Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut, Sometimes You Don't: Citizens' Ambivalence About Abortion

Craig, Stephen C.; Kane, James G.; Martinez, Michael D.

doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00282

Cited by 83 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The construct validity of each of the different measures was assessed by comparing how well the theoretical sources of ambivalence predict each measure respectively. The findings indicate that the approach adapted from earlier work (Craig, Kane, and Martinez 2002; that forces respondents to rate their positive and negative feelings separately is the most valid if we agree that ambivalence can be defined as the simultaneous possession of positive and negative evaluations. The evidence provides support to previous research that suggested ambivalence may result when individuals have conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitive conflict), conflicting feelings (affective conflict), or beliefs in conflict with feelings (cognitive-affective conflict).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…The range of scores for each of the seven items described above is -0.5 through 4.0, with intervals of 0.5 (see Craig, Kane, and Martinez 2002). A principal components factor analysis confirmed that all seven load on a single factor, and the reliability of an additive index constructed from them is very high (α = .860).…”

Section: Dependent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…While survey researchers have begun to accept that ambivalence is a standard attribute of attitudes (Alvarez and Brehm 1995;Craig, Kane, and Martinez 2002;Feldman and Zaller 1992;Zaller 1992), our measures have not caught up with theory. If ambivalence is a standard attribute of attitudes along with such other attributes as attitude importance (Krosnick and Abelson 1992;Krosnick 1988;Boninger, Krosnick, Berent 1995), intensity (Krosnick and Abelson 1992;Krosnick et al 1993), extremity and certainty (Alvarez and Brehm 1995), and these attributes are consequential to our understanding of attitudes in general (see Bassili 1996 for a review), it seems logical that we should determine the optimal way to measure the attribute of ambivalence.…”

Section: Why Measure Ambivalence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others have used another operative approach to measuring ambivalence where respondents are asked to rate how positively they feel toward an attitude object and then asked separately to rate how negatively they feel toward the object (Craig, Kane, and Martinez 2002;Gainous and Martinez 2005;Martinez et al 2005). The responses are then combined via a mathematical algorithm, yielding an ordinal measure of ambivalence.…”

Section: Operative Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ambivalence is defined as the simultaneous possession of positive and negative evaluations of a single attitude object (Albertson, Brehm, and Alvarez 2005;Alvarez and Brehm 1995;Armitage and Connor 2000;Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson 1997;Craig, Kane, and Martinez 2002;Eagly and Chaiken 1993;Gainous and Martinez 2005;McGraw, Hasecke, and Conger 2003;Newby-Clark, McGregor, and Zanna 2002;Priester and Petty 1996;Zaller 1992). The problem today is that most survey research is still treating attitudes as if they were uni-polar.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Ambivalence about Social Welfare: An Evaluation of Measurement Approaches

Gainous¹

2008

ARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research across disciplines, including political science, has embraced the idea that individuals often possess ambivalent attitudes, but there is considerable disagreement about how to measure this phenomenon. Determining an effective way of capturing such phenomena is important to our under-standing of politics and public opinion. The literature offers several meta-attitudinal and operative measures of ambivalence. I discuss strengths and weaknesses of each of these approaches and con-duct a test of the relative construct validity of two meta-attitudinal and two operative measures of social welfare ambivalence using data from a statewide survey of Florida residents in 2004. The findings suggest that one of the operative measures that forces respondents to rate their positive and negative feelings separately performs better than any of the other approaches currently offered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Dependent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Why Measure Ambivalence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Operative Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ambivalence about Social Welfare: An Evaluation of Measurement Approaches

Gainous¹

2008

ARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Polarization from the perspective of ambivalents: Feeling caught in the social crossfire of the U.S. abortion debate

Ton,

van Zomeren,

Stroebe

2023

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In polarized societal debates, it is often assumed that perceiving polarization leads individuals to take sides (e.g., “pro‐life” or “pro‐choice”). However, perceiving polarization can also make individuals ambivalent because they feel “caught in the social crossfire” of the debate. We conducted a survey study (Ntotal = 863 women) on ambivalents’ perspectives of the U.S. abortion debate. Findings supported the hypothesis that ambivalents’ perceived polarization related positively to their felt ambivalence. This relationship can be explained by their feeling of being “caught in the social crossfire”: they feel torn while also understanding both sides of the debate. Moreover, felt ambivalence was positively related to tendencies toward avoidance of the debate but also toward conciliatory efforts (e.g., to create mutual understanding between the groups). We discuss the implications of these findings for the relationship between perceived polarization and felt ambivalence among ambivalents.

show abstract

Managing Religion and Morality Within the Abortion Experience: Qualitative Interviews With Women Obtaining Abortions in the U.S.

Frohwirth¹,

Coleman²,

Moore³

2018

World Med & Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most women in the United States are religious, and most major religions in the United States doctrinally disapprove of abortion. A substantial proportion of U.S. women have abortions. Although relationships among religious beliefs, abortion attitudes, behaviors, and stigma have been found in previous research, the relationship between stigma and religion is understudied. In‐depth interviews conducted with 78 women having abortions at nine sites in the United States found religion to permeate abortion stigma manifestations and management strategies identified in previous research, for religious and religiously affiliated respondents as well as those who did not claim a religious affiliation. Health‐care providers, religious leaders, researchers, and advocates need to recognize the influence religion has on the experience of obtaining an abortion for all women in the United States.

show abstract

Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut, Sometimes You Don't: Citizens' Ambivalence About Abortion

Cited by 83 publications

References 37 publications

Ambivalence about Social Welfare: An Evaluation of Measurement Approaches

Ambivalence about Social Welfare: An Evaluation of Measurement Approaches

Polarization from the perspective of ambivalents: Feeling caught in the social crossfire of the U.S. abortion debate

Managing Religion and Morality Within the Abortion Experience: Qualitative Interviews With Women Obtaining Abortions in the U.S.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About