Psychology of Religion and Spirituality © 2012 American Psychological Association

2012, Vol. 4, No. 4, 249 –263 1941-1022/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0027940

Attitudes Toward Nontraditional Women Using IVF: The

Importance of Political Affiliation and Religious Characteristics
Alexandra E. Sigillo, Monica K. Miller, and Dana A. Weiser
University of Nevada, Reno

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) has advanced in recent years and it is likely
that the public’s perceptions of such technology have changed over time. The use of
ART by nontraditional women (e.g., single women, lesbians) has increased; thus, it is
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

important to assess the public’s attitudes toward in vitro fertilization (IVF), the most
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

common ART, and the women who use such technology. The purpose of the study is
to determine whether certain demographics, political and religious affiliations, and
religious characteristics relate to approval of IVF use by nontraditional women.
Undergraduate students were recruited from a public, medium-sized university in the
western United States; 267 participants responded to multiple questions on an online
survey. Using ordinary least square regression analyses, findings indicate that political
affiliation is one of the strongest predictors, and that certain religious characteristics are
more important in assessing attitudes than religious affiliation. Implications for assess-
ing attitudes toward nontraditional women using IVF and inclusion of religious affil-
iation and characteristics in future studies are discussed.

Keywords: in vitro fertilization (IVF), attitudes, family structure

Born in 1978, Louise Brown was the first
“test tube baby.” Her conception through in
vitro fertilization (IVF), rather than sexual in-
tercourse, provided hope to millions of infertile
women and couples unable to conceive a child.
IVF is the most common type of assisted repro-
ductive technology (ART), accounting for 99%
of all procedures (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, American Society for Repro-
ductive Medicine, & Society for Assisted Re-
productive Technology, 2009). IVF involves
removing eggs from a woman’s body and fer-
tilizing the eggs with sperm outside the womb.
The resulting embryos are then transferred
into the woman’s uterus, increasing the
chances for the woman to become pregnant.
In 2007, 142,435 ART procedures were per-
formed resulting in a little over 1% of total
This article was published Online First April 30, 2012.
Alexandra E. Sigillo, Interdisciplinary PhD Program in
Social Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno; Monica K.
Miller, Department of Criminal Justice and Interdisciplinary
PhD Program in Social Psychology, University of Nevada,
Reno; Dana A. Weiser, Interdisciplinary PhD Program in
Social Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Alexandra E. Sigillo, 1410 Whipple Avenue,
Redwood City, CA 94062. E-mail: sigilloa@gmail.com
249
U.S. births (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention et al., 2009). As the number of
women who use IVF increases, it becomes
progressively more important to understand
individuals’ attitudes toward IVF and the
women who use it, especially nontraditional
women (e.g., single women, lesbians).
Attitudes toward IVF and the women who
use it may be dependent on individuals’ views
about the morality of the technology. Individu-
als’ perceptions about the acceptability of bio-
technologies are closely related to their percep-
tions about the morality of such biotechnologies
(Priest, 2000). For example, using nationwide
adult samples, agricultural (e.g., genetically
modified foods) and genetic (e.g., genetic ther-
apy, animal cloning) biotechnologies have be-
come more acceptable over time (Priest, 2000;
Singer, Corning, & Lamias, 1998), suggesting
that these biotechnologies are perceived as more
moral as well. Few studies have examined atti-
tudes toward IVF and the types of women who
use this reproductive technology. The purpose
of the current study was to explore how specific
variables (i.e., age, gender, race, political and
religious affiliations, and religious characteris-
tics) relate to approval of IVF use by nontradi-
tional women, including single women, lesbi-
 250 SIGILLO, MILLER, AND WEISER
ans, women with degenerative illnesses, elderly
women, transsexuals, and transgenders.
Individual Differences Related to Attitudes
Toward IVF
The review below presents findings from the
most relevant studies concerning the relation-
ship between the variables of interest and atti-
tudes toward IVF. Where gaps in the literature
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
exist, results from studies regarding other repro-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ductive-related procedures are presented. Addi-
tionally, findings about general attitudes toward
nontraditional women are presented, as infer-
ences can then be made about IVF use by such
women.
Age
No studies have investigated whether age re-
lates to individuals’ attitudes toward IVF. Age
differences have been examined with respect to
other reproductive-related procedures, such as
embryonic stem cell research and single embryo
transfer. In a community sample, younger indi-
viduals were more disapproving of embryonic
stem cell research compared to older individuals
(Sullivan, 1993). In a sample of women using
IVF, younger females were more likely to ac-
cept and use single, rather than multiple, em-
bryo transfer compared to older females (de
Lacey, Davies, Homan, Briggs, & Norman,
2007). Thus, it is expected that younger indi-
viduals are less approving of IVF for nontradi-
tional women compared to older individuals.
Gender
Studies assessing gender differences have
demonstrated mixed results. Early studies re-
vealed that women were less likely to approve
of IVF compared to men (Turtle, Harrajchi,
Perry, & Tully, 1988) or that there were no
gender differences (Dunn, Ryan, & O’Brien,
1988). However, more recent studies have dem-
onstrated that women are more likely to approve
of IVF compared to men (Lasker & Murray,
2001). Researchers have identified gender dif-
ferences regarding attitudes toward nontradi-
tional women using fertility treatment. Lasker
and Murray (2001) found that college women
were more likely to approve of lesbians and
marginally more likely to approve of single
women using IVF compared to men. However,
in a sample of medical professionals, men were
more likely to approve of single women and
marginally more likely to approve of lesbians
having access to ART compared to women (de
la Fuente Fonnest, Sondergaard, Fonnest, &
Vedsted-Jacobsen, 2000). This suggests that the
composition of the sample studied may relate to
approval of IVF for various types of women. As
the current study involves a college sample, a
pattern similar to Lasker and Murray’s findings
was expected such that women are more sup-
portive than men regarding IVF use by nontra-
ditional women.
Race
Many African Americans, compared to Eu-
ropean Americans, are distrustful of physicians
and the health care system (Jacobs, Rolle, Fer-
rans, Whitaker, & Warnecke, 2006) and hesitant
to participate in medical research (Huang &
Coker, 2010). Multiple explanations have been
provided in these studies (e.g., historical rela-
tionships with medical institutions). As such, it
was expected that African Americans would
exhibit similar distrust regarding use of IVF.
Early research demonstrated that African Amer-
icans are less likely to approve of IVF compared
to Caucasians (Dunn et al., 1988); however,
more recent research has yet to investigate
possible racial differences. This study ex-
pands on previous research by exploring
whether ethnic minorities exhibit less ap-
proval for nontraditional women using IVF
compared to Caucasians.
Political Affiliation
No research has examined the association
between political affiliation and approval of
IVF. Republicans typically assert that embryos
are living beings with fundamental rights. As
such, they consider abortion to be murder as
embryonic lives are destroyed (Strickler &
Danigelis, 2002). Similarly, Republicans may
be less likely to support IVF as embryos may be
destroyed. Conversely, Democrats typically
contend that women have a right to privacy and
control of their own bodies (Strickler & Dani-
gelis, 2002). Thus, Democrats may be less con-
cerned with the possibility of destroyed em-
bryos and more likely to support women’s
 ATTITUDES TOWARD IVF
reproductive choices, including IVF. Addition-
ally, it is suspected that Republicans would be
particularly opposed to IVF use by nontradi-
tional women. Republicans tend to place higher
value on the traditional nuclear family structure
(Arnold & Weisberg, 1996), and thus, may be
more disapproving of women seeking IVF out-
side a heterosexual marriage. Republicans are
also typically less accepting of homosexuality
(Burnett & Salka, 2009) and may be less likely
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to accept IVF use by lesbians. The current study
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
examined whether identifying as a Republican
or a Democrat relates to attitudes toward IVF
use by nontraditional women.
Religious Affiliation
Researchers have investigated the relation-
ship between religious affiliation and attitudes
toward IVF. The Catholic Church teaches that
life begins at conception and that embryos pos-
sess dignity similar to human beings; thus, the
Catholic Church condemns the use of IVF as it
views the destruction of embryos as loss of lives
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
2008). The Catholic Church also opposes the
notion that conception occurs in a laboratory as
they believe that God, not scientists, controls
the beginning of life (Roberts, 2006; Schenker,
2005; Singer, 2009). Therefore, Catholics, com-
pared to other religious groups, are more likely
to disapprove of IVF (Evans & Hudson, 2007).
Catholics may also specifically oppose IVF use
by lesbians since the Church considers homo-
sexual acts immoral (Libreria Editrice Vaticana,
1997).
Other Christian affiliations vary in their ap-
proval of IVF. Conservative Protestant denom-
inations (e.g., Southern Baptists) align with the
Catholic view and object to IVF because human
embryos are destroyed (Pauls & Hutchinson,
2002). Liberal Protestant denominations (e.g.,
Methodists) accept IVF if restricted to hetero-
sexual married couples (Schenker, 2005). Con-
servative Protestants are more opposed to IVF
compared to liberal Protestants (Evans & Hud-
son, 2007), particularly IVF access by single
women and lesbians (de la Fuente Fonnest et
al., 2000). Thus, it was suspected that Protes-
tants would disapprove of IVF use by single
women and lesbians despite greater Protestant
approval for IVF in the context of heterosex-
ual marriages.
251
Although not investigated in this study due to
the sample composition, other religions have
particular tenets regarding IVF. Jewish law dic-
tates that individuals have an obligation to pro-
create and preserve the family (Kahn, 2006b;
Schenker, 2005). IVF use is acceptable in the
Jewish community, but varies depending on
rabbis’ interpretations of the law (Kahn,
2006b). For example, most rabbis do not en-
dorse the use of donor sperm, but some may
permit it given certain situations (Kahn, 2006b).
Similarly, Muslim tradition highly values mar-
riage and family. Thus, Muslim individuals be-
lieve IVF is acceptable as long as the sperm and
egg come from a husband and wife (Larijani &
Zahedi, 2007). However, it appears that third-
party donation is becoming more acceptable in
certain Islamic countries (Inhorn & Birenbaum-
Carmeli, 2008).
Religious Characteristics
There is no guarantee, however, that individ-
uals agree with all doctrines of a given religion
(see Miller, Maskaly, Peoples, & Sigillo, 2011).
Thus, religious characteristics may better pre-
dict approval of IVF than religious affiliation.
Within any particular religious group, members
may hold varying beliefs and it is important to
identify whether specific religious characteris-
tics such as fundamentalism, (Christian) ortho-
doxy, devotionalism, evangelism, and intrinsic
and extrinsic religiosity influence individuals’
approval of IVF use by various women.
Fundamentalism has been described as Bib-
lical interpretism (Young, 1992), belief in ab-
solute truths (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004),
and strict adherence to religious ideology (Jon-
athan, 2008). No studies have examined the
relationship between fundamentalism and indi-
viduals’ attitudes toward IVF. However, funda-
mentalists who attended religious services
frequently were more opposed to reproductive-
related procedures (e.g., embryonic stem cell
research, preimplantation diagnosis) compared
to fundamentalists who attended religious ser-
vices less frequently (Evans & Hudson, 2007).
Because such procedures involve the possible
destruction of embryos, it was suspected that
fundamentalists would similarly disapprove of
IVF. Further, fundamentalists may be likely to
disapprove of IVF for lesbians as fundamental-
ism has been associated with more negative
 252 SIGILLO, MILLER, AND WEISER
attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Alte-
meyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Jonathan, 2008;
Kirkpatrick, 1993; Laythe, Finkel, Bringle, &
Kirkpatrick, 2002).
Orthodoxy has been described as beliefs that
are consistent with traditional religious doc-
trines (Randolph-Seng, Nielsen, Bottoms, &
Filipas, 2008) and the level of acceptance of
Christian beliefs and doctrines (Jonathan,
2008). In contrast to fundamentalism, ortho-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
doxy predicted less negative attitudes toward
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
gay men and lesbians (Jonathan, 2008; Laythe
et al., 2002); however, another finding demon-
strated no relation between orthodoxy and atti-
tudes toward gay men and lesbians (Kirkpat-
rick, 1993). Therefore, orthodoxy, as compared
to fundamentalism, may relate differently to
approval of nontraditional women using IVF,
particularly for lesbians.
Evangelism refers to the desire and attempt to
convert others to one’s faith (Young, 1992).
Similar to fundamentalism, evangelists who at-
tended religious services frequently were more
opposed to reproductive-related procedures
compared to evangelists who attended religious
services less frequently (Evans & Hudson,
2007). Additionally, evangelical Christians
were more opposed to embryonic stem cell re-
search compared to individuals of no religious
faith (Bryant & Gudgin, 2008). Because these
procedures involve possible embryo destruc-
tion, evangelists may be more likely to disap-
prove of IVF for similar reasons. Furthermore,
evangelists may be less supportive of IVF use
by single mothers as evangelical Protestants,
compared to Catholics, were more likely to be
concerned about the decreasing importance of
marriage and the family (Brooks, 2002). Fi-
nally, evangelists may disapprove of IVF use by
lesbians because biblical scripture depicts ho-
mosexual acts as immoral (Thumma, 1991) and
they trust the word of the Bible (Kahn, 2006a).
Devotionalism has been described as emo-
tional religious involvement (Giorgi, 1992),
religious salience (Young, 1992), religious im-
portance (Putney & Middleton, 1961), and ad-
herence to private worship (Lupfer & Wald,
1985). No studies have investigated the rela-
tionship between devotionalism and attitudes
toward IVF, other reproductive-related proce-
dures, or nontraditional women. The current
study will finally explore whether devotional-
ism is related to attitudes toward nontraditional
women using IVF.
According to Allport and Ross’s (1967) clas-
sic work, intrinsic religiosity refers to individ-
uals who “live” their religion and are committed
to their faith. Intrinsic religiosity is positively
related to fundamental measures (Genia, 1996;
Kirkpatrick, 1993), suggesting that similar to
fundamentalists, individuals with high intrinsic
religiosity would disapprove of IVF, especially
for lesbians. However, research has demon-
strated that when fundamentalism is statistically
controlled, intrinsic religiosity is unrelated to
attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Kirkpat-
rick, 1993; McFarland, 1989). Compared to in-
trinsic, extrinsic religiosity refers to individuals
who “use” their religion as means to achieve an
end (McFarland, 1989) and is categorized into
personal and social extrinsic religiosity. Per-
sonal refers to using one’s religion to satisfy
personal needs (i.e., gain comfort), whereas so-
cial refers to using one’s religion to satisfy
social needs (i.e., meet new people; Genia,
1996). Personal extrinsic religiosity has exhib-
ited a positive, albeit weak, correlation with
fundamental measures (Genia, 1996; Kirkpat-
rick, 1993), but was unrelated to negative atti-
tudes toward gay men and lesbians, even when
controlling for fundamentalism (McFarland,
1989). Social extrinsic religiosity has no asso-
ciation with fundamental measures (Genia,
1996; Kirkpatrick, 1993), and this measure was
unrelated to negative attitudes toward gay men
and lesbians, even when fundamentalism was
held constant (McFarland). Based on contradic-
tions within research, this study examined
whether intrinsic, personal extrinsic, and social
extrinsic religiosity relate to approval of IVF
use by various women.
The Present Research
Reproductive technology has advanced in re-
cent years and it is likely that the public’s per-
ceptions of such technology have evolved over
time. Thus, it is important to gauge attitudes
toward IVF and the women who use such tech-
nology. The purpose of the study is to determine
whether certain demographics, political and re-
ligious affiliations, and religious characteristics
relate to approval of IVF use by nontraditional
women. Attitudes toward six nontraditional
women were assessed as IVF approval may be
 ATTITUDES TOWARD IVF
contingent upon the type of woman using the
technology. Specifically, the researchers mea-
sured the degree of morality associated with
nontraditional women using IVF and the level
of support for doctors refusing to provide IVF
for these women. Both concepts were assessed
as they may represent two related, yet separate,
constructs that individuals use to determine ap-
proval of IVF.
It is hypothesized that older individuals,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Caucasians (compared to ethnic minorities),
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Democrats (compared to Republicans), and
individuals higher in orthodoxy will perceive
nontraditional women’s use of IVF as moral
and support doctors who provide IVF treat-
ment. Further, it is hypothesized that men,
Catholics and Protestants (compared to other
religious affiliations), and individuals higher
in fundamentalism and evangelism will con-
sider women’s use of IVF as less moral and
support doctors who refuse to provide IVF
treatment. No specific hypotheses are pro-
posed for Atheists/Agnostics, devotionalism,
and intrinsic, personal extrinsic, and social
extrinsic religiosity; as such, they will be
considered exploratory variables.
Method
Participants accessed a Web site and com-
pleted an online survey individually and at
their own convenience. They were asked to
rate whether using IVF is moral and whether
doctors should refuse IVF for six types of
women. Participants then completed seven re-
ligious scales (i.e., fundamentalism, ortho-
doxy, evangelism, devotionalism, and intrin-
sic, personal extrinsic, and social extrinsic
religiosity), answered demographic questions
(i.e., age, gender, race), and indicated their
political and religious affiliations.
Participants
Participants were 267 undergraduate students
recruited at a public, medium-sized university
in the western United States who received credit
in their introductory-level classes including
psychology, sociology, and criminal justice.
The mean age was 20.89 years (Mdn ⫽ 20
years; range ⫽ 18 to 57 years) and 39.3% were
male. Participants identified themselves as Cau-
casian (74.6%), Latino (12.3%), Asian Ameri-
253
can (6.4%), African American (5.5%), and
Native American (1.3%). Religious affiliations
included Catholicism (35.4%), Protestantism
(7.9%), Atheism/Agnosticism (15.0%), and
Other (41.7%) including Eastern Orthodox
(0.8%), Judaism (0.8%), Buddhism (0.8%), Is-
lam (0.4%), Mormon (0.4%), a nonlisted faith
(13.0%), and those of no particular faith
(25.6%). Participants’ political affiliation in-
cluded Democrat (40.1%), Republican (26.8%),
and Other (33.1%) including Independent
(9.3%), another party (5.1%), and no specific
affiliation (18.7%).
Materials
Dependent variables. To assess percep-
tions of morality, participants were asked “Is it
moral for a woman to have in vitro fertilization
if she . . .?” The sentence was completed with
either: “is a single mother,” “is a 60-year-old
woman,” “has early onset Alzheimer’s and will
likely die in 10 years,” “was born a man but had
a sex change to a woman,” “was born a woman
but lives as a man,” or “is a lesbian.” For each
woman, doctor refusal was assessed with the
question: “Should a doctor refuse to perform in
vitro fertilization for this woman?” Both ques-
tions were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1
(no, absolutely not) to 5 (yes, absolutely).
Higher morality ratings indicate perceptions
that IVF is more moral and higher doctor refusal
ratings indicate greater support for doctors re-
fusing to provide IVF treatment.
Predictor variables. Participants self-
reported their age, gender, race, and political
and religious affiliations.
Fundamentalism was assessed with Alte-
meyer and Hunsberger’s (2004) Revised 12-
Item Fundamentalism Scale, an updated version
of the 20-Item Religious Fundamentalism Scale
(see Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992). Twelve
items were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree) (e.g., “No single
book of religious teachings contains all the in-
trinsic, fundamental truths about life”). Each
participant’s responses were averaged; higher
scores indicate higher levels of fundamentalism
(Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .89; M ⫽ 2.62).
Orthodoxy, evangelism, and devotionalism
were assessed using Putney and Middleton’s
(1961) measure. Originally, the last two scales
were labeled fanaticism and importance; how-
 254 SIGILLO, MILLER, AND WEISER

ever, recent researchers have termed these as Table 1

evangelism and devotionalism, respectively Means, Medians, and Standard Deviations for
(e.g., Bornstein & Miller, 2009). Six items as- Morality and Doctor Refusal Ratings
sessed orthodoxy (e.g., “I believe there is a Scenario Mean Median SD
Divine plan and purpose for every living person Single mother morality 3.73 4.00 1.09
and thing”), six addressed evangelism (e.g., “I Single mother doctor refusal 2.24 2.00 1.03
have a duty to help those who are confused Elderly woman morality 2.46 2.00 1.11
about religion”), and six measured devotional- Elderly woman doctor refusal 3.55 4.00 1.10
ism (e.g., “I very often think about matters Alzheimer’s disease morality 2.24 2.00 1.12
relating to religion”). Items were rated from 1 Alzheimer’s disease doctor refusal 3.60 4.00 1.15
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Sex change to woman morality 2.90 3.00 1.21

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Sex change to woman doctor refusal 3.10 3.00 1.20

each participant’s responses were averaged for
each scale. Higher scores indicate higher levels
of orthodoxy (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .86;
M ⫽ 3.09), evangelism (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽
.72; M ⫽ 2.65), and devotionalism (Cronbach’s
alpha ⫽ .87; M ⫽ 2.95).
Gorsuch and McPherson’s (1989) Extrinsic/
Intrinsic Revised Scale assessed intrinsic and
extrinsic religiosity. The measure included eight
intrinsic (e.g., “I enjoy reading about my reli-
gion”), three personal extrinsic (e.g., “I pray
mainly to gain relief and protection”), and three
social extrinsic (e.g., “I go to church because it
helps me to make friends”) religiosity items.
Items were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree). Each participant’s
responses were averaged for each subscale.
Higher scores indicate higher levels of intrinsic
(Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .72; M ⫽ 2.81), personal
extrinsic (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .84; M ⫽ 2.93),
and social extrinsic (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .89;
M ⫽ 2.20) religiosity.
Results
A series of ordinary least square regression
analyses were conducted to examine which de-
mographic, political and religious affiliation,
and religious characteristic variables signifi-
cantly predicted participants’ morality and doc-
tor refusal ratings for each scenario. The omni-
bus regression model contained age, gender,
race, political and religious affiliations, funda-
mentalism, orthodoxy, evangelism, devotional-
ism, and intrinsic, personal extrinsic, and social
extrinsic religiosity. All variables were entered
in the model simultaneously and no multicol-
linearity was observed.
See Table 1 for all mean, median, and stan-
dard deviation scores for each scenario. The
single mother scenario had the highest mean for
morality ratings (M ⫽ 3.73), whereas the
Woman lives as man morality 2.89 3.00 1.21
Woman lives as man doctor refusal 3.01 3.00 1.22
Lesbian morality 3.71 4.00 1.24
Lesbian doctor refusal 2.36 2.00 1.24
woman with Alzheimer’s disease scenario had
the lowest mean score (M ⫽ 2.24). In compar-
ison, the woman with Alzheimer’s disease sce-
nario had the highest mean for doctoral refusal
ratings (M ⫽ 3.60), whereas the single mother
scenario had the lowest mean score (M ⫽ 2.24).
Therefore, participants on average rated the sin-
gle mother scenario as the most moral and were
the least supportive of doctoral refusal. In con-
trast, participants on average rated the woman
with Alzheimer’s disease scenario as the least
moral and were the most supportive of doctor
refusal.
Tables 2 and 3 display the univariate results
for all morality and doctor refusal ratings. Al-
though the results of the omnibus regression
models are presented in text, the univariate re-
sults are of primary interest to the current re-
search as the purpose of the study is to deter-
mine which variables are significantly related to
perceptions of IVF. The regression model sig-
nificantly predicted participants’ ratings of how
moral it is for a single mother to use IVF (R2 ⫽
.21; adjusted R2 ⫽ .13; F(14, 136) ⫽ 2.59, p ⫽
.002). Only fundamentalism was significantly
related to morality ratings, indicating that indi-
viduals with higher scores rated this scenario as
less moral. Devotionalism marginally predicted
ratings as individuals with higher scores rated
the scenario as less moral. Additionally, the
relationship between personal extrinsic religios-
ity and morality approached significance as in-
dividuals with higher scores rated the scenario
as more moral. The regression model also sig-
nificantly predicted participants’ ratings of
 ATTITUDES TOWARD IVF 255

Table 2
Multiple Regressions of Demographic, Political, and Religious Variables on Morality Ratings
Scenario Predictors B t ␤ p-value
Single mother Age ⫺.01 ⫺.28 ⫺.02 .779
Gender .17 .89 .08 .374
Race .08 .41 .04 .686
Political Affiliation .29 1.52 .14 .130
Catholicism ⫺.22 ⫺1.18 ⫺.10 .238
Protestantism ⫺.35 ⫺1.04 ⫺.09 .302
Atheist/Agnostic .06 .18 .02 .009ⴱ
⫺.51 ⫺2.65 ⫺.36
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

AH Fundamentalism .857
⫺.29 ⫺1.69 ⫺.25 .094†
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

PM Devotionalism
PM Orthodoxy .08 .43 .07 .666
PM Evangelism .14 .75 .10 .458
GM Intrinsic .12 .48 .08 .631
GM Extrinsic-Social ⫺.03 ⫺.22 ⫺.02 .825
GM Extrinsic-Personal .25 1.83 .24 .069†
Elderly woman Age .00 .10 .01 .923
Gender ⫺.01 ⫺.06 ⫺.01 .949
Race ⫺.11 ⫺.46 ⫺.04 .643
Political Affiliation .29 1.28 .12 .203
Catholicism .11 .50 .05 .619
Protestantism ⫺.29 ⫺.74 ⫺.07 .460
Atheist/Agnostic .11 .28 .03 .779
AH Fundamentalism .21 .95 .14 .346
PM Devotionalism .02 .12 .02 .906
PM Orthodoxy ⫺.38 ⫺1.80 ⫺.29 .074†
PM Evangelism ⫺.18 ⫺.85 ⫺.12 .399
GM Intrinsic .48 1.67 .28 .097†
GM Extrinsic-Social .17 1.21 .12 .228
GM Extrinsic-Personal ⫺.11 ⫺.70 ⫺.10 .492
Alzheimer’s disease Age .01 .49 .04 .628
Gender .16 .74 .07 .458
Race ⫺.46 ⫺1.96 ⫺.17 .052†
Political Affiliation .14 .62 .06 .535
Catholicism .28 1.32 .12 .189
Protestantism .10 .26 .02 .799
Atheist/Agnostic ⫺.23 ⫺.59 ⫺.07 .559
AH Fundamentalism .40 1.84 .26 .068†
PM Devotionalism .14 .71 .11 .479
PM Orthodoxy ⫺.42 ⫺2.05 ⫺.32 .042ⴱ
PM Evangelism ⫺.25 ⫺1.22 ⫺.16 .224
GM Intrinsic .08 .27 .04 .791
GM Extrinsic-Social .04 .31 .03 .754
GM Extrinsic-Personal ⫺.11 ⫺.69 ⫺.09 .492
Sex change to woman Age ⫺.03 ⫺1.06 ⫺.09 .293
Gender .23 .98 .09 .332
Race .32 1.21 .11 .228
Political Affiliation .41 1.69 .16 .093†
Catholicism ⫺.11 ⫺.47 ⫺.04 .638
Protestantism ⫺.13 ⫺.30 ⫺.03 .763
Atheist/Agnostic ⫺.41 ⫺.95 ⫺.11 .346
AH Fundamentalism ⫺.20 ⫺.83 ⫺.12 .410
PM Devotionalism .05 .22 .04 .824
PM Orthodoxy ⫺.59 ⫺2.62 ⫺.41 .010ⴱ
PM Evangelism .19 .84 .11 .401
GM Intrinsic .21 .67 .11 .502
(table continues)
 256 SIGILLO, MILLER, AND WEISER

Table 2 (continued)
Scenario Predictors B t ␤ p-value
GM Extrinsic-Social .03 .19 .02 .852
GM Extrinsic-Personal .11 .62 .09 .537
Woman lives as man Age ⫺.02 ⫺.81 ⫺.07 .419
Gender .15 .65 .06 .520
Race .12 .47 .04 .638
Political Affiliation .35 1.44 .14 .151
Catholicism ⫺.29 ⫺1.22 ⫺.11 .223
Protestantism ⫺.41 ⫺.95 ⫺.09 .343
Atheist/Agnostic ⫺.68 ⫺1.56 ⫺.17 .120
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

AH Fundamentalism ⫺.18 ⫺.76 ⫺.11 .449

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

PM Devotionalism .05 .22 .03 .827

PM Orthodoxy ⫺.52 ⫺2.30 ⫺.36 .023ⴱ
PM Evangelism ⫺.03 ⫺.12 ⫺.02 .905
GM Intrinsic .23 .75 .13 .454
GM Extrinsic-Social ⫺.05 ⫺.36 ⫺.04 .718
GM Extrinsic-Personal .23 1.30 .18 .196
Lesbian Age ⫺.00 ⫺.07 ⫺.01 .946
Gender .36 1.66 .14 .099†
Race .31 1.31 .11 .193
Political Affiliation .32 1.44 .13 .152
Catholicism ⫺.27 ⫺1.23 ⫺.11 .223
Protestantism .02 .05 .01 .958
Atheist/Agnostic ⫺.66 ⫺1.64 ⫺.17 .104
AH Fundamentalism ⫺.57 ⫺2.57 ⫺.35 .011ⴱ
PM Devotionalism ⫺.27 ⫺1.37 ⫺.20 .174
PM Orthodoxy ⫺.02 ⫺.08 ⫺.01 .934
PM Evangelism .05 .22 .03 .829
GM Intrinsic .13 .45 .07 .657
GM Extrinsic-Social ⫺.00 ⫺.02 ⫺.00 .988
GM Extrinsic-Personal .22 1.35 .18 .179
Note. N ⫽ 150 –151.
†
p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05.

whether a doctor should refuse IVF for a single
mother (R2 ⫽ .19; adjusted R2 ⫽ .11; F(14,
135) ⫽ 2.25, p ⫽ .009). Only fundamentalism
was significantly related to participants’ ratings
of doctor refusal as higher scores were related to
more support for doctor refusal. There was a
trend for Catholics, compared to other religions,
to report greater support for doctor refusal, al-
though this did not quite reach significance.
The regression model did not significantly
predict participants’ ratings of how moral it is
for an elderly woman to use IVF (R2 ⫽ .11;
adjusted R2 ⫽ .02; F(14, 136) ⫽ 1.22, p ⫽
.271). There was a marginally significant rela-
tionship between orthodoxy and morality rat-
ings, as well as between intrinsic religiosity and
morality ratings. These results indicate a trend
in which individuals lower on orthodoxy and
higher on intrinsic religiosity regarded this sce-
nario as more moral. The overall model signif-
icantly predict participants’ ratings of whether a
doctor should refuse IVF for an elderly woman
(R 2 ⫽ .17; adjusted R 2 ⫽ .09; F(14,
133) ⫽ 1.99, p ⫽ .023). Democrats were less
likely to support doctor refusal compared to
Republicans and Caucasians were less likely to
support doctor refusal compared to ethnic mi-
norities. Individuals higher in intrinsic religios-
ity were also significantly less likely to support
doctor refusal.
The regression model marginally predicted
participants’ ratings of how moral it is for a
woman with early onset Alzheimer’s disease to
use IVF (R2 ⫽ .14; adjusted R2 ⫽ .05; F(14,
136) ⫽ 1.58, p ⫽ .092). Orthodoxy was nega-
tively related to morality ratings as individuals
higher in orthodoxy rated this scenario as sig-
nificantly less moral. A trend emerged with
Caucasians rating this scenario as less moral
compared to ethnic minorities as this relation-
 ATTITUDES TOWARD IVF 257

Table 3
Multiple Regressions of Demographic, Political, and Religious Variables on Doctor Refusal Ratings
Scenario Predictors B t ␤ p-value
Single mother Age .01 .60 .05 .549
Gender ⫺.29 ⫺1.54 ⫺.13 .126
Race ⫺.06 ⫺.30 ⫺.03 .763
Political Affiliation ⫺.21 ⫺1.11 ⫺.10 .269
Catholicism .34 1.85 .16 .066†
Protestantism .21 .63 .06 .532
Atheist/Agnostic ⫺.29 ⫺.86 ⫺.09 .390
.046ⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

AH Fundamentalism .38 2.02 .28

⫺.07 ⫺.40 ⫺.06
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

PM Devotionalism .692
PM Orthodoxy ⫺.07 ⫺.42 ⫺.06 .678
PM Evangelism .10 .56 .07 .577
GM Intrinsic ⫺.03 ⫺.11 ⫺.02 .912
GM Extrinsic-Social .05 .44 .04 .659
GM Extrinsic-Personal ⫺.04 ⫺.31 ⫺.04 .761
Elderly woman Age .03 1.08 .09 .283
Gender .27 1.21 .11 .228
Race ⫺.63 ⫺2.59 ⫺.23 .011ⴱ
Political Affiliation ⫺.47 ⫺2.06 ⫺.19 .042ⴱ
Catholicism ⫺.06 ⫺.24 ⫺.02 .808
Protestantism .38 .96 .09 .341
Atheist/Agnostic ⫺.33 ⫺.79 ⫺.09 .429
AH Fundamentalism ⫺.04 ⫺.18 ⫺.03 .854
PM Devotionalism .07 .35 .05 .730
PM Orthodoxy .25 1.16 .18 .250
PM Evangelism .26 1.19 .16 .236
GM Intrinsic ⫺.66 ⫺2.27 ⫺.37 .025ⴱ
GM Extrinsic-Social ⫺.17 ⫺1.25 ⫺.12 .215
GM Extrinsic-Personal .15 .89 .12 .378
Alzheimer’s disease Age .04 1.30 .11 .195
Gender ⫺.10 ⫺.44 ⫺.04 .659
Race ⫺.38 ⫺1.54 ⫺.14 .125
Political Affiliation ⫺.61 ⫺2.63 ⫺.24 .010ⴱ
Catholicism .38 1.68 .15 .095†
Protestantism ⫺.22 ⫺.53 ⫺.05 .596
Atheist/Agnostic ⫺.21 ⫺.50 ⫺.05 .618
AH Fundamentalism ⫺.60 ⫺2.62 ⫺.37 .010ⴱ
PM Devotionalism .27 1.35 .21 .180
PM Orthodoxy .05 .23 .04 .821
PM Evangelism .43 1.95 .26 .053†
GM Intrinsic ⫺.44 ⫺1.49 ⫺.24 .139
GM Extrinsic-Social ⫺.13 ⫺.91 ⫺.09 .363
GM Extrinsic-Personal ⫺.04 ⫺.24 ⫺.03 .813
Sex change to woman Age .03 1.06 .09 .291
Gender ⫺.09 ⫺.38 ⫺.03 .703
Race ⫺.42 ⫺1.66 ⫺.14 .099†
Political Affiliation ⫺.45 ⫺1.92 ⫺.17 .057†
Catholicism .16 .69 .06 .490
Protestantism ⫺.44 ⫺1.07 ⫺.10 .288
Atheist/Agnostic ⫺.52 ⫺1.23 ⫺.13 .221
AH Fundamentalism .03 .14 .02 .888
PM Devotionalism .14 .67 .10 .503
PM Orthodoxy .30 1.35 .21 .178
PM Evangelism .09 .41 .05 .684
(table continues)
 258 SIGILLO, MILLER, AND WEISER

Table 3 (continued)
Scenario Predictors B t ␤ p-value
GM Intrinsic .10 .32 .05 .753
GM Extrinsic-Social .20 1.39 .13 .166
GM Extrinsic-Personal ⫺.40 ⫺2.36 ⫺.31 .019ⴱ
Woman lives as man Age .05 1.54 .13 .125
Gender ⫺.02 ⫺.06 ⫺.01 .951
Race ⫺.32 ⫺1.18 ⫺.11 .241
Political Affiliation ⫺.47 ⫺1.88 ⫺.18 .063†
Catholicism .08 .34 .03 .732
Protestantism ⫺.24 ⫺.54 ⫺.05 .588
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Atheist/Agnostic ⫺.51 ⫺1.14 ⫺.13 .257

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

AH Fundamentalism ⫺.02 ⫺.07 ⫺.01 .941

PM Devotionalism .22 1.02 .16 .308
PM Orthodoxy .04 .15 .02 .879
PM Evangelism .32 1.35 .18 .180
GM Intrinsic ⫺.04 ⫺.14 ⫺.02 .890
GM Extrinsic-Social .01 .09 .01 .932
GM Extrinsic-Personal ⫺.26 ⫺1.46 ⫺.20 .147
Lesbian Age ⫺.01 ⫺.41 ⫺.03 .685
Gender .11 .50 .04 .621
Race ⫺.26 ⫺1.03 ⫺.09 .304
Political Affiliation ⫺.49 ⫺2.13 ⫺.19 .035ⴱ
Catholicism .28 1.22 .10 .224
Protestantism ⫺.01 ⫺.03 ⫺.00 .978
Atheist/Agnostic ⫺.12 ⫺.30 ⫺.03 .768
AH Fundamentalism .59 2.58 .35 .011ⴱ
PM Devotionalism .16 .78 .11 .436
PM Orthodoxy ⫺.52 ⫺2.43 ⫺.36 .016ⴱ
PM Evangelism .41 1.92 .24 .058†
GM Intrinsic .04 .14 .02 .891
GM Extrinsic-Social ⫺.21 ⫺1.53 ⫺.14 .129
GM Extrinsic-Personal ⫺.04 ⫺.22 ⫺.03 .825
Note. N ⫽ 148 –151.
†
p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05.

ship approached significance. There was also a
marginally significant relationship between fun-
damentalism and morality ratings as individuals
with higher fundamentalism scores rated this
scenario as more moral. Ratings of whether a
doctor should refuse IVF for a woman with
early onset Alzheimer’s disease were signifi-
cantly predicted by the model (R2 ⫽ .17; ad-
justed R2 ⫽ .08; F(14, 136) ⫽ 1.93, p ⫽ .028).
Democrats were less likely to support doctoral
refusal compared to Republicans. Fundamental-
ism was negatively associated with doctor re-
fusal as individuals higher on fundamentalism
were significantly less likely to support doctor
refusal. Catholics, compared to other religions,
tended to demonstrate more support for doctor
refusal, although this only approached signifi-
cance. Finally, a positive relationship between
evangelism and doctor refusal ratings was found
in this scenario, although this relationship was
not quite significant.
The regression model did not significantly
predict participants’ ratings of how moral it is
for a woman who was born a man and had a sex
change to use IVF (R2 ⫽ .14; adjusted R2 ⫽ .05;
F(14, 135) ⫽ 1.54, p ⫽ .107). However, ortho-
doxy was significantly related to morality rat-
ings with individuals higher in orthodoxy rating
the sex change scenario as less moral. A trend
was also found with Democrats rating the sce-
nario as more moral compared to Republicans.
The overall model significantly predicted par-
ticipants’ ratings of whether a doctor should
refuse IVF for a woman who was born a man
and had a sex change (R2 ⫽ .20; adjusted R2 ⫽
.11; F(14, 136) ⫽ 2.38, p ⫽ .005). Personal
extrinsic religiosity significantly predicted doc-
tor refusal ratings with higher scores indicating
 ATTITUDES TOWARD IVF
less support for doctor refusal. Democrats and
Caucasians were less likely to support doctor
refusal compared to Republicans and ethnic mi-
norities respectively, although these relation-
ships only approached significance.
The regression model did not significantly
predict participants’ ratings of how moral it is
for a woman who lives as a man to use IVF
(R 2 ⫽ .14; adjusted R 2 ⫽ .05; F(14,
136) ⫽ 1.52, p ⫽ .111). However, those higher
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
on orthodoxy rated the scenario as significantly
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
less moral. Additionally, the model did not sig-
nificantly predict whether a doctor should re-
fuse IVF for a woman who lives as a man (R2 ⫽
.13; adjusted R2 ⫽ .04; F(14, 135) ⫽ 1.46, p ⫽
.135). Political affiliation was found to have a
marginal relationship with Democrats indicat-
ing less support for doctor refusal compared to
Republicans.
The regression model significantly predicted
participants’ ratings of how moral it is for a
lesbian to use IVF (R2 ⫽ .23; adjusted R2 ⫽ .15;
F(14, 136) ⫽ 2.83, p ⫽ .001). Fundamentalism
was significantly related to morality ratings as
individuals with higher scores rated this sce-
nario as less moral. Gender was marginally re-
lated to morality ratings as women indicated
that they considered this scenario as more moral
compared to men. The regression model signif-
icantly predicted whether a doctor should refuse
IVF for a lesbian (R2 ⫽ .26; adjusted R2 ⫽ .18;
F(14, 135) ⫽ 3.30, p ⬍ .001). Democrats were
significantly less likely to support doctor refusal
compared to Republicans. Orthodoxy signifi-
cantly predicted doctor refusal ratings as indi-
viduals with higher scores were less likely to
support doctor refusal. Fundamentalism was
also positively related to support for doctor re-
fusal with individuals higher on fundamental-
ism indicating more support for doctoral re-
fusal. There was also a positive relationship
between evangelism and support for doctoral
refusal, although this relationship only ap-
proached significance.
Discussion
The current study investigated the relation-
ship between religious, political and demo-
graphic characteristics and attitudes toward IVF
for women leading nontraditional lifestyles.
Overall, attitudes regarding the morality of IVF
use by nontraditional women and support for
259
doctors refusing to perform IVF on such women
were differentially associated with specific reli-
gious characteristics, broad political affiliation,
and some demographic variables. These find-
ings further differed based upon women’s par-
ticular nontraditional lifestyle.
Nontraditional Lifestyles and Attitudes
Toward IVF
The type of nontraditional lifestyle was found
to be strongly associated with ratings of moral
worthiness and strength of doctor refusal en-
dorsement. Overall, single mothers and lesbians
were perceived as more morally worthy of IVF
and less deserving of doctor refusals compared
to women living as men and women who are
born as men and have a sex change. Attitudes
toward single mothers and lesbians may be
more crystallized than for these transgendered
women as participants may have been more
familiar with single mothers and lesbians. If
participants’ perceptions of these women are
already formed, then their attitudes are more
easily accessible when making judgments con-
cerning them and their use of IVF. Higher doc-
tor refusal ratings were found for elderly
women and women with Alzheimer’s disease.
These results may be due to pragmatic concerns
for future children’s well-being as participants
may have believed that these women would be
physically unable to raise their child.
Effects of Religion, Politics, and
Demographics on Attitudes Toward IVF
Religious, political, and demographic charac-
teristics of participants were highly predictive
of attitudes toward the moral worthiness of IVF
and support for doctors refusing to perform the
procedure.
Religious characteristics were the strongest
predictors of the morality of IVF use by non-
traditional women and support for doctors re-
fusing to provide IVF for such women. Funda-
mentalism was negatively related to IVF moral-
ity and positively related to doctor refusals of
IVF for single mothers and lesbians, but not for
women suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.
These findings parallel research from Kirkpat-
rick (1993) regarding the positive association
between fundamentalism and prejudice toward
lesbians. Orthodoxy was inversely associated
 260 SIGILLO, MILLER, AND WEISER
with doctor refusals of IVF for lesbians, consis-
tent with previous research demonstrating the
negative relationship between orthodoxy and
attitudes toward lesbians (Jonathan, 2008; Lay-
the et al., 2002). Orthodoxy was also inversely
related to the moral worthiness of IVF for some
of the other nontraditional women, findings that
were not anticipated. Evangelism was positively
associated with doctors refusing IVF for women
with Alzheimer’s disease and lesbians; such
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
support for doctor refusal coincides with previ-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ous research depicting evangelists’ disapproval
of reproductive-related procedures because of
possible embryo destruction (Evans & Hudson,
2007). Devotionalism was negatively related to
perceptions of IVF morality for single mothers.
Individuals who scored higher in intrinsic reli-
giosity considered elderly women using IVF as
more moral and less worthy of doctor refusal.
Individuals who endorsed higher levels of per-
sonal extrinsic religiosity perceived single
mothers using IVF as more morally worthy, and
women who were born men and had a sex
change as less deserving of doctor refusals for
IVF. Social extrinsic religiosity did not produce
any effects for the scenarios.
Broad political affiliation exhibited strong ef-
fects on attitudes toward the moral worthiness
of IVF and support for doctors refusing to pro-
vide treatment. Democrats rated the scenarios as
more moral and were less supportive of doctor
refusals compared to Republicans. These find-
ings are consistent with the extant literature
demonstrating that Democrats are more liberal
in their views concerning reproductive health
issues (Strickler & Danigelis, 2002) and, similar
to abortion, may consider IVF use as a woman’s
right.
Demographics were also predictive of atti-
tudes toward IVF. Previous studies have sug-
gested that younger individuals are more
concerned with reproductive technologies;
however, results from this study did not dem-
onstrate this relationship between age and atti-
tudes toward IVF for nontraditional women,
due most likely to the limited age range in our
sample of college students. Gender did not pro-
duce strong effects, with the only difference
being that females, as compared with males,
rated lesbians using IVF as more moral. This
finding somewhat coincides with other studies
which demonstrated that women are more likely
to accept IVF in general (Lasker & Murray,
2001). With respect to race, Caucasians were
less likely to support doctors refusing IVF for
elderly women and women who were born men
and had a sex change, but unexpectedly per-
ceived women with Alzheimer’s using IVF as
less moral compared to ethnic minorities. Reli-
gious affiliation, of the three studied in our
sample, Catholicism, Protestantism and Athe-
ism/Agnosticism, was unrelated to attitudes to-
ward nontraditional women using IVF.
Implications
Overall, views about the morality of IVF for
nontraditional women differed in this sample
based on both the specific nontraditional life-
style and participants’ own religious character-
istics. Participants did not equally endorse IVF
for all types of women. This variability is likely
due to preexisting perceptions of nontraditional
women; perhaps participants had more crystal-
lized attitudes toward certain nontraditional
women, such as lesbians, but not toward others,
such as women who live as men. Participants
are more supportive of IVF for single mothers
and lesbians which suggests that they are gen-
erally more accepting of these types of women.
Over time, it seems reasonable that such support
may be provided to transgendered individuals
as the public becomes more familiar and accept-
ing of these lifestyles. Attitudes toward nontra-
ditional women may become more tolerant over
time; therefore, it is important to continually
assess attitudes toward IVF, and particularly its
use by nontraditional women.
In addition to differential support provided to
the variety of nontraditional women, some vari-
ables exhibited differences between the depen-
dent measures for the same woman. This sug-
gests that morality and doctor refusal represent
two separate constructs. Morality may be
viewed as individuals’ private beliefs and ap-
proval. Some may believe that everyone has a
right to procreate, while others may believe that
only certain types of women should have the
opportunity to use IVF. Conversely, doctor re-
fusal may be linked to beliefs about legal rights.
Some individuals may believe that doctors have
a duty to comply with their patients’ needs and
that refusals are infringements on patients’
rights, while others may believe that physicians
have the right to refuse to provide treatment
(Daar, 2008). Thus, future research should in-
 ATTITUDES TOWARD IVF
vestigate both measures as they represent two
separate constructs that relate to support of IVF
use by nontraditional women.
A final implication is that religious charac-
teristics, such as fundamentalism, orthodoxy,
devotionalism, and intrinsic and extrinsic reli-
giosity, are better predictors of attitudes toward
the morality of IVF for nontraditional women
than religious affiliation.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Limitations and Future Directions
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
As with any study, there were some limita-
tions. Foremost, the current sample did not have
much variability in religious affiliation which
may have affected results. Furthermore, the
sample was composed of undergraduate stu-
dents who may not strictly follow the tenets of
their religious affiliation, thus resulting in null
findings. This seems likely as college students
demonstrate less ability to integrate religious
teachings into their moral and political beliefs
(Sullins, 1999). Future studies should obtain a
more representative sample of religious affilia-
tions to determine whether this effect transcends
the college student sample.
Another limitation is the narrow range of
scenarios that were included in the study. Par-
ticipants only responded to six scenarios. A
wider variety, such as a woman with a different
illness (e.g., cancer) or a control scenario,
would have provided a better understanding of
attitudes toward IVF use by nontraditional
women and an opportunity to make compari-
sons between a traditional woman (i.e., a het-
erosexual married woman) and nontraditional
women. Future research should determine
whether individuals’ responses are dependent
on whether IVF is used by women for physical
or genetic reasons (e.g., blocked fallopian
tubes) or for social reasons (e.g., a lifestyle
choice to remain single). Future studies should
also assess individuals’ attitudes toward policy
issues associated with IVF use. For example,
singles, gay men, and lesbians have limited IVF
access in states with mandatory insurance laws
that cover only heterosexual married couples
(Daar, 2008; Waldman, 2006).
A final limitation of the study is that the
scenarios and dependent measures were not pi-
loted. Results from this study suggest that atti-
tudes toward IVF can be assessed through mul-
tiple constructs, such as morality and doctor
261
refusal. However, future studies should include
other possible constructs of IVF attitudes, and
test these measures, in order to further what is
known about individuals’ attitudes toward IVF
and the women who use such technology.
Conclusion
Religious characteristics were related to atti-
tudes toward the morality of IVF use and sup-
port for doctor refusal to perform IVF on a
variety of nontraditional women. Religious
characteristics, in comparison to religious affil-
iation, were better predictors of IVF attitudes.
Furthermore, political affiliation was another
strong predictor, suggesting that this variable is
important in shaping individuals’ attitudes to-
ward IVF. Across religious and political char-
acteristics, generally more support for IVF
exists when the recipient exemplifies a more
familiar type of woman, such as a single mother
or a lesbian. Finally, attitudes toward IVF and
its use by various types of women should be
continually assessed to determine whether such
attitudes become more acceptable over time.
References
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal reli-
gious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 5, 432– 443. doi:
10.1037/h0021212
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Author-
itarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and
prejudice. International Journal for the Psychol-
ogy of Religion, 2, 113–133. doi:10.1207/
s15327582ijpr0202_5
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised
religious fundamentalism scale: The short and
sweet of it. International Journal for the Psychol-
ogy of Religion, 14, 47–54. doi:10.1207/
s15327582ijpr1401_4
Arnold, L. W., & Weisberg, H. F. (1996). Parent-
hood, family values, and the 1992 presidential
election. American Politics Quarterly, 24, 194 –
220. doi:10.1177/1532673X9602400204
Bornstein, B. H., & Miller, M. K. (2009). God in the
courtroom: Religion’s role at trial. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Brooks, C. (2002). Religious influence and the poli-
tics of family decline concern: Trends, sources,
and U.S. political behavior. American Sociological
Review, 67, 191–211. doi:10.2307/3088892
Bryant, J., & Gudgin, M. (2008). Attitudes amongst
young adults to use of embryonic stem cells in
 262 SIGILLO, MILLER, AND WEISER
research and therapy: Comparison of evangelical
Christian students with non-Christian students.
Science & Christian Belief, 20, 91–105.
Burnett, R. C., & Salka, W. M. (2009). Determinants
of electoral support for anti-gay marriage consti-
tutional amendments: An examination of 2006
votes on ballot measures in the states. Journal of
Homosexuality, 56, 1071–1082. doi:10.1080/
00918360903275476
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ameri-
can Society for Reproductive Medicine, & Society
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
for Assisted Reproductive Technology. (2009).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
2007 Assisted reproductive technology success
rates: National summary and fertility clinic re-
ports. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/
art/ART2007/PDF/COMPLETE_2007_ART.pdf
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (2008). In-
struction “Dignitas Personae” of certain bioethical
questions. Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/
comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf
Daar, J. F. (2008). Accessing reproductive technolo-
gies: Invisible barriers, indelible harms. Berkeley
Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 23, 18 – 82.
de Lacey, S., Davies, M., Homan, G., Briggs, N., &
Norman, R. J. (2007). Factors and perceptions that
influence women’s decisions to have a single em-
bryo transferred. Reproductive BioMedicine On-
line, 15, 526 –531. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)
60384-7
de la Fuente Fonnest, I., Sondergaard, F., Fonnest,
G., & Vedsted-Jacobsen, A. (2000). Attitudes
among health care professionals on the ethics of
assisted reproductive technologies and legal abor-
tion. Acta Obstetricia & Gynecologica Scandi-
navica, 79, 49 –53. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412
.2000.079001049.x
Dunn, P. C., Ryan, I. J., & O’Brien, K. (1988).
College students’ acceptance of adoption and five
alternative fertilization techniques. Journal of Sex
Research, 24, 282–287. doi:10.1080/
00224498809551425
Evans, J. H., & Hudson, K. (2007). Religion and
reproductive genetics: Beyond views of embryonic
life? Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli-
gion, 46, 565–581. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906
.2007.00378.x
Genia, V. (1996). I, E, quest, and fundamentalism as
predictors of psychological and spiritual well-
being. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli-
gion, 35, 56 – 64. doi:10.2307/1386395
Giorgi, L. (1992). Religious involvement in a secu-
larized society: An empirical confirmation of Mar-
tin’s general theory of secularization. The British
Journal of Sociology, 43, 639 – 656. doi:10.2307/
591342
Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/
Extrinsic measurement: I/E-Revised and single-
item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 28, 348 –354. doi:10.2307/1386745
Huang, H.-H., & Coker, A. D. (2010). Examining
issues affecting African American participation in
research studies. Journal of Black Studies, 40,
619 – 636. doi:10.1177/0021934708317749
Inhorn, M. C., & Birenbaum-Carmeli, D. (2008).
Assisted reproductive technologies and culture
change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37, 177–
196. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407
.085230
Jacobs, E. A., Rolle, I., Ferrans, C. E., Whitaker,
E. E., & Warnecke, R. B. (2006). Understanding
African Americans’ views of the trustworthiness
of physicians. Journal of General Internal Medi-
cine, 21, 642– 647. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497
.2006.00485.x
Jonathan, E. (2008). The influence of religious fun-
damentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and
Christian orthodoxy on explicit and implicit mea-
sures of attitudes toward homosexuals. Interna-
tional Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18,
316 –329. doi:10.1080/10508610802229262
Kahn, M. M. (2006a). Conservative Christian teach-
ers: Possible consequences for lesbian, gay and
bisexual youth. Intercultural Education, 17, 359 –
371. doi:10.1080/14675980600971368
Kahn, S. M. (2006b). Making technology familiar:
Orthodox Jews and infertility support, advice, and
inspiration. Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry, 30,
467– 480. doi:10.1007/s11013-006-9029-8
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Fundamentalism, Christian
orthodoxy, and intrinsic religious orientation as
predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 256 –268. doi:
10.2307/1386664
Larijani, B., & Zahedi, F. (2007). Ethical and reli-
gious aspects of gamete and embryo donation and
legislation in Iran. Journal of Religion &
Health, 46, 399 – 408. doi:10.1007/s10943-007-
9108-3
Lasker, J. N., & Murray, D. E. (2001). Attitudes
toward technologies for conception: A 15-year
follow-up. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 31, 2165–2183. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816
.2001.tb00169.x
Laythe, B., Finkel, D. G., Bringle, R. G., & Kirkpat-
rick, L. A. (2002). Religious fundamentalism as a
predictor of prejudice: A two-component model.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41,
623– 635. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00142
Libreria Editrice Vaticana. (1997). Catechism of the
catholic church (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: USCC
Publishing.
Lupfer, M., & Wald, K. (1985). An exploration of
adults’ religious orientations and their philoso-
 ATTITUDES TOWARD IVF
phies of human nature. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 24, 293–304. doi:10.2307/
1385818
McFarland, S. G. (1989). Religious orientations and
the targets of discrimination. Journal for the Sci-
entific Study of Religion, 28, 324 –336. doi:
10.2307/1386743
Miller, M. K., Maskaly, J., Peoples, C. D., & Sigillo,
A. E. (2011). The impact of mock jurors’ religious
characteristics on their verdicts. Manuscript sub-
mitted for publication.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Pauls, M., & Hutchinson, R. C. (2002). Bioethics for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
clinicians: 28. Protestant bioethics. Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 166, 339 –343.
Priest, S. H. (2000). US public opinion divided over
biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939 –
942. doi:10.1038/79412
Putney, S., & Middleton, R. (1961). Dimensions and
correlates of religious ideologies. Social Forces, 39,
285–290. doi:10.2307/2573423
Randolph-Seng, B., Nielsen, M. E., Bottoms, B. L.,
& Filipas, H. (2008). The relationship between
ethnicity, Christian orthodoxy, and mental health.
Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 11, 795– 805.
doi:10.1080/13674670802084788
Roberts, E. F. S. (2006). God’s laboratory: Religious
rationalities and modernity in Ecuadorian in vitro
fertilization. Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry, 30,
507–536. doi:10.1007/s11013-006-9037-8
Schenker, J. G. (2005). Assisted reproductive prac-
tice: Religious perspectives. Reproductive Bio-
Medicine Online, 10, 310 –319. doi:10.1016/
S1472-6483(10)61789-0
Singer, E., Corning, A., & Lamias, M. (1998).
Trends: Genetic testing, engineering, and therapy:
263
Awareness and attitudes. Public Opinion Quar-
terly, 62, 633– 664. doi:10.1086/297864
Singer, P. (2009). Thirty years of ‘test-tube’ babies.
Free Inquiry, 29, 20 –21.
Strickler, J., & Danigelis, N. L. (2002). Changing
frameworks in attitudes toward abortion. Sociolog-
ical Forum, 17, 187–201. doi:10.1023/A:
1016033012225
Sullins, D. P. (1999). Catholic/Protestant trends on
abortion: Convergence and polarity. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 354 –369. doi:
10.2307/1387757
Sullivan, L. (1993). In the path of Daedalus: Middle-
class Australians’ attitudes to embryo research.
British Journal of Sociology, 44, 271–302. doi:
10.2307/591220
Thumma, S. (1991). Negotiating a religious identity:
The case of the gay evangelical. Sociology of Re-
ligion, 52, 333–347.
Turtle, A. M., Harrajchi, N., Perry, A., & Tully, L.
(1988). University student attitudes to in vitro fer-
tilization and its ramifications. Australian Journal
of Sex, Marriage & Family, 9, 189 –201.
Waldman, E. (2006). Cultural priorities revealed:
The development and regulation of assisted repro-
ductive in the United States and Israel. Health
Matrix: Journal of Law Medicine, 16, 65–106.
Young, R. L. (1992). Religious orientation, race and
support for the death penalty. Journal for the Sci-
entific Study of Religion, 31, 76 – 87. doi:10.2307/
1386833
Received January 25, 2010
Revision received March 14, 2011
Accepted February 8, 2012 䡲