People's perception of changes in their abortion attitudes over the life course: A mixed methods approach.

Research examining the extent that people's attitudes toward abortion vary across the life course is mixed. Some studies do not show a strong relationship between abortion attitudes and life stage, while others do find strong associations in both directions-older age associated with both more and less favorable attitudes toward legal abortion. Taken together, these findings suggest that individual attitudes toward abortion are static for some but malleable for others. Little is known about the prevalence, reasons, and directionality of attitude changes. This explanatory sequential mixed methods study investigates people's perceptions of whether, how, why, and for whom their abortion attitudes may have changed over their life course. We qualitatively investigated the reasons (e.g., experiences, life events) that triggered changes in respondents' abortion attitudes and quantitatively explored the sociodemographic factors associated with the perceived direction of those changes. The quantitative data come from a 2020 online survey completed by 1501 English and Spanish-speaking adults in the US. Qualitative data were collected from a subsample (n = 24) of the survey respondents who indicated interest in a follow-up in-depth interview. Our findings indicate that access to information and knowledge played an important role in changing abortion attitudes across a spectrum of support or opposition. For those who indicated becoming more opposed to abortion over time, experiencing parenthood was an important trigger for change and family/religious upbringing were key to shaping attitudes. For those who became more supportive of abortion over time, empathy for women was an important trigger for change and disagreeing with or distancing oneself from family/religious upbringing were key to shaping their attitudes. If attitudinal change occurs, becoming more supportive of abortion over the life-course is more common than becoming more opposed, however there are some nuances across age and gender. Understanding the different factors that influence attitudinal change regarding abortion has important implications for public opinion research and possible ramifications for abortion legality.

People's knowledge of and attitudes toward abortion laws before and after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision.

Although media response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision was widespread in the United States, the extent to which people were aware of the Mississippi law leading to the decision, the Dobbs v. Jackson case, is unclear, as are the resulting effects of the decision on legal abortion. As such, we examined people's awareness of abortion legality prior to and after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision announcement, as well as the potential implications associated with the decision (i.e. overturning of Roe v. Wade). We also examined people's attitudes toward abortion legality, specifically focusing on 15 weeks' gestation to correspond with the Mississippi law that led to Dobbs v. Jackson. Data were collected across two studies at different times. In Study 1, a 15-minute survey was administered to IPSOS' KnowledgePanel (N = 1014) prior to the decision announcement. A shorter version of that survey was administered to a second sample using NORC's AmeriSpeak Omnibus panel (N = 1002). Nearly half of that sample (42.2%) completed the survey prior to the decision announcement. People were generally unaware of the Mississippi law, the Dobbs v. Jackson case, and implications associated with the decision (e.g. overturning Roe v. Wade). People generally endorsed abortion being legal at 15 weeks or later, but this varied by circumstance. We did not find meaningful effects of the decision announcement on people's knowledge and attitudes. Our findings suggest that the intense response to the decision from the media and people involved in the abortion movement may not represent the general public's reaction.

A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding the Disconnection between Perceptions of Abortion Acceptability and Support for Roe v. Wade among US Adults.

The relationship between people's attitudes about abortion acceptability and the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade-two distinct but related issues-has not been rigorously explored. The authors used a mixed-methods approach for analyzing in-depth interviews to better understand how participants' feelings toward abortion acceptability are related to perceptions of whether abortion should be legal. The authors then assessed (1) correlations between abortion acceptability and different measures of support for Roe v. Wade, and (2) how the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade may evoke different responses via an online survey fielded in 2018. The study's qualitative results highlight that there is a disjuncture between people's moral feelings toward abortion and their attitudes toward abortion legality. The study's quantitative results further demonstrate that correlations between abortion acceptability and support for Roe v. Wade are moderate, and the differences in responses to the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade are moderated by knowledge. The authors recommend that when researchers develop survey items, they avoid ambiguities of abortion as a general construct, especially when public opinion measures on abortion are employed for research and the design of social and health policy and practice.

Gender egalitarianism, perceived economic insecurity, and fertility intentions in Spain: A qualitative analysis.

Economic uncertainty contributes to low fertility in many European countries. On the other hand, greater gender equality may positively influence fertility. This paper examines how these two forces interact in Spain. We use in-depth interviews to analyse fertility decision-making among young and highly educated partnered adults living in urban areas. Highly gender-egalitarian interviewees are less likely to perceive economic insecurity as an obstacle to proceeding to a next birth than less egalitarian interviewees. But there is not necessarily a difference in these two groups' overall fertility intentions, as highly egalitarian interviewees' greater valuation of stable employment for both partners requires institutional and policy support for dual-earner couples' childrearing. When we look only at interviewees who express economic insecurity, somewhat higher fertility intentions are expressed by those holding less gender-egalitarian attitudes. Our results underline the complexity of the interrelationships between economic insecurity, gender egalitarianism, and fertility intentions.