You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
Argumentative Complexity of Abortion Discourse
The Public Opinion Quarterly
Vol. 57, No. 3 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 305-314
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2749092
Page Count: 10
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Abortion, Political debate, Political integration, Meetings, Political rhetoric, Personality psychology, Social psychology, Political ideologies, Catholicism, Politicians
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
Using integrative complexity theory and its associated coding scheme, this article explores the structure of arguments on abortion articulated by single- and multi-issue "prochoice" and "pro-life" groups between July 1989 (following the Supreme Court Webster v. Reproductive Health Services opinion) and May 1991. A simple random sample of 13 paragraphsized statements representative of each organization's position was rated by two trained coders on a 7-point scale measuring conceptual differentiation and integration. The debate, as a whole, was conducted at a low level of integrative complexity. Contrary to the "rigidity of the Right" hypothesis, both prochoice and pro-life arguments were characterized by similarly low levels of integrative complexity. Supporting and ideologue hypothesis, the arguments of multi-as opposed to single-issue organizations were more integratively complex.
The Public Opinion Quarterly © 1993 American Association for Public Opinion Research