The “abortion imaginary”: Shared perceptions and personal representations among everyday Americans

By: Tricia C. Bruce, Kendra Hutchens, and Sarah K. Cowan

Published in: Science Advances 10 (9)

Drawing upon 217 in-depth interviews and the concept of the “social imaginary,” we introduce the “abortion imaginary”—a set of shared understandings regarding abortion and abortion patients. We identify four interrelated facets of the U.S. abortion imaginary pertaining to who gets an abortion and why: maternal inevitability, economic decision-making, relationship precarity, and emotional fragility. We then show how shared perceptions of abortion patients diverge into polarized opinions, revealing how those who know someone who has had an abortion differ from those who do not. Centering personal “exemplars,” we integrate conceptual work on social imaginaries with contact theory to illuminate how divergent opinions coexist with shared cultural understandings.

Stasis and Sorting of Americans’ Abortion Opinions: Political Polarization Added to Religious and Other Differences

By: Michael Hout, Stuart Perrett, & Sarah K. Cowan

Published in: Socius 8, 2022

Americans disagree on legal abortion now about as much as they did in the 1970s, but their attitudes now sort much more according to political identity. Differences of opinion by religion, gender, race, and work that were key to understanding abortion attitudes in the 1970s persisted through 2021. The General Social Survey shows that first conservatives increased their opposition to legal abortion rights; their mean score dropped 1.1 points (on a 6-point scale) from 3.8 to 2.7 from 1974 to 2004. As conservatives’ opinions leveled off, liberals increased their support of abortion rights from 4.7 in 2004 to 5.3 or 5.4 in 2021 (because of Covid-19, survey mode changed, creating uncertainty about the sources of change). Women were significantly more divided by political ideology than men were throughout the time series, but gendered political differences did not displace or reduce religious, educational, racial, or work-life differences.

Discordant benevolence: How and why people help others in the face of conflicting values

By: Sarah K. Cowan, Tricia C. Bruce, Brea L. Perry, Bridget Ritz*, Stuart Perrett* & Elizabeth M. Anderson*

Published in: Science Advances 8 (7), 2022

What happens when a request for help from friends or family members invokes conflicting values? In answering this question, we integrate and extend two literatures: support provision within social networks and moral decision-making. We examine the willingness of Americans who deem abortion immoral to help a close friend or family member seeking one. Using data from the General Social Survey and 74 in-depth interviews from the National Abortion Attitudes Study, we find that a substantial minority of Americans morally opposed to abortion would enact what we call discordant benevolence: providing help when doing so conflicts with personal values. People negotiate discordant benevolence by discriminating among types of help and by exercising commiseration, exemption, or discretion. This endeavor reveals both how personal values affect social support processes and how the nature of interaction shapes outcomes of moral decision-making.