Perceptions of deservedness of social aid as a function of prenatal diagnostic testing

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 76-90

  Lawson, Karen L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037217078     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02074.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and social behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
2. Bard, M., & Dyk, R. (1956). The psychodynamic significance of beliefs regarding the cause of serious illness. Psychoanalytic Review, 43, 146-162.
3. Blank, R. (1992). Mother and fetus: Changing notions of maternal responsibility. New York, NY: Greenwood.
4. Brennan, M., Hoek, J., & Astridge, C. (1991). The effects of monetary incentives on the response rate and cost effectiveness of a mail survey. Journal of the Market Research Society, 33, 229-241.
5. Brunger, F., & Lippman, A. (1995). Resistance and adherence to the norms of genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 4, 151-167.
6. Canadian Medical Forum Task Force on Physician Supply. (1999). Physician workforce. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved August 10, 2000, from http://www.cam.ca/advocacy/taskforce
7. Dillman, D. A., Sinclair, S. M. D., & Clark, J. R. (1993). Effects of questionnaire length, respondent friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for occupant-addressed census mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 289-304.
8. Gates, E. (1993). The impact of prenatal genetic testing on the quality of life in women. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 8(Suppl. 1), 236-243.
9. General Social Survey. (1996). General Social Survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Retrieved March 8, 2001, from http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/gss
10. Green, J., Snowdon, C., & Statham, H. (1993). Pregnant women's attitudes to abortion and prenatal screening. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11, 31-39.
11. Holmes-Seidle, M., Ryynanen, M., & Lindenbaum, R. (1987). Parental decisions regarding termination of pregnancy following prenatal detection of sex chromosome abnormality. Prenatal Diagnosis, 7, 239-244.
12. Holtzman, N., & Rothstein, M. (1992). Eugenics and genetic discrimination. American Journal of Human Genetics, 50, 457-459.
13. Hosseini, J. C., & Armacost, R. L. (1993). Gathering sensitive data in organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 443-471.
14. Ickes, W., & Kidd, R. (1976). An attributional analysis of helping behavior. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 311-344). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Krosnic, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.
16. Lippman, A. (1992). The genetic construction of prenatal testing: Choice, consent, or conformity for women. In K. Rothenberg & E. Thomson (Eds.), Women and prenatal testing: Facing the challenges of genetic technology (pp. 9-34). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
17. Lippman, A. (1993). Prenatal genetic testing and geneticization: Mother matters for all. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 5(Suppl. 1), 175-188.
18. Madlon-Kay, D., Reif, C., Mersy, D., & Luxenberg, M. (1992). Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein testing: Physician experience and attitudes and their influence on patient acceptance. Journal of Family Practice, 35, 395-400.
19. Marteau, T., & Drake, H. (1995). Attributions for disability: The influence of genetic screening. Social Science and Medicine, 40, 1127-1132.
20. Marteau, T., & Riordan, D. (1992). Staff attitudes to patients: The influence of causal attributions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 107-110.
21. Marteau, T., Plenicar, M., & Kidd, J. (1993). Obstetricians presenting amniocentesis to pregnant women: Practice observed. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11, 3-10.
22. McNeil, B., Pauker, G., Sox, H., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259-1262.
23. Palomaki, G., Haddow, J., & Beauregard, L. (1996). Prenatal screening for Down's syndrome in Maine, 1980-1993. New England Journal of Medicine, 334, 1409-1410.
24. Press, N., & Browner, C. (1994). Collective silences, collective fictions: How prenatal diagnostic testing became part of routine prenatal care. In K. Rothenberg & E. Thomson (Eds.), Women and prenatal testing: Facing the challenges of genetic technology (pp. 201-218). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
25. Rapp, R. (1988). Moral pioneers: Women, men, and fetuses on a frontier of reproductive technology. In E. Hoffman-Baruch, A. F. D'Adamo, & J. Seager (Eds.), Embryos, ethics, and women's rights: Exploring the new reproductive technologies (pp. 101-116). New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.
26. Richards, M., & Green, J. (1993). Attitudes toward prenatal screening for fetal abnormality and detection of carriers of genetic disease: A discussion paper, Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11, 49-56.
27. Richardson, D. (1993). Women, motherhood, and childrearing. London, UK: Macmillan.
28. Robertson, J. (1994). Children of choice: Freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
29. Rothenberg, K., & Thomson, E. (1994). Women and prenatal testing. In K. Rothenberg & E. Thomson (Eds.), Women and prenatal testing: Facing the challenges of genetic technology (pp. 1-8). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
30. Rothman, B. K. (1986). The tentative pregnancy: Prenatal diagnosis and the future of motherhood. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.
31. Schmidt, G., & Weiner, B. (1988). An attribution-affect-action theory of behavior: Replications of judgments of help-giving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 610-621.
32. Schwartz-Cowan, R. (1994). Women's roles in the history of amniocentesis and chorionic villi sampling. In K. Rothenberg & E. Thomson (Eds.), Women and prenatal testing: Facing the challenges of genetic technology (pp. 1-8). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
33. Senn, C. Y., Verberg, N., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (2000). Sampling the reluctant participant: A random sample response rate study of men and sexual coercion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 96-105.
34. Shaw, M. (1984). Conditional prospective rights of the fetus. Journal of Legal Medicine, 5, 63-116.
35. Simpson, J. (1986). Genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis. In S. Gabbe, J. Niebyl, & J. Simpson (Eds.), Obstetrics: Normal and problem pregnancies (pp. 187-220). New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone.
36. Statistics Canada. (1999). Canadian statistics. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved August 10, 2000, from http://www.statcan.ca
37. Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50, 364-371.
38. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Harper Row.
39. Turnquist, D., Harvey, J., & Anderson, B. (1988). Attributions and adjustment to life-threatening illness. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 55-65.
40. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.
41. Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186-200.