对堕胎合法性和堕胎监管的态度:一项全国代表性研究的启示

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Social Science Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1111/ssqu.13443
Kristen N. Jozkowski, Brandon L. Crawford, Amelia Hawbaker, Erik Parker, Lilian Golzarri Arroyo, Ronna C. Turner
{"title":"对堕胎合法性和堕胎监管的态度:一项全国代表性研究的启示","authors":"Kristen N. Jozkowski, Brandon L. Crawford, Amelia Hawbaker, Erik Parker, Lilian Golzarri Arroyo, Ronna C. Turner","doi":"10.1111/ssqu.13443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveNational public opinion polls and surveys use different questions from one another to assess people's abortion attitudes. We included commonly asked abortion attitude items on a single survey to examine people's attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion restriction to create profiles of people which we then compared across state groups. Concurrently assessing attitudes toward both abortion legality and restrictions is important given the changing abortion legislative climate in the United States.MethodWe administered an online survey to U.S. adults (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 919) via Ipsos probability panel and used latent class analysis to identify classes of participants. Then, we used multinominal logistic regression to make state‐level comparisons.ResultsWe identified three classes: (1) 35.0 percent—abortion should be illegal/more restricted, (2) 35.1 percent—abortion should be legal/laws should reflect the status quo, and (3) 29.9 percent—abortion should be legal/more available. Trigger‐law states comprise the largest proportion of people who think abortion should be illegal/more restricted, whereas states without trigger laws comprise similar proportions of people from all three classes.ConclusionConcurrently measuring whether people believe abortion should be legal and the extent it should be restricted can provide a more comprehensive understanding of people's attitudes and demonstrates important state‐level nuances in attitudes.","PeriodicalId":48253,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Quarterly","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion regulation: Insights from a nationally representative study\",\"authors\":\"Kristen N. Jozkowski, Brandon L. Crawford, Amelia Hawbaker, Erik Parker, Lilian Golzarri Arroyo, Ronna C. Turner\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ssqu.13443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectiveNational public opinion polls and surveys use different questions from one another to assess people's abortion attitudes. We included commonly asked abortion attitude items on a single survey to examine people's attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion restriction to create profiles of people which we then compared across state groups. Concurrently assessing attitudes toward both abortion legality and restrictions is important given the changing abortion legislative climate in the United States.MethodWe administered an online survey to U.S. adults (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 919) via Ipsos probability panel and used latent class analysis to identify classes of participants. Then, we used multinominal logistic regression to make state‐level comparisons.ResultsWe identified three classes: (1) 35.0 percent—abortion should be illegal/more restricted, (2) 35.1 percent—abortion should be legal/laws should reflect the status quo, and (3) 29.9 percent—abortion should be legal/more available. Trigger‐law states comprise the largest proportion of people who think abortion should be illegal/more restricted, whereas states without trigger laws comprise similar proportions of people from all three classes.ConclusionConcurrently measuring whether people believe abortion should be legal and the extent it should be restricted can provide a more comprehensive understanding of people's attitudes and demonstrates important state‐level nuances in attitudes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48253,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13443\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13443","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标全国性民意测验和调查使用不同的问题来评估人们对堕胎的态度。我们在一项调查中加入了堕胎态度的常见问题,以考察人们对堕胎合法性和堕胎限制的态度,从而建立人们的档案,然后在各州组之间进行比较。鉴于美国不断变化的堕胎立法环境,同时评估人们对堕胎合法性和限制性的态度非常重要。方法我们通过益普索概率面板对美国成年人(n = 919)进行了在线调查,并使用潜类分析来确定参与者的类别。结果我们确定了三个等级:(1)35.0%的人认为堕胎应该是非法的/受到更多限制;(2)35.1%的人认为堕胎应该是合法的/法律应该反映现状;(3)29.9%的人认为堕胎应该是合法的/更容易获得。同时测量人们是否认为堕胎应该合法以及应该在多大程度上限制堕胎,可以更全面地了解人们的态度,并显示出各州在态度上的重要细微差别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion regulation: Insights from a nationally representative study
ObjectiveNational public opinion polls and surveys use different questions from one another to assess people's abortion attitudes. We included commonly asked abortion attitude items on a single survey to examine people's attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion restriction to create profiles of people which we then compared across state groups. Concurrently assessing attitudes toward both abortion legality and restrictions is important given the changing abortion legislative climate in the United States.MethodWe administered an online survey to U.S. adults (n = 919) via Ipsos probability panel and used latent class analysis to identify classes of participants. Then, we used multinominal logistic regression to make state‐level comparisons.ResultsWe identified three classes: (1) 35.0 percent—abortion should be illegal/more restricted, (2) 35.1 percent—abortion should be legal/laws should reflect the status quo, and (3) 29.9 percent—abortion should be legal/more available. Trigger‐law states comprise the largest proportion of people who think abortion should be illegal/more restricted, whereas states without trigger laws comprise similar proportions of people from all three classes.ConclusionConcurrently measuring whether people believe abortion should be legal and the extent it should be restricted can provide a more comprehensive understanding of people's attitudes and demonstrates important state‐level nuances in attitudes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.50%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Nationally recognized as one of the top journals in the field, Social Science Quarterly (SSQ) publishes current research on a broad range of topics including political science, sociology, economics, history, social work, geography, international studies, and women"s studies. SSQ is the journal of the Southwestern Social Science Association.
期刊最新文献
Domains of baseless belief and the characteristics of believers Attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion regulation: Insights from a nationally representative study An advanced learning approach for detecting sarcasm in social media posts: Theory and solutions Not ready to make nice: Congressional candidates’ emotional appeals on Twitter Climate‐related disasters and transparency: Records and the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1