Background: Despite weak theoretical grounding and ample research indicating women feel high levels of decision rightness and relief post-abortion, claims that abortion is inherently stressful and causes emergent negative emotions and regret undergirds state-level laws regulating abortion in the United States. Nonetheless, scholarship does identify factors that put a woman at risk for short-term negative postabortion emotions-including decision difficulty and perceiving abortion stigma in one's community-pointing to a possible mechanism behind later emergent or persistent post-abortion negative emotions.
Methods: Using five years of longitudinal data, collected one week post-abortion and semi-annually for five years from women who sought abortions at 30 US facilities between 2008 and 2010, we examined women's emotions and feeling that abortion was the right decision over five years (n=667). We used mixed effects regression models to examine changes in emotions and abortion decision rightness over time by decision difficulty and perceived community abortion stigma.
Results: We found no evidence of emerging negative emotions or abortion decision regret; both positive and negative emotions declined over the first two years and plateaued thereafter, and decision rightness remained high and steady (predicted percent: 97.5% at baseline, 99.0% at five years). At five years postabortion, relief remained the most commonly felt emotion among all women (predicted mean on 0-4 scale: 1.0; 0.6 for sadness and guilt; 0.4 for regret, anger and happiness). Despite converging levels of emotions by decision difficulty and stigma level over time, these two factors remained most important for predicting negative emotions and decision non-rightness years later.
Conclusions: These results add to the scientific evidence that emotions about an abortion are associated with personal and social context, and are not a product of the abortion procedure itself. Findings challenge the rationale for policies regulating access to abortion that are premised on emotional harm claims.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112704 | DOI Listing |
Emotion
October 2024
Department of Psychology, University of Kassel.
People make countless decisions every day. We explored the self-regulatory function of decisions and assumed that the very act of making a decision in everyday life enhances people's mood. We expected that this decision-related mood change would be more pronounced for intuitive decisions than for analytical ones.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCureus
May 2023
Research, Charlotte Lozier Institute, Arlington, USA.
Background A case series report based on the Turnaway Study has previously concluded that 99% of women with a history of abortion will continue to affirm satisfaction with their decisions to abort. Those findings have been called into question due to a low participation rate (31%) and reliance on a single yes/no assessment of decision satisfaction. Aim To utilize more sensitive scales in assessing decision satisfaction and the associated mental health outcomes women attribute to their abortions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFIntegr Psychol Behav Sci
December 2023
King Danylo University, 35 Konovaltsia street, Ivano-Frankivsk, 76018, Ukraine.
Metacognitive monitoring and control processes are important parts of our cognitive system. In this article, they are considered in the light of the dual-process theory and interpreted as occurring at the level of Type 1 and Type 2 information processing. Associative connection is the main factor that allows us to divide these processes into two types.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFQ J Exp Psychol (Hove)
October 2023
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
It has been argued that the experience of (i.e., the ability to quickly generate an initial response) during processing influences one's likelihood of engaging reflectively when reasoning.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFProc Natl Acad Sci U S A
October 2022
Center for Evolutionary Psychology, Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9660.
How does the mind make moral judgments when the only way to satisfy one moral value is to neglect another? Moral dilemmas posed a recurrent adaptive problem for ancestral hominins, whose cooperative social life created multiple responsibilities to others. For many dilemmas, striking a balance between two conflicting values (a compromise judgment) would have promoted fitness better than neglecting one value to fully satisfy the other (an extreme judgment). We propose that natural selection favored the evolution of a cognitive system designed for making trade-offs between conflicting moral values.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!