Context Effects on Abortion Questions

121 Pages·2015·0.27 MB·English

GGeeoorrggiiaa SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy
SScchhoollaarrWWoorrkkss @@ GGeeoorrggiiaa SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy
Political Science Dissertations Department of Political Science
1-12-2006
CCoonntteexxtt EEffffeeccttss oonn AAbboorrttiioonn QQuueessttiioonnss:: WWhhoo iiss IInnccoonnssiisstteenntt
Carolyn S. Carlson
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/political_science_diss
Part of the Political Science Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Carlson, Carolyn S., "Context Effects on Abortion Questions: Who is Inconsistent." Dissertation, Georgia
State University, 2006.
doi: https://doi.org/10.57709/1059866
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Political Science at
ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Dissertations by an
authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Context Effects On Abortion Questions: Who Is Inconsistent

By

Carolyn S. Carlson

Under the Direction of Michael Binford

ABSTRACT

Measuring public opinion on abortion is an ongoing concern for political scientists,
mainly because the public does not always exhibit fixed attitudes on such topics. Most citizens
express a centrist viewpoint between the pro choice and pro life extremes. These include a small
group whose answers to abortion questions are so inconsistent that they give public officials an
inaccurate measure of public opinion on this important issue. Inconsistent responses may result
from context effects, such as the order in which the questions are asked or the way they are
asked. Usually, researchers ask a battery of questions in which respondents say whether they
approve of abortion generally and under a variety of circumstances, citing the reasons for which
a woman might seek an abortion. This project includes an independent national survey using
questions adopted from the General Social Survey. The sample is divided into four experimental
groups with different question orders. Based on these findings, the recommended question order
would be the one with the general question last and the remaining specific questions in a
somewhat random pattern alternating between the so-called “hard” and “easy” individual
abortion situations. One of the more surprising findings is that people didn’t recognize
themselves as subtracting the specific situations from the general question when it was asked
first; hardly any said that was what they were doing when they gave inconsistent answers.
Otherwise, about an equal number of respondents admitted answering the questions off the top of
their heads as those who showed ambivalence by claiming they were deeply committed to their
inconsistent responses. The study found most people who inconsistent on abortion are moderates
leaning towards pro choice. Also, politically conservative regular church-goers can be just as
inconsistent on abortion as the non-religious, non-political, low-educated non-church goers,
especially if they are basically pro choice. Without a full understanding of who is generating
inconsistent answers on abortion, some researchers may be tempted to eliminate these
respondents from their sample. This research should allow them to understand these respondents
better and develop better question wording and question orders to reduce their numbers.

INDEX WORDS: Abortion, Public Opinion Surveys, Context Effects, Question Order
Effects, Ambivalence, Response Effects, Response Inconsistency
CONTEXT EFFECTS ON ABORTION QUESTIONS:
WHO IS INCONSISTENT

By

CAROLYN S. CARLSON

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science

Georgia State University

2005
Copyright by
Carolyn Stewart Carlson
2005
CONTEXT EFFECTS ON ABORTION QUESTIONS:
WHO IS INCONSISTENT

By

CAROLYN S. CARLSON

Major Professor: Michael Binford
Committee: Allison Calhoun-Brown
Stephen Nicholson

Electronic Version Approved:

Office of Graduate Studies

College of Arts and Sciences

Georgia State University

December 2005
iv

Dedicated to Jan Edward Carlson
v

Table of Contents

Page

Table of Tables............................................................................................................................vii
Table of Figures..........................................................................................................................viii
Chapter I: Introduction................................................................................................................1
Chapter 2: Literature Review......................................................................................................7
A. Abortion public opinion.........................................................................................................7
B. Attitude formation theory.......................................................................................................9
C. Theories explaining inconsistencies.....................................................................................10
1. Question order and the part-whole theory.........................................................................10
2. Top of their heads theory..................................................................................................13
3. Deeply conflicting values theory......................................................................................16
D. Literature on other previous abortion studies......................................................................17
Chapter 3: Earlier studies by author........................................................................................19
A. ABC study............................................................................................................................19
B. GSS Study............................................................................................................................27
C. Thoughts on both studies......................................................................................................37
Chapter 4: The Survey...............................................................................................................41
A. Question Order.....................................................................................................................47
B. Answer categories................................................................................................................50
C. Open-ended question............................................................................................................53
D. Self-placement categories....................................................................................................57
E. Demographics – Inconsistent/consistent ..............................................................................61
vi
F. Demographics -- pro choice inconsistent/consistent ............................................................68
G. Demographics – pro life inconsistent/consistent.................................................................76
Chapter 5: Conclusions ..............................................................................................................79
A. Question order and the three theories...................................................................................79
B. Demographics.......................................................................................................................87
C. Final thoughts.......................................................................................................................93
Works Cited.................................................................................................................................98
APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................101
Appendix A: The Survey........................................................................................................102
Appendix B: Variable Coding................................................................................................109
Appendix C: Demographics compared with 1998 GSS.........................................................111
vii
Table of Tables

Caption Page
3.1 Agreement on legality of abortions under various circumstances 21
3.2: Disagreement on pro-choice abortion questions 21
3.3: Abortion should be allowed no matter what the reason by abortion should be
22
legal for unmarried woman who doesn’t want the baby
3.4: Ideology by logic of position on pro-choice questions 23
3.5: Education by logic of position on pro-choice questions 24
3.6: Logic of Position on Pro-Choice Questions, by Ideology, Controlling for
25
Education
3.7: Logic of Position on Pro-Choice Questions, by Education, Controlling for Ideology 26
3.8: Agreement on legality of abortions under various circumstances 28
3.9: Abortion response categories by age 32
3.10: Abortion response categories by education 33
3.11: Abortion response categories by political views 35
3.12: Abortion response categories by party identification 36
3.13: Abortion response categories by religious fundamentalism 37
4.1: Impact of question order on abortion answers 49
4.2: Agreement with legality of abortion by question order 50
4.3: Agreement with legality of abortion by answer category 52
4.4: Self-placement for inconsistency on abortion questions 58
4.5: Impact of question order on inconsistent respondents by self-placement 59
4.6: Inconsistent respondents’ agreement with legality of abortion by self-placement 60
4.7: Political knowledge index for inconsistent respondents by self-placement 61
4.8: Logit analysis of the demographic characteristics of inconsistent/consistent
63
respondents to abortion survey
4.9: Church Attendance by inconsistent/consistent categories 66
4.10: Education by inconsistent/consistent categories 67
4.11: Political knowledge by inconsistent/consistent categories 68
4.12: Ideology by pro choice inconsistent/consistent categories 71
4.13: Religious views by pro choice inconsistent/consistent categories 72
4.14: Ideology by religious views for pro choice and pro life purists 73
4.15: Ideology by religious views for inconsistent pro choice and pro life respondents 74
4.16: Education by pro choice inconsistent/consistent categories 75
4.17: Church Attendance by pro choice inconsistent/consistent categories 76
4.18: Race by pro life inconsistent/consistent categories 77
4.19: Church Attendance by pro life inconsistent/consistent categories 78
5.1: Predictions Table 92
viii

Table of Figures

Caption Page
Figure 1: Abortion Response Categories. 29
Figure 2: The effect of religious views and political ideology on whether one is
64
inconsistent on abortion (change in probabilities).
Figure 3: The effect of religious views, political ideology, political knowledge and
question order on whether pro choice respondents are inconsistent on abortion (change 70
in probabilities).