 2023; Williams, 2011; The White House, 2021)] vs. in favor of choice because it is “her body, her choice” (Wicclair, 1981; Ludlow, 2008; MSNBC, 2022)). Researchers should more deeply explore the relationship between abortion knowledge, abortion attitudes, and news consumption. Moreover, more in-depth research that explores how content and framing may work together or in opposition to influence attitudes could be warranted.
Finally, our findings regarding greater news consumption or engagement with news generally suggest that attitudes toward abortion might not be influenced solely by the leaning of news consumed but also in combination with the quantity of its consumption and mediated by abortion identity. Although our study did not assess participants’ length of engagement with different news, cultivation theory argues that prolonged engagement is associated with attitudinal differences (Gerbner et al., 2002). It is possible that participants who reported engaging almost exclusively with partisan news, either conservative or liberal, have more prolonged engagement with these sources, which may influence their attitudes to a greater extent. This could also be explained by echo chambers, where people gravitate toward news that mirrors their preferences, validating their “extreme” beliefs (Cinelli et al., 2021).
4.1 Implications for practice and/or policy
Our findings suggest that US adults’ attitudes toward abortion may be differentially influenced by partisan news and total news consumption across abortion identity. Thus, it may be useful for advocates to employ different tactics geared at different sub-groups when working to change people’s attitudes toward abortion. For example, interventions in media literacy could be instrumental in helping people critically evaluate the content and framing of news on abortion. Our findings suggest that consumption of news sources with diverse political leanings and consumption of more news generally may offset efforts by partisan media and political groups to polarize or increase the portrayal of polarized attitudes (Prior, 2013; Tucker et al., 2018; Rohlinger, 2006). Initiatives to promote media diversity and reach audiences through diverse outlets may help spread balanced and accurate information so that people can develop more informed views on abortion. Since news can influence health beliefs and behaviors (Wakefield et al., 2010; Escobar-Chaves et al., 2005), there is a need for advocates to encourage evidence-based public health efforts and provide accurate abortion information to the general public.
4.2 Limitations
Although our study provides unique insights into the relationship between news consumption and abortion attitudes, particularly through the intersection of news format, leaning, and quantity, we would like to note some important limitations. First, we relied on self-reported news consumption, subject to recall bias. Second, we did not measure participants’ length of engagement with different news, which, according to cultivation theory, is associated with attitudinal differences. Third, as discussed earlier, there is a possibility that some participants, particularly those less politically engaged and with lower media literacy, may not have understood the political leanings of specific news platforms not listed as examples in the survey questions. Finally, we collected our data in September 2020; there have been substantial changes in the abortion legislative landscape since then, which may trickle down to abortion attitudes and news consumption, particularly after the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision. Thus, we caution that these results might not be generalizable given the changing context of abortion access, abortion attitudes, and abortion news. That said, some evidence suggests that the Dobbs v. Jackson decision did not significantly influence people’s attitudes toward abortion (Jozkowski et al., 2023a).
5 Conclusion
Our findings demonstrate that people’s abortion attitudes vary depending on their consumption of partisan news, total amount of news, and abortion identification. We found that news format was not associated with attitudes toward legal abortion nor complexity in abortion attitudes. However, engagement with partisan news sources, as well as with more news generally, were associated with abortion attitudes through the moderating effect of abortion identity. Given these findings, coupled with various other sources that have documented these differential effects in attitudes based on abortion identity (Crawford et al., 2021; Jozkowski et al., 2023b), there is a need for advocates to address polarization in the post-Dobbs v. Jackson context to empower people to make reproductive health decisions and access quality care.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
This study was approved by Indiana University Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants because this study was conducted online and thus to protect participants’ identity, we provided them an informed consent document and asked them to check a box to indicate their consent to participate.
Author contributions
LM-M: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Formal analysis. BC: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Software, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. DV: Writing – review & editing. KL: Writing – review & editing. RT: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. KJ: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was funded by a grant from a confidential foundation. The funder played no part in the study design, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, the writing of the article, or in the decision to submit it for publication.
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge Dr. Megan Solon for her contributions early in the project.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1422318/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
1. ^“Partial-birth abortion (PBA)” is a non-clinical term used to refer to some procedural abortions occurring in the second and third trimesters (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022). The term is primarily used in political discourse that has aimed to pass legislation banning specific methods of abortion (e.g., Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003).
2. ^We did not include the third possible leaning continuum variable (i.e., liberal-to-neutral) in the analysis because it is the summation of the other two and therefore it is dropped from the model during statistical analysis.
References
Ad Fontes Media. (2023) Interactive media Bias chart. Available at: https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ (Accessed November 30, 2023).
Adamczyk, A., Kim, C., and Dillon, L. (2020). Examining public opinion about abortion: a mixed-methods systematic review of research over the last 15 years. Sociol. Inq. 90, 920–954. doi: 10.1111/soin.12351
Adams, G. D. (1997). Abortion: evidence of an issue evolution. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 41, 718–737. doi: 10.2307/2111673
Andsager, J. L. (2000). How interest groups attempt to shape public opinion with competing news frames. J. Mass Commun. Q. 77, 577–592. doi: 10.1177/107769900007700308
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., et al. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 9216–9221. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Power, G. J., Guthrie, K. K., and Waring, H. R. (1990). Value-framing abortion in the United States: an application of media system dependency theory. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 2, 249–273. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/2.3.249
Bartkowski, J. P., Ramos-Wada, A. I., Ellison, C. G., and Acevedo, G. A. (2012). Faith, Race-Ethnicity, and Public Policy Preferences: Religious Schemas and Abortion Attitudes Among U.S. Latinos. J. Sci. Study Relig. 51, 343–358. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2012.01645.x
Baum, M. A., and Gussin, P. (2008). In the eye of the beholder: how information shortcuts shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. Q. J. Polit. Sci. 3, 1–38. doi: 10.1561/100.00007010
Brooks, J. J., Walter, N., Rosenthal, E. L., and Folb, K. L. (2022). Contentious entertainment: the role of character and narrative features in shaping audience response to abortion storylines. J. Health Commun. 27, 232–240. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2022.2091064
Bruce, T. C. (2020). How Americans understand abortion: A comprehensive interview study of abortion attitudes in the U.S. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame McGrath Institute for Church Life.
Callanan, V., and Rosenberger, J. S. (2015). Media, gender, and fear of crime. Crim. Justice Rev. 40, 322–339. doi: 10.1177/0734016815573308
Carmines, E. G., Gerrity, J. C., and Wagner, M. W. (2010). How abortion became a partisan issue: media coverage of the interest group-political party connection. Policy Polit. 38, 1135–1158. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2010.00272.x
Cates, W. (2012). Commentary: abortion policy and science: can controversy and evidence co-exist? J. Public Health Policy 33, 363–367. doi: 10.1057/jphp.2012.15
Cinelli, M., De Francisci, M. G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., and Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118:e2023301118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023301118
Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B. J., Drogos, K. L., Porter, R. W., Yahn, A., et al. (2008). Hostile news: partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. J. Commun. 58, 201–219. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00381.x
Collins, R. L., Elliott, M. N., Berry, S. H., Kanouse, D. E., and Hunter, S. B. (2003). Entertainment television as a healthy sex educator: the impact of condom-efficacy information in an episode of Friends. Pediatrics 112, 1115–1121. doi: 10.1542/peds.112.5.1115
Condit, C. M. (1990). Decoding abortion rhetoric: Communicating social change. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Conti, J., and Cahill, E. (2017). Abortion in the media. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 29, 427–430. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000412
Crawford, B. L., Jozkowski, K. N., Turner, R. C., and Lo, W. J. (2021). Examining the relationship between Roe v. Wade knowledge and sentiment across political party and abortion identity. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy. 19, 837–848. doi: 10.1007/s13178-021-00597-4
Dhar, C. P., Kaflay, D., Dowshen, N., Miller, V. A., Ginsburg, K. R., Barg, F. K., et al. (2017). Attitudes and beliefs pertaining to sexual and reproductive health among unmarried, female Bhutanese refugee youth in Philadelphia. J. Adolesc. Health 61, 791–794. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.06.011
DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., and Bryson, B. (1996). Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized? Am. J. Sociol. 102, 690–755. doi: 10.1086/230995
Escobar-Chaves, S. L., Tortolero, S. R., Markham, C. M., Low, B. J., Eitel, P., and Thickstun, P. (2005). Impact of the media on adolescent sexual attitudes and behaviors. Pediatrics 116, 303–326. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-0355D
Esposito, C. L., and Basow, S. A. (1995). College students’ attitudes toward abortion: the role of knowledge and demographic variables. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25, 1996–2017. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01828.x
Evans, J. H. (2003). Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized?—an update. Soc. Sci. Q. 84, 71–90. doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.8401005
Farrar, K. M. (2006). Sexual intercourse on television: do safe sex messages matter? J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 50, 635–650. doi: 10.1207/s15506878jobem5004_4
Feldman, L. (2011). Partisan differences in opinionated news perceptions: a test of the hostile media effect. Polit. Behav. 33, 407–432. doi: 10.1007/s11109-010-9139-4
Gallup (2024) Abortion. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx (Accessed July 17, 2024).
Garrett, R. K. (2009a). Echo chambers online?: politically motivated selective exposure among internet news users. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 14, 265–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x
Garrett, R. K. (2009b). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: reframing the selective exposure debate. J. Commun. 59, 676–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
Garrett, R. K., Weeks, B. E., and Neo, R. L. (2016). Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: how online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 21, 331–348. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12164
Gerbner, G. (1969). Toward “cultural indicators”: the analysis of mass mediated public message systems. AV Commun. Rev. 17, 137–148. doi: 10.1007/BF02769102
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., and Shanahan, J. (2002). “Growing up with television: cultivation processes” in Media effects: Advances in theory and research. eds. J. Bryant and D. Zillmann 2nd ed (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers), 43–67.
Goldman, S. K., and Mutz, D. C. (2011). The friendly media phenomenon: a cross-national analysis of cross-cutting exposure. Polit. Commun. 28, 42–66. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2010.544280
Gvirsman, S. D. (2014). It’s not that we don’t know, it’s that we don’t care: explaining why selective exposure polarizes attitudes. Mass Commun. Soc. 17, 74–97. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2013.816738
Hans, J. D., and Kimberly, C. (2014). Abortion attitudes in context: A multidimensional vignette approach. Soc. Sci. Res. 48, 145–156. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.001
Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., and Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychol. Bull. 135, 555–588. doi: 10.1037/a0015701
Herold, S., Becker, A., Schroeder, R., and Sisson, G. (2024). Exposure to lived representations of abortion in popular television program plotlines on abortion-related knowledge, attitudes, and support: an exploratory study. Sex Roles 90, 280–293. doi: 10.1007/s11199-024-01448-3
Hunt, M. E., Jozkowski, K. N., Cleland, K., Crawford, B. L., Lo, W. J., Warren, R., et al. (2021). Examining the effect of a randomized media intervention on knowledge and support of abortion restrictions: a case study in the South. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 19, 870–885. doi: 10.1007/s13178-021-00624-4
Intravia, J., Wolff, K. T., and Piquero, A. R. (2018). Investigating the effects of media consumption on attitudes toward police legitimacy. Deviant Behav. 39, 963–980. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2017.1343038
IPSOS. (2021) IPSOS knowledge panel: a methodological overview [internet]. Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ipsosknowledgepanelmethodology.pdf (Accessed August 30, 2023).
Iyengar, S., and Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. J. Commun. 59, 19–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
Jamieson, K. H., Hardy, B., and Romer, D. (2007). “The effectiveness of the Press in Serving the needs of American democracy” in A republic divided: The Annenberg democracy project. ed. K. H. Jamieson (New York: Oxford University Press), 21–51.
Jelen, T. G., and Wilcox, C. (2003). Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: a review and research agenda. Polit. Res. Q. 56, 489–500. doi: 10.1177/106591290305600410
Jozkowski, K. N., Bueno, X., Turner, R. C., Crawford, B. L., and Lo, W. L. (2023a). People’s knowledge of and attitudes toward abortion laws before and after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. Sex. Reprod. Health Matters. 31:2233794. doi: 10.1080/26410397.2023.2233794
Jozkowski, K. N., Crawford, B. L., and Hunt, M. E. (2018). Complexity in attitudes toward abortion access: results from two studies. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 15, 464–482. doi: 10.1007/s13178-018-0322-4
Jozkowski, K. N., Crawford, B. L., Simmons, M. K., Turner, R. C., and Lo, W. J. (2023b). Predictors of engagement in abortion-related activism before and after the nomination of Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 21, 400–421. doi: 10.1007/s13178-023-00815-1
Jozkowski, K. N., Crawford, B. L., and Willis, M. (2021). Abortion complexity scores from 1972 to 2018: a cross-sectional time-series analysis using data from the General Social Survey. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 18, 13–26. doi: 10.1007/s13178-020-00439-9
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2022) State bans on so-called “partial birth” abortion [internet]. Available at: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/partial-birth-abortion-bans/ (Accessed August 30, 2023).
Kann, S., and Tulbert, J.. Other networks are letting fox news poison abortion-related coverage with dangerous lies. (2019). Media Matters for America https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/other-networks-are-letting-fox-news-poison-abortion-related-coverage-dangerous-lies
Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2014). Choice and preference in media use: advances in selective exposure theory and research. London: Routledge.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., and Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Commun. Res. 36, 426–448. doi: 10.1177/0093650209333030
Kubin, E., and Von Sikorski, C. (2021). The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 45, 188–206. doi: 10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070
Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? Am. J. Polit. Sci. 57, 611–623. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12008
Levine, D. (2011). Using technology, new media, and mobile for sexual and reproductive health. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 8, 18–26. doi: 10.1007/s13178-011-0040-7
Lockhart, C., Lee, C. H. J., Sibley, C. G., and Osborne, D. (2023). The sanctity of life: the role of purity in attitudes towards abortion and euthanasia. Int. J. Psychol. 58, 16–29. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12877
Long, J. S., and Freese, J. (2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Third Edn. College Station, TX: Stata Press Publication.
Ludlow, J. (2008). Sometimes, it’s a child and a choice: toward an embodied abortion praxis. NWSA J. 20, 26–50. doi: 10.1353/ff.2008.a236179
Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Kiley, J., and Matsa, K. E. (2014). Political polarization & media habits [internet]. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Mize, T. (2019). Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. SocScience 6, 81–117. doi: 10.15195/v6.a4
Mouw, T., and Sobel, M. E. (2001). Culture wars and opinion polarization: the case of abortion. Am. J. Sociol. 106, 913–943. doi: 10.1086/320294
MSNBC (2022) House Democrats: My body, my decision. Available at: https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/house-democrats-my-body-my-decision-139824197671 (Accessed August 19, 2024).
Mulligan, K., and Habel, P. (2011). An experimental test of the effects of fictional framing on attitudes*. Soc. Sci. Q. 92, 79–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00758.x
Nguyen, A., and Vu, H. T. (2019). Testing popular news discourse on the “echo chamber” effect: does political polarisation occur among those relying on social media as their primary politics news source? First Monday 24:9632. doi: 10.5210/fm.v24i6.9632
Nixon, L., Seklir, L., Mejia, P., Cockrill, K., Herold, S., Woodruf, K., et al. (2017). Shaping stigma: an analysis of mainstream print and online news coverage of abortion, 2014–2015. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Media Studies Group.
Perloff, R. M. (2017). “A three-decade retrospective on the hostile media effect” in Advances in foundational mass communication theories. ed. R. Wei (London: Routledge), 196–224.
Pew Research Center (2009). Fox news viewed as most ideological network [internet]. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Pew Research Center. (2016) News use across social media platforms 2016 [internet]. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/ (Accessed September 5, 2023).
Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections [internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 16, 101–127. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242
Rohlinger, D. A. (2006). Friends and foes: media, politics, and tactics in the abortion war. Soc. Probl. 53, 537–561. doi: 10.1525/sp.2006.53.4.537
Rohlinger, D. A. (2015). Abortion politics, mass media, and social movements in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberger, J. S., and Callanan, V. J. (2011). The influence of media on penal attitudes. Crim. Justice Rev. 36, 435–455. doi: 10.1177/0734016811428779
Simon, A. F., and Jerit, J. (2007). Toward a theory relating political discourse, media, and public opinion. J. Commun. 57, 254–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00342.x
Sisson, G., Walter, N., Herold, S., and Brooks, J. J. (2021). Prime-time abortion on Grey’s Anatomy: what do US viewers learn from fictional portrayals of abortion on television? Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health 53, 13–22. doi: 10.1363/psrh.12183
Solon, M., LaRoche, K. J., Bueno, X., Crawford, B. L., Turner, R. C., Lo, W. J., et al. (2022). Pro-choice/pro-elección versus pro-life/pro-vida: examining abortion identity terms across English and Spanish in the United States. Soc. Sci. Q. 103, 1602–1618. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.13219
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. J. Commun. 60, 556–576. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
The White House. (2021) Proclamation on National Sanctity of Human Life Day [internet]. Available at: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-national-sanctity-human-life-day-2021/ (Accessed August 19, 2024).
Tucker, J., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., et al. (2018) Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature. Available at: https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3144139 (Accessed April 27, 2023).
Tully, M., and Vraga, E. K. (2018). A mixed methods approach to examining the relationship between news media literacy and political efficacy. Int. J. Commun. 12:22.
Turner, J. (2007). The messenger overwhelming the message: ideological cues and perceptions of bias in television news. Polit. Behav. 29, 441–464. doi: 10.1007/s11109-007-9031-z
Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 577–585. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
Vox, N. A.. (2019) How abortion became a partisan issue in America. Available at: https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18295513/abortion-2020-roe-joe-biden-democrats-republicans (Accessed April 27, 2023).
Wakefield, M. A., Loken, B., and Hornik, R. C. (2010). Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet 376, 1261–1271. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60809-4
Wicclair, M. R. (1981). The abortion controversy and the claim that this body is mine. Soc. Theory Pract. 7, 337–346. doi: 10.5840/soctheorpract19817317
Williams, D. K. (2011). The GOP’s abortion strategy: why pro-choice Republicans became pro-life in the 1970s. J. Policy His. 23, 513–539. doi: 10.1017/S0898030611000285
Keywords: abortion, attitudes, news consumption, news partisanship, survey
Citation: Mena-Meléndez L, Crawford BL, Valdez D, LaRoche KJ, Turner RC and Jozkowski KN (2024) Is news consumption related to abortion attitudes? An exploratory study with a nationally representative sample of US adults. Front. Commun. 9:1422318. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1422318
Edited by:
Stephanie Herold, University of California, San Francisco, United StatesReviewed by:
Katie Woodruff, University of California, San Francisco, United StatesDeb Levine, Johns Hopkins University, United States
Copyright © 2024 Mena-Meléndez, Crawford, Valdez, LaRoche, Turner and Jozkowski. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Kristen N. Jozkowski, a25qb3prb3dAaXUuZWR1