In the United States of America, a high degree of attention has been paid to the issue of how to legislate abortion. During the past two decades, notions of the so-called „Culture-Wars“ emerged, referring to an increasing polarization of the American public over the abortion topic along the lines of religiously motivated „pro-life“ and secular „pro-choice“ activist groups. This paper is an effort to analyze from a psychological perspective how religiosity mediates people‘s attitudes towards abortion legislation, the hypothesis being that the more embedded a person is in an increasingly conservative religious community, the less likely she will be to experience cognitive dissonance over ambivalent topics like abortion, because she adheres to the amplified religious position on it. It was found that religiosity leads to more dismissive attitudes towards abortion in general. Furthermore, the more conservative a religious denomination is in the terms of Bible literalism, the stricter is the view of its adherents that abortion should be forbidden by law in most or all cases. As Bible literalism entails the belief of being indisputably right about any issue touched by it, it leads to attitude persistence, which keeps the „pro-life“ and „pro-choice“ activist groups from finding a compromise. However, contrary to what the „Culture-Wars“-hypothesis suggests, data from public opinion polls do not show an increasing polarization in attitudes over the issue.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical groundwork
2.1 Science and morality
2.2 Conflicting Core Beliefs
2.3 Cognitive Dissonance and Ambivalence in Public Opinion
2.4 A Unified Model of Response Variability
3. Attitudes towards abortion
3.1 Public opinion
3.2 Religious denominations
3.3 NARAL and NRLC
4. Conclusion
Objectives & Research Themes
This paper examines how religiosity mediates attitudes toward abortion legislation in the United States, specifically exploring whether higher levels of religious commitment and Bible literalism reduce cognitive dissonance and foster attitude persistence.
- The psychological impact of cognitive dissonance on moral decision-making.
- The influence of Bible literalism on adherence to conservative ideological positions.
- Analysis of abortion attitudes among major U.S. Christian denominations.
- Evaluation of the "Culture-Wars" hypothesis regarding polarization in public opinion.
- The role of activist organizations (NARAL and NRLC) in framing the abortion debate.
Excerpt from the Book
Conflicting Core Beliefs
In contrast, biblical morals are not primarily based on fostering human well-being but on pleasing a deity in order to be granted eternal life. As I have pointed out, this belief is central to many people. At the same time, many religious people may also think that science is the best tool to make objective assertions about reality or that women and men should be equal in all respects. Yet, they dismiss science as an adequate means of making assertions about reality when regarding topics their faith has a clear position on. Obviously there is a conflict between two core beliefs that can be equally important to people and cause ambivalence when they have to decide on subjects of public interest, like abortion policy (Alvarez & Brehm, 2002). What if a person believes a woman has the right to autonomously control her body but also believes that God views abortion as murder and punishes those who support it? The person holds favorable attitudes towards two of her core beliefs, but they each have different implications for a policy choice. There is no way to restore balance to this system but instead, a lot of potential for cognitive dissonance (Heider, 1946). Someone who is strongly attached to a religious community should experience less cognitive dissonance, because one of the two core beliefs that could potentially be in conflict here is so much stronger than the other one. That person will consequently not be ambivalent about abortion policy, because she dismisses arguments in favor of it without considering their content (Mirels & Dean, 2006). If the person is very literal in her biblical beliefs and lives within a community that socially rewards her for doing so, she will simply assume that the Bible is right and therefore, everything else must be wrong. However, assuming these conflicting core beliefs exist in some individuals who are not or only moderately religious, one has to ask next how they manifest themselves in public opinion.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the theoretical framework of cognitive dissonance and establishes the context of the abortion debate in the U.S. as a conflict between religious belief and secular policy.
2. Theoretical groundwork: This section details the psychological mechanisms of attitude formation, the role of science versus faith, and the application of the unified model of response variability.
3. Attitudes towards abortion: This chapter analyzes public opinion trends, the stances of specific Christian denominations, and the arguments presented by primary activist organizations.
4. Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the findings, arguing that high religiosity acts as a buffer against cognitive dissonance, thereby promoting persistent, non-ambivalent attitudes toward abortion regardless of secular evidence.
Keywords
Religiosity, Cognitive Dissonance, Abortion, Bible Literalism, Attitude Persistence, Culture Wars, Public Opinion, Pro-life, Pro-choice, Christian Denominations, Psychological Mechanism, Secularism, Social Networks, Polarization, Moral Decision-making.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper investigates how religiosity, specifically Bible literalism and conservative religious affiliation, influences individuals' attitudes toward abortion legislation in the United States.
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
Key themes include cognitive dissonance, the tension between religious and secular worldviews, attitude persistence, and the impact of social communities on personal belief systems.
What is the primary hypothesis of the study?
The author hypothesizes that higher levels of religious embeddedness and Bible literalism decrease the likelihood of experiencing cognitive dissonance, leading to greater persistence in anti-abortion attitudes.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The research employs a theoretical framework based on social psychology, drawing on Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory, Berger’s plausibility structures, and Alvarez & Brehm’s model of response variability.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
The main body evaluates empirical tests of response variability, compares the stances of three major U.S. religious denominations, and analyzes the rhetorical arguments of NARAL and the National Right to Life Council.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Religiosity, Cognitive Dissonance, Abortion, Bible Literalism, Attitude Persistence, and the "Culture-Wars" hypothesis.
How does Bible literalism contribute to the author's argument?
The author argues that Bible literalism provides a framework where religious teachings are viewed as absolute, which allows individuals to dismiss contradictory scientific or secular evidence without psychological discomfort.
Does the paper confirm the "Culture-Wars" hypothesis?
No, the paper concludes that data from public opinion polls do not support the idea of an increasing polarization among the general public regarding abortion attitudes.
What is the significance of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" activist groups in this study?
These groups are used to represent extreme points on the ideological spectrum, demonstrating how religious and secular worldviews frame the abortion debate differently.
- Citation du texte
- Anna-Sophia Fritsch (Auteur), 2011, Religiosity, Cognitive Dissonance and Attitude, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/192002
