Social and cultural determinants of attitudes toward abortion: a test of Reiss’ hypotheses

Abstract

This study attempts to test Reiss’ hypotheses of the effects of social and cultural variables on abortion attitudes using NORC General Social Survey data 1972–1998. The analysis was done in three steps. First, changes in public opinions on abortion were examined. Second, regression analysis was used to assess the effects of social-cultural variables. Third, we used path analysis to determine the direct and indirect effects of the social-cultural variables on abortion attitudes. Empirical findings indicate the importance of education, gender-role attitudes, fundamentalist beliefs, and childbearing motivation in predicting attitudes toward abortion. Policy implications and limitations of the study are discussed.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Editor of the SSJ, Dr. David Freeman and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the earlier version of the manuscript.

Notes

1 Weinberg et al. (2000) suggest three major factors that have contributed to gender egalitarianism in Sweden: (1) labor shortage, (2) less religiosity, and (3) relative lack of militarism.

2 GSS data are available for all years between 1972 and 1998 except for 1979, 1981, 1992, 1995, and 1997.

3 GSS data treat “not sure” and “don’t know” as an ambiguous category. (GSS coded “NAP” and “NA” as missing values.) Axinn, Barber, and Thornton (1998), in a study on the long-term impact of parents’ childbearing decisions on children’s self-esteem, consider “not sure” as a non-missing value. Gormley (1998) coded “not sure” as 3 in between “agree somewhat” and “disagree somewhat.”

4 Granberg and Granberg (1985) found that although the relationship between attitudes toward abortion and gender-role attitudes is weak, it varies among Protestants and Catholics. The relationship “occurs more strongly among Protestants than among Catholics.” (p. 198).

5 Recoding schemes are presented in the parentheses. These variables are recoded to obtain the same direction.

6 Sullins (1999) points out that the perception of stability in public opinion on abortion is misleading due to the use of the mean by researchers. Mean values were used in this study for the following reasons: skewness is less than 1.000 and mode is 8.000 for every year in the GSS data.

7 While overall levels of support did not vary dramatically during the past three decades, it does not mean that abortion attitudes remained unchanged among groups. Further research may be conducted to examine the shifts in support of abortion among groups.

8 Bunch (1995) and Bahar (1996) point out the androcentric conception of human rights in the founding chapter and the need to redefine human rights. Human rights were defined in terms of public and civil rights infringed by the state, such as the right to free expression, political association, and the right to fair trial, so offering little protection for women.

9 The Supreme Court decision in 1973 (Roe vs. Wade), in fact, shifted the focus of the abortion debate from the fetus to the circumstance of pregnancy, that is, under what conditions could abortion be performed rather than the issue of when life begins.