Search

Despite being a defining issue in the culture war, the relative importance of the psychological predictors of abortion attitudes are poorly understood. We address this oversight here by reviewing existing findings and providing new evidence for the demographic and ideological correlates of abortion support. Throughout our review, we integrate new analyses of several large-scale, cross-sectional, and longitudinal datasets to provide the most complete empirical examination of abortion attitudes to date. Our review and new analyses indicate that abortion support is increasing (modestly) over time in both the US and New Zealand. We also show that a plurality of respondents (43.8%) in the US indicate that they are “pro-choice” across various elective and traumatic scenarios, whereas only 14.8% report being consistently “pro-life” regardless of why an abortion is sought. Our review and new integrative analyses then demonstrate that age, religiosity, and conservatism correlate negatively, whereas Openness to Experience correlates positively, with abortion support. New analyses of heterosexual couples also reveal that women’s and men’s religiosity uniquely decreases their romantic partner’s abortion support. Finally, noting inconsistent gender differences in abortion support, we review evidence for the impact of traditional gender role attitudes and sexism on abortion support. Our review and theoretical analyses illustrate that, rather than misogyny, benevolent sexism—the belief that women should be cherished and protected—best explains abortion opposition. We conclude that demographic and ideological variables, along with attitudes that revere women and motherhood, continue to undermine women’s interpersonal, intergroup, and societal rights.

The present study is an extension to an existing pre-registered study 'The Effect of Narratives on Attitudes Toward Animals', which involves the data collection for an additional control condition to be compared with conditions in our existing study. Preliminary analyses of the existing study showed that there was no effect of either fiction (vs. non-fiction) or narratives (vs. expository) about animals on attitudes toward animals or any of the candidate mediators. Contrary to predictions, neither fictionality or narrativity increased concern for animal welfare or the scores on any of the candidate mediators assessing empathic concern for animals, perspective taking and mind attribution.* The present investigation will examine whether the effect of fiction found in previous research (Małecki et al., 2016; 2018) might in fact be the result of conceptual priming (i.e., priming the topic of animals) due to a confound in the fiction/non-fiction texts used. Specifically, Małecki et al. (2018) compared a narrative fiction text about the plight of a monkey with a non-fiction control text that was unrelated to animals (e.g., the Higgs boson particle). Therefore, it is possible that our existing study failed to find any significant differences between narrative fiction, narrative non-fiction and expository non-fiction texts on attitudes to animals because the topic was consistent across all conditions; this would suggest that Małecki et al.’s findings do not reflect a genuine effect of fictionality. To this end we will collect data for an additional condition, using a similar non-fiction, non-animal topic control text as in Małecki et al. (2018). We will present participants with an article about dark matter and have participants fill out the same measures (bar the identification, perceived similarity and empathic concern with/for the character in the text, mind attribution, empathic concern towards animals, and speciesism) as in our existing study. This control condition allows for a comparison of the effect of narrative fiction vs. a non-fiction text on an unrelated topic, replicating the design of Małecki et al. (2018). We expect that participants will display higher levels of concern for animals and willingness to donate in the narrative fiction compared to the control condition with an unrelated text. Further, we will run analyses to further test the influence of topic and fictionality by examining whether significant differences in attitudes toward animals exist between this non-fiction non-animal text and the existing narrative non-fiction and expository non-fiction conditions. If Małecki et al.’s (2018) original findings reflected effects of fiction we would expect no difference between these conditions, but finding that reading non-fiction texts about a monkey leads to greater concern and willingness to donate compared to a non-fiction non-animal text would indicate that the effect observed in previous studies is not unique to narrative fiction, but instead is the result of conceptual priming (e.g., Chartrand & Bargh, 1996; Yousaf & Popat, 2015). *Note. Preliminary analyses showed that there was a significant difference in identification with the monkey character between the three types of text, F(2, 297) = 9.71, p < .001. There was no differences in the levels of identification with the monkey character in the Narrative Fiction Condition (M = 4.90, SD = 1.26) and the Narrative Non-Fiction condition (M = 4.58, SD = 1.26), t(297) = 1.79, p = .075. However, participants reported greater identification in the Narrative Non-Fiction condition (M = 4.58, SD = 1.26), than in the Expository Non-Fiction Condition (M = 4.10, SD = 1.35), t(297) = 2.58, p = .010.

The present study is the second study in an existing project 'The Effect of Narratives on Attitudes Toward Animals', which involves an attempted replication of a study by Małecki et al. (2018). Our existing study in this project examined the effect of narrative fiction and non-fiction (vs. an expository non-fiction) about an animal on attitudes toward animal welfare. Preliminary analyses of the existing study showed that there was no effect of either narrative fiction (or non-fiction) compared to an expository non-fiction text about an animal or compared to a control text unrelated to animals on concern for animal welfare. Contrary to predictions, neither fictionality or narrativity increased concern for animal welfare, willingness to donate to an animal charity or the scores on any of the candidate mediators assessing empathic concern for animals, perspective taking and mind attribution.* The present investigation will examine whether the basic effect of narrative fiction on attitudes toward animal welfare found in previous research (Małecki et al., 2016; 2018) is present in a sample of UK students. Since our existing study failed to find an effect of either fictionality or narrativity on any of the outcome measures or candidate mediators, the present study sought to examine whether the basic effect of narrative fiction (vs. an unrelated control text) on concern for animal welfare would emerge using a stripped down research design. To this end, the present study employed a similar comparison as the one in the original study by Małecki et al. (2018) which compared a narrative fiction text about the plight of a monkey with a non-fiction control text that was unrelated to animals (e.g., the Higgs boson particle). Specifically, the present study will employ a similar non-fiction, non-animal topic control text as in Małecki et al. (2018). Participants will be randomly allocated to either read a narrative fiction text about the plight of a monkey or an article about dark matter. Then, participants will complete the same outcome measure of attitudes toward animal welfare as in Małecki et al. (2018) and a measure of willingness to donate to an animal charity. This control condition allows for a comparison of the effect of narrative fiction vs. a non-fiction text on an unrelated topic, replicating the design of Małecki et al. (2018). We expect that participants will display higher levels of concern for animals and willingness to donate in the narrative fiction compared to the control condition with an unrelated text. *Note. In our existing study there was a significant difference in identification with the monkey character between the three types of text, F(2, 297) = 9.71, p < .001. There was no difference in the levels of identification with the monkey character in the Narrative Fiction condition (M = 4.90, SD = 1.26) and the Narrative Non-Fiction Condition (M = 4.58, SD = 1.26), t(297) = 1.79, p = .075. However, participants reported greater identification in the Narrative Non-Fiction condition (M = 4.58, SD = 1.26), than in the Expository Non-Fiction Condition (M = 4.10, SD = 1.35), t(297) = 2.58, p = .010.

The present study is the third study in an existing project 'The Effect of Narratives on Attitudes Toward Animals', which involves an attempted replication of a study by Małecki et al. (2018). Our existing study in this project examined the effect of narrative fiction and non-fiction (vs. an expository non-fiction) about an animal on attitudes toward animal welfare. Preliminary analyses of the existing study showed that there was no effect of either narrative fiction (or non-fiction) compared to an expository non-fiction text about an animal or compared to a control text unrelated to animals on concern for animal welfare. Contrary to predictions, neither fictionality or narrativity increased concern for animal welfare, willingness to donate to an animal charity or the scores on any of the candidate mediators assessing empathic concern for animals, perspective taking and mind attribution.* The present investigation will examine whether the basic effect of narrative fiction on attitudes toward animal welfare found in previous research (Małecki et al., 2016; 2018) is present in a sample of UK online workers. Since our existing study failed to find an effect of either fictionality or narrativity on any of the outcome measures or candidate mediators, the present study sought to examine whether the basic effect of narrative fiction on concern for animal welfare would emerge using a stripped down research design that replicates the study used by Małecki et al., (2018), comparing the narrative fiction text about the plight of a monkey with a narrative non-fiction text about an unrelated topic. Further, in the existing study in this project, the narrative fiction text we employed was adapted so that the depicted suffering was somewhat reduced, to ensure parallelism between the narrative fiction and non-fiction conditions. Specifically, in the existing study we amended the narrative fiction text such that references to physical violence were changed to instead depict psychological violence. For instance, descriptions of the monkey being put in a hood and burnt by a lit cigarette was changed to the monkey being shouted at. Similarly, depictions of the experimenter electrocuting the monkey were changed to the experimenter using loud noises to scare the monkey. To examine whether the effect of narrative fiction on attitudes to animal welfare would emerge with a text with the equivalent severity of animal abuse to the one used in the original study by Małecki et al. (2018), we will therefore use the narrative fiction text without these amendments to the level of severity. If the effect of narrative fiction on attitudes toward animal welfare emerges with the more severe text, it suggests that any effect of fiction reading is quite specific in requiring severe depictions of animal abuse and an unrelated non-fiction comparison text, to elicit increased concern for animal welfare. Thus, the present study will employ a similar comparison as the one in the original study by Małecki et al. (2018) which compared a narrative fiction text about the plight of a monkey with a non-fiction control text that was unrelated to animals (e.g., the Higgs boson particle). Specifically, the present study will employ a similar narrative non-fiction, non-animal topic control text as in Małecki et al. (2018). Participants will be randomly allocated to either read a narrative fiction text about the plight of a monkey (a professional translation of the narrative text used in the original study) or an article about dark matter. Then, participants will complete the same outcome measure of attitudes toward animal welfare as in Małecki et al. (2018) and a measure of willingness to donate to an animal charity. This control condition allows for a comparison of the effect of narrative fiction vs. a non-fiction text on an unrelated topic, replicating the design of Małecki et al. (2018). We expect that participants will display higher levels of concern for animals and willingness to donate in the narrative fiction compared to the control condition with an unrelated text. *Note. There was a significant difference in identification with the monkey character between the three types of text, F(2, 297) = 9.71, p < .001. There was no difference in the levels of identification with the monkey character in the Narrative Fiction condition (M = 4.90, SD = 1.26) and the Narrative Non-Fiction Condition (M = 4.58, SD = 1.26), t(297) = 1.79, p = .075. However, participants reported greater identification in the Narrative Non-Fiction condition (M = 4.58, SD = 1.26), than in the Expository Non-Fiction Condition (M = 4.10, SD = 1.35), t(297) = 2.58, p = .010.

The present study is the third study in an existing project 'The Effect of Narratives on Attitudes Toward Animals'. The previous studies in the project have yielded inconclusive results as to whether there is an impact of narratives on attitudes toward animal welfare. Specifically, Study 1a failed to replicate the results of Małecki et al.’s investigations (2016; 2018), failing to find a significant effect of either a narrative fiction or non-fiction text (vs. an expository non-fiction control text) on attitudes toward animal welfare. Study 1b included an additional, control text unrelated to animals, and showed that participants in the narrative fiction condition reported greater concern for animal welfare and willingness to donate compared to participants in the unrelated control condition. Study 2 examined whether the lack of a consistent effect of narrative fiction on concern for animal welfare and willingness to donate could be due to the reduced severity of the narrative fiction text used in Studies 1a-b versus the original used in Małecki et al. In an experimental design comparing the originally translated narrative fiction text excerpt and the unrelated control text, results did not show any effect of narrative fiction on concern for animal welfare. The present study will examine whether the reason for the lack of a consistent effect of narratives on attitudes toward animal welfare could be due to the high baseline mean scores of concern for animal welfare. Specifically, across these studies concern for animal welfare was always high, M = > 5.20 (measured on a seven point scale). In addition to the high baseline average for concern for animal welfare, the text in the previous studies depicted a monkey, an animal that is typically afforded greater moral worth than most other animals (Bradley et al., 2020; Caviola, 2019). Thus, the lack of a consistent effect could be due to a combination of a ceiling effect on the concern for animal welfare measure and the chosen stimuli. To address this possibility, the present study will examine whether the animal depicted in the text can account for the inconclusive results. Specifically, the present investigation will compare narrative fiction and non-fiction texts, varying on whether they depict a monkey or a lizard (i.e. an animal with a lower moral worth). Further, the study will include both a general measure of attitudes toward animal welfare as well as condition specific measures of attitudes toward the specific animal depicted in the text. This will allow us to examine the possibility that the texts may affect attitudes toward the specific animal depicted, but not necessarily generalize to concern for animal welfare more broadly. Furthermore, by comparing a highly regarded animal (monkey) with a less regarded one (lizard), we will able to determine whether the lack of a narrative effect is due to the particular animal depicted in the text.

The present investigation builds on two recent experimental studies on the effects of literary fiction on attitudes toward animal welfare (Małecki et al., 2016; 2018) to examine whether the effect is restricted to narrative fiction or also narrative non-fiction and the potential mechanisms for the effect of narratives on attitudes toward animal welfare.

Feminist scholars have argued that men’s control over women’s reproductive autonomy is a central feature of male dominance. Building on recent research that shows sexist ideology informs support for restricting women’s reproductive autonomy, we examined the relation of sexism and the belief that men should be able to restrict the behavior of women. Study 1 ( N = 366 undergraduate psychology students in the United Kingdom) and Study 2 ( N = 281 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers in the United States) showed that controlling for various demographics and ideological measures (e.g., right-wing authoritarianism, support for abortion rights), hostile sexism was related to support for men having the right to prevent their pregnant partner from having an abortion. Further, hostile sexism was related to the endorsement of men’s right to withdraw financial support for the child if a woman chooses not to terminate her pregnancy. Hostile sexism was also uniquely related to support for men’s right to veto their female partner’s decisions during pregnancy and childbirth. The present studies show that hostile sexism is associated with perceptions that men have the right to constrain women’s reproductive choices. Our findings highlight the adverse pressures on women’s reproductive autonomy, including sexist ideology, and may suggest that practitioners should be mindful of this when assisting women in discussing reproductive questions. Further, by creating awareness about the different factors that shape the perception of men’s role in reproductive decisions, sexual health educators could potentially help affirm women’s autonomy in reproductive health. Additional online materials for this article (measures used in this study) are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684317744531 . Data files, together with syntax detailing the statistical analyses, are available at https://osf.io/vwjus/ . Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index

Supplemental Material, PWQ744531_Supplementary_Material for Sexist Ideology and Endorsement of Men’s Control Over Women’s Decisions in Reproductive Health by Aino Petterson, and Robbie M. Sutton in Psychology of Women Quarterly