Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38416827›Full record

ArticleScience advances2024

The "abortion imaginary": Shared perceptions and personal representations among everyday Americans.

Tricia C Bruce, Kendra Hutchens, Sarah K Cowan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tricia C BruceCenter for the Study of Religion and Society, University of Notre Dame, Holy Cross Dr., Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6910-2625
Kendra HutchensDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9720-8307
Sarah K CowanDepartment of Sociology, New York University, New York, NY 10012, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2838-079X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedDecision MakingEmotionsFemaleHumansPregnancyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38416827
PMCPMC10901374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.