Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Request for Pregnancy Termination in Relation to the Sexual Formation of Intellectual Capital at A University in Central Mexico

Introduction

Abortion attitude theory focuses on understanding and explaining people's attitudes, beliefs, and opinions toward abortion [1]. This theory is based on the study of the individual and collective attitudes that people have regarding abortion, and how these attitudes influence their thoughts, feelings and behaviors related to this issue [2]. Some key aspects and approaches within the theory of attitudes toward abortion include: Attitude formation: Examines how attitudes toward abortion develop and are shaped through individual, social, and cultural factors [3]. These may include the influence of family, religion, education, media, and personal experiences.

Components of Attitudes: Attitudes toward abortion generally consist of three main components [4]. Cognitive when the beliefs, thoughts or knowledge that people have about abortion (for example, opinions about morality, ethics or rights) define their behaviors [5]. Affective when the emotional feelings associated with abortion (such as compassion, moral judgment, empathy) influence abortion request decisions [6]. Behavioral when the actions or behaviors that people are willing to take in relation to abortion (such as support for certain policies, participation in public debates, etc.) determine behavioral learning oriented towards requesting an abortion.

Attitude Change: Examines how attitudes toward abortion can change over time due to exposure to new information, social influence, interactions with people with different opinions, and personal reflection [7].

Impact on Behavior: Explores how attitudes toward abortion influence people's behavior, including personal decisions, support for specific policies, participation in activist activities, among others [8].

Sociocultural Context: Recognizes that attitudes toward abortion are influenced by the sociocultural context, such as cultural norms, laws, government policies, and social perceptions prevalent in a given society [9].

This theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding the diverse and often complex attitudes towards abortion, allowing researchers, health professionals and policy makers to better understand how people's opinions regarding this very important topic are formed, changed and affected. delicate and controversial [10].

The figures relating to the interruption of assisted pregnancy seem to show that it is a problem very close to families who have had children and who, for economic reasons, decide to have the abortion in public hospitals [11]. In this sense, sociopsychological studies on the problem have shown that monthly economic income is a determining factor in abortion practice [12]. As wages decrease, attendance at public hospitals for pregnancy termination appears to increase.

However, an associative relationship between the group norm and the abortion practice is determined by family dynamics and is a determining factor in the termination of pregnancy in adolescents more than in married women [13]. That is, the moral values of the family seem to influence the abortion practice [14]. In contrast, established marriages seem to adjust their decisions to their socioeconomic situation [15]. Such a difference between single teenage mothers and married housewives was also found in a context of scarcity of economic resources [16]. If marital status influenced abortion decisions in adolescents more than women who lived with their partner, then age differences are also an important maturation factor [17]. In this sense, beliefs associated with age influenced abortion decisions [18] . For its part, the interrelation between age and monthly economic income determined the abortion practice [19]. A replication of the study with the education variable found a positive relationship [20]. As the educational level of the couples increased, their income increased and the interaction between both factors affected the termination of the pregnancy.

However, attitudinal studies have not established the relationships between the sociopolitical dimensions of induced abortion strategies with respect to the feelings of those who come to request the pregnancy termination service [21].

Therefore, the objective of the present work was to establish the dimensions of the request for termination of pregnancy in order to compare the theoretical structure reported in the literature with respect to the structure observed in the present study.

Are there significant differences between the relationships of the theoretical dimensions with respect to the factor structure analyzed in this work?

Hypothesis. The confinement and distancing policies implemented to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on public health increased the risks of pregnancy and created a sexual and reproductive health problem by encouraging the demand for legal termination of pregnancy [22]. Consequently, significant differences are expected between the theoretical structure reported in the literature consulted with respect to the expectations observed in the present work.

Methods

A correlational and cross-sectional study was carried out with a non-probabilistic sample of 100 students (M = 28.34 SD = 3.5 age and M = 10,893.00 SD = 456.00 monthly income) from a public university in central Mexico. Abortion Expectations Scale was constructed which included 15 items with seven response options ranging from 0 = “not at all likely” to 7 = “quite likely.” Reliability (0.780) reached sufficient values for analysis of sphericity and adequacy [x2 = 1800.022 (105df) p = 0.001; KMO = 0.798] needed for validity which ranged between 0.324 and 0.546

Respondents were selected based on their affiliation to internships and professional service in public health centers. The concepts were established through focus group and Delphi techniques. The survey was administered at the public university facilities. Confidentiality and anonymity contracts were provided to guarantee proper processing of information and disclaimer of liability for misuse of personal data.

The data were processed in JASP version 18 and the coefficients of reliability, sphericity, adequacy, validity, adjustment and residual were estimated to contrast the hypothesis relating to the significant differences between the theory and the empirical literature reviewed.

Results

The analysis of the adequacy of the instrument to the sample size suggests more robust analyzes (see Table 1). The KMO values meet the required minimum of 0.60 and are interpreted as suitable for further complex analyses.

indicator	MSA
Faith	0.678
Belief	0.722
Know	0.754
Opinion	0.384
Experience	0.603
Experience	0.640
Overall	0.642

                                                                             Table 1: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test

The analysis of covariance suggests the incidence of other factors not included in the model, although their values are far from zero as an essential requirement to rule out the effects of exogenous variables (Table 2).

Faith	Belief	Know	Opinion	Experience	Experience
1,550
0.924	2,754
0.169	0.365	0.950
0.150	0.324	0.059	2,767
0.490	1,061	0.194	0.522	2,128
0.522	1,129	0.206	0.556	1,821	3,543

                                                                               Table 2: Implied Covariance Matrix

analysis indicates the percentage of variance explained between each predicted variable (Table 3). The values suggest that the experience of requesting termination of pregnancy is the most explained with 80% of its total variance. In other words, the model explains the variance of the experience of pregnancy termination with a high percentage.

	R²
Faith	0.276
Belief	0.726
Know	0.070
Opinion	0.058
Experience	0.804
Experience	0.547
Factor 1	0.590
Factor 2	0.558

                                                                                               Table 3: R- square

The confirmatory factor analysis includes the factor weights that explain the structure of the request for termination of pregnancy based on the relationships between the indicators and the factors (Table 4). The values are close to the expected significance level of 0.05.

95% Confidence Interval
Factor	indicator	Estimate	Std . Mistake	z- value	p	Lower	Upper
Factor 1	Faith	0.419	60,281	0.007	0.994	-117,730	118,567
	Belief	0.906	130,435	0.007	0.994	-254,742	256,554
	Know	0.165	23,820	0.007	0.994	-46,521	46,852
Factor 2	Opinion	0.266	33,545	0.008	0.994	-65,481	66,012
	Experience	0.870	109,910	0.008	0.994	-214,550	216,290
	Experience	0.926	116,967	0.008	0.994	-228,325	230,177

                                                                                                  Table 4: Loading Factor

The analysis of the intercepts suggests the influence of endogenous factors on the established factors ( Table 5). The values report direct, positive and significant relationships between the determining variables and the variables, although three “ Heywood ” cases are observed that suggest the deletion of the variables that measure opinion, experience and experience corresponding to the second factor as a case of overestimation.

95% Confidence Interval
indicator	Estimate	Std . Mistake	z- value	Q	Lower	Upper
Faith	0.944	0.093	10,146	< .001	0.762	1,127
Belief	0.983	0.124	7,927	< .001	0.740	1,226
Know	0.872	0.073	11,963	< .001	0.729	1,014
Opinion	2,704	0.124	21,747	< .001	2,460	2,948
Experience	1,648	0.109	15,117	< .001	1,434	1,862
Experience	1,441	0.141	10,245	< .001	1,166	1,717

                                                                                                Table 5: Intercepts

The confirmatory structural analysis indicates the configuration of factors according to the theory reviewed in the literature which indicates three factors related to emotionality, rationality and behavior (Fig. 1). The results demonstrate the prevalence of two factors that in turn configure the factor of legal termination of pregnancy.

                                  Figure 1: Confirmatory Factor Model

The fit and residual analysis suggests the contrast of the model and the non-rejection of the hypothesis related to the differences between the theoretical structure reported in the literature with respect to the model established in the present work (Table 6).

Index	value
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)	0.948
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)	0.889
Bentler-Bonett Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI)	0.889
Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI)	0.920
Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI)	0.429
Bollen's Relative Fit Index (RFI)	0.829
Bollen's Incremental Fit Index (IFI)
Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI)

                                                                                             Table 6: Fit Indices

Discussion

The contribution of this study consists of the establishment of an exploratory factor structure of three main axes called: knowledge and beliefs, personal experiences and access to health services related to pregnancy interruption. The results suggest a distancing from the theoretical structure which considers additional factors: opinions on abortion policy, social and cultural perspective, attitudes towards information [23]. In this sense, it is recommended to reduce the number of factors and indicators to achieve model fit, although the inclusion of the items that measure the other dimensions can be carried out after reformulation [24]. This is the case of the social and cultural perspective that in new generations has been replaced by a gender perspective [25]. Or, the attitudes towards information that were disseminated in the media and now permeate social and digital networks [26]. Consequently, updating these dimensions will allow establishing a robust model of explanatory factors of abortion through the request for termination of pregnancy.

The analysis of eigenvalues which indicates the percentage of total variance explained from the number of observations reveals that the factor structure is explained from two indicators. In other words, abortion interruption is explained with items related to reason and experience. The structure includes two factors related to knowledge and personal experiences which are linked to six items. The fit and residual values suggest non-rejection of the hypothesis related to the significant differences between the theoretical structure with respect to the empirical observations.

Therefore, it is suggested to investigate the third factor that would explain the emotions around the request for termination of pregnancy and that would increase the percentage of explained variance. Precisely, the area of opportunity of the present work lies in the establishment of the third predominant factor in the literature and that would theoretically explain the request for termination of pregnancy.

Conclusion

The objective of this work was to establish an explanatory factor model of the dimensions of the request for termination of pregnancy. The results suggest a reduction of the original scale and the updating of the dimensions related to the social and cultural perspective with a gender perspective. Or, the evaluation of traditional media by the evaluation of socio-digital networks. The inclusion of the aforementioned dimensions will allow us to anticipate dimensional scenarios in which the request for abortion is reflected as a structure of reasons, decisions and actions to terminate the pregnancy.

References

1. Zucker, G. S. (1999). Attributional and Symbolic Predictors of Abortion Attitudes 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(6), 1218-1245.
2. Bardis, P. D. (1972). A technique for the measurement of attitudes toward abortion. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 98-104.
3. Petersen, L. R. (2001). Religion, plausibility structures, and education's effect on attitudes toward elective abortion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(2), 187-204.
4. Jozkowski, K. N., Crawford, B. L., & Hunt, M. E. (2018). Complexity in attitudes toward abortion access: results from two studies. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(4), 464-482.
5. Emerson, M. O. (1996). Through tinted glasses: Religion, worldviews, and abortion attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41-55.
6. Scott, J., & Schuman, H. (1988). Attitude strength and social action in the abortion dispute. American Sociological Review, 785-793.
7. Kim, T., & Steinberg, J. R. (2023). Individual changes in abortion knowledge and attitudes. Social Science & Medicine, 320, 115722.
8. Barkan, S. E. (2014). Gender and abortion attitudes: Religiosity as a suppressor variable. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(4), 940-950.
9. Evans, J. H. (2002). Polarization in abortion attitudes in US religious traditions, 1972–1998. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 397-422). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers.
10. Begun, S., Kattari, S. K., McKay, K., Ramseyer Winter, V., & O’Neill, E. (2017). Exploring US social work students’ sexual attitudes and abortion viewpoints. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(6), 752-763.
11. Harris, R. J., & Mills, E. W. (1985). Religion, values and attitudes toward abortion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 137-154.
12. Alvargonzález, D. (2017). Knowledge and attitudes about abortion among undergraduate students. Psicothema, 29(4), 520-526.
13. Osborne, D., Huang, Y., Overall, N. C., Sutton, R. M.,Petterson, A., Douglas, K. M., ... & Sibley, C. G. (2022). Abortion attitudes: An overview of demographic and ideological differences. Political Psychology, 43, 29-76.
14. Hess, J. A., & Rueb, J. D. (2005). Attitudes toward abortion, religion, and party affiliation among college students. Current Psychology, 24(1), 24-42.
15. Wang, G. Z., & Buffalo, M. D. (2004). Social and cultural determinants of attitudes toward abortion: A test of Reiss’ hypotheses. The Social Science Journal, 41(1), 93-105.
16. O’Connor, C., Maher, P., & Kadianaki, I. (2019). Exploring the relationship between lay theories of gender and attitudes to abortion in the context of a national referendum on abortion policy. PloS one, 14(6), e0218333.
17. Adamczyk, A., Kim, C., & Dillon, L. (2020). Examining public opinion about abortion: a mixedâ?ÂÃÂ?methods systematic review of research over the last 15 years. Sociological Inquiry, 90(4), 920-954.
18. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (2000). Political consequences of inconsistency: The accessibility and stability of abortion attitudes. Political Psychology, 21(1), 57-79.
19. Welch, M. R., Leege, D. C., & Cavendish, J. C. (1995). Attitudes toward abortion among US Catholics: Another case of symbolic politics?. Social science quarterly, 142-157.
20. Sahar, G., & Karasawa, K. (2005). Is the personal always political? A cross-cultural analysis of abortion attitudes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(4), 285-296.
21. Granberg, D., & Granberg, B. W. (1980). Abortion attitudes, 1965-1980: Trends and determinants. Family Planning Perspectives, 12(5), 250-261.
22. Jelen, T. G., & Wilcox, C. (2003). Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: A review and research agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 489-500.
23. Cochran, J. K., Chamlin, M. B., Beeghley, L., Harnden, A., & Blackwell, B. S. (1996). Religious stability, endogamy, and the effects of personal religiosity on attitudes toward abortion. Sociology of Religion, 57(3), 291-309.
24. Hoffmann, J. P., & Johnson, S. M. (2005). Attitudes toward abortion among religious traditions in the United States: Change or continuity?. Sociology of Religion, 66(2), 161-182.
25. Killian, M., & Wilcox, C. (2008). Do abortion attitudes lead to party switching?. Political Research Quarterly, 61(4), 561-573.
26. Petkova, K. G., Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1995). Salience of Anti-Abortion Beliefs and Commitment to an Attitudinal Position: On the Strength, Structure, and Predictive Validity of Anti-Abortion Attitudes 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(6), 463-483.

Annex A

Survey on Request for Termination of Pregnancy

         Thanks for your participation.

Annex B

#Factors

Factor1 = ~ lambda _1_1* Faith + lambda _1_2* Belief        + lambda_1_3* Know Factor2 = ~ lambda_2_1*Opinion + lambda_2_2* Experience + lambda_2_3*Experience

#Second-orderfactor

SecondOrder = ~ gamma_1_1*Factor1 + gamma_1_2*Factor2