Endorsement of abortion: the differential impact of social perspective on women and men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to explore whether women’s and men’s endorsement of abortion is differentially influenced by perspective-taking. Methods: An experimental design was employed in which 145 university students (104 women, 41 men) were randomly assigned to one of two conditions and asked to make judgements regarding the advisability of abortion across diverse situations. Participants in the self-referent condition (n = 82; 56 women, 26 men) were asked to render judgements in reference to themselves, while those in the other-referent condition (n = 63; 48 women, 15 men) were asked to make judgements in reference to a generic ‘other’. Results: A significant interaction emerged between Sex and Referent Group. Specifically, referent-group membership had no impact on men’s endorsement of abortion, but did have a significant impact on women’s ratings whereby women were more endorsing of abortion for others than for themselves. Subsequent item analyses revealed that this pattern was evident for 6 of the 14 items. Conclusions: Given societal expectations regarding women’s and men’s appropriate parental roles, it is reasonable to speculate that gender differences would exist in the value attached to the parental role, and subsequently, in the choice made when the opportunity to become a parent versus termination of a pregnancy presents itself. Counsellors can use this information to maximise the extent to which they facilitate autonomous decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".