Conceptions and misconceptions: Social representations of medically assisted reproduction

Social Representations and Identity: Content, Process, and Power

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 157-176

  Walker, Iain ^a   Broderick, Pia ^a   Correia, Helen ^b  

^a MURDOCH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014146048     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1057/9780230609181     Document Type: Chapter

References (41)

1. Abbey, A., F. M. Andrews, and L. J. Halman. 1991. Gender’s role in responses to infertility. Psychology of Women Quarterly 15: 295-316.
2. Abric, J. C. 1993. Central system, peripheral system: Their functions and roles in the dynamics of social representations. Papers on Social Representations 2: 75-128.
3. Augoustinos, M., I. Walker, and N. Donaghue. 2006. Social cognition: An integrated approach. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
4. Broderick, P. 2005. Disclosure and child development: What we think we know, what we really know, and what we need to know. Invited paper presented for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Mental Health Professional Group Annual Meeting Postgraduate Course "Counseling couples about collaborative reproduction: Ethical, cultural and psychological dimensions of parenthood following ART." Montreal, Quebec, October 15-16.
5. Broderick, P. 2005.. Lessons from down under: Can behavior be legislated? Invited paper presented for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Mental Health Professional Group Annual Meeting Postgraduate Course: "Counseling couples about collaborative reproduction: Ethical, cultural and psychological dimensions of parenthood following ART." Montreal, Quebec, October 15-16.
6. Broderick, P. and I. Walker. 1995. Information access and donated gametes: How much do we know about who wants to know? Human Reproduction 10: 101-4.
7. Broderick, P. and I. Walker. 2001. Donor gametes and embryos: Who wants to know what about whom, and why? Politics and the Life Sciences 20: 29-42.
8. Broderick, P. and Walker, I. 2003. The birth of understandings: Social representations and medically assisted conception. A paper presented at The Third Talk-In-Interaction Conference: Talking Health. Rockingham, WA, December 15-17.
9. Burns, L. H. 1993. An overview of the psychology of infertility. Psychological Issues in Infertility 4: 433-54.
10. Clarke, V. 2001. What about the children? Arguments against lesbian and gay parenting. Women’s Studies International Forum 24: 555-70.
11. Correia, H., P. Broderick, and I. Walker. 2007. Access to reproductive technologies by single women and lesbians: Social representations and public debate. In submission.
12. Daniels, K. R. 1987. Semen donors in New Zealand: Their characteristics and attitudes. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 5: 177-90.
13. Daniels, K. R. 1988. Attitudes to donor insemination and IVF-a community perspective. New Zealand Social Work Review 1: 4-10.
14. Daniels, K. R. 1993. Infertility counselling: The need for a psychosocial perspective. British Journal of Social Work 23: 501-15.
15. Daniels, K. R. and K. Taylor. 1993. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics and the Life Sciences 12: 155-70.
16. de Rosa, A. 1987. The social representations of mental illness in children and adults. In Current issues in European social psychology, vol. 1, ed. W. Doise and S. Moscovici, 47-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
17. Doise, W. 2001. Human rights studied as normative social representations. In Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions, ed. K. Deaux and G. Philogène, 96-112. Oxford: Blackwell.
18. Durrant, J., M. W. Bauer, and G. Gaskell. 1998. Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
19. Edelman, R. J., K. J. Connolly, and H. Bartlett. 1994. Coping strategies and psychological adjustment of couples presenting for IVF. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 38: 355-64.
20. Flament, C. 1994. Consensus, salience and necessity in social representations: Technical note. Papers on Social Representations 3: 97-105. http://www.psr .jku.at/PSR1994/3_1994Flam1.pdf (accessed November 20, 2002).
21. Haimes, E. 1993. Issues of gender in gamete donation. Social Science and Medicine 36: 85-93.
22. Herzlich, C. 1973. Health and illness: A social psychological analysis. London: Academic Press.
23. Humphrey, M. and H. Humphrey. 1986. A fresh look at genealogical bewilderment. British Journal of Medical Psychology 59: 133-40.
24. Jodelet, D. 1991. Madness and social representations. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
25. Jovchelovitch, S. 2001. Social representations, public life, and social construction. In Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions, ed. K. Deaux and G. Philogène, 165-82. Oxford: Blackwell.
26. Moloney, G., R. Hall, and I. Walker. 2005. Social representations and themata: The construction and functioning of social knowledge about donation and transplantation. British Journal of Social Psychology 44: 415-41.
27. Purkhardt, S. C. 1993. Transforming social representations: A social psychology of common sense and science. London: Routledge.
28. Sants, H. J. 1964. Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. British Journal of Medical Psychology 37: 133-41.
29. Savage, O. M. N. 1995. Secrecy still the best policy: Donor insemination in Cameroon. Politics and the Life Sciences 14: 87-88.
30. Snowdon, R. 1990. The family and artificial reproduction. In Philosophical ethics in reproductive medicine, ed. D. R. Bromham, M. E. Dalton, and J. C. Jackson, 70-185. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
31. Sorosky, A. D., A. Baran, and R. Pannor. 1975. Identity conflicts in adoptees. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 45: 18-27.
32. Stanworth, M. 1987. Reproductive technologies and the deconstruction of motherhood. In Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood, and medicine, ed. M. Stanworth, 10-35. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
33. Sverne, T. 1983. Children conceived by artificial insemination. Stockholm: Government of Sweden.
34. Triseliotis, J. 1973. In search of origins: The experiences of adopted people. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
35. Wagner, W., N. Kronberger, G. Gaskell, N. Allum, A. Allansdottir, S. Cheveigne, U. Dahinden, et al. 2001. Nature in disorder: The troubled public of biotechnology. In Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy, ed. G. Gaskell and M. Bauer, 80-95. London: National Museum of Science and Industry.
36. Walker, I., and P. Broderick. 1999a. The psychology of assisted reproduction, or psychology assisting its reproduction? Australian Psychologist 34: 38-44.
37. Walker, I., and P. Broderick. 1999b. Challenges to the reproduction of misunderstanding. Australian Psychologist 34: 221-28.
38. Warnock, M. A. 1984. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology. London: Department of Health and Social Security.
39. Wasser, S. K. 1994. Psychosocial stress and infertility: Cause or effect? Human Nature 5: 293-306.
40. Wellisch, E. 1952. Children without geneology: A problem of adoption. Mental Health 13: 41.
41. Winkler, R. C., and S. M. Midford. 1986. Biological identity in adoption, artificial insemination by donor (AID) and the new birth technologies. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 11: 43-48.