The 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade in the U.S. ignited intense debate and state-level ballot measures regarding abortion rights, underscoring the need to understand the psychological underpinnings of abortion attitudes. While previous research focused on demographics like religion and political ideology, this study explores the influence of empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition. Attitudes toward abortion are unique, often eliciting strong emotions and moral conflict, making it crucial to understand the interplay of psychological factors. Unlike attitudes toward products, abortion attitudes are deeply intertwined with moral, religious, and societal beliefs, leading to polarized opinions. This study aims to provide empirical evidence for the correlations between these psychological factors and abortion attitudes, particularly while controlling for the effects of religion and political ideology. Examining these correlations could offer practical insights into informed decision-making and potentially improve abortion-related education and mental health interventions. The chosen psychological factors—empathy (toward both the pregnant woman and the unborn), locus of control, and need for cognition—were selected based on their face validity, inconclusive past research, and demonstrated roles in other decision-making processes, particularly in health contexts.

Existing research primarily emphasizes the roles of political ideology and religious beliefs in shaping abortion attitudes (e.g., Hess and Rueb, 2005). However, the literature on the psychological underpinnings is limited. Studies have employed qualitative approaches (interviews), offering insights into individual perspectives but lacking the statistical power to control for confounding factors. While some studies explored empathy (Hunt, 2019), its role in shaping abortion attitudes remains understudied. Similarly, research on the connection between thinking style (need for cognition) and locus of control with abortion attitudes is inconclusive. This study aims to fill these research gaps by utilizing a quantitative approach, enabling the examination of the unique contribution of psychological factors after controlling for religion and political ideology.

This study utilized a quantitative approach with a sample of 294 U.S. adults recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) in October 2022. Participants were U.S. citizens, adults, and had an mTurk approval rating exceeding 98%. Each participant received $3 compensation. Six participants who did not complete at least 80% of the survey were excluded, resulting in a final sample size of 294. Data collection involved an online survey using Qualtrics, with no time restriction. The average completion time was 682.8 seconds (SD = 286.6 seconds). The survey included measures of attitudes toward abortion, empathy (toward the pregnant woman and the unborn), need for cognition, and locus of control. Attitudes toward abortion were assessed using seven scenarios adapted from the U.S. General Social Survey and a 7-point Likert scale (1-7, higher scores indicating stronger support for abortion). The scenarios included pregnancies due to rape, health endangerment, fetal defects, unwanted pregnancies (married or unmarried), low income, and underage pregnancy. Empathy was measured using six items (three for each target—pregnant woman and unborn) and a 5-point Likert scale. Need for cognition was measured using Cacioppo et al.'s (1984) 18-item scale and a 5-point Likert scale. Locus of control was assessed using Levenson's (1981) multidimensional scale (24 items, 1-6 Likert scale). The three subscales of internality, powerful others, and chance were examined. Demographic data (age, gender, race, education, income, relationship status, abortion experience, religious belief, and political ideology) were also collected. Data analysis involved Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify distinct abortion attitude categories, followed by hierarchical linear regression analysis to determine the unique contributions of psychological factors to abortion attitudes while controlling for demographic, religious, and political factors. Religious belief was assessed using the frequency of religious service attendance and the self-reported importance of religion. Political ideology was measured using participants' self-ratings on social and economic political issues.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed two distinct components of abortion attitudes: traumatic abortion (scenarios involving rape, health endangerment, fetal defects, and underage pregnancy) and elective abortion (scenarios involving unwanted pregnancies due to various reasons). Support for traumatic abortion was significantly higher (mean = 5.84, SD = 1.24) than for elective abortion (mean = 4.94, SD = 1.74). Zero-order correlations revealed that stronger religious beliefs negatively correlated with support for both abortion types, while liberal political ideology showed a positive correlation. Empathy toward the pregnant woman positively correlated with support for both types, while empathy toward the unborn had an inverse relationship. Internal locus of control showed no significant correlation with either abortion type, while external locus of control and need for cognition positively correlated only with elective abortion attitudes. Hierarchical linear regression analysis, controlling for demographic variables, religious belief, and political ideology, further revealed the significant contribution of psychological factors. Empathy toward the pregnant woman significantly predicted support for both abortion types, while empathy toward the unborn negatively predicted support. Interestingly, internal locus of control, initially not significant in zero-order correlations, became a significant positive predictor in the regression model, suggesting a suppressing effect from religious beliefs and empathy toward the unborn. External locus of control and need for cognition positively predicted attitudes toward elective abortion, but not traumatic abortion. The regression model revealed that psychological factors, after controlling for other factors, explained a substantial portion of the variance in attitudes toward both types of abortions (R² change = 0.27 and 0.24 for traumatic and elective abortions, respectively).

This study provides robust empirical evidence for the significant and unique role of psychological factors in shaping attitudes toward abortion, even after controlling for the influence of religious beliefs and political ideologies. The findings reveal the complex interplay of empathy, highlighting the coexistence of concern for both the pregnant woman and the unborn, potentially leading to internal conflict. The study clarifies the role of locus of control, demonstrating that individuals may simultaneously believe in personal autonomy and perceive external factors influencing their life events. The positive correlation between need for cognition and elective abortion support suggests that informed decision-making is influenced by a willingness to engage in critical thinking. The distinct patterns of psychological factor influence on traumatic versus elective abortion attitudes highlight the importance of considering specific abortion scenarios, suggesting that a one-size-fits-all approach to legislation may be ineffective.

This study demonstrates the significant role of psychological factors, namely empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition, in shaping public attitudes toward abortion. The findings underscore the complexity of abortion attitudes and suggest the need for nuanced approaches to both research and practice. Future research should explore the interplay between these psychological factors and abortion knowledge, utilizing a theoretically driven approach such as the Dual-Process Theory. Furthermore, research should empirically test the proposed mechanisms (e.g., the role of attribution in locus of control, the mediating effect of abortion knowledge in need for cognition). Implications for counseling and abortion-related education are also discussed.

While this study makes significant contributions, limitations should be acknowledged. The selection of psychological factors was not exhaustive and not theoretically driven. The study is exploratory in nature, and the proposed mechanisms linking psychological factors to abortion attitudes require further empirical validation. The study’s focus on public attitudes limits its direct applicability to counseling contexts. The absence of an attention check item in the online survey may have slightly affected data quality. Future studies could address these limitations by employing a more comprehensive theoretical framework and rigorous testing of proposed mediating mechanisms, incorporating attention checks in data collection, and expanding beyond public attitudes.