Science changes, as does the way scientists report on their work. Reading a 1971 article in Science, on attitudes towards induced abortion, I was truly amazed by the sheer amount of apparent activism that might have influenced the interpretation of the findings. Let’s have a look.

The research

First I must say, that the actual research seems pretty solid, as might be expected when reading an article published in Science. Perhaps the only serious criticism would be that several different surveys were used to be able to investigate a trend analysis. Nevertheless, since this is an article already 37 years of age, is provided valuable insights in how processes of public opinion evolved relatively long ago. Often, this is difficult to assess with the survey data available to present-day researchers.

As the title indicates, the focus of the research is on the development of attitudes towards abortion in the ’60-’70 decade in the United States. During those years, American women in various states had different levels of access to legal abortion. Using data from Gallup Polls primarily, she investigates to what extent people will allow a women to have an abortion, under different circumstances. Legalised abortion is most strongly supported by non-Catholics and the higher educated. Also, Blake found that levels of support have increased rather sharply in the ’60-’70 decade.

Also men seem to hold more liberal attitudes on this subject, for which she gives a fascinating explanation: men, especially in the higher social strata, would like to uphold their sexually liberal lifestyle, and see the possibility of women having an abortion as a safeguard for the woman having a child for which they should care at least financially. In other words: these high-SES men anticipate on the (potential) benefit they might gain from women being able to have an abortion. Although Blake does not actually test this conception, I think the general notion of people founding their opinions on their own personal situation is an interesting one that deserves further investigation.

The political involvement

I was more intrigued, though, by the way Blake positions the abortion debate as a debate of personal liberty: “In Western countries as well as elsewhere the history of population policy has, with few exceptions, been a chronicle of government efforts to repress birth limitation and reward reproduction.” She is clearly anticipating on an abortion-case dealt with by the U.S. supreme court, for she argues that despite the high levels of disapproval also other issues were changed by the Supreme Court that also faced high levels of disapproval in the general public:

If we consider just two of these — the insistence of the Supreme Court on the disestablishment of religion in public schools, and on rapid school integration — we have a more objective and realistic standard against which to judge the relationship between public opinion and abortion legislation.

To this she adds that for social change to occur, especially the powerful groups are of importance. So, instead of the aggregate overall disapproval in United States society, she argues that change might very well be expected when we only look at the higher levels of approval amongst the higher educated and those with higher income.

Conclusion

One must admit that history proves Blake right: only two years after this research has been published state-level abortion legislation was banned by the Supreme Court. From 1973 onwards, all women in the United States were able to have a legal abortion if they decided needing one.

Nevertheless, I do feel that it was Blakes’ political commitment speaking, rather than a strong empirical basis, when she made her predictions. Two examples of a court case that contradicted general levels of public opinion do not allow a generalisation of other issues (other than the argument that it is possible under certain circumstances). More importantly, where she rightfully argued not to look at the general levels of approval, but at approval amongst powerful groups, she did not do so in her comparison of the abortion issue with other court rulings where she only mentions general levels of approval.

So, all in all, I do feel that this is a well performed, valuable study as long as it comes to the empirically based findings. Also, though untested, she provides an interesting new hypothesis. But, I cannot help but feel that nowadays this study, with the sheer amount of apparent activism influencing the interpretation of the findings, would not be published easily. Not in Science.

Reference

J. Blake (1971). Abortion and Public Opinion: The 1960-1970 Decade Science, 171 (3971), 540-549 DOI: 10.1126/science.171.3971.540

It was often argued that it is inherent to women in general to have a stronger will and desire than men to reach the goals they set for themselves. This might very well be, but that cannot explain the relative success of Dutch women over Dutch men, unless this stronger feminine willpower is a phenomenon exclusive to the Dutch. Otherwise, the strong will-powered Dutch women just compete against other strong will-powered women from other countries, and the weakly will-powered Dutch male athletes compete with other rather weak opponents. Clearly, this did not seem to be the case …

In general, the analysts shouldn’t have argued about differences between men and women in general, but about differences between the relative strength of Dutch women over other women, compared with the relative strength of Dutch men over other men.

Unequal women empowerment?

What might be an explanation then? We might find one by looking at the position that women have in their society. Traditionally, sports in the world have been dominated by men, but due to their increasingly equal opportunities in society, their participation in sports increased as well. If indeed a relationship exists between women empowerment and their results on the sports fields, we might not only expect better results over the years, but also smaller differences between the results of men and women.

To test this, I made some plots. Below, the results needed to win the Gold Medal on Javelin throwing on the Olympics, 100 meters running on the Olympics, and 500 meters speed skating on the World Championships, are shown. The red dots show the results of the men, the blue dots those of the women. The grey lines represent the general tendency of the lines, and in all three graphs, it is clear that the two lines tend to converge. Don’t be mislead by the small decrease of the differences between men and women: the initial differences were already very small, so a small absolute decrease is rather large on a relative scale.

Golden

Does this tell us anything about why Dutch women performed so much better than Dutch men did? No, of course not, for I did not take into account the Beijing Olympics, nor nationality. Nevertheless, if we accept that the increasingly strong position of women in society (in general) indeed leads to their achieving better sports results, we might also want to compare the position of Dutch women in Dutch society with that of women in many other countries. Compared to many other countries, Dutch women have a strong position in society. Perhaps, the Dutch think more seriously about women sports than is done in other countries.

If this is the case, the sport results of Dutch women is due to their empowerment in Dutch society. Perhaps women sports will increasingly receive more attention in other countries as well. Wouldn’t that be golden?