• No results found

An examination of the effects of framing on strong, moderate and weak attitude objects

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "An examination of the effects of framing on strong, moderate and weak attitude objects"

Copied!
50
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF FRAMING ON STRONG, MODERATE AND WEAK ATTITUDE OBJECTS.

Aoife E. Wilson Dept. of Communication Science, MSc Political Communication ABSTRACT

The power of framing, its effects, in addition to its ability to influence an individual’s attitudes and opinions, are widely documented. This thesis proposes the idea that framing is ineffective on high strength attitudes i.e. attitudes that are salient to the individual. A quantitative online experiment with three groups, each representing a different attitude strength (low, moderate and high), was devised to discover if framing effects are prevalent on strong attitudes. The high strength attitude in this study is ‘abortion’, a divisive topic, for which people maintain strong, very often rigid opinions. If framing is ineffective on such salient issues, this could have major implications for how abortion and other high strength attitudes are advocated for in the future.

KEY WORDS: FRAMING, FRAMING EFFECTS, ATTITUDE STRENGTH, ATTITUDE SALIENCE.

Student ID: 10876103

Email: aoifew12369@gmail.com Supervisor: Yphtach Lelkes Word count: 7,764

(2)

Introduction

The inspiration for this research emerged from a stagnation in the progress of the worldwide advancement in the liberalization of abortion laws. The context within which abortion is typically discussed centers on either the ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’ framing of the issue. It is sometimes referred to as ‘the original frame’, as it very often the first frame construction that students of framing encounter. The process of framing is generally perceived as highly effective in formatting and framing peoples’ attitudes. Entman, in his formative piece (1993) identifies framing as a process through which communicators, with unequal resources, try to make salient certain aspects of a perceived social reality in order to “promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (p. 52). The power of framing is well documented. So powerful are its affects, that professional ‘framers’ such as PR specialists, image consultants and ‘spin-doctors’ are viewed in a largely negative light, due to their perceived ability to persuade and hood-wink the populous.

Interestingly, (and paradoxically) for this research, Gloria Feldt, President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, stated, “whoever frames an issue [most effectively] wins the debate” (Vennochi, 2003). Time has proven this statement to be unmerited. Several scholars conclude that as a result of the moral element of topics such as abortion, they are not affected by framing (Marteau, 1989). While morals may be a contributing factor, this paper aims to demonstrate how the attitude strength a person maintains about a particular topic is instead a more important element. If morals really did result in the decimation of framing affects, then passing stricter gun laws in the US would not continue to be such an on-going challenge, as it is not a moral issue, and yet attitudes surrounding it remain strong.

In order to prove that framing effects are dependent on the attitude strength of a particular topic, an online experiment with three experimental groups; each representing a

(3)

different attitude strength (weak, moderate or strong) has been devised. Attitude strength is an intra-individual phenomenon. Just as each person is unique, so too are the strength with which their attitudes are held (Raden, 1985). However, certain attitudes held are maintained at consistent strengths across the population. Attitudes about abortion (the strong attitude topic in this experiment,) are consistently strong; people tend to have highly intense feelings about them, they are certain about the correctness of their opinions, and remain consistent over time. It is anticipated that in the ‘strong attitude’ group that framing will have little to no effect, whereas in the ‘weak attitude’ group framing is expected to have significantly more effects.

Worldwide, support both for and against abortion has remained at largely consistent levels since abortion was first made widely available, the most wide scale of these decisions the landmark Roe V’s Wade US Supreme Court ruling of 1973 (Carlson, 2006). After this initial advancement, progress towards further liberalisation is at a standstill. Both sides of the abortion issue frame it in a manner that is most advantageous to them (typically Pro-Life and Pro-Choice), in the way that would be most persuasive for their cause (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996). As there is somewhat of a deadlock, it would suggest that the issue’s framing has been unsuccessful in persuading a majority either way. This research posits that in the case of abortion, the framing is ineffective, as attitudes surrounding it are too strong (Krosnick & Smith 1994). This has considerable consequences for the Republic of Ireland, where pro-choice campaigners have failed to motivate the masses to pressurize government into solving the ‘abortion question’.

In 1994 the ‘International Conference on Population and Development’ (ICPD) vowed “To make accessible through the primary health care system, reproductive health to all individuals of appropriate ages as soon as possible and no later than the year 2015” (Girard, 2001, p. 68). As this deadline has just recently passed, further examination of the

(4)

problem is necessitated. This issue is of considerable societal relevance as any information gathered from this study should be directed towards answering this, and other questions posed by society, and in aiding their resolution (Wilbertz, 2013). In Ireland, policy formation, and Irish politics in general is highly reactive in nature (Hanf & Soetendorp, 2014). Therefore, if the central hypotheses of this research were to be confirmed i.e. that framing is ineffective on strong attitude topics, then no amount of campaigning for increased abortion rights will result in more liberal laws; as there is no impetus to inculcate change and “Irish policy-makers try to avoid isolation [and]…will only go it alone…if they have no choice” (Hanf & Soetendorp, 2014, p. 79).

Theoretical Framework

Attitudes are varied in the extent to which they are ‘crystallised’ or fixed. The theory of attitude strength is therefore charged with capturing this variance (Krosnick & Smith 1994). Much of the research design for this study was formulated in the manner that best captures the measurement of attitude strength, as advocated by Krosnick & Smith (1994); one of the preeminent scholars in the field of attitude studies. Strong attitudes are characteristically resilient to change, continuous over time, and have a powerful impact on behavior and on how the human brain processes information. Weak attitudes, as their opposites are characteristically much less resilient to change, more volatile and less likely to influence the brain’s processing of information (Petty & Krosnick, 1995).

When the measurement of attitudes first began it was assumed that attitudes were predispositions held by people that shaped their behavior and cognitive processing (Bohner and Wanke, 2002). However, this implies that all attitudes are strong; which we now know not to be the case (Petty & Krosnick, 1995). In fact, through scholarly research and experiments it has come to light that some attitudes are much less rigid and can be changed by everyday occurrences and can be manipulated by different stimuli in laboratory

(5)

experiments (Pomerantz, Chaiken & Tordesillas, 1995). Therefore while some attitudes maintain a high level of influence over cognitive processing and are highly crystallised, others have comparatively little impact and are vastly more flexible (Petty & Krosnick, 1995). In his pioneering study “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics”, Converse (1964) recognized that the large majority of people do not maintain strong well-defined opinions on political issues. This inability to maintain such opinions resulted in the birth of the term “non-attitudes”. The non-attitude is comparative to a synonym for weak attitudes Converse, 1964). Therefore, the weak attitude strength topic for this study will be a slight increase in municipal waste disposal charges. As the topic is a fictitious increase, it is a topic that participants will not have formed an opinion on yet, or at the very least they cannot be consistent (Zaller, 1992) and therefore reflects something with the capacity to fluctuate dramatically, thereby displaying the characteristics of a weak attitude. (Petty & Krosnick, 1995).

The second pertinent theory, of direct relevance to this study is framing theory. As the research question is concerned with the measurement of framing effects, and understanding of framing theory, in particular ‘emphasis framing’ is essential. In order to explain what framing is, and how it affects people’s attitudes, it is useful to first mention ‘rational choice theory’. As the name suggests rational choice theory dictates that people try to make the most rational choice possible, after they have considered all possible outcomes (Browning, Halcli & Webster, 2000). Therefore, in accordance with this theory people should also always make the same choice each time when given the same information. Framing theory in turn suggests that the manner in which something is presented (or framed) effects the decisions people make (Entman, 1993). Simply put, frames are constructs that help people employ to structure and organize information so as to glean the meaning of a particular message; therefore they

(6)

do not necessarily pick the most rational choice (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). Instead they are affected by the framing, and thus framing effects occur.

In his seminal text on framing, Entman (1993) defined framing: “to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation” (p. 56). Framing is typically employed by elites (Entman, 2004) with unequal resources (Chong and Druckman, 2007; de Vresse, 2005). In this sense, the term ‘framing’ is most synonymous with the media, governments and other powerful bodies, who ‘frame’ information in a manner that reflects their desired viewpoint or opinion slant by highlighting particular aspects of a topic, whilst ignoring others (Kwansah-Aidoo, 2005). The supposed power and clout of framing is as Entman, Matthes and Pellicano (2009) put it, renders framing “a victim of its own success” (p. 175). The supposed power of framing was exemplified in a more negative manner by John Major, former British Prime Minister, as “the pornography of politics. It perverts. It is deceit licensed by the government” (The Guardian, October 2003).

This boundaries of the abilities of framing to persuade and influence individuals was pushed by the well-known work of Tversky and Kahneman (1981); their trailblazing framing effects experiment; the ‘Asian disease problem’ experiment. The framing effects of this study were found to be highly prolific. However the type of framing employed in the ‘Asian disease’ experiment was equivalency framing. This method of framing is concerned with getting people to alter their opinions and preferences by presenting something with equivalent or logically similar words. By contrast, emphasis framing, the type of framing commissioned in this study, is said to occur “when, in the course of describing an issue or event, a speaker’s emphasis on a subset of potentially relevant considerations causes

(7)

individuals to focus on these considerations when introducing their opinions” (Druckman, 2001a, p. 1042).

Framing or frame setting can be viewed as an interaction between media frames and the pre-conceptions and pre-existing knowledge already held by a person (de Vresse, 2005). Framing is also associated with agenda setting theory, which states that the media sets the public agenda; in that it tells people not how they should think about things, but rather what they should think about (McCombs, 2003). Research on framing indicates, that framing does affect how people receive information; whether it is considered to be important, who are the most important participants, who is the perpetrator, or who is the victim (Gastil, 2008). This is consistent with the work of Druckman (2001) who also demonstrates that framing effects occur when the perceived importance of a particular topic or opinion is altered by a frame; i.e. by altering the importance individuals attach to beliefs.

One pertinent example of the powerful effects of framing was that of the framing of the Abu Ghraib scandal. In 2004, CBS Television first broadcast a number of disturbing pictures from Iraq, showing the gross treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib at the hands of American military personnel. Entman’s (1993) above definition of framing includes a ‘problem definition’; this refers to what the topic or issue is about. The manner in which the problem definition is portrayed has considerable consequences for the efficacy of the frame, as Entman (2004) himself stated it “virtually predetermines the rest of the frame” (p. 6). After the initial publication of the photos, there were two dominant frames within the world media; and US, these referred to the ‘mistreatment’, ‘abuse’, or the more ominous sounding ‘torture’ (Jones and Sheets, 2009). Within the United States itself the mistreatment or abuse frame was more widespread. As the pervading social and cultural norms in the United States are such that do not permit torture, journalists and news outlets presented the story in a manner that was culturally congruent to them (and the American people) (Entman, 2004; Jones and

(8)

Sheets, 2009). This practice of ‘softening the blow’ of the story originated in the upper echelons of United States government, and the White House. The soldiers that took part in the torture of inmates in Abu Ghraib were presented to the public as ‘a few bad apples’, and not representative of the overall military.

The dominance and success of this frame can be partially accounted for under Entman’s (2010) model of cascading activation in which a story, emanates from top officials within the White House, then trickles down through elites, (members of congress and states officials) and then onto the media who then disseminate the information for the public. This framing of the Abu Ghraib scandal was so successful that polling data from the US reveals that a majority of American people accepted the Bush administration’s framing of the event (Hart, 2012). Despite the presence of considerable evidence to refute the White House’s framing of the Abu Ghraib scandal, it was not enough to limit or contain the effects of the frame; as the frame was largely accepted. This demonstrates the ability of framing to affect public opinion by emphasizing certain different and relevant considerations (Feldman & Zaller, 1992). By excluding opposing frames, and by offering up an alternative viewpoint, framing forms an effective tool to activate certain predilections over others (Feldman & Zaller, 1992).

While cascading activation (Entman, 2003), or the eminence of cultural and social norms (Jones and Sheets, 2009) may well be important factors, this research posits that a main reason for the success of the frame was the low attitude strength associated with the topic; it was susceptible to framing effects (Petty & Krosnick, 1995). Significantly, Converse (1964) noted how a considerable portion of the public lacked any kind of significant opinion on a range of major political issues. This resulted in them presenting non-attitudes, as they have no pre-formed opinions on the matter (Krosnick and Fabrigar, 2003). As mentioned earlier, the non-attitude is characteristically congruent with low attitude strength topics

(9)

(Krosnick & Smith, 1994), and therefore the considerable influence of the frame can be accounted for. Inversely, and importantly for this research, high strength attitudes, are found to be much more resistant to change, constant over time and maintain a considerable importance for the individual (Ajzen, 2001), and consequentially, framing is much less effective on these high strength (highly salient) attitudes. If the central hypothesis of this thesis is confirmed, and framing is proven to be ineffective for such a high strength attitude, then this will have a considerable effect on how the topic of abortion is advocated for in the future.

One of the most commonly referenced social science definition of framing effects is that a framing effect occurs when two "logically equivalent (but not transparently equivalent) statements of a problem lead decision makers to choose different options" (Druckman, 2001 p. 62; see also Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). In other words, to measure framing effects participants are typically asked to record their opinions or attitudes on whatever is being tested. They are then presented with a manipulation (the piece of text, newspaper article or picture) containing the experimental frame; then they are once again asked a series of differently worded questions to gauge their opinions and see if these have been affected or altered by the frame.

If the frame was successful in altering a person’s belief, or the importance with which they hold a particular belief or attitude, then framing effects did indeed occur. Additionally, Nelson and Oxley (1999) conclude that framing effects work by altering "the importance individuals attach to particular beliefs" (in Druckman, 2001, p.68). This notion is furthered by the acknowledgement that this change may or may not alter the overall opinion, but at the very least, alters the importance a belief is afforded (Druckman, 2001). It is in this sense that framing effects are operationalized for this experiment.

(10)

Two hypotheses have been generated to record the possible presence of framing effects, and how this strength can be accounted for by the various attitude strengths (how salient the topic is to the individual).

H1: If an issue is considered highly salient, then framing effects will be weak. H2: If an issue is considered less salient, then framing effects will be strong.

Methodology Participants

The survey was open to international participants with Internet access. Participants were instructed that the purpose of the study was to gather information on attitudes and framing effects. In order to measure the assumptions of these hypotheses an online experiment (survey) was carried out by a total of 273 participants. All of the participants were recruited through social media (including Facebook) and other online fora including email and personal contacts. 52 participants were excluded from the survey because they did not adequately complete the questions, by either failing to answer key questions, or failing to complete the study. The final sample consisted of N=219 participants (M=33.36, SD=14.04) 56% of the respondents were female. The sample was ethnically diverse with participants with 32 different nationalities completing the study, representing 6 continents. Irish, Dutch, American and Danish and were found to be the most frequent nationalities.

Procedure

Participants completed every measure using the secure online survey programme ‘Qualtrics Survey Solutions’. Respondents were recruited for participation in the online experiment, ultimately for the completion of a Master’s thesis from a University of Amsterdam Masters student from the Communications Department. A link containing the study’s URL was posted to social media pages (including Facebook and Twitter). Personal contacts were also exploited; many of who also shared the link, resulting in somewhat of a

(11)

snowball sampling procedure. Prior to completing the study, participants had to agree to their participation, by means of an informed consent form. Once this was completed participant were permitted access to the experiment. The survey took approximately 8-9 minutes to complete. Participants were required to complete a series of questions, then to read a piece of text (the manipulation). After this they were required to answer several additional questions. A number of the questions prior to their viewing of the manipulation were ‘filler’ questions. These are so named because they are necessary to bulk-out the survey but also obscure the true research aims of the study. This is necessary, as it has been proven that participants can alter their answers in a manner that might be either a help or a hindrance to the study if they are aware of what is being measured. Additionally, the high strength attitude topic (abortion) is one that evokes strong opinions and also moral judgments. Therefore, depending on one’s social class, and attitudes of friends, family and peers, participants might be inclined to answer in a way that they feel is socially acceptable (Fisher, 1993). This phenomenon is known as ‘social desirability’ (Fisher, 1993). Participants were recruited over a one-week period in December-January 2015/2016 (28th December-3rd January).

Measures: Attitude strength

The three topics were selected because they are known to each represent a different level of attitude strength or salience for the individual (Krosnick & Smith, 1994). The idea to use attitude topics with predetermined attitude strengths was an important one, as it means that each of the topics does represent the intended attitude strength, and thus bolstering the experiment’s validity (Bollen, 1989).

Low/weak strength attitude topic

The least salient of the three topics is municipal waste disposal charges. Characteristically, these weak attitudes are inconsistent over time, more susceptible to

(12)

influence, are less intense and maintain a low level of importance to the individual (Ajzen, 2001). Fictitious topics about low strength attitude (or less salient) topics are also representative of much of the same characteristics (Bishop, Hamilton & McConahay, 1980). As such the low strength (less salient) attitude object presented to the participants in this study was a fictitious increase the cost of municipal (household) waste disposal charges. The fictitious increase was proposed as a potential (and likely) outcome of the Paris Climate Conference held in December 2015. As this was not a genuine municipal policy, it would be impossible for people to already have formed an opinion about such a topic. As such they would deliver a non-attitude, which is characteristically congruent with a low strength (or less salient) attitude topic (Krosnick and Fabrigar, 2003).

High/salient attitude topic

The high strength attitude (or very salient) topic for this study is abortion. Characteristically strong attitudes, unlike their weaker counterparts are rather consistent over time, less susceptible to influence, are more intense, and hold a greater level of importance to the individual. Abortion is often a topic described as ‘crystallised’, as it is a topic that is in most cases rather ‘set in stone’ (Marsh, 1985; Strickler & Danigelis, 2002). People know how they feel about abortion; they have generated their opinions over time, and strengthened their beliefs. As such high strength attitude objects are characteristically rigid and to be changed (Ajzen, 2001).

Moderate

While the low and the high strength attitude objects were relatively easy to select, the moderate strength attitude topic was more challenging to identify. Being in between the other two attitude topics, a moderate strength attitude topic must be somewhat consistent over time, it should inspire moderately intense feelings, and be of average importance (of average

(13)

salience) (Krosnick & Smith 1994). With these characteristics in mind, the European Union was the topic selected as the moderate strength attitude topic. Successive opinion polls, particularly the Eurobarometer (the bi-annual transnational survey carried out in EU member states) is charged with gauging public opinion and attitudes about and within the European Union. Opinions regarding the European Union have remained somewhat consistent, with fluctuations in attitudes remaining with acceptable boundaries so as to make it the perfect moderate strength attitude topic (Ajzen, 2001). Additionally attitude intensity, which is often used as an indication of attitude strength, is typically moderate when individuals are asked about the European Union (Visser & Krosnick, 1998).

Framing effects

For Group 1; the salient or strong attitude group, participants were required to indicate their opinions on abortion: “Please indicate your opinion on abortion”. They selected an option from a 6-point Likert scale ranging from (1) totally in favour to (6) totally against. They were then presented with an experimental manipulation, which in this case was a piece of text that was counter-attitudinal to them. This was possible as there was only a 6-point Likert scale; therefore, participants were forced to make a choice either way. After reading the manipulation piece, a series of questions were posed in order to gauge the presence or strength of framing effects. These questions included: “Please describe the intensity of your feelings about abortion”, “How certain are you about your attitudes about abortion?”, “How likely is it that your attitudes about abortion could be changed?” and “How confident are you that your attitude about abortion is correct?”. Participants were also asked to record the frequency with which they thought about the particular topic and how often they discussed it with peers or family. The questions for each of the topics were altered so as to directly reflect and correctly measure what was supposed to be measured. The questions are reflective of

(14)

Druckman’s (2001) assertion that an alteration in the importance of a belief is proof of the presence of framing effects For a full list of questions of the survey see Appendix I.

Data preparation and Analysis

In order to carry out the necessary analysis of the data, 5 ANCOVAs were conducted in SPSS. The analyses of covariance will demonstrate these differences through the variance of each of the dependent variables (certainty, correctness, attitude intensity, likelihood of a change in mind and knowledge) in each of the three conditions, and between the pre and post manipulation stages. ANCOVA is used in experimental studies when researchers want to remove the effects of some antecedent variable. For example, pretest scores are used as covariates in pretest- posttest experimental designs; therefore it was applicable to this study as participants were asked to record their attitudes on abortion, the EU or the increase in municipal waste disposal charges (depending on the group, to which they had been randomly assigned) prior to their reading of the manipulation material. Following their reading of the manipulation text, participant’s attitudes were measured once more using the measures ‘certainty, correctness, attitude intensity, likelihood of a change in mind and knowledge’ as dependent variables.

To answer both hypotheses; a total number of 5 ANCOVAs will be run. For each ANCOVA the dependent variable will change. The 5 dependent variables are ‘certainty’, ‘correctness’, ‘intensity’, ‘likelihood of a change in mind’ and ‘knowledge’. The two independent variables are ‘condition’; the group to which participants were assigned, and ‘preman_combined’; the pre manipulation attitude question i.e. the answer participants gave prior to reading the manipulation text, (for example in the abortion group, participants were asked: ‘Please indicate your opinion on abortion’ for which there was an answer range (6 options) from ‘Totally in favour-Totally against’). Essentially, the dependent variables

(15)

‘certainty’, ‘correctness’, ‘intensity’ and ‘likelihood of a change in mind’ are all measuring the framing effects in that together, they give a more comprehensive view of the importance of the attitude to the individual. As Druckman (2001) and Nelson and Oxley (1999) conclude, the presence of framing effects can be seen to occur if a person’s perceived importance of an attitude is altered. Therefore if someone is certain of their attitudes, confident that they are correct, as well as feeling very intensely about these feelings, then it is likely that importance of such an attitude could be said to not have shifted. This is the anticipated result for the ‘abortion’ group, as they represent the salient, high strength attitude. Knowledge then, is related but somewhat differently; it has been noted that if people feel strongly (high intensity) about something, then they are also likely to record high levels of knowledge about the topic (Converse, 1964). Just as the opposite is expected from the low strength, less salient, attitude represented by the ‘municipal waste’ group, whose self reported knowledge would be expected to be much lower. However self reporting of knowledge is also not always the most reliable measure, as participants very often try to make themselves out to be more intelligent than they are by pretending the have a higher level of knowledge about the topic (Brucks; Raju, Lonial, and Mangold, 1995). Interestingly the difference between what we think we know (subjective knowledge) and what we actually know (objective knowledge), can be quite immense (Brucks; Raju, Lonial, and Mangold, 1995).

As stated previously, the two independent variables are ‘condition’; the group to which participants were assigned, and ‘preman_combined’; the pre manipulation attitude question i.e. the answer participants gave prior to reading the manipulation text. Within the ‘condition’ variable there are three groups; namely the ‘abortion’, ‘European Union’ and ‘Municipal Waste’. Each of the three groups exemplifies a different attitude strength (attitude intensity) from high, moderate to low, respectively. Each of the ANCOVAs will use the variable ‘condition’ as an independent variable, as it is expected that there will be differences between

(16)

the groups and how they react with the independent variables. The ‘preman_combined’ variable which recorded participants pre-manipulation attitudes will be the covariant in each case.

The pre manipulation variable (‘preman_combined’) is the second of the two independent variables for the experiment. The variable was computed in SPSS, and records the pre manipulation attitude of each individual, and more broadly of each group. Prior to manipulation, participants were asked to indicate their attitudes about their topic (abortion, European Union or waste disposal charges). The answers were recorded on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “totally in favour” to (6) “totally against”. While a 7-point Likert scale is more common, and for analysis, is more malleable; a 7-point scale leaves out a mid-point value, something, which is not desired for this study. If a participant selected either ‘totally in favour’ or ‘totally against’ (either values 1 or 6) this is considered to be a strong attitude. Although opposites, they are both the two strongest attitudes on the 6 point scale. Similarly, if a participant selected either 2 or 5, these were recorded as moderate opinions. Finally if they selected either 3 or 4 (the two middle values), these were recorded as weak opinions. One variable was generated for each of the three groups.

Then, for the purposes of analysis, one overall variable showing the strength of participants’ pre manipulation attitudes was created. A value of 1 was assigned to a strong attitude (either 1 or 6), a value of 2 was assigned to a moderate attitude (2 or 5), and a value of 3 was designated to weak attitudes (3 or 4). Essentially this variable is an amalgamation of the aforementioned 3 separate pre manipulation attitude variables. The results from this question act as a sort of baseline for the measurement of the framing effects, as it records the pre manipulation attitudes. Once the results of each independent variables are examined, the differences between the pre and post manipulation results will signify either the presence or

(17)

absence of framing effects within the groups i.e. the change in the importance of the topic denotes the presence of framing effects.

Results

The results from the ANCOVAs, showed only a minimal change of attitude importance for the strong attitude (abortion) group, but a much larger change of importance for the weak attitude (municipal waste) group. The following results from the analyses of covariance demonstrate these differences through the variance of each of the dependent variables (certainty, correctness, attitude intensity, likelihood of a change in mind and knowledge) in each of the three conditions, and between the pre and post manipulation stages. ANCOVA is used in experimental studies when researchers want to remove the effects of some antecedent variable. For example, pretest scores are used as covariates in pretest- posttest experimental designs; therefore it was applicable to this study as participants were asked to record their attitudes on abortion, the EU or the increase in municipal waste disposal charges (depending on the group, to which they had been randomly assigned) prior to their reading of the manipulation material. Following their reading of the manipulation text, participant’s attitudes were measured once more using the measures ‘certainty, correctness, attitude intensity, likelihood of a change in mind and knowledge’ as dependent variables. The following results were created using ANCOVA output as generated in IBM SPSS version 22. To demonstrate the results in a sentence; are frames less effective on the more salient, high strength attitude? The answer is yes.

Certainty

An analyses of covariance was conducted, to determine the statistically significant difference between the ‘weak, moderate and high strength attitude’ objects on participants ‘certainty’, while controlling for ‘preman_combined’; (the pre manipulation attitudes of the

(18)

participants). Results demonstrated that the strength of attitude object was positively associated with increased attitude certainty, once pre-manipulation attitudes were controlled for: F(4,210) =5.87, p = .000. The adjusted mean score of attitude certainty in the abortion condition was the highest of the groups (M = 4.99, SE = .149) was lower in the European Union condition (M = 3.76, SE = .147), with the (municipal) waste condition having the lowest (adjusted) mean score of each of the groups (M = 3.50, SE = .149), respectively. As certainty was measured on a scale from 1 to 6, an average of almost 5 for the abortion group definitively shows their commitment to their attitudes; a result which was expected for the high strength attitude group.

An interaction effect (see Fig.1 below) between the 3 groups and their pre-manipulation attitudes, on the certainty that their attitudes were correct, was also significant; F(4,210) = 3.85, p = .005. This effect suggests that the level of certainty felt affected the groups differently. As expected the people in the strong attitude (abortion) group were significantly more certain of their attitudes than the weaker strength attitude (waste disposal) group participants were. The mean score from the abortion group in the interaction model was 4.30, for the EU group was 3.56, and for the (municipal) waste group was 3.62. These results support both H1 and H2.

(19)

Fig. 1 Certainty

Correctness

To test both hypotheses an analysis of covariance was carried out, to determine the statistically significant difference between the ‘weak, moderate and high strength attitude’ objects on participants ‘correctness’, while controlling for ‘preman_combined’; (the pre manipulation attitudes of the participants). Results demonstrated that the strength of attitude object was positively associated with increased attitude ‘correctness’ (a belief that their attitude was correct), once pre-manipulation attitudes were controlled for: F(4,209) = 3.63, p= .001. The adjusted mean score of attitude a participant’s perceived ‘attitude correctness’ in the abortion condition was the highest of the groups (M = 4.71, SE = .152) was lower in the European Union condition (M = 3.85, SE = .150), with the (municipal) waste condition having the lowest (adjusted) mean score of each of the groups (M = 3.83, SE = .153), respectively.

An interaction effect (see Fig. 2 on the next page) between the three groups and their pre-manipulation attitudes, on the belief that their attitudes were correct in the post

(20)

manipulation stage, was also significant; F(4,209) = 15.15, p = .004. The mean score from the abortion group in the interaction model was 4.75, for the EU group was 3.37, and for the (municipal) waste group was 3.87. This effect suggests that the level of correctness (of beliefs) felt affected the groups differently. In other words, members of the high strength (abortion) attitude group were much more rigid with their attitudes, in that they were much more convinced that the attitudes expressed at the pre-manipulation stage were correct, than were members of the lower strength (waste) group, as the higher the value, the more sure participants were that their attitudes were correct. These results support both H1 and H2.

Fig. 2 Correctness

Attitude Intensity

Once again, to test both hypotheses simultaneously an analysis of covariance was carried out, to determine the statistically significant difference between the ‘weak, moderate and high strength attitude’ objects on participants ‘attitude intensity’, while controlling for

2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

weak attitude moderate attitude strong attitude

Abortion EU Waste

(21)

‘preman_combined’; (the pre manipulation attitudes of the participants). Results demonstrated that the strength of attitude object was significantly positively associated with increased attitude ‘intensity’ (the intensity/strength of the feelings held about a topic), once pre-manipulation attitudes were controlled for: F(2,216) = 27.31, p = .000. The adjusted mean score of attitude a participant’s ‘attitude intensity’ in the abortion condition was the highest of the groups (M = 4.51, SE = .151) was lower in the European Union condition (M = 3.29, SE = .149), with the (municipal) waste condition having the lowest (adjusted) mean score of each of the groups (M = 2.21, SE = .151), respectively.

From the main analyses of variance table (test of between-subjects effects), significant main effects (p < .05) were recorded for one of the two independent variables;

condition F=21.23, p = .000. ; preman_combined (pre-manipulation attitudes) F=1.11, p = .332. The interaction effect between the 3 groups and their pre-manipulation

attitudes, on the intensity of their beliefs, was not significant; F(4,209) = 2.69, p = .32. This effect suggests that the level of intensity (of beliefs) felt did not affect the groups in a significantly different manner. This is reflected in the standard deviations, as each of the standard deviations lies close to 1, this indicates the results are largely clustered around the mean for each group, in other words, the participants recorded similar attitudes to their own group members (abortion, SD = 1.12, EU, SD = 1.30, waste, SD = 1.34) The similarities in the means for the weak and moderate strength attitude groups (see above) show that, while present, these are not statistically significant differences. Nevertheless, these results support both H1 and H2.

Likelihood of a change of mind

An analysis of covariance was carried out, to determine the statistically significant difference between the ‘weak, moderate and high strength attitude’ objects on participants

(22)

‘likelihood of a change of mind’, while controlling for ‘preman_combined’; (the pre manipulation attitudes of the participants). Results demonstrated that the strength of attitude object was negatively associated with increased ‘likelihood of a change in mind’ (i.e. the higher the attitude strength-issue salience-the less likely the participants were to change their mind), once pre-manipulation attitudes were controlled for, although not to a statistically significant level: F(4,210) = 1.50 , p = .158.

The adjusted mean score of attitude a participant’s ‘likelihood of a change of mind’ in the abortion condition was the highest of the groups (M = 4.76, SE = .155) was lower in the European Union condition (M = 3.27, SE = .153), with the (municipal) waste condition having the lowest (adjusted) mean score of each of the groups (M = 2.95, SE = .155), respectively. The higher the value, the less likely participants are to change their minds (alter their beliefs). As ‘likelihood of a change in mind’ was measured on a scale from 1 to 6, an average of almost 5 for the abortion group definitively shows their commitment to their attitudes, and their unwillingness to deviate from their beliefs; a result that was expected for the high strength attitude group. This finding in particular is very important, as a change in importance is considered to be the hallmark of the presence of framing effects, as defined by Druckman (2001). Therefore this strength of conviction for the abortion group, demonstrates that the importance of their beliefs has not been altered, and therefore, framing effects are minimal for the high strength attitude.

An interaction effect (see below Fig. 3) between the 3 groups and their pre-manipulation attitudes, on the belief that their likelihood to change their minds, was significant; F(4,210) = 2.48, p = .045. This effect suggests that the likelihood that participants might change their mind (or beliefs) felt affected the groups differently. The mean score from the abortion group in the interaction model was 4.45, for the EU group was 3.04, and for the (municipal) waste

(23)

group was 3.00. These results support both H1 and H2.

Fig. 3 Participants likelihood of a change of mind

Knowledge

While the other four dependent variables combine to directly answer the hypotheses, knowledge is included purely for interest. The relationship between how knowledgeable people present themselves to be about a topic, and how important they perceive that topic could yield some interesting results. Thus, a fifth, and final analysis of covariance to test both hypotheses simultaneously was carried out, this time using ‘knowledge’ as the dependent variable and ‘condition’ as the independent variable, and ‘preman_combined’ (the pre manipulation attitudes of participants) as the covariate.

Results demonstrated that the strength of attitude object was positively associated with increased ‘knowledge’ (i.e. the higher the attitude strength-issue salience-the more knowledgeable participants were self-reported), once pre-manipulation attitudes were controlled for, although not to a statistically significant level: F(4,206) = 1.46 , p = .173. The

2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

weak attitude moderate attitude strong attitude

Abortion EU Waste

(24)

adjusted mean score of attitude a participant’s ‘knowledge’ in the abortion condition was the highest of the groups (M = 4.37, SE = .137) was lower in the European Union condition (M = 3.22, SE = .136), with the (municipal) waste condition having the lowest (adjusted) mean score of each of the groups (M = 2.69, SE = .141), respectively. These results are as expected for the abortion group, the more important the participants viewed their topic to be the more likely they were to report a higher level of knowledge. Additionally, past scholarship has noted that people are very often unwilling to admit to being ‘not knowledgeable at all’, therefore they pretend to be knowledgeable about topics about which they are not familiar, or fictitious topics like the increase in waste disposal charges as in the ‘waste’ condition. As the ‘proposed increase’ was fictitious it should be impossible for any participants so be knowledgeable about the topic, and yet the mean level of knowledge for the group is 2.63 (as above), which reflects an answer of ‘moderately knowledgeable’.

From the main analyses of variance table (test of between-subjects effects), significant main effects (p < .05) were recorded for one of the two dependent variables; condition F=30.72, p = .000. ; preman_combined F=4.78, p = .009. An interaction effect between the 3 groups and their pre-manipulation attitudes, on their self reported knowledge, was not significant; F(4,206) = 1.17, p = .33. Interestingly, the standard deviations, in this case are larger (i.e. not as close to 1), this indicates the results are not as uniformly clustered around the mean for each group, in other words, the participants recorded moderately differing levels of knowledge then those of their own group members (abortion, SD = 4.45, EU, SD = 3.18, waste, SD = 2.63). This is most likely as a result of self-reporting of knowledge levels, which is known to be unreliable. This effect suggests that the level of knowledge did not differ between groups. These results support both H1 and H2.

(25)

The purpose of this study was to determine if framing has any effect on topics that are considered highly salient to the individual (strong attitudes); in this case this topic is abortion. The three topics were selected as they each represented a different attitude strength (or saliency) for the individual. From the analyses of variance carried out, considerable evidence in favour of both hypotheses is present. The results indicated that when an issue is considered highly salient, then framing effects are weak, and conversely, when an issue is considered less salient, then framing effects will be strong. Participants from the ‘abortion’ group were found to be much more certain of their attitudes. They also reported being more convinced that their attitudes were correct, and therefore were less likely to change their mind, than the weaker attitude ‘Waste disposal’ group participants. As this resulted in no significant change in beliefs, the hallmark of framing effects, as described by Druckman (2001), this produces evidence in favour of the hypotheses, as for the strong attitude (highly salient) topic, framing effects were minimal.

By contrast, members of the lower strength attitude topic ‘Waste Disposal’ were decidedly much less certain of their attitudes. They admitted that their attitudes may not be correct and also were much more likely to change their minds. They also varied from the ‘Abortion’ group with how intensely they measured their feelings; the ‘Abortion’ group measured more highly intense feelings about their topic, than did the low attitude strength ‘Waste Disposal’ group. As these results indicate the presence of framing effects, as evidenced by the manipulation’s ability to alter attitude importance, this produces evidence in favour of H2 i.e. that framing effects are more prolific on low strength attitude topics, issues that are not salient to the individual.

These findings while very interesting also have a very considerable impact on the future liberalization of abortion policies. As stated previously, the inspiration for this study came from the apparent immovability of such a ‘crystallised’ attitude as abortion (Marsh,

(26)

1985; Strickler & Danigelis, 2002). As abortion has predominantly been framed as a moral issue with the both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice camps seemingly entrenched in their stance (as supported by the results of this study), perhaps both camps need alternative ways of advocating for their cause; as neither group has managed to persuade a considerable majority. Therefore the comment by Gloria Feldt, President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, that, “whoever frames an issue [most effectively] wins the debate” (Vennochi, 2003) is highly contestable: this study delivers considerable evidence to suggest that frames are not effective on strong attitudes or beliefs.

Framing effects also have considerable effects on citizen competence. By definition, a competent citizen should not base his or her decisions on arbitrary information Druckman, 2001, p. 232). Past scholarship has indicated that this is often the case, particularly with equivalency framing. Additionally, citizens are also subject to elite manipulation. Such manipulation occurs when citizens form their opinions based on information that is either incorrect or biased (Page and Shapiro, 1992). This raises considerable concerns when one considers its implications for democracy, and in particular how these interact with how citizens form political opinions, and by extension, how they vote. Converse (1964) noted that citizens tend to not have strongly held attitudes with regards to politics topics. If this is the case, then elite usage of frames, but more importantly, emphasising particular aspects of them, or just regularly repeating them does affect people’s attitudes, and helps to ensure the effectiveness of a particular frame (Druckman, 2001). As Zaller (1992) explains, “framing and symbol manipulation by elites are sometimes discussed in conspiratorial tones, as if, in a healthy democratic polity, they would not occur” (p. 95).

(27)

In order to further test the effects of framing on different attitude strength topics (weak, moderate, strong); it would be advisable that future researchers should select a ‘strong attitude topic’ with less of a moral component. As such, currently, it is only possible to speculate how much of an effect framing would have on a non-moral high strength (salient) topic (Marteau, 1985).

The measures used in this experiment are easily replicable; therefore they would obtain a preferable level of consistency of measurement. The study is therefore quite reliable, as it would be easy for someone to replicate the study. However, the measurements used to assess framing effects were not from an established scale; it was generated for this study. Although the results from the research were as expected i.e. that for strong attitude (highly salient) topics, framing effects are minimal, care should be taken when generating and using newly established scales; as 100% certainty of its validity cannot be assured, and consequentially that what was intended to be measured (framing effects), was indeed measured. If additional studies, using the same measures were to find similar effects then the validity of the experiment would be higher. This could also provide additional validation in demonstrating that framing is ineffective on other strong.

While there is a generous intellectual legacy from the early origins of framing theory, with many researchers documenting framing effects in a variety of contexts. To date, these have tended to either portray citizens to be persuaded by arbitrary information of subject to manipulation by elites (e.g. Bartels, 1998; Entman, 1993). Yet despite this, scholars are only to beginning to understand framing effects, when they work, how the extent of their efficacy. Emphasis framing is particularly effective in politics, as politicians, lobbyists, and the media continually frame issues either way (Freedman, 2000). What is needed most in the study of framing effects is to unify if and investigate additional relationships with other disciplines. While this has been initiated with certain psychological processes, it is still in its infancy.

(28)

Bibliography

Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 27-58.

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.

Bishop, G. D., Hamilton, D. L., & McConahay, J. B., (1980). Attitudes and nonattitudes in the belief systems of mass publics. The journal of Social Psychology, 110, 53-64. Bohner, G., & Wänke, M. (2002). Attitudes and Attitude Change. London: Psychology Press.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables (pp. 179-225). John Wiley & Sons

Brucks, M. (1985) The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June) (1985), pp. 1–16

Carlson, C.S. (2006). Context Effects on Abortion Questions: Who is Inconsistent. (Published PhD Dissertation). Georgia State University, Georgia, United States.

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99-118.

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.

Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House's Frame After 9/11. Political Communication, 20(4), 415-432.

Entman, R.M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S foreign policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

(29)

Entman, R. M., Matthes, J., & Pellicano, L. (2009). Framing politics in the news: Nature, sources and effects. Handbook of Journalism Studies. London: Routledge.

Fahey, T. (2007), ‘The Catholic Church and Social Policy’, in B. Reynolds and S. Healy, (eds.), Values, Catholic Social Thought and Public Policy, pp. 143-163, Dublin: Cori Justice.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 2, 303-315.

Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (1992). Mesomobilization: Organizing and framing in two protest campaigns in West Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 555-595.

Girard, Françoise., 2001. Reproductive Health under Attack at the United Nations. Reproductive Health Matters, 9 (18).

Hanf, K., & Soetendorp, B. (2014). Adapting to European Integration: Small States and the European Union. New York, NY: Routledge. (Original work published 1998)

Hänggli, R., & Kriesi, H. (2010). Political framing strategies and their impact on media framing in a Swiss direct-democratic campaign. Political Communication, 27, 141-157. Humphreys, T. (2013, July 13) Main points: Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013. The Irish Times. Retrieved from: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/main-points-protection-of-life-during-pregnancy-bill-2013-1.1427315

Inglis, T. (1998), Moral Monopoly: The Rise and Fall of the Catholic Church in Modern Ireland, Dublin: UCD Press.

(30)

Jones, T. M., & Sheets, P. (2009). Torture in the eye of the beholder: Social identity, news coverage, and Abu Ghraib. Political Communication, 26(3), 278-295.

Kingdon, J. W. (1995) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Longman, London.

Krosnick JA, Fabrigar LR. (2003), Designing Questionnaires to Measure Attitudes, New York: Oxford University Press.

Kwansah-Aidoo, K. (2005). Prospects for agenda setting research in the 21st century. In K. Kwansah-Aidoo (Ed.), Topical issues in communications and media research (pp.35-59). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

McCombs, M. (2003). The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in the Shaping of Public Opinion.

Marsh C (1985) Back on the bandwagon: The effects of opinion polls on public opinion. British Journal of Political Science 15(1): 51–74.

Matthes, J., (2012). Framing Politics: An Integrative Approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3) 247–259.

McGuire, William J., (1997). Creative Hypothesis Generating In Psychology: Some Useful Heuristics. Annual Review of Psychology, 481(1), pp.1-30.

Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. NJ, United States: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Pomerants, E. M., Chaiken, S., Tordesillas, R. S. (1995) Attitude Strength and Resistance Processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), pp.408-419.

Raju, P. S., Lonial, S. C., and Mangold, G. W. (1995) Differential Effects of Subjective Knowledge, Objective Knowledge, and Usage Experience on Decision Making: An Exploratory Investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4 (1995), pp. 153–180

(31)

Reese, S.D., Gandy Jr, O.H., Grant, A.E. (2001). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. NJ, United States: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Rometsch, D., & Wessels, W. (1996). The European Union and Member States: Towards

Institutional Fusion. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Scheufele, D. (2000). Agenda setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3,(2-3), pp.297-316.

Vennochi, J. (2003). Abortion foes won by framing debate. Accessed July 18, 2004, at http:// www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/10/23/abortion_fo es_won_by_framing_debate.html

Visser PS, Krosnick JA. 1998. Development of attitude strength over the life cycle: surge and decline. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75:1389–410

de Vreese, C.H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal, 13,(1), pp.51-62.

Wilbertz, J. (2013). Evaluating the societal relevance of research. (Published Master Thesis). University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(32)

Appendix I

Online Experiment Survey Questions

Introductory questions

Q1. Informed Consent

This study aims to find out more about the links between framing and attitudes. The survey will take approximately 8 minutes to complete. You will be asked to answer several questions; then offer your opinion on a piece of text.

The information is kept entirely anonymous. Participants may refuse to answer any question or to stop the survey at any stage. The data collected will contribute to the Master thesis by Aoife Wilson at the University of Amsterdam.

I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described above. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the survey at any time. If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my permission. If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in the future, I can contact Aoife Wilson via aoifew12369@gmail.com

(33)

Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020 5253680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.

I agree to take part in this research: Yes/ No

Q2. Please indicate your nationality e.g. American, Russian, Irish, Dutch etc. Q3. Please indicate your age (in numbers e.g. 1, 2, 3)

*Random assignment takes place here.*

After this participants are assigned to one of three groups (abortion, European Union or Municipal waste disposal charges). They will answer a few questions then be directed to read a piece of text, which is counter attitudinal to them. Then to test framing effects they are asked to answer an additional few questions.

GROUP 1 - ABORTION

Q4. Please rank the following issues in terms of their importance to you (1 being the most important) To rank topics accordingly click on an item, and drag it to your desired position.

The Economy

Environment

Immigration

Social Justice (equality of genders, pay, work, etc.)

(34)

Q5. Please rank the following issues in terms of their importance to you (1 being the most important) To rank topics accordingly click on an item, and drag it to your desired position.

Employment

Economy

Crime

Terrorism

Q6. Please indicate your opinion on the following statements:

Answer range (6 options) Totally agree-Totally disagree

(i) I believe in equality (of gender, work, pay, etc.)

(ii) I believe women's right are very important

(iii) I believe women's rights are sometimes neglected

Q7. Please indicate your opinion on abortion

Answer range (6 options) Totally in favour-Totally against.

Q8. Participants were asked to read the text. Text 1 if they answered on the ‘totally against’ side of the scale or Text 2 if they answered on the ‘totally in favour’ side of the scale.

Text 1: The history of abortion has endured a tumultuous past, largely as a result of the strong opinions it provokes from both the pro-choice and pro-life campaigns. While there are merits to both sides of the arguments: there is really only one outcome: It is a woman’s body, therefore it is a woman’s choice.

(35)

The denial of an abortion procedure is to deny a woman her human right of self-determination. Regardless of the circumstance, a woman should be able to determine the outcome of her life. Abortions happen every minute of every day in every country of the world to not legislate for them is ludicrous, they will continue to happen but only in a way that is harmful to women.

There are many reasons why abortion should be legislated for, chief among them for the mental and physical wellbeing of the mother. Even with the best intentions, with a planned pregnancy, it is possible for circumstances to change and for the mother’s life to be threatened by her pregnancy. If a woman were to contract cancer, or liver or kidney disease, or develop heart problems or any other illness that might threaten her wellbeing during her pregnancy, it might be strongly advisable for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, in order to preserve her own life. By choosing the life of the unborn fetus over that of the mother can fatally harm the mother, resulting in a newborn being raised without a mother. Aside from being a tragic event, it can also have grave effects on the life and health of the prospective child.

Additionally, when a woman gets pregnant accidentally and does not know how to deal with the prospect of having a child, it is quite possible that seeing no alternative that the woman would commit suicide, and she sees it as her only way out of the unwanted pregnancy. Also crucially, in cases of rape of incest; access to an abortion is a necessity. In the case of rape, it is beyond cruel to force a woman to carry a baby that was the result of a sexual assault. Abortions are a necessary feature of female medical care.

One of the main arguments against abortions is that they can be carried out right until the day of delivery, when this is entirely not the case. Statistics show that only 2% of all abortions carried out are done so after the 21st week of pregnancy, and this is only done so when there

(36)

is a serious and credible threat to the life of the mother. It seems illogical to hold a lesser value to the life of something already living and breathing. The mother’s life should and must always be given precedence.

Text 2: Even the name ‘abortion’ is unfitting. Missions can be ‘aborted’, planned journeys can be ‘aborted’ due to bad weather, but babies should never be aborted. The history of abortion has endured a tumultuous past, largely as a result of the strong opinions it provokes from both the pro-choice and pro-life campaigns. Abortion is an entirely inhumane practice and here are just a few reasons why abortion should not be legal…

Abortion only serves to compound tragedy. Sometimes the circumstances surrounding a pregnancy are tragic. Perhaps the woman was raped. Maybe the baby has been diagnosed with a defect. Or the woman’s health might be at risk. However, one tragedy is not answered with another. We do not erase a rape by killing a child. We do not cure a baby by taking his life. And we do not avoid all health issues by avoiding the reality of another human being. Women who have been raped must be compassionately cared for. But compassionate care does not include executing a woman’s child. Parents facing a difficult prenatal diagnosis must be given real facts and directed to others with helpful experiences. They must not be forced into a quick choice for abortion or urged to take the life of their child instead of giving her a chance to defy the odds. Real medical professionals must treat women with high-risk pregnancies.

Abortions also kill innocent lives, as science dictates, unborn human beings, from the moment of conception; a new human life is in existence. Civil rights too, are violated when people are deprived of their basic rights. Unborn children are deprived of life; the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Abortion is discriminatory, inhuman, and cruel.

(37)

Abortions are portrayed as the savior to women; they can make up for bad decisions, accidents, and save women’s lives, however it’s been proven that abortions can in fact harm women. Such harm can manifest in numerous ways including mental, emotional, relational, and physical difficulties. In certain cases, women’s lives are also lost through abortion. The physical effects of abortion include a loss of fertility or an increase in miscarriages. The mental harm abortion wreaks on women can also not be underestimated. Time does not erase or ease the reality of what it is. Abortion is a tragedy; such a choice stays with women forever.

Particularly harrowing is the manner in which abortions are carried out. It defies logic that an abortion should be classified as part of “women’s rights”. It is not a woman’s “right” to kill a child. No person should have the power to order the death of an unborn child. Abortions are far from victimless. No living creature should have to endure the sometimes-horrific circumstances of an abortion procedure. A fetus can have its spine is sucked into a tube or its limbs are torn apart or its heart stopped by poison.

Abortion is not empowering or liberating to anyone involved. These choices should not to be choices at all, in fact they are utter tragedies for all involved, and they should not be permitted in a civilized nation. Women do not receive freedom through the blood of their children.

Q9. Please describe the intensity of your feelings about abortion

Answer range (6 options) Very intense-not intense at all

Q10. How certain are you about your attitudes about abortion?

(38)

Q11. How likely is it that your attitudes about abortion could be changed?

Answer range (6 options) Very likely-very unlikely

Q12. How confident are you that your attitude about abortion is correct?

Answer range (6 options) very confident-not confident at all

Q13. How knowledgeable do you feel about the topic of abortion?

Answer range (6 options) Very knowledgeable-not knowledgeable at all

Q14. Please answer the following questions:

Answer range (7 options) Daily-Never

(i) How often would you talk about the topic with your friends/family/peers?

(ii) How often would you think about the topic of abortion?

GROUP 2- EUROPEAN UNION

Q.15 Please rank the following issues in terms of their importance to you (1 being the most important) To rank topics accordingly click on an item, and drag it to your desired position.

The Economy

Environment

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Through their participation in the Global Commercial Vehicle Drive to Zero forum, the Participants intend to facilitate the development of plans and consolidate Participants’

The report has four main parts: (i) a statistical data collection examining how far, in the EU, companies operate in some form in Member States different from the Member State

No significant differences were found between both groups of children on post-test accuracy, process measures, number of hints needed during training, amount of

– De groepen 2 (alléén pretest A) en 3 (alléén pretest B) scoren hoger dan groep 1 (geen pretest, geen treatment), maar dit verschil is niet significant.. Er is een fors effect van

In this research the effects of beneficiary (other-benefit appeal versus self-benefit appeal versus self-and-other-benefit appeal) and valence (gain framed appeal versus loss

A multivariate approach is described to analyze the data of pretest-postest control group designs and compared to the univariate methods in terms of the estimated treatment e↵ect,

The aim of this study is to experimentally investigate to what extent the impact of crisis proximity (low or high), crisis source (CEO or the company as a

9. Rights of Data Subjects. The Parties agree that, as between them, Institution and Investigator are best able to manage requests from data subjects for access, amendment,