The Effect of Values and Secularism on Attitude towards Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis of Embryos
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Schwartz’s Personal Values
- Power, that strives for social status, prestige, and control over people and resources;
- Achievement, that focuses on personal success;
- Hedonism, that gives priority to pleasure or gratification for oneself;
- Stimulation, that strives for excitement, novelty, and challenge;
- Self-direction, that focuses on independence of thought and action;
- Universalism, that gives priority to understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature;
- Benevolence, that strives for the preservation and enhancement of welfare of people belonging to ingroup;
- Tradition, that gives priority to respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas provided by culture or religion;
- Conformity, that leads to restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset others and violate social expectations or norms;
- Security, that focuses on safety, harmony, and the stability of society, relationships and self.
- Openness to change vs. conservation: reflects the contrast between values emphasizing the achievement of independent actions and thoughts (self-direction and stimulation values), and values emphasizing self-restriction, order, and resistance to change (security, conformity, and tradition values).
- Self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence: stresses the achievement of welfare and the satisfaction of needs. Individuals endorsing self-enhancement promote their own welfare and needs, while considering others merely instruments for satisfying power and achievement values. By contrast, self-transcendence points the person adopting it towards the search for welfare, prosperity and serenity for everyone (universalism and benevolence values).
1.2. Secularism of State
2. Context of the Study
3. Methods
3.1. Participants and Procedure
3.2. Measures
4. Results
4.1. Preliminary Analyses
4.2. Association between Personal Values and Secularism of State
5. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bagozzi, Richard P., and Todd F. Heatherton. 1994. A General Approach to Representing Multifaceted Personality Constructs: Application to State Self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1: 35–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentler, Peter M. 1990. Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological Bulletin 107: 238–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bentler, Peter M. 1995. EQS: Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino: Multivariate Software. [Google Scholar]
- Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. 2018. Observatorio del Laicismo. Datos sobre creencias o convicciones en España. Anuales. Available online: https://laicismo.org/2018/02/datos-sobre-creencias-o-convicciones-en-espana-anuales/ (accessed on 12 August 2018).
- Feinberg, Matthew, and Robb Willer. 2015. From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41: 1665–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feldman, Noah. 2005. Divided by God: America’s Church-State Problem—And What We Should Do about It. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [Google Scholar]
- Gourounti, Kleanthi, and Stavros Glentis. 2012. Patient Attitude to Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Counseling Issues. Health Science Journal 6: 402–17. Available online: http://www.hsj.gr/medicine/patient-attitude-to-preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis-and-counseling-issues.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2018).
- Hayes, Andrew F. 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Communication Monographs 76: 408–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, Andrew F. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hershberger, Patricia E., and Penny F. Pierce. 2010. Conceptualizing Couples’ Decision Making in PGD: Emerging Cognitive, Emotional, and Moral Dimensions. Patient Education and Counseling 81: 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hichy, Zira, and Graziella Di Marco. 2014. Effects of State Secularism, Catholic Identity, and Political Orientation on Issues Related to Technologies Involving Embryos. TPM—Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology 21: 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hichy, Zira, Mina H. H. Gerges, Silvia Platania, and Giuseppe Santisi. 2015a. The Role of Secularism of State on the Relationship Between Catholic Identity, Political Orientation, and Gay Rights Issues. Journal of Homosexuality 62: 1359–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hichy, Zira, Noelia Rodriguez Espartal, Elena Trifiletti, and Gian A. Di Bernardo. 2012. The Secularism of State Scale. TPM—Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology 19: 151–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hichy, Zira, Rosella Falvo, Giuseppe Santisi, and Carla Dazzi. 2014. Effects of Political Orientation, Religious Identification and Religious Orientations on Attitude toward a Secular State. Archive for the Psychology of Religion 36: 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hichy, Zira, Sharon Coen, and Graziella Di Marco. 2015b. The Interplay Between Religious Orientations, State Secularism, and Gay Rights Issues. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 11: 82–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Li-Tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6: 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jöreskog, Karl G., and Dag Sörbom. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International. [Google Scholar]
- Kimmel, Allan J. 2007. Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research: Basic and Applied Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell Pub. [Google Scholar]
- Kosmin, Barry A. 2007. Contemporary Secularity and Secularism. In Secularism and Secularity. Edited by Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar. Hartford: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture, pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Lammens, Chantal, Eveline Bleiker, Neil Aaronson, Annette Vriends, Margreet Ausems, Maaike Jansweijer, Anja Wagner, Rolf Sijmons, Ans van den Ouweland, Rob van der Luijt, and et al. 2009. Attitude towards Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis for Hereditary Cancer. Familial Cancer 8: 457–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meister, Ulrike, Carolyn Finck, Yve Stöbel-Richter, Gabriele Schmutzer, and Elmar Brähler. 2005. Knowledge and Attitudes towards Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in Germany. Human Reproduction 20: 231–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olesen, Angelina P., Siti Nurani Mohd Nor, and Latifah Amin. 2016. Attitudes Toward Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) for Genetic Disorders Among Potential Users in Malaysia. Science and Engineering Ethics 22: 133–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behavior Research Methods 40: 879–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rich, Thereasa A., Mei Liu, Carol J. Etzel, Sarah A. Bannon, Maureen E. Mork, Kaylene Ready, Devki S. Saraiya, Elizabeth G. Grubbs, Nancy D. Perrier, Karen H. Lu, and et al. 2014. Comparison of Attitudes Regarding Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis among Patients with Hereditary Cancer Syndromes. Familial Cancer 13: 291–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Robertson, John A. 2003. Extending Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: The Ethical Debate: Ethical Issues in New Uses of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Human Reproduction 18: 465–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sapienza, Irene, Zira Hichy, Maria Guarnera, and Santo Di Nuovo. 2010. Effects of Basic Human Values on Host Community Acculturation Orientations. International Journal of Psychology 45: 311–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saroglou, Vassilis. 2008. Religion and Psychology of Values: ‘Universals’ and Changes. In Science and Ethics: The Axiological Contexts of Science. Edited by Evandro Agazzi and Fabio Minazzi. Brussels: Peter Lang, pp. 247–72. [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schwartz, Shalom H., and Anat Bardi. 2001. Value Hierarchies across Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32: 268–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, Shalom H., and Wolfgang Bilsky. 1987. Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 550–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, Shalom H., and Wolfgang Bilsky. 1990. Toward a Theory of the Universal Content and Structure of Values: Extensions and Cross-Cultural Replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58: 878–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, Shalom H., and Lilach Sagiv. 1995. Identifying Culture-Specifics in the Content and Structure of Values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 26: 92–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, Shalom H., Gila Melech, Arielle Lehmann, Steven Burgess, Mari Harris, and Vicki Owens. 2001. Extending the Cross-Cultural Validity of the Theory of Basic Human Values with a Different Method of Measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32: 519–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tamney, Joseph B., Stephen D. Johnson, and Ronald Burton. 1992. The abortion controversy: Conflicting beliefs and values in American society. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31: 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Rij, Maartje C., Marjan De Rademaeker, Céline Moutou, Jos C. F. M. Dreesen, Martine De Rycke, Inge Liebaers, Joep P. M. Geraedts, Christine E. M. De Die-Smulders, Stéphane Viville, and BruMaStra PGD Working Group. 2012. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) for Huntington’s Disease: The Experience of Three European Centres. European Journal of Human Genetics 20: 368–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wah Hui, Pui, Yung Hang Lam, Min Chen, Mary Hoi Yin Tang, William Shu Biu Yeung, Ernest Hung Yu Ng, and Pak Chung Ho. 2002. Attitude of At-Risk Subjects towards Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis of α- and β-Thalassaemias in Hong Kong. Prenatal Diagnosis 22: 508–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mean | S.D. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Conservation | 3.92 | 0.64 | 1 | |||||
2 | Self-transcendence | 4.64 | 0.62 | 0.20 * | 1 | ||||
3 | Openness to change | 4.50 | 0.63 | 0.10 | 0.49 * | 1 | |||
4 | Self-enhancement | 3.31 | 0.94 | 0.39 * | −0.17 * | 0.20 * | 1 | ||
5 | Secularism of state | 5.35 | 1.28 | −0.20 * | 0.25 * | 0.14 * | −0.08 | 1 | |
6 | Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) | 4.95 | 1.24 | −0.14 * | 0.24 * | 0.15 * | −0.10 | 0.44 * | 1 |
Secularism of State | Attitude towards Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis | Indirect Effect | Bootstrapping Bias Correct 95% Confidence Interval | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B (SE) | B (SE) | B (SE) | B (SE) | Lower | Upper | |
Conservation | −0.601 *** | −0.406 ** | −0.188 | −0.218 | −0.347 | −0.122 |
(0.127) | (0.126) | (0.122) | (0.057) | |||
Self-transcendence | 0.685 *** | 0.542 *** | 0.294 * | 0.249 | 0.136 | 0.401 |
(0.144) | (0.143) | (0.139) | (0.068) | |||
Openness to change | −0.015 | 0.065 | 0.071 | −0.005 | −0.100 | 0.092 |
(0.138) | (0.137) | (0.128) | (0.048) | |||
Self-enhancement | 0.126 | 0.029 | −0.016 | 0.046 | −0.012 | 0.116 |
(0.091) | (0.090) | (0.085) | (0.032) | |||
Secularism of state | 0.363 *** | |||||
(0.055) | ||||||
R2 | 0.136 | 0.099 | 0.219 | |||
F | 11.182 *** | 7.760 *** | 15.863 *** | |||
Df | 4284 | 4284 | 5283 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Di Marco, G.; Hichy, Z.; Coen, S.; Rodriguez-Espartal, N. The Effect of Values and Secularism on Attitude towards Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis of Embryos. Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7110216
Di Marco G, Hichy Z, Coen S, Rodriguez-Espartal N. The Effect of Values and Secularism on Attitude towards Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis of Embryos. Social Sciences. 2018; 7(11):216. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7110216
Chicago/Turabian StyleDi Marco, Graziella, Zira Hichy, Sharon Coen, and Noelia Rodriguez-Espartal. 2018. "The Effect of Values and Secularism on Attitude towards Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis of Embryos" Social Sciences 7, no. 11: 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7110216
APA StyleDi Marco, G., Hichy, Z., Coen, S., & Rodriguez-Espartal, N. (2018). The Effect of Values and Secularism on Attitude towards Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis of Embryos. Social Sciences, 7(11), 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7110216