Skip to main content

Pro-choice and Pro-life Are Not Enough: An Investigation of Abortion Attitudes as a Function of Abortion Prototypes

Abstract

Attitudes toward abortion were investigated as being comprised of two dimensions: attitudes toward abortion as a procedure and attitudes toward choice. By separating the two dimensions as conceptually distinct, attitudinal groups expand beyond the traditional “pro-choice” and “pro-life” absolutist categories to include dilemma and regulated groups. Dilemma people are those who are negative toward abortion but positive toward choice. Regulated individuals are those who are not negative toward abortion but believe that abortion should be strictly controlled rather than an individual choice. People in these situationist positional groupings were hypothesized to hold different abortion attitudes and exhibit different individual difference profiles relative to those endorsing the absolutist perspectives regarding abortion. Using a sample of university student participants, the study results partially supported the existence of the dilemma and regulated attitudinal groups. As expected, those endorsing pro-choice and pro-life positions regarding abortion were different from each other on abortion attitudes as well as on a number of sexuality-related, gender-role attitude, and conservatism individual difference measures. Of note were the findings that the situationists (i.e., dilemma and regulated groups) tended to fall in between the two absolutist groups in relation to abortion attitudes and differed on the personality measures. It is insufficient to dichotomize attitudes toward abortion as either pro-life or pro-choice; this research suggests that, at minimum, there is a substantial intermediate group of situationists. By identifying and understanding this middle group, the issue of abortion may become less polarized and divisive. The situationists are a large proportion of attitude holders; this group may have a substantial impact on laws, regulations, human rights, and research surrounding abortion issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Also tested using Mann–Whitney U test; results were the same.

  2. Changed slightly from Allen and Griffin’s (1993) to broaden the meaning of "experts" which was originally defined as a panel of medical experts.

References

  • Abacus Data Inc. (2011). Canadian public opinion on abortion. A Survey of 1,007 Canadians. Retrieved from http://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Abortion-Report-May-11-2011.pdf.

  • Adamczyk, A., Kim, C., & Dillon, L. (2020). Examining public opinion about abortion: A mixed-methods systematic review of research over the last 15 years. Sociological Inquiry, 90, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, H., & Griffin, D. (1991, June). Values and beliefs associated with attitudes toward abortion: Bible-thumping bigots and flagrant hedonists? Poster presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Calgary, AB.

  • Allen, H., & Griffin, D. (1993, May). Determinants of abortion decisions: Absolutists versus situationists. Poster presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Montreal, QC.

  • Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. E. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angus Reid. (2017). A spectrum of spirituality: Canadians keep the faith to varying degrees, but few reject it entirely. Retrieved March 1, 2020 from http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017.04.12_Faith_Wave_1_Part_1.pdf

  • Angus Reid. (2018). Canada summer jobs attestation requirement seen as “unfair” by half of Canadians, “fair” by the other half. Retrieved March 1, 2020 from http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018.04.24_attestation.pdf

  • Begun, S., Kattari, S. K., McKay, K., Winter, V. R., & O’Neill, E. (2017). Exploring U.S. social work students’ sexual attitudes and abortion viewpoints. Journal of Sex Research, 54(6), 752–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begun, S., & Walls, N. E. (2015). Pedestal or gutter: Exploring Ambivalent Sexism’s relationship with abortion attitudes. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 30(2), 200–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berne, L. A. S. (1998). Abortion Attitude Scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, M., Begun, S., & McKay, K. (2018). Religiosity and personal beliefs regarding abortion: Results from a survey of social work students in the United States. Women’s Reproductive Health, 5(2), 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. T., & Pilanski, J. M. (2014). The differential effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on political intolerance. Political Psychology, 35(4), 557–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilmaghani, M. (2018). Importance of religion or spirituality and mental health in Canada. Journal of Religion and Health, 57(1), 120–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, M. (1996). Through tinted glasses: Religion, worldviews, and abortion attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia–erotophilia as a dimension of personality. Journal of Sex Research, 25(1), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanel, P. H. P., & Vione, K. C. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public? PLoS ONE, 11(12), e0168354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hans, J. D., & Kimberly, C. (2014). Abortion attitudes in context: A multidimensional vignette approach. Social Science Research, 48, 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimport, K., & Doty, C. (2019). Interpreting the truth: How people make sense of new information about abortion. Women’s Health Issues, 29(2), 182–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiblum, S., Wiegel, M., & Brickle, F. (2003). Sexual attitudes of US and Canadian medical students: The role of ethnicity, gender, religion and acculturation. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18(4), 473–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayans, I., & Vaca, M. (2018). The paternalistic argument against abortion. Hypatia, 33(1), 22–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rye, B. J., & Elmslie, P. (2001, June). The Transgender Belief Questionnaire: Development and validation. Poster presented at the Canadian Psychological Association, Quebec City, Quebec.

  • Rye, B. J., & Fisher, W. A. (2020). Sexual opinion survey. In R. R. Milhausen, J. K. Sakaluk, T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, & W. L. Yarber (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (4th ed., pp. 570–572). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rye, B. J., & Underhill, A. (2019). Contraceptive context, conservatism, sexual liberalism, and gender-role attitudes as predictors of abortion attitudes. Women’s Reproductive Health, 6(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/23293691.2018.1556425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahar, G., & Karasawa, K. (2005). Is the person always political? A cross-cultural analysis of abortion attitudes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(4), 285–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, G. M. (2003). The polls: Trends abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 407–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. W., & Son, J. (2013, May). General social survey 2012 final report trends in attitudes towards abortion. Retrieved from http://www.norc.org/pdfs/gss%20reports/trends%20in%20attitudes%20about%20abortion_final.pdf

  • Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). The Attitudes toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. Journal Supplement Abstract Service, 2, 66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1977). The Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS). In C. G. Carney & S. L. McMahon (Eds.), Exploring contemporary male/female roles (pp. 111–115). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the Attitudes toward Women Scale. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 783–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strickler, J., & Danigelis, N. L. (2002). Changing frameworks in attitudes toward abortion. Sociological Forum, 17(2), 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sümer, Z. H. (2015). Gender, religiosity, sexual activity, sexual knowledge, and attitudes toward controversial aspects of sexuality. Journal of Religious Health, 54, 2033–2044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Parts of this manuscript were presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Toronto, Ontario (August 2015). The authors wish to thank Marissa Traversa and Derek Straatsma for their work on this project. Part of this work was supported by St. Jerome’s University under faculty research Grants IIRG430 and FRG43015.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. J. Rye.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Both authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All materials and procedures, including those intended to protect the confidentiality of participants, followed ethical guidelines and were approved by the involved university’s Research Ethics Committees.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained by all participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rye, B.J., Underhill, A. Pro-choice and Pro-life Are Not Enough: An Investigation of Abortion Attitudes as a Function of Abortion Prototypes. Sexuality & Culture 24, 1829–1851 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09723-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09723-7

Keywords

  • Abortion
  • Attitudes
  • Moderates
  • Pro-choice
  • Pro-life