Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 235–255 | Cite as

Public attitudes toward genetic testing

  • Eleanor Singer
Article

Abstract

This article, which reports the results of a telephone survey of a national sample of the adult US population, was designed as a first measure of attitudes in an area likely to undergo significant change over the next few years. Among the major findings: (1) First, attitudes toward prenatal testing are overwhelmingly favorable at this time, with about two thirds of the respondents saying they would want to undergo such tests themselves (or would want their partner to do so) and believing that the tests will do more good than harm. (2) Second, information about the new technology is not yet widely dispersed in society, and knowledge is unrelated to attitudes in any of the areas we measured. (3) Third, attitudes toward testing for genetic defects and attitudes toward abortion if tests are positive appear to be quite distinct so far. (4) Fourth, the particular conception of genetic defects held by the respondent influences preferences for abortion but not preferences for testing. (5) Fifth, testing for fetal sex clearly falls outside the pale of acceptable behavior at this time, but not if the couple already has three offspring of the same sex.

Keywords

Genetic Testing Genetic Defect Economic Policy Telephone Survey National Sample 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cartwright, D. and F. Harary (1956). Structural balance: a generalization of Heider's theory, Psychological Review 63: 277–93.Google Scholar
  2. Davis, K. (1948). Human Society. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, J.A. (1986). What the GSS tells us about social change, 1972–1985. GSS Technical Report #71. Chicago: NORC.Google Scholar
  4. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Row: Peterson.Google Scholar
  5. Granberg, D. (1984). Attributing attitudes to members of groups. In: J.R. Eiser (ed.), Attitudinal Judgement. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization, Journal of Psychology 21: 107–12.Google Scholar
  7. Hyman, H.H. and P.B. Sheatsley (1954). The Authoritarian Personality: a methodological critique. In: R. Christie and M. Jahoda (eds.), Studies in the Scope and Method of ‘The Authoritarian Personality’. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Newcomb, T.M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts, Psychological Review 60: 393–404.Google Scholar
  9. Osgood, C.E. and P.H. Tannenbaum (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change, Psychological Review 62: 42–55.Google Scholar
  10. Page, B.I. and R.Y. Shapiro. The Rational Public. In press.Google Scholar
  11. Presidents Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1983). Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions. A Report on the Ethical, Social, and Legal Implications of Genetic Screening, Counseling, and Education Programs. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  12. Scott, J. (1989). Conflicting beliefs about abortion: legal approval and moral doubts, Social Psychology Quarterly 52: 319–26.Google Scholar
  13. Singer, E. (1989a). Media coverage of genetic screening. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  14. Singer, E. (1989b). Progress report to National Science Foundation. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, T.W. (1986). A summary of findings from the general social surveys. GSS Technical Report #70. Chicago: NORC.Google Scholar
  16. Wilcox, C. (1990). Race differences in abortion attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 54: 248–55.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eleanor Singer
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Social Sciences, 814 School of International Affairs, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations