Can sharing personal experiences with abortion change public attitudes about this issue? Using a preference-incorporating choice and assignment design, we find that personal narrative accounts reach a broader audience and are more persuasive than appeals conveying the same factual information in a more general manner. These effects, however, are concentrated among women who would likely avoid hearing such personal accounts if given the choice, while men’s attitudes appear largely unmoved. Understanding public opinion change on abortion and other morally divisive political issues requires advocates and scholars to account for the extent of public outreach along with the content of the message. Our work provides new evidence to understand how advocacy can best function on social media platforms where choice is prevalent and powerful.
AlvarezR. M.BrehmJ. (1995). American ambivalence towards abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 1055–1082. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111669
BailC. A.ArgyleL. P.BrownT. W.BumpusJ. P.ChenH.HunzakerM. B. F.LeeJ.MannM.MerhoutF.VolfovskyA. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(37), 9216–9221. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1804840115
5.
Bilandzic and Busselle. (2013). Narrative persuasion. In The Sage Handbook of Persuasion. Sage.
6.
BoswellJ. (2013). Why and how narrative matters in deliberative systems. Political Studies, 61(3), 620–636. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00987.x
7.
BroockmanD.KallaJ. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220–224. DOI:10.1126/science.aad9713
8.
BroockmanD. E.KallaJ. L.SekhonJ. S. (2017). The design of field experiments with survey outcomes: A framework for selecting more efficient, robust, and ethical designs. Political Analysis: An Annual Publication of the Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association, 25(4), 435–464. DOI:10.1017/pan.2017.27
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74(1), 78–91. DOI:10.2307/1955648
11.
CarseyT. M.LaymanG. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00196.x
12.
CasasA.Menchen-TrevinoE.WojcieszakM. (2022). Exposure to extremely partisan news from the other political side shows scarce boomerang effects. Political Behavior, 45(4). DOI:10.1007/s11109-021-09769-9
13.
CockrillK.BiggsA. (2018). Can stories reduce abortion stigma? Findings from a longitudinal cohort study. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 20(3), 335–350. DOI:10.1080/13691058.2017.1346202
14.
CookE. A.WilcoxC.JelenT. G. (2019). Between two absolutes public opinion and the politics of abortion. Routledge.
15.
CramerK. J.BenjaminT. (2017). The fact of experience: Rethinking political knowledge and civic competence. Perspectives on Politics, 15(3), 754–770. DOI:10.1017/S1537592717000949
16.
CramerW. (2007). The democratic potential of civic dialogue. In ShawnW. R. (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can the people govern? (pp. 45–63): Palgrave Macmillan UK.
17.
Cramer WalshK. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life: University of Chicago Press.
18.
De Benedictis-KessnerJ.BaumM. A.BerinskyA. J.YamamotoT. (2019). Persuading the enemy: Estimating the persuasive effects of partisan media with the preference-incorporating choice and assignment design. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 902–916. DOI:10.1017/S0003055419000418
19.
ForestalJ. (2021). Beyond gatekeeping: Propaganda, democracy, and the organization of digital publics. The Journal of Politics, 83(1), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1086/709300
20.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H. (2011). Experimental estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects related to self-selection. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 724–736. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00518.x
21.
GrossK. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00622.x
22.
GuessA.CoppockA. (2020). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1497–1515. DOI:10.1017/S0007123418000327
IyengarS. (1994). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.
25.
JelenT. G.WilcoxC. (2003). Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: A review and research agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 489–500. DOI:10.1177/106591290305600410
26.
KallaJ. L.AdamS. L.BroockmanD. E. (2022). Personalizing moral reframing in interpersonal conversation: A field experiment. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 1239–1243. DOI:10.1086/716944
27.
KallaJ. L.BroockmanD. E. (2020). Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: Evidence from three field experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 410–425. DOI:10.1017/S0003055419000923
28.
KallaJ. L.BroockmanD. E. (2023). Which narrative strategies durably reduce prejudice? Evidence from field and survey experiments supporting the efficacy of perspective-getting. American Journal of Political Science, 67(1), 185–204. DOI:10.1111/ajps.12657
29.
KnoxD.YamamotoT.BaumM. A.BerinskyA. (2019). Design, identification, and sensitivity analysis for patient preference trials. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114(528), 1532–1546. DOI:10.1080/01621459.2019.1585248
30.
KubinE.PuryearC.ScheinC.GrayK. (2021). Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(6), e2008389118. DOI:10.1073/pnas.2008389118
31.
LangellierK. M. (1989). Personal narratives: Perspectives on theory and research. Text and Performance Quarterly, 9(4), 243–276. DOI:10.1080/10462938909365938
32.
LeeperT. J. (2017). How does treatment self-selection affect inferences about political communication?Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4(1), 21–33. DOI:10.1017/XPS.2017.1
33.
LermanA. E.McCabeK. T. (2017). Personal experience and public opinion: A theory and test of conditional policy feedback. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 624–641. DOI:10.1086/689286
34.
LermanA. E.WeaverV. M. (2014). Arresting citizenship: The democratic consequences of American crime control. University of Chicago Press.
35.
MansbridgeJ. (1993). Feminism and democratic community. In Democratic community, edited by John W. Chapman and Ian Shapiro. (pp. 339–395). New York University Press.
36.
MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063. DOI:10.1177/009365021246640
MummoloJ.PetersonE. (2019). Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 517–529. DOI:10.1017/S0003055418000837
39.
RoganF.BudgeonS. (2018). The personal is political: Assessing feminist fundamentals in the digital age. Social sciences, 7(8), 132. DOI:10.3390/socsci7080132
40.
RosenbaumP. R. (2002). Observational studies: Springer.
41.
SackeimM.NewtonS.LeeS. Y.LauderdaleD.GilliamM. (2020). O6 A narrative intervention to decrease individual level abortion stigma: A randomized controlled trial. Contraception, 102(4), 275. DOI:10.1016/j.contraception.2020.07.014
42.
SettleJ. E. (2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes America. Cambridge University Press.
43.
StroudN. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. DOI:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
44.
WeaverV.ProwseG.SpencerP. (2019). Too much knowledge, too little power: An assessment of political knowledge in highly policed communities. The Journal of Politics, 81(3), 1153–1166. DOI:10.1086/703538
45.
WojcieszakM. (2011). Pulling toward or pulling away: Deliberation, disagreement, and opinion extremity in political participation. Social Science Quarterly, 92(1), 207–225. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00764.x
46.
WojcieszakM.KimN. (2016). How to improve attitudes toward disliked groups: The effects of narrative versus numerical evidence on political persuasion. Communication Research, 43(6), 785–809. DOI:10.1177/0093650215618480
47.
WoodruffK.SchroederR.HeroldS.RobertsS. C. M.BerglasN. F. (2020). Experiences of harassment and empowerment after sharing personal abortion stories publicly. Contraception: X, 2, 100021. DOI:10.1016/j.conx.2020.100021
48.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
