Categorization of abortion scenarios as a function of pro-life and pro-choice attitudes and sex

Abstract

This study exam ined categorization strategies for the abortion issue utilizing 175 participants from undergraduate psychology classes. The participants were prescreened to determine stance on abortion (pro-life versus pro-choice). Participants were next presented with thirty separate cards, each containing a realistic abortion scenario, and asked to create piles, or categories, that were personally meaningful or logical to them with no right or wrong way to categorize. Participants were subsequently asked to indicate whether the reason given for each of the thirty abortion scenarios was acceptable or unacceptable. The scenarios were presented to each participant in one of three forms: abstract, personally salient for females, or personally salient for males.

As predicted, pro-life participants created fewer (broader) categories than did pro-choice participants. However, there were no differences by sex in number of categories produced. Additionally, there were no differences in participant responses by the degree of salience of the scenarios presented (abstract versus personally salient). As expected, pro-choice participants, as identified based on scores on the prescreening instrument, rated more reasons offered for abortion as acceptable than did participants identified as pro-life. The differences in number of categories created between pro-life and pro-choice participants were explored, with consideration of various explanations for categorization behavior from the existing literature as well as possible alternative explanations. Suggestions are offered for further research.