Search

"Pro‐life" and "pro‐choice" are closely associated with discussions about abortion; we refer to the extent that people identify with these terms as "abortion identity." Most polling measures present pro‐life and pro‐choice as mutually exclusive options, but there is a dearth of information about people who might simultaneously endorse both (or neither) labels. Method: We administered a survey to adults in the United States (n = 580) that included two different formats for participants to select their abortion identity: a categorical item with response options ranging from strongly pro‐choice to strongly pro‐life (and "both" and "neither") and two separate items (sliders) that asked people the extent to which they identify with each term. We asked participants endorsing both pro‐life and pro‐choice to some extent on the slider items to explain their responses in an open‐ended item. We used logistic regression to examine the relationship between participants' socio‐demographic characteristics and the likelihood of dual identification slider scores; we analyzed open‐ended data for content and themes. Results: On the sliders, more than 64% of participants identified as both pro‐life and pro‐choice to some extent. Variability existed between people's abortion identity on the close‐ended items and their response to the open‐ended questions. Among those with mixed abortion identities, participants described abortion as a serious and undesirable option but reflected positively on notions of personal choice and bodily autonomy. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate complexity in measuring people's endorsement of abortion identity labels. We recommend developing more nuanced and consistent measures to assess abortion attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Guided 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). Methods: We 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. Results: We 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. Conclusion: Participants 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Abortion is common in the United States (US), although access is becoming more difficult for some. In addition to restrictive policies that ban most abortion, limit the number of providers and increase costs, barriers to access also include less supportive cultural climates and stigma related to abortion. Prior to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision of the United States Supreme Court, research suggested that people generally believed it was easy to access abortion, but this research did not examine the underlying factors that drive these perceptions. Methods: In 2019, using data from closed and open‐ended survey questions, we examined differences in people's assessment of abortion access within the state they reside and factors that influence those perceptions. We recruited English‐ and Spanish‐speaking US adults (N = 2599) from Qualtrics' national panel using quota‐based sampling to participate in a web‐based survey. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine predictors of access perceptions across demographic characteristics and thematic analysis to analyze open‐ended responses. Results: Fifty‐three percent of participants believed abortion was easy to access in their state. Spanish speakers and participants from legislatively "hostile" states were more likely to perceive access as difficult. Legality‐related knowledge and pro‐life identity were associated with perceiving abortion access as easy. Conclusions: Prior to Dobbs, participants' interpretation of the ease or difficulty of accessing abortion were subjective. Misconceptions about state abortion laws and the prevalence of providers were common, suggesting a need for more education about abortion laws, policies, and access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior to and since the 2022 Dobbs decision, U.S. state laws have endorsed individuals surveilling and punishing those associated with abortion care. This practice presents an urgent need to understand the characteristics of abortion stigma, particularly the perspectives of individuals with stigmatizing beliefs. To examine the concept and characteristics of abortion stigma, we interviewed 55 individuals about whether they thought there should be consequences for getting an abortion and, if so, what the consequences should be. Adults from three states (Michigan, Kansas, and Arizona) were purposively sampled to include a range of abortion identities and levels of religious engagement. We used reflexive thematic analysis to code and interpret the data. Participants imagined consequences including financial penalties, incarceration, and forced sterilization. Three themes highlighted how abortion was described as violating the law, women's gender roles, and religious doctrine; accordingly, abortion was imagined as deserving of negative consequences, although abortion was legal in all states during data collection. We argue that these imagined consequences relied on carceral logics and interconnected sexist, racist, and classist stereotypes that reflect and reproduce abortion stigma. This study deepens the understanding of abortion stigma from the perspective of the stigmatizer, underscoring the danger of legislation grounded in stigmatizing beliefs. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221131544. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We 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. Methods: We 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. Results: The 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. Conclusions: Our 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Salient belief elicitations (SBEs) measure beliefs toward a health behavior through open-ended questions, with the purpose of developing close-ended survey questions. Auxiliary verbs used in SBE questions often differ (eg, What are the top 3 reasons you would/should decide to have an abortion?). We tested how 2 auxiliary verbs function in a SBE assessing abortion in English and Spanish: would/decidíra and should/debería. Methods: We administered a SBE survey online (N = 175) and in-person (N = 72); in-person participants also participated in cognitive interviews to assess question interpretation. Participants were assigned to survey versions that included identical SBE questions aside from auxiliary verbs--would/decidíra versus should/debería. Data analysis included: (1) content analysis of survey responses to assess differences in responses by version and (2) thematic analysis of interview data focused on interpretations of would/decidíra and should/debería. Results: Would/decidíra surveys generated more response categories. Similarly, cognitive interview findings suggest participants conceptualized would/decidíra as allowing for more options, while should/debería was thought to include only the most significant reasons/circumstances for abortion, potentially restricting participants' responses. Conclusion: These findings have important measurement implications for researchers administering SBEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]