Individual
Jozkowski, K.N., Willis, M. Crawford, B.L., Turner, R.C. & Lo, W.J. (2019, November). Does empathy toward women who seek abortion predict people’s attitudes toward access to legal abortion. American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Background: Measures of abortion attitudes tend to focus on the morality or legality of abortion. However, people’s attitudes toward abortion may comprise both emotional (e.g., empathy) and cognitive (e.g., knowledge), elements as well, which can lead to complex and ambivalent feelings about abortion. In this study, we examined people’s empathy toward women seeking an abortion and whether this empathy predicted their attitude toward abortion legality.
Method: Data were collected from a representative state-wide survey in Arkansas in 2017 and 2018 (N = 1601). Participants responded to questions assessing (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) empathy toward women seeking abortion, and (3) attitudes toward legal abortion access. Using structural equation modeling, we examined whether abortion empathy predicted people’s attitudes towards abortion legality when controlling for specific socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., education, religion, age, political affiliation). All models were estimated using diagonally weighted least squares.
Results: Overall, the model fit the data well, χ2(37) = 51.220, p = .060; CFI = .985; TLI = .980; SRMR = .034; RMSEA = .028, 90% CI = .000–.045. We found that greater empathy toward women seeking an abortion was directly associated with agreeing that it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion, β = .724, p < .001.
Discussion: Empathy may be an important aspect driving people’s attitudes toward abortion access. Researchers should continue to assess emotional and cognitive factors that underlie abortion attitudes and more broadly consider these dimensions when developing attitudinal measures. Implications for abortion attitude measurement development will be discussed.
Crawford, B.L., Reimers, J., Willis, M., Turner, R.C., Lo, W.J., Jozkowski, K.N. (2019, May 16-19). “Roe v. Wade” versus “Legalized Abortion”: Wording effect influences on survey responses. American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The way questions are worded regarding abortion can influence people’s self-reported attitudes. Given recent increases in abortion restrictions in the U.S., it is important to examine people’s attitudes toward abortion and their alignment with current legislation. The present study extended previous research by investigating wording effects on attitudes toward abortion access. First, we examined whether people’s support for legislation permitting abortion varied when reading a question with the words “Roe. v. Wade” compared with one describing this abortion-related Supreme Court ruling (i.e., the constitutional right of a woman to choose to have an abortion until about 24 weeks). Second, we examined the role of individual-level and state-level factors regarding support for abortion access. Specifically, at Level 1 we examined knowledge of abortion legislation; at Level 2 we examined two state-level variables: 1) how the state voted in the 2016 election (Democrat vs. Republican), and 2) how hostile the state’s laws are toward abortion access. We used Hierarchal Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM) to account for our Level-1 predictors nested within our Level-2 predictors. Results suggest that people who are knowledgeable about abortion legislation in the U.S. are less likely to change their attitudes toward abortion access after being provided a description of Roe v. Wade. However, changes in people’s attitudes based on legislation knowledge was not related to (1) how states of residence voted in the 2016 election and (2) state abortion hostility levels. Implications for abortion attitudes research will be discussed.
Simmons, M., Jozkowski, K.N., Crawford, B.L., Turner, R.C. & Lo, W.J. (2019, November). If it’s legal, it’s easy: (Mis)perceptions of abortion access across the U.S. American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Background: From 2011 to 2017, states passed 401 abortion restrictions. Some public discourse suggests that legislative restrictions do not present meaningful barriers to abortion access, whereas other discourse indicates that restrictions delay or deny access. Research examining the relationship between state abortion restrictions and perceptions of access is lacking. The purpose of this study was to examine people’s perceptions of the ease or difficulty of accessing abortion, specifically assessing the extent that it may vary, based on state-level abortion legislative restrictions.
Methods: English and Spanish-speaking U.S. adults (N = 2,671) were recruited from Qualtrics’ national panel to participate in a web-based survey. We asked sociodemographic questions, including state of residency, and open and closed-ended questions assessing perceptions of ease or difficulty in accessing abortion in their state and the U.S. We assessed perceptions of abortion access by geographic location and sociodemographic characteristics. We used thematic analysis to analyze open-ended responses.
Results: Preliminary findings indicate that people generally believe abortion is easy to access in their state and state-level abortion climate influences perceptions of abortion access. Several themes including legality, policy restrictions, and social norms, emerged in the open-ended data. Misconceptions and lack of information were common.
Conclusion: A large proportion of our sample consider abortion easy to access, despite the prevalence of restrictions. Accurate and informed assessment of abortion access is essential for abortion advocacy groups regardless of stance. Recommendations for survey development, policy, and advocacy will be discussed.
Valdez, D., Willis, M., Jozkowski, K.N., Crawford, B.L., Turner, R.C. & Lo, W.J. (2019, November). Objectivity of enacted abortion legislation in the United States: Using latent sentiment analysis to algorithmically identify neutrality in written language. American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA, United States.
The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade positioned abortion as a national issue. However, the actual practice is regulated through state-level legislation. Those laws, which vary in scope and degree of abortion restriction, are written to appear neutral. However, the resultant legal limitations imposed on abortion in certain states indicate that language within enacted laws may not be truly objective, but contain embedded latent language patterns with fixed agendas.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the language used in abortion laws by state via latent sentiment analysis— a computer algorithm that analyzes text data for neutrality— to rank each state by level of objectivity.
Methods: We indexed enacted abortion laws by state into separate .txt files. Those files were run through a computer algorithm to identify which words skewed positively, negatively, or truly neutral. The computer then assigned a sentiment score for each state and ranked them from most positive to most negative.
Results: Preliminary findings suggest language used in abortion legislation is not neutral. Legislation ranged in its degree of embedded positive and negative language. Upon further analysis we anticipate each states’ sentiment score to align with Guttmacher’s state ranking of abortion hostility— i.e. negative sentiment scores indicate abortion hostility, and positive sentiment scores indicate abortion acceptance.
Conclusion: All states propose and enact abortion legislation from a seemingly neutral platform. However, through text mining, we identified discrepancies in sentiment that indicate leanings toward abortion acceptance or abortion hostility. Implications for abortion policy will be discussed.
Valdez, D., Kaplan, A.M., Maier, J., Diaz, D., Jozkowski, K.N., Crawford, B.L., & Turner, R.C. (2019, November). Using the reasoned action approach to assess Latinx abortion perception and attitudes in the United States. American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Background. The Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) is an integrative framework used to understand health behaviors through top-of-the-mind responses that elicit salient beliefs on key issues. Though widely used across a number of health topics, including sexual health, this framework has yet to be applied specifically to abortion research. And, because abortion, specifically abortion opinions, are nuanced and complex, the top-of-the-mind responses generated from the RAA can help better understand the root of beliefs and attitudes, especially among non-white samples.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to use the Reasoned Action Approach to assess how perceived norms, consequences, and circumstances influence subsequent abortion opinions among a Spanish-speaking Latinx sample.
Methods. We conducted 27 Spanish-language cognitive interviews to accomplish a two-fold task: (1) identify complex thought process that ultimately shapes personal perceptions of abortion, and (2) assess the functionality of the survey questions by asking how participants interpreted each question.
Results: Among the Latinx sample, findings suggest people’s opinions towards abortion are tied to cultural and family norms, especially when those views skew pro-life (anti-choice). Further, acculturation, or length of time in the United States, helped independently form opinions and personal ideologies separate from more conservative opinions and norms established by the family.
Conclusion: The RAA helped understand the nuances in people’s attitudes towards abortion— especially among historically marginalized groups, such as the Latinx community. By framing abortion as complex and nuanced, the field stands to gain deeper insights into the actual climate of abortion attitudes, agnostic of a political divide.
Posters
Maier, J., Jozkowski, K.N., Simmons, M., Valdez, D., Turner, R., Lo, W.J., & Crawford, B. (2019, November). Beliefs about abortion permissibility in the context of mental health. American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Background: Physical health issues, such as threats to maternal or fetal health, are conceptualized as “legitimate” reasons for abortion. Less is known about people’s views on abortion for mental health reasons—if the mother’s mental health would be compromised by continuing her pregnancy, or if the fetus was at risk of a mental health issue. The purpose of this research is to explore people’s beliefs about abortion in the context of mental health.
Method: This analysis was part of a larger study assessing participants’ beliefs about abortion. Eighty-three cognitive interviews were conducted to examine people’s perceptions of abortion. Participants’ discussion of mental health was analyzed inductively and themes were generated using thematic analysis.
Results: Preliminary findings indicate participants have contradictory and ambivalent views on abortion in relation to maternal and child mental health. Participants were mixed in supporting abortion to preserve a woman’s mental health. Many supported abortion if she had a serious mental illness, as they perceived her to be an unfit mother. Participants also expressed conflicting views about the acceptability of abortion in the case of the child’s mental health. While some did not view mental illness as a reason for abortion, others believed it was acceptable/necessary, to reduce suffering or produce more productive citizens.
Conclusion: Findings suggest participants have nuanced views about abortion in the context of mental health. While some circumstances qualify as “legitimate” reasons for abortions, others caused people to feel ambivalent/conflicted. Future research should explicitly examine abortion attitudes in the context of mental health.
Bustamante, J., Valdez, D., Crawford, B.L., Turner, R.C., Lo, W.J. & Jozkowski, K.N. (2019, November). Ethnographic challenges in the study of abortion: Establishing access in Spanish speaking/Latinx community. American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Background: Although abortion research in the American South has shown some of the ethnographic challenges researchers experience, there has been little effort to study the particular difficulties of gaining access to immigrant southern communities and Spanish-speaking/Latinx participants. This is particularly salient as the Latinx population in the U.S. continues to grow. We seek to fill this research gap by examining the culturally responsive practices fieldworkers employed to negotiate access to a southern ethnic community to study people’s perceptions toward abortion.
Methods: Drawing on qualitative methods and cognitive interview data gathered between November 2018 and February 2019, the research team sought to examine the ethnographic challenges to recruit 30 Spanish-speaking participants in Northwest Arkansas. Open and focused coding abetted the identification of overarching themes.
Results: In this abortion research, traditional recruitment approaches, flyers, and internet postings, proved to have a limited impact on accessing Latinx participants. Establishing contact with an ethnic community gatekeeper not only eased our access to the field setting but also enabled our ability to increase the number of participants through their personal networks. We observed that in sensitive subjects like abortion, distrust hinders access. Yet, in identifying and collaborating with a gatekeeper, we worked towards creating trustful relationships, establishing credibility, and gaining access to a greater quality of data.
Conclusion: We maintain that difficulties in research access to Latinx and immigrant communities can be negotiated by embracing a culturally responsive model. The salience of a gatekeeper in facilitating our induction into this community improved participant recruitment