Predictors of Engagement in Abortion-Related Activism Before and After the Nomination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Sexuality Research & Social Policy - Trang 1-22 - 2023
Tóm tắt
Guided by the Civic Voluntarism Model (CVM), we examined (1) people’s lifetime engagement in abortion-related activism behaviors prior to Justice Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States and (2) people’s first-time engagement in abortion-related activism behaviors after his nomination. We examined predictors of lifetime and first-time engagement separately for people who identify as pro-life, pro-choice, and neither/both. A web-based survey was administered to U.S. adults in English and Spanish (N = 4,743). We used logistic regression to assess predictors of (1) lifetime engagement in four abortion activism behaviors (e.g., calling politicians, attending rallies) before Kavanaugh’s nomination and (2) first-time engagement in the same four behaviors after Kavanaugh’s nomination for people who identified as pro-life, pro-choice, and neither/both. Approximately 17–30% of participants engaged in abortion-related activism prior to Kavanaugh’s nomination and 3–8% for the first time after his nomination. CVM variables were better at predicting lifetime than first-time engagement and seemed to be more consistent predictors for pro-life and pro-choice groups than neither/both. Abortion-related engagement after Kavanaugh’s nomination was minimal, suggesting that this event may not have sparked new engagement. Because CVM variables were more effective predictors of lifetime engagement, especially among people who identified as pro-life and pro-choice, the CVM may function better for those invested to some degree in an issue. Abortion advocacy groups may consider using the CVM to engage people in abortion-related activism generally. However, abortion movement leaders may consider other tactics to engage people for the first time.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Adamczyk, A., Kim, C., & Dillon, L. (2020). Examining public opinion about abortion: A mixed-methods systematic review of research over the last 15 years. Sociological Inquiry, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12351
Alter, C. (2018). “People are no longer afraid.” Hundreds of women protest as Kavanaugh’s fate hangs in balance. Time. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://time.com/5416105/kavanaugh-protest/
Alumbaugh, S., & Rowland, C. K. (1990). The links between platform-based appointment criteria and trial judges’ abortion judgments. Judicature, 74, 153–162.
Barkan, S. E. (2004). Explaining public support for the environmental movement: A civic voluntarism model. Social Science Quarterly, 85(4), 913–937. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00251.x
Behl, A., & Dutta, P. (2020). Engaging donors on crowdfunding platform in Disaster Relief Operations (DRO) using gamification: A Civic Voluntary Model (CVM) approach. International Journal of Information Management, 54, 102140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102140
Berman, M. (2017). Trump promised judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-hearings-updates-and-analysis-on-the-supreme-court-nominee/trump-promised-judges-who-would-overturn-roe-v-wade/
Bilger, M. (2018). Pro-life groups support Judge Brett Kavanagh for supreme court: Has a “strong record of protecting life.” LifeNews.Com. Retrieved March 31, 2021, from https://www.lifenews.com/2018/07/10/pro-life-groups-support-judge-brett-kavanagh-for-supreme-court-has-a-strong-record-of-protecting-life/
Bimber, B. (2017). Three prompts for collective action in the context of digital media. Political Communication, 34(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1223772
Birkhead, N. A., & Hershey, M. R. (2017). Assessing the ideological extremism of American party activists. Party Politics, 25(4), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817730721
Buechler, S. M. (1993). Beyond resource mobilization? Emerging trends in social movement theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(2), 217–235. JSTOR.
Cowan, S. K. (2017). Enacted abortion stigma in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 177, 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.011
Crawford, B. L., LaRoche, K. J., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2022). Examining abortion attitudes in the context of gestational age. Social Science Quarterly, 103(4), 855–867. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13157
Dejmanee, T. (2020). #MeToo; #HimToo: Popular feminism and hashtag activism in the Kavanaugh Hearings. 18.
Dimock, M., Lugo, L., Doherty, C., & Cooperman, A. (2013, January 16). Roe v. Wade at 40: Most oppose overturning abortion decision, Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/01/16/roe-v-wade-at-40/
Evans, J. (2002). Polarization in abortion attitudes in U.S. religious traditions, 1972–1998. Sociological Forum, 17(3), 397–422.
Green, E. (2018, September 5). Democrats are coming after Kavanaugh on abortion. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/democrats-are-coming-after-kavanaugh-on-abortion/569380/
Guo, J., Liu, N., Wu, Y., & Zhang, C. (2021). Why do citizens participate on government social media accounts during crises? A civic voluntarism perspective. Information & Management, 58(1), 103286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103286
Guttmacher Institute. (2019). State abortion policy landscape: From hostile to supportive. Retrieved October 14, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/web/20190103013905/https:/www.guttmacher.org/article/2018/12/state-abortion-policy-landscape-hostile-supportive
Hans, J. D., & Kimberly, C. (2014). Abortion attitudes in context: A multidimensional vignette approach. Social Science Research, 48, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.001
Harkness, J. A., Vijver, F. J. R. V. de, & Mohler, P. (2003). Cross-cultural survey methods (1st ed.). Wiley.
Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. G. (2005). Moral issues and voter decision making in the 2004 presidential election. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(02), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096505056301
Jaffe, S. (2018). Trump’s second supreme court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. The Lancet; London, 392(10144), 267–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31211-X
Johnson, A. A. (2014). Ambivalence, political engagement and context. Political Studies, 62(3), 502–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12063
Jones, C. (2020). Women gather at Phoenix courthouse to protest Amy Coney Barrett’s planned confirmation. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved February 25, 2022, from https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-breaking/2020/10/25/afraid-roe-v-wade-women-protest-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation/6034163002/
Jones, R. P., Cox, D., Griffin, R., Najle, M., Fisch-Friedman, M., & Vandermaas-Peeler, A. (2019). American democracy in crisis: Civic engagement, young adult activism, and the 2018 midterm elections (p. 48). Public Religion Research Institute. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Civic-Engagement-NovB.pdf
Jozkowski, K. N., Crawford, B. L., Turner, R. C., & Lo, W.-J. (2020). Knowledge and sentiments of Roe v. Wade in the wake of Justice Kavanaugh’s nomination to the US Supreme Court. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 17(2), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-019-00392-2
Jozkowski, K. N., Crawford, B. L., & Willis, M. (2021). Abortion complexity scores from 1972 to 2018: A cross-sectional time-series analysis using data from the general social survey. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, Online. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00439-9
Jozkowski, K.N., Turner, R.C., Weese, J., Lo, W.J., & Crawford, B.L. (2022). Abortion vs. sexual assault: People’s perceptions of Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States, Journal of Sex Research, 59(9), 1073–1081. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1984377
Kenan Institute for Ethics. (2012). Measuring morality [SPSS]. Duke University.
Kim, Y., & Khang, H. (2014). Revisiting civic voluntarism predictors of college students’ political participation in the context of social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.044
Klofstad, C. A. (2007). Talk leads to recruitment: How discussions about politics and current events increase civic participation. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907301708
Kumar, A. (2018). Disgust, stigma, and the politics of abortion. Feminism & Psychology, 28(4), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353518765572
Kusumarani, R., & Zo, H. (2019). Why people participate in online political crowdfunding: A civic voluntarism perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 41, 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.04.011
Leighley, J. E. (1995). Attitudes, opportunities and incentives: A field essay on political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 48(1), 181–209. https://doi.org/10.2307/449127
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S., Cutler, M., & Kotcher, J. (2018). Politics & Global Warming, March 2018 (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication). Yale University and George Mason University.
McCammon, S. (2020). A look at Amy Coney Barrett’s record on abortion rights. NPR. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/2020/09/28/917827735/a-look-at-amy-coney-barretts-record-on-abortion-rights
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. pdh. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
Medoff, M. H. (2010). State abortion policies, targeted regulation of abortion provider laws, and abortion demand: State abortion policies, TRAP laws, and abortion demand. Review of Policy Research, 27(5), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00460.x
Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (1996). Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101(6), 1628–1660.
Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (2008). Opposing movement strategies in U.S. abortion politics. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 28(1), 207–238.
Morrison, S. (2018). Brett Kavanaugh nomination protest: Emily Ratajkowski and Amy Schumer among hundreds arrested at rally in Washington. In Evening Standard: Web Edition Articles (London, England). Access World News – Historical and Current. Retrieved March 31, 2021, from http://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=0D10997327EA07D5&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews%252F16EDE112863733A8
Munson, Z. (2018). Abortion politics. John Wiley & Sons.
Oni, A. A., Oni, S., Mbarika, V., & Ayo, C. K. (2017). Empirical study of user acceptance of online political participation: Integrating civic voluntarism model and theory of reasoned action. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.02.003
Ostrander, J., Kindler, T., & Bryan, J. (2021). Using the civic voluntarism model to compare the political participation of US and Swiss social workers. Journal of Policy Practice and Research, 2(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42972-020-00020-z
Owens, M. L., & Walker, H. L. (2018). The civic voluntarism of “custodial citizens”: Involuntary criminal justice contact, associational life, and political participation. Perspectives on Politics, 16(4), 990–1013. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592718002074
Pew Research Center. (2018). Americans divided on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the supreme court. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from http://www.people-press.org/2018/07/17/americans-divided-on-kavanaughs-nomination-to-the-supreme-court/
Riffkin, R. (2015). Abortion edges up as important voting issue for Americans. Gallup. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/183449/abortion-edges-important-voting-issue-americans.aspx
Roh, J., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2003). All politics is not local: National forces in state abortion initiatives*. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.t01-1-8401002
Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. Macmillan Publishing Company.
Saad, L. (2018). In depth: Abortion. Gallup.Com. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx
Schlozman, K. L., Burns, N., Verba, S., & Donahue, J. (1995). Gender and citizen participation: Is there a different voice? American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111613
Snell, K. (2018). Kavanaugh nomination sparks partisan uproar on abortion rights. National Public Radio. Retrieved March 31, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/627461139/kavanaugh-nomination-sparks-partisan-uproar-on-abortion-rights
Torres, R. (n.d.) (2022). “I just felt that I need to do something”: Protesters oppose Barrett’s nomination to supreme court. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved February 25, 2022, from https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2020/10/17/protesters-oppose-amy-coney-barretts-nomination-supreme-court/3697205001/
US Census Bureau. (2017). Voting and registration in the election of November 2016. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-580.html
U.S. Reports: Roe v. Wade. (1973). 410 U.S. 113. Retrieved October 14, 2022, from https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep410113
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice & equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
Villarreal, D. (2020). Activists dressed as handmaids protest Amy Coney Barrett nomination outside Supreme Court. Newsweek. Retrieved March 31, 2021, from https://www.newsweek.com/activists-dressed-handmaids-protest-amy-coney-barrett-nomination-outside-supreme-court-1535787
Yan, T., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Fast times and easy questions: The effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1331