Judgments about the Acceptability of Abortion: Role of the Questions Order in the Survey Questionnaire and Influence of Other Factors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.3.2530Keywords:
public opinion survey, abortion, artificial termination of pregnancy, split sample, values, quantitative surveysAbstract
The article analyses opinions on the acceptability of abortion under three proposed circumstances (at the will of the woman, in the presence of fetal abnormalities and in the presence of serious financial difficulties in the family). Empirically, the study bases on a representative all-Russian survey conducted by the Institute of Social Analysis and Forecasting of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) in 2023. 5,634 respondents under the age of 50 were selected for the analysis.
Using equal-probability split sampling, the author estimates the effect of a sequence of circumstances offered in a questionnaire on support for judgments of abortion acceptability when controlling for socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. Studying variation in the sequence of the medical and unconditional scenarios, the author shows that the proportion supporting both judgments ranges from 64% to 88%, while the proportion supporting neither range from 34% to 68%. The effect of the judgment order confirmed its statistical significance in the regression analysis. However, the order of the judgments did not affect the proportion of those who supported none, which favors the hypothesis of the relative stability of the conservative position.
Based on a review of theoretical and previous empirical work, the author confirms the high importance of value attitudes both for the formation of expectations of a particular choice and for making it. The empirical findings enrich our understanding of the ambivalence of public opinion regarding the acceptability of abortion and add to the debate on the relationship between reproductive choice and value orientations.
Acknowledgements. The article was written within the RANEPA state assignment research programme.
References
Антипова Н. Д. Этические коллизии вокруг проблемы аборта в рамках различных ценностно-мировоззренческих ориентаций // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 7. Философия. 2005. № 1. С. 107-119.
Antipova N. D. (2005) Ethical Conflicts around the Problem of Abortion within the Framework of Various Value-Worldview Orientations. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 7. Philosophy. No. 1. P. 107-119. (In Russ.)
Волченко Ю. Ю. Запрет на проведение абортов в СССР: 1936-1955 гг. // XX Международная научная конференция молодых ученых и студентов «Эволюция российского права». Екатеринбург, 2022. С. 91-97.
Volchenko Y.Y. (2022) Introduction of the Prohibition of Abortion in the USSR 1936-1955. XX International Scientific Conference of Young Scientists and Students “Evolution of Russian Law”. Ekaterinburg. P. 91-97. (In Russ.)
Данилова С.И. Об искусственном прерывании беременности // СПС КонсультантПлюс. 2022.
Danilova S.I. (2022) On Artificial Termination of Pregnancy. SPS ConsultantPlus. (In Russ.)
Захаров С. В., Сакевич В. И. Долговременные тенденции уровня рождаемости и проблемы ее контроля на внутрисемейном уровне в современной России // Население России 2019: двадцать седьмой ежегодный демографический доклад / Отв. ред.: С. В. Захаров. М.: Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2022.
Zaharov S. V., Sakevich V. I. (2022) Long-Term Birth Rate Trends and Problems of Its Control at the Intra-Family Level in Modern Russia. In: Zakharov S.V. (ed.) Population of Russia 2019: Twenty-Seventh Annual Demographic Report. Moscow: HSE Publishing House. (In Russ.)
Крадецкая С.В. «Женщина должна иметь право выбирать». Вокруг закона о запрете абортов 1936 г. // Сборник докладов XVI Конференции РАИЖИ. 2023. С. 184-197.
Kradetskaya S.V. (2023) «A Woman Should Have the Right to Choose.» Around the Anti-Abortion Act of 1936. In: Collection of Reports of the XVI Conference RAIZHI. P. 184-197. (In Russ.)
Мануильская К. М. Полевой эксперимент в прикладных исследованиях: Peterson T. Das Feldexperiment in der Umfrageforschung. Frankfurt: Campus, 2002 // Социологический журнал. 2004. № 3-4. С. 203-209.
Manuilskaya K. M. (2004) Field Experiment in Applied Research: Peterson T. Das Feldexperiment in der Umfrageforschung. Frankfurt: Campus, 2002. Sociological Journal. No. 3-4. P. 203-209. (In Russ.)
Мягков А. Ю. Всегда ли респонденты говорят правду? Мета-анализ зарубежных источников // Социологические исследования. 2008. № 9. С. 20-31.
Myagkov A. Yu. (2008) Do Respondents Always Tell the Truth? Meta-Analysis of Foreign Sources. Sociological Studies. No. 9. Р. 20-31. (In Russ.)
Рогозин Д. М. Когнитивный анализ опросного инструмента // Социологический журнал. 2000. № 3-4. С. 18-70.
Rogozin D. M. (2000) Cognitive Analysis of the Survey Tool. Sociological Journal. No. 3-4. P. 18-70. (In Russ.)
Сакевич В. И., Денисов Б. П., Ривкин-Фиш М. Непоследовательная политика в области контроля рождаемости и динамика уровня абортов в России // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2016. Т. 14. № 4. С. 461-478.
Sakevich V.I., Denisov B.P., Rivkin-Fish M. (2016) Incoherence in Birth Control Policy and Dynamics of Abortion in Russia. Journal of Social Policy Research. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 461-478. (In Russ.)
Сакевич В. И., Денисов Б. П., Никитина С. Ю. Прерывания беременности в России по данным официальной статистики // Социологические исследования. 2021. № 9. С. 42-53.
Sakevich V.I., Denisov B.P., Nikitina S.Y. (2021) Termination of Pregnancy in Russia According to Official Statistics. Sociological Research. No. 9. P. 42-53. (In Russ.)
Ajzen I., Fishbein M. (1972) ATtitudes and Normative Beliefs as Factors Influencing Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031930.
Ajzen I., Klobas J. (2013) Fertility Intentions: An Approach Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Demographic Research. Vol. 29. P. 203-232. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.8.
Beach L. R. (1993) Image theory: Personal and Organizational Decisions. In: Klein G.A., Orasanu J., Calderwood R., Zsambok C. E. (eds.) Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods. New York, NY: Ablex Publishing Corporation. P. 148-157.
Biggs M. A., Gould H., Foster D. G. (2013). Understanding Why Women Seek Abortions in the US. BMC Women's Health. Vol. 13. No 29. P. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29.
Bracken M. B., Klerman L. V., Bracken M. (1978). Coping with Pregnancy Resolution among Never-Married Women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol. 48. No. 2. P. 320-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1978.tb01320.x.
Brickman P., Dunkel-Schetter C., Abbey A. (1987) The Development of Commitment. In P. Brickman (ed.) Commitment, Conflict, and Caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. P. 145-221.
Bumpass L. L. (1997) The Measurement of Public Opinion on Abortion: The Effects of Survey Design. Family Planning Perspectives. Vol. 29. No. 4. P. 177-180.
Cowan S. K., Hout M., Perrett S. (2022) Updating a Time-Series of Survey Questions: The Case of Abortion Attitudes in the General Social Survey. Sociological Methods & Research. Vol. 53. No. 1. P. 193-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241211043140.
Crawford B. L., LaRoche K. J., Jozkowski K. N. (2022) Examining Abortion Attitudes in the Context of Gestational Age. Social Science Quarterly. Vol. 103. No. 4. P. 855-867. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13157.
Dommermuth L., Klobas J., Lappegård T. (2011) Now or Later? The Theory of Planned Behavior and Timing of Fertility Intentions. Advances in Life Course Research. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 42-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2011.01.002.
Evans J. H. (2002) Polarization in Abortion Attitudes in US Religious Traditions, 1972—1998. Sociological Forum. Sociological Forum. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019627006778.
Finer L. B., Frohwirth L. F., Dauphinee L. A., Singh S., Moore A. M. (2005) Reasons US Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. Vol. 37. No. 3. P. 110-118.
Jelen T. G., Wilcox C. (2003). Causes and Consequences of Public Attitudes toward Abortion: A Review and Research Agenda. Political Research Quarterly. Vol. 56. No. 4. P. 489-500.
Jones Ö., Forrest J. (1992) Underreporting of Abortions in Surveys of US Women: 1976 to 1988. Demography. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 113—126.
Hass P. H. (1974). Wanted and Unwanted Pregnancies: A Fertility Decision‐Making Model. Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 125-165.
Hoffman L. W., Hoffman M. L. (1973) The Value of Children to Parents. In: Fawcett J.T. (ed.) Psychological Perspectives on Population. New York, NY: Basic Books. P. 19-76.
Loll D., Hall K. S. (2019). Differences in Abortion Attitudes by Policy Context and between Men and Women in the World Values Survey. Women & Health. Vol. 59. No. 5. P. 465-480.
Lydon J., Dunkel-Schetter C., Cohan C. L., Pierce T. (1996) Pregnancy Decision Making as a Significant Life Event: A Commitment Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 71. No. 1. P. 141—151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.141.
McClendon M. J., O'Brien D. J. (1988) Question-Order Effects on the Determinants of Subjective Well-Being. Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 52. No. 3. P. 351-364.
Miller W. B. (1974) Relationships between the Intendedness of Conception and the Wantedness of Pregnancy. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. Vol. 159. No. 6. P. 396-406.
Patel C. J., Kooverjee T. (2009) Abortion and Contraception: Attitudes of South African University Students. Health Care for Women International. Vol. 30. No. 6. P. 550-568.
Patel C. J., Myeni M. C. (2008). Attitudes toward Abortion in a Sample of South African Female University Students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol. 38. No. 3. P. 736-750.
Rye B. J., Underhill A. (2020) Pro-choice and Pro-life Are Not Enough: An Investigation of Abortion Attitudes as a Function of Abortion Prototypes. Sexuality & Culture. Vol. 24. No. 6. P. 1829-1851.
Schuman H., Presser S. (1996) Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York, NY: Academic.
Smetana J. G., Adler N. E. (1979) Decision-Making Regarding Abortion: A Value × Expectancy Analysis. Journal of Population. Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 338-357.
Tourangeau R., Rasinski K. A. (1988) Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 103. No. 3. P. 299—314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299.
Wanke M., Schwarz N. (1997) Reducing Question Order Effects: The Operation of Buffer Items. In: Lyberg L. E., Biemer P. P., Collins M., de Leeuw E., Dippo C., Schwarz N., Trewin D. (eds.) Survey Measurement and Process Quality. New York, NY: Wiley. P. 115-139.
Welzel C. (2013) Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Williamson L. E., Lawson K. L. (2015) Young Women’s Intentions to Delay Childbearing: A Test of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. Vol. 33. No. 2. P. 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2015.1008439.
Zaller J., Feldman S. (1992) A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences. American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 36. No. 3. P. 579—616. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111583.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
