Suchergebnisse

AbstractObjectiveGuided by the Reasoned Action Approach, we used a salient belief elicitation (SBE) to elicit participant‐generated beliefs regarding abortion. SBE is a formative research technique used to elicit people's control (i.e., perceived facilitators and barriers associated with a behavior), behavioral (i.e., perceived positive and negative consequences of doing a behavior), and normative (i.e., influence of important people/peers regarding a behavior) beliefs regarding a particular behavior (i.e., abortion).MethodsWe administered our SBE to English‐ and Spanish‐speaking U.S. adults (N = 608) from NORC's AmeriSpeak® panel. We used inductive content and thematic analyses to assess open‐ended questions.ResultsWe found that participants' control and behavioral beliefs referenced circumstances used to assess abortion attitudes in polling item (e.g., rape) and reasons people seek abortion (e.g., financial reasons) as well as potential negative emotions (e.g., shame) and positive consequences (e.g., autonomy) associated with abortion. Participants indicated pregnant people's partners and people seeking abortion as salient referents.ConclusionParticipants mentioned several contexts reflected in common measures used to assess abortion attitudes by national polls and surveys. However, we also found other relevant circumstances not reflected in common measures and a range of salient referents. We recommend abortion attitudes measures account for these participant‐driven salient beliefs.

In this paper, we explore the use of a generative metaphor for analyzing qualitative interviews on abortion attitudes. U.S. abortion attitudes are notably complex and multidimensional, thus, requiring subtle, complex, and multidimensional tools of study. We used the generative metaphor of a "doorway" as an analytic tool to enable new understandings of abortion attitudes as expressed across 24 one-on-one semi-structured qualitative interviews with U.S. adults. The doorway metaphor gave us an understanding of the ways in which participants thought of their abortion attitudes as open to revision or change to some degree while also being closed to revision in other ways. This spectrum of openness and closedness does not come into view when examining abortion attitudes through the dichotomous framings. In this methodological paper, we thoroughly describe how we used the metaphor to explicate the complexities and multi-dimensionalities of a person's abortion attitudes.

In the United States, legislation intended to limit abortion access based on fetal development markers (e.g., heartbeat, fetal pain) has become increasingly common. We found that people's support for legal abortion decreases when survey items mention fetal developmental markers compared with items that do not. However, the majority of participants supported access to legal abortion in health-related circumstances or pregnancies as a result of rape at the detection of a fetal heartbeat. Using terms that personify the fetus may evoke responses from participants that limit their endorsement of abortion. Thus, including this terminology in the public and political discourse seems to influence abortion attitudes. This might have implications related to electoral outcomes which eventually determine whether pregnant people are guaranteed access to abortion.

This study examines how Latinx migrant generation and the circumstances of abortion may be linked to attitudes toward abortion legality among a sample of U.S.‐Latinx adults. Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Multiple‐Indicators Multiple‐Causes modeling, we found that abortion attitudes across different migrant generations are sensitive to circumstances motivating the abortion. We did not find significant differences across migrant generations for generally more endorsed circumstances, such as when the woman's health is at risk or when the pregnancy occurs as a result of rape. However, second and third generations were more inclined to endorse legal abortion than first‐generation for generally less endorsed circumstances, such as low income, being unpartnered, not wanting (more) children, or contraception failure. The social context in which one is raised (i.e., the United States for migrants' descendants or the country of birth for the first‐generation migrants) plays a role in shaping abortion attitudes regarding the less endorsed social‐related circumstances but not for more endorsed circumstances. Further research should consider the inner heterogeneity of the Latinx population as well as the multiple contexts of abortion.

AbstractObjectiveWe examine how a sample of English‐ and Spanish‐speaking U.S. adults define the terms pro‐life/pro‐vida and pro‐choice/pro‐elección and explore whether definitions differ by language and/or ethnicity.MethodsWe asked a sample of 1504 English‐ and Spanish‐speaking U.S. adults to define the terms pro‐choice/pro‐elección and pro‐life/pro‐vida in an open‐ended format. We used content and thematic analysis to examine congruence and discordance between how English and Spanish speakers, as well as Latinx and non‐Latinx participants, understand these terms.ResultsThe terms largely appeared to hold common and canonical understandings, but we identified important differences across language and cultural/ethnic groups. For example, Latinx participants opted out of defining the terms more often than non‐Latinx participants, and respondents to the Spanish survey had higher rates of uncertainty about and misunderstanding of the terms than respondents to the English version.ConclusionsOur findings suggest language‐related variability in understandings of the terms pro‐choice/pro‐elección and pro‐life/pro‐vida that could have implications for multilingual and cross‐cultural polling on abortion.