IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/200191111825-1831_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relying on surveys to understand abortion behavior: Some cautionary evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Jagannathan, R.

Abstract

Objectives. The reliability of abortion self-reports has raised questions about the general usefulness of surveys in research about abortion behavior; however, the extent of underreporting remains a subject of some debate. This study sought to examine abortion reporting in a sample of welfare mothers and to determine factors in underreporting. Methods. In New Jersey, which covers abortions requested by welfare recipients under its Medicaid program, the responses of a randomly drawn sample of 1236 welfare mothers about abortion events were compared with the Medicaid claims records of these women. Results. Only 29% of actual abortions were self-reported by the women in the sample. This finding varied dramatically by race, with substantially higher rates of underreporting by Blacks than by Whites or Hispanics. Conclusions. Although race is the most consistent predictor of underreporting behavior, attitudinal factors and survey technology also help in explaining abortion reporting behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Jagannathan, R., 2001. "Relying on surveys to understand abortion behavior: Some cautionary evidence," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(11), pages 1825-1831.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2001:91:11:1825-1831_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:pri:crcwel:wp07-12-ff is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Steinberg, Julia R. & Tschann, Jeanne M., 2013. "Childhood adversities and subsequent risk of one or multiple abortions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 53-59.
    3. Steinberg, Julia R. & Finer, Lawrence B., 2011. "Examining the association of abortion history and current mental health: A reanalysis of the National Comorbidity Survey using a common-risk-factors model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 72-82, January.
    4. Katherine I. Tierney, 2019. "Abortion Underreporting in Add Health: Findings and Implications," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 38(3), pages 417-428, June.
    5. Forsstrom, Matthew P., 2021. "Abortion Costs and Single Parenthood: A Life-Cycle Model of Fertility and Partnership Behavior," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    6. Michael J. Camasso, 2004. "Isolating the Family Cap Effect on Fertility Behavior: Evidence From New Jersey's Family Development Program Experiment," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(4), pages 453-467, October.
    7. Yujin Kim & R. Raley, 2015. "Race-Ethnic Differences in the Non-marital Fertility Rates in 2006–2010," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 34(1), pages 141-159, February.
    8. Vidhura Tennekoon, 2017. "Counting unreported abortions: A binomial-thinned zero-inflated Poisson model," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(2), pages 41-72.
    9. Laura Lindberg & Kathryn Kost & Isaac Maddow-Zimet & Sheila Desai & Mia Zolna, 2020. "Abortion Reporting in the United States: An Assessment of Three National Fertility Surveys," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(3), pages 899-925, June.
    10. Jagannathan, Radha & Camasso, Michael J., 2011. "Message and price components of Family Caps: Experimental evidence from New Jersey," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 292-302, August.
    11. Laura S. Hussey, 2006. "Are Social Welfare Policies "Pro-Life"? An Individual-Level Analysis of Low-Income Women," Working Papers 896, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing..

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2001:91:11:1825-1831_1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.