Intergroup abortion bias: Investigating whether intergroup processes underlie the abortion debate

Introduction

 Across countries, there is much public debate and social commotion about the legalization of abortion, with many countries moving away from policies that supported the right of abortion towards policies focused on pro-life objectives and the illegalization of abortion (Forster, 2022; Smith, 2005). In the USA, 61% of adults believe abortion should be entirely or mostly legal, while 37% say it should be illegal (Hartig, 2022). Despite the societal relevance of the topic, abortion is only sparsely covered in the social psychological literature and when it is, the main focus is on abortion as a moral issue (e.g., Pacilli et al., 2018). In the present research, we examine whether the current abortion debates can also be approached as a social issue by investigating whether intergroup processes may underlie people’s support for abortion. More specifically, we investigate whether the ethnic group-membership of those who seek abortion plays a role in people’s support for abortion.

Theoretical Background

Previous research demonstrates that people regularly show intergroup biases (Hewstone et al., 2002; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). People often automatically organize themselves and others into social groups and categorization based on ethnicity or race is one of the most essentialized, tenacious, and leads to discrimination (Bain et al., 2009). Indeed, discrimination is widespread and expressed through inequality in labor market opportunities, educational chances, and healthcare (James, 2017; Lancee, 2021; Noguera, 2017). However, in the abortion context, we do not yet know whether such bias exists and whether this may help explain recent political trends of moving away from supportive abortion policies. This research aims to fill this gap. We test whether intergroup processes based on ethnicity may play an underlying role in support for abortion. Specifically, we are investigating how supportive White people are towards Black (the outgroup) versus White (the ingroup) women seeking abortion. There are four possible outcomes. Outcome 1, people could be generally supportive or, outcome 2, unsupportive of women seeking abortion irrespectively of ethnic group-memberships of those who seek abortion (i.e., they show no intergroup bias). Outcome 3, people could be more supportive of White women who seek abortion compared to Black women. This outcome would be an expression of ingroup favoritism, where more rights are allocated to ingroup members (Han, 2018; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Finally, outcome 4, people could be more supportive of Black women seeking abortions compared to White women. We would refer to the latter as the Intergroup Abortion Bias (IAB) effect. If we find this effect, it would suggest that the anti-abortion movement is (partially) driven by a motive for population control by constraining abortion for the ethnic ingroup but not for the outgroup. This aligns with recent cross-country data which shows that individuals have presented concerns about the growing percentages of non-Whites (IOM, 2018) and in the USA, the prediction is that by 2043 the country will become a minority-majority nation (Taylor, 2014).

We argue that the expression of IAB depends on two factors, that is, people’s social dominance orientation, and people’s prepositional stance in the abortion debate. Firstly, we theorize that one of the underlying factors that could explain when the IAB occurs is related to the individuals’ levels of social dominance orientation (i.e., SDO). SDO is the tendency to accept and prefer group-based hierarchy and inequality and is often expressed by the majority group to maintain social dominance (Sidanius et al., 1994). We hypothesize that when people score high in SDO, they show more IAB than those low in SDO. That is, by supporting outgroup abortion while rejecting ingroup abortion, individuals with a high SDO score may subtly engage in population control behaviors to maintain their larger population size in society and their social dominant position.

Secondly, we argue that the expression of an intergroup abortion bias depends on the prepositional stance people take in the abortion debate. At the extreme end of the debate, abortion is considered a sin and an immoral act (pro-life), while at the opposite end, it is considered a basic human right (pro-choice). In this case, abortion is a moral issue and when individuals have strong moral convictions it is part of their core inner beliefs that should theoretically not be influenced by contextual factors such as the characteristics of the woman seeking abortion (Skitka et al., 2005). Hence, at the extreme ends of the abortion debate, an intergroup bias is less likely to occur.
For this reason, at the moment and for the purpose of this report, we will focus on what happens to people’s support for abortion when they are not highly polarized in the abortion debate. That is, when participants perceptions on abortion is more ambiguous and not clearly defined as a pro-life (i.e., immoral issue) or pro-choice (i.e., human right), we can expect different patterns. When abortion is considered an important right for women, ingroup favoritism may manifest as less support for Black women (the outgroup) seeking abortion compared to White women (the ingroup). This would suggest that outgroup members may be excluded from essential rights and placed outside the boundaries of justice, fairness, and healthcare accessibility (Hewstone et al., 2002). Conversely, if abortion is viewed negatively, an intergroup abortion bias might manifest as more support for Black women seeking abortion than for White women. In this scenario, the outgroup faces less judgment and scrutiny from violating the ingroup’s standards, and the significance of “life” of the outgroup’s embryos or fetuses may be downplayed.

The Current Research

Through the EASP Seedcorn grant, we were thus far able to run four studies by collecting data on Prolific Academic with American participants.

In the first pilot study (N = 55 American adults; Mage = 37.96, SE = 1.77; predominantly White, 78.18%) we wanted to pre-test the experimental materials. Specifically, we developed various scenarios of women seeking abortion and pretested their clarity, comprehension, and veracity. Moreover, we tested the scenarios for ethnic non-stereotypicality. Each scenario was written without specifying the woman’s age, ethnicity, or relationship status, and with the intent to convey that the woman is on the verge of making a decision. Next, we adapted a measurement for support for abortion based on previous research (e.g., Carlton et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2012). This scale consisted of 14 items and demonstrated high reliability (ω = .97). We also explored participants’ perceptions by asking them to report whether they imagined the woman in the scenario as White (1) or Black (7). In general, we found that the scenarios were not stereotypically associated with a White or Black woman. However, preliminary results indicated a marginal positive association to support abortion, the more participants perceived the scenario to be about a Black woman as opposed to a White woman.

Contrary to what we initially proposed in our grant submission to EASP, we decided to conduct an additional pilot study. Our goal was to further test the materials and the full paradigm of the study. In this second pilot study (N = 50 American adults; Mage = 42.06, SE = 2.18; predominantly White, 94%), we presented participants with the scenario selected from the first pilot study and measured support for abortion, ethnic stereotypicality of the woman in the scenario, and SDO using an 8-item scale validated by Ho et al. (2015). Moreover, we asked participants to attribute positive and negative emotions to the woman in the scenario. The results confirmed the trend observed in the first pilot study. Specifically, a positive association was found between support for abortion and the perception that the scenario involved a Black woman rather than a White woman. Moreover, there was a slight marginal trend indicating that support for abortion increased with the perception of the case involving a Black woman and higher SDO levels.

In Study 1, we aimed to build on previous pilot studies by expanding our sample size and employing a more rigorous analytical approach to investigate the effects of ethnic stereotypicality, SDO, and individuals’ prepositional stances in the abortion debate (pro-life vs. pro-choice) on support for abortion . We collected data from 297 American participants (Mage = 43.1, SEage = 1.40; predominantly White, 98.3%) and used a moderated moderation analysis (Model 3; Hayes, 2022) to examine the interactions between such variables in predicting support for abortion. Results showed that there was a marginal main effect indicating that the more participants perceived the woman in the scenario as Black, as opposed to White, the less supportive they were of abortion. Moreover, we also observed a significant effect of participants’ SDO levels, with higher SDO scores correlating with decreased support for abortion. Participants who leaned more towards the pro-choice stance also exhibited greater support for abortion. Crucially, these main effects were qualified by significant interactions among the variables. Simple effects analyses demonstrated that at the mean level of the prepositional stance people take in the abortion debate, participants who perceived the woman seeking an abortion as Black showed higher support for abortion when their SDO levels were high. This suggests that support for abortion may increase when the woman is perceived as an outgroup member, especially among those with higher SDO scores and that are not at the extreme ends of the abortion debate. In contrast, participants who perceived the woman as White showed lower support for abortion under similar conditions. These findings provide preliminary evidence supporting our hypothesis of IAB. However, the correlational nature of this study precludes us from inferring a causal relationship. To address this, we developed Study 2.

In Study 2, we sought to overcome the correlational limitations of Study 1 by using an experimental design. White American participants (N = 300; Mage = 39.1, SEage = .757) were presented with the previously validated scenario along with a blurred photo of either a Black or White woman. This manipulation allowed us to examine the causal impact of perceived ethnicity on support for abortion. Participants were then asked to answer the same questions as in Study 1. We followed the same data analysis procedures as in Study 1. Results showed that there was a significant main effect of the woman’s perceived skin color. Participants showed higher support for abortion when the scenario was presented with a photo of a Black woman compared to a White woman. In addition, we found that higher levels of SDO were associated with lower support for abortion. Participants who leaned more towards a pro-choice stance exhibited greater support for abortion, aligning with their ideological position on the issue. Importantly, as predicted, simple effects analysis showed a marginal effect where participants exhibited higher support for abortion for the Black (vs. White) woman, particularly when their SDO levels were high and scored at the mean stance of the abortion debate. However, this pattern of results was not captured by a significant three-way interaction among the variables.

Taken together these findings show preliminary evidence supporting the intergroup abortion bias (IAB). Further analyses will include the different levels of prepositional stance people take in the abortion debate into account. Also, future studies (still in development) will deepen our understanding of this bias, test additional hypotheses (i.e., dehumanization effect), and seek to replicate these results with samples from other countries (e.g., Brazil, Italy, The Netherlands). Thanks to the EASP seedcorn grant we were able to continue working together on the idea we had during the 2022 EASP Summer School. We hope these results will call attention to the development of other studies on the topic, and public policies addressing the important social issue of abortion.

References

Bain, P., Park, J., Kwok, C., & Haslam, N. (2009). Attributing human uniqueness and human
nature to cultural groups: Distinct forms of subtle dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 789-805. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209340415
Carlton, C. L., Nelson, E. S., & Coleman, P. K. (2000). College students’ attitudes toward abortion and commitment to the issue. The Social Science Journal, 37(4), 619-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319(00)00101-4
Forster, A. A. (2022). Abortion rights: history offers a blueprint for how pro-choice campaigners
might usefully respond. BMJ, 378. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o1846
Hartig, H. (2022, June 13). About six-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in all or
most cases. Pew Research Center (PRC). https://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-ormost-cases-2/
Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Vol. 3). The Guilford Press.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,
53(1), 575-604. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2018). World migration report, 2018. Retrieved
From https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/country/docs/china/r5_world_migration_report_ 2018_en.pdf
James, S. A. (2017). The strangest of all encounters: racial and ethnic discrimination in US
health care. Cadernos de Saude Publica, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.1590/0102- 311X00104416
Lancee, B. (2021). Ethnic discrimination in hiring: comparing groups across contexts. Results
from a cross-national field experiment. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(6), 1181-1200. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1622744
Noguera, P. A. (2017). Introduction to racial inequality and education: Patterns and prospects for
the future. The Educational Forum, 81(2), 129-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2017.1280753
Pacilli, M. G., Giovannelli, I., Spaccatini, F., Vaes, J., & Barbaranelli, C. (2018). Elective
abortion predicts the dehumanization of women and men through the mediation of moral outrage. Social Psychology, 49(5), 287-302. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864- 9335/a000351
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Rabinowitz, J. L. (1994). Gender, ethnic status, and ideological
asymmetry: A social dominance interpretation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 194-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022194252003
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to
attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 895-917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895
Smith, A. (2005). Beyond Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: Women of Color and Reproductive
Justice. NWSA Journal 17(1), 119-140. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/180127.
Smith, T. W., Marsden, P., Hout, M., & Kim, J. (2012). General social surveys. National Opinion Research Center. https://people.wku.edu/douglas.smith/GSS%201972_2012%20Codebook.pdf
Tajfel, H. & Turner J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47) .Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Taylor, P. (2014, April 10). The next America. Retrieved from
http://www.pewresearch.org/next-america/