Committee Reports::Report - Changing attitudes to the role of women in Ireland attitudes towards moral issues in relation to voting behaviour in recent referenda::01 June, 1988::Appendix

This chapter presents the results of the study which were concerned with attitudes and voting behaviour in the two recent national referenda. The first of these was the 1983 national referendum concerning the issue of abortion, which was specificially concerned with a Constitutional Amendment on the “right to life” of the unborn child. The second of these was the 1986 referendum on divorce. Attitudes concerning both of these issues were considered to be highly germane to the status of women and therefore special sections in the questionnaire were devoted to them. Because these two issues are also widely perceived as moral issues and because the Church played an active role in the public debate leading up to the two referenda, it was considered appropriate to examine attitudes toward these issues in the wider context of moral issues generally.

The chapter is, thus, divided into three major sections. The first deals with the 1983 abortion referendum and the second with the 1986 divorce referendum. In each of these two sections, people’s actual voting behaviour was ascertained and then examined in relation to a range of attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics. Through such analyses, it was hoped to gain a fuller understanding of the attitudes and other characteristics underlying people’s voting behaviour. The third section deals with attitudes to a wider range of moral issues. A primary purpose of this aspect of the study was to examine how attitudes to divorce and abortion compared with attitudes toward other moral issues, and, secondly, to see how discrimination against women was evaluated in the broader context of morality.

II RESULTS

Ireland is one of the few remaining countries in the world which does not permit divorce. A national referendum was held in the Republic of Ireland in June 1986 in which the electorate was given the opportunity for the first time to choose to make divorce legally available or to opt for the status quo. The result was a rejection of divorce by a significant majority: 36.3% in favour and 63.1% opposed.

The present study was carried out in September - December 1986, a few months after the referendum, so that people’s attitudes and memories of their voting behaviour would have been quite fresh in their minds. In the context of the broader survey of attitudes toward the role of women and related social issues, respondents’ attitudes to divorce were elicited. These included perceptions of the effects of divorce on children, on the husband’s and wife’s financial situation, on the institution of marriage itself, on the prospects for reconciliation with the North, etc. Actual voting behaviour in the referendum was also obtained from the respondents. The results of the sample were re-weighted to make them representative of the population in the groups sampled, thus permitting greater generalisability of the results.

Respondents were first asked whether or not they had voted in the referendum. The results were as follows:

This figure diverges from the actual turnout of the electorate, which was 62.7%. This may in part reflect the fact that the sample was not a strictly nationwide representative sample. It may also reflect the tendency of people to over-report voting behaviour, since it is a socially desirable behaviour.

Those who said they voted in the referendum, were asked how they voted and their responses are presented below - followed by the actual voting pattern of the electorate:

While there are discrepancies of the order of 5 - 7 % between the voting behaviour of the sample and the electorate, they are roughly similar, and the sample certainly offers enough variance to permit the analysis of correlates and determinants of the voting behaviour, which is the primary focus of this aspect of the study.

Those who had not voted in the referendum were asked if they would make a special effort to vote if the same referendum were held tomorrow. The responses to this were as follows:

indicating a reported desire to vote next time on the part of the majority of the non-voters.

All respondents were then asked how they would vote if the same referendum were held tomorrow. As may be seen from the figures below, a very similar proportion to that voting in favour said they would again vote in favour and approximately 8% fewer said they would vote against than had actually voted against.

Respondents were also asked to what extent various sources of information were important to them in helping them make up their mind how to vote. Responses to these are presented below:

It may be seen that while few people rated any of the four as very important, the overall influence of television and church sermons was greater than that of national newspapers. Provincial newspapers appeared to have less influence on this issue than national newspapers. A total of 41.4% said that television was either “somewhat important”’ “quite important” or “very important” in helping them make up their mind. Approximately the same proportion said this was true of church sermons. National newspapers were cited by 33.3% and provincial newspapers by 15.8%.

Prior to asking people if and how they voted in the referendum, etc. a series of ten items concerning divorce was presented, imbedded in a larger set of other attitudinal items. These covered the major issues which had been debated and discussed prior to the actual referendum. Five items were phrased in a “pro”-divorce direction and five were phrased in an “anti”-divorce direction, so as to provide balancing.

The responses to these items were factor analysed to explore the underlying dimensionality of the items. Factor analysis also makes it possible to create composite, or summary, scores which are statistically more reliable than individual items. Table 21 presents the results of this analysis and Table 22, following, presents the percentage responses to the individual items for the total sample (re-weighted to reflect the proportions of the respondents as they exist in the population). In addition, the differential responses of those who voted for and against divorce are presented for each item.

Factor I indicates that the items concerning the potential economic and social consequences of divorce for the wife loaded together and formed one dimension. Eighty-three per cent of the total sample believed that “in most cases the divorced wife would suffer great economic hardship in struggling to support her children and would be likely to end up on social welfare”. This view was shared both by the pro and the anti-divorce groups, but held much more strongly by the anti-divorce group. Half of the total sample believe that divorce is not in the best interests of women, since it is the husband who is more likely to remarry. This view was held by 68% of the anti-divorce group, but by only 30% of the pro-divorce group.

The hypothesis that many voted against divorce because they feared it would lead to a woman’s losing her “status” and “respectability” in the community was largely not borne out by the results. Only 38.5% of the anti-divorce group held this view and less than half that proportion of the pro-divorce group. The item which most strongly differentiated between the pro and anti groups on this factor was: “If you open the floodgates to divorce you undermine the very nature of marriage as a life-long commitment”. Over 90% of the anti-divorce group agreed with this (47.9% - strongly), whereas only 29.6% of the pro-divorce group did. The use of the emotive phrase “open the floodgates” may have played a role in the responses here. Such language would appear to evoke a response more in one group than the other. It is also interesting to note that the idea of marriage as a lifelong commitment is clearly tied to economic factors, particularly to feelings about a wife’s economic and social security, rather than to other feelings such as love, romance or happiness.

FACTOR II: Concern for Minority Rights, Reconciliation with Northern Ireland and the Victims of Marital Breakdown

FACTOR III: Belief that Divorce Leads to Greater Well-Being for Victims of Marital Breakdown

PERCENTAGE RESPONSES TO ITEMS MEASURING ATTITUDES TO DIVORCE, GROUPED BY FACTOR, FOR TOTAL RE-WEIGHTED SAMPLE AND BY VOTING BEHAVIOUR

FACTOR II: CONCERN FOR MINORITY RIGHTS, RECONCILIATION WITH NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE VICTIMS OF MARITAL BREAKDOWN

FACTOR III: BELIEF THAT DIVORCE LEADS TO GREATER WELL-BEING FOR THE VICTIMS OF MARITAL BREAKDOWN

Factor II: Concern for Minority Rights, Reconciliation with Northern Ireland, and the Victims of Marital Breakdown

Factor II contains three items. The first concerns the rationale for divorce as offering protection of minority rights. The second concerns the implications of divorce for reconciliation with Northern Ireland, and the third concerns compassion for those suffering the misery of marital breakdown. The items share in common a concern for the suffering of others (i.e., the victims of marital breakdown and particularly minorities such as Protestants, Jews and others who may not share the Catholic beliefs about divorce). It also indicates a desire to move toward greater reconciliation with Northern Ireland and sees the legalisation of divorce in the Republic as a step in that direction. This factor differentiated rather clearly between the pro and anti divorce groups. More than three-quarters (77.8%) of the pro-divorce group agreed with the item on minority rights vs. 43.7% of the anti-divorce group. Moreover this issue was something the pro-divorce group felt rather strongly about: 33.7% expressed strong agreement, whereas only 6.9% of the anti-divorce group did so. The item concerning reconciliation with Northern Ireland elicited 56.1% support from the pro-divorce group and only 20.5% from the anti-divorce group. Both the pro and anti-divorce groups agreed that “by making divorce available, society would show its compassion to those suffering the misery of marital breakdown”. However, whereas 54% of the anti-divorce group agreed with this, 92.6% of the pro-divorce group did (of whom 49% did so strongly).

Factor III: Belief that Divorce Leads to Greater Well-Being for Victims of Marital Breakdown

Factor III includes an item concerning the perceived effect of divorce on children. The debate about divorce prior to the referendum presented two points of view. One was that divorce is very disruptive and leads to negative psychological effects for children. The other was that children suffer greater psychological damage by living with two parents who are in constant conflict, than by living with one divorced parent in a stable home. The results showed that a majority of the total sample (89%) held the latter view. There was slightly greater support for it among the pro-divorce group (92.6%), but also very high agreement from the anti-divorce group (83.7%). This clearly shows, firstly, that most people believe that divorce is the lesser of two evils with regard to children when parents are in conflict, and 2) that concern for the welfare of children did not significantly determine the voting in the referendum on the part of the anti-divorce group, since their views on this would have been consistent with voting pro-divorce.

The second item on this factor concerns people’s right to a “second chance at happiness, legalised by marriage, if their first marriage has failed”. Again a majority of both groups supported this, but the pro-divorce group did so to a far greater extent (96.5% vs. 60.6%). Also, this was something the pro-divorce group felt quite strongly about (59.6% strongly agreed with this as opposed to just 12.3% of the anti-divorce group).

Factor IV consists of only one item - that of the effect of divorce on the financial situation of the husband. This item clearly did not load together with the items concerning the economic effects on the wife; it was seen by respondents as a distinct dimension. A majority of the sample believed that divorce places “an unbearable financial burden on the husband”, but this view was held more strongly by those who opposed divorce (68.8%) than by those who favoured it (54.4%).

An analysis of demographic determinants of these attitudes showed that there were no sex differences on 3 out of the 4 factors (see Table 23). Interestingly enough, women were not more likely to be concerned with the economic and social consequences of divorce on the wife. However, men were more concerned about the economic consequences of divorce for the husband. Marital status was significant on one factor and almost reached significance on another of the factors, in an unexpected direction. Single people were much less likely to think that divorce led to greater well-being than marrieds. This related to Factor III, which concerned the belief that divorce led to greater well-being for children and those in marital conflict. An interaction effect showed that older, single people were much less likely to believe this than were married people.(1) Concerning the item on the right to a “second chance at happiness”, these results would indicate

EFFECTS OF FIVE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ON FOUR FACTORS MEASURING ATTITUDES TO DIVORCE

that older, single people are less likely (than are married people or younger single people) to believe that people have a right to a second chance at happiness, legalised by marriage, if their first marriage has failed. Since they have not yet married themselves and perhaps think it unlikely that they will do so, they may feel cheated out of even “one chance at happiness”, let alone a second one, and thus may feel less generous towards others, who have already had a “first chance at happiness”. The results also indicate that older single people - who do not have children - are more likely to think children are better off in a home with conflict than married people are likely to think. Given that married people are more likely to know what marital conflict is like and its effect on children, the discrepant views of older, single people are worthy of consideration, given that their votes helped to determine the outcome of the referendum.

Consistent with this, there was also a trend to the effect that single people were more concerned about the economic effects of divorce on the wife than were married people.

Age was also a significant influence on attitudes to divorce. Older people were significantly more concerned about the economic and social effects of divorce on the wife than were younger people. Young people were more likely to believe that divorce led to greater well-being in cases of conflict than did older people (i.e., Factor III). The young were also more likely to see divorce as facilitating reconciliation with Northern Ireland, with protecting minority rights and showing compassion for those experiencing marital breakdown.

The socio-economic status of respondents did not influence their attitudes to divorce except on Factor I. Those of lower socio-economic background expressed greater concern for the economic and related consequences of divorce on the wife.

Rural vs. urban residence was quite significant on 3 out of the 4 factors. Rural dwellers were significantly more concerned about the economic and social consequences of divorce on the wife. Urban dwellers were more concerned with the issues of reconciliation with Northern Ireland, minority rights, and with compassion for the victims of marital breakdown. They also were more likely to see divorce as leading to greater potential well-being for the victims of marital breakdown.

5. Attitudes and Other Characteristics as Predictors of Voting Behaviour in the 1986 Divorce Referendum

We have seen that certain attitudes differentiated between those who voted pro vs. anti divorce. We have also seen that demographic variables influenced attitudes to a certain extent. Earlier we examined data concerning the importance to people of the media (television and newspapers) and church sermons in influencing their voting behaviour. We now shall take all of these variables together, in addition to a measure of religiosity(1), to see which ones were most predictive of respondents’ voting behaviour in the divorce referendum.

A multiple regression analysis was carried out, using voting behaviour as the dependent variable. Demographic characteristics were entered first. Of the seven variables entered (see Table 24), only two were significant predictors of actual voting behaviour. These were rural/urban location and age. Demographic characteristics accounted for a Multiple R of .35 and explained 12% of the variance in voting behaviour.

Religiosity was entered next. It was found to be a highly significant predictor of voting behaviour, much stronger than either age or rural/urban lcoation had been. Its inclusion in the equation increased the Multiple R to .50 and the explained variance to 25%.

Influences were entered next. Newspapers were found to have no appreciable influence on voting behaviour, nor did television. Church sermons were, however, found to be a significant influence. The addition of these influences increased the Multiple R just slightly to .53 and the explained variance to 28%.

1 This composite measure, based on the earlier work of Glock and Stark (1965), Faulkner and De Jong (1965) and MacGreil (1974) was developed in Ireland in 1975 (Davis et al., 1977) and subsequently replicated in several other Irish studies (e.g., Fine-Davis, 1977, 1983; Davis, Grube and Morgan, 1984). It contains items measuring religious belief, the importance of prayer to the individual, the importance of religion to the individual and frequency of church attendance.

Finally the 10 individual items measuring attitudes to divorce were entered to see which, if any, of these significantly influenced voting behaviour in the referendum. It may be seen that of the 10, only 3 were significant predictors. The strongest was Item 9: “If you open the floodgates to divorce, you undermine the very nature of marriage as a life-long commitment”. Those voting anti-divorce tended very much to hold this belief, whereas those voting for divorce very much tended not to accept it. The second strongest predictor of voting behaviour was Item 8: “People have a right to a second chance at happiness, legalised by marriage, if their first marriage has failed”. For those who voted pro divorce, this belief was a guiding force in their decision. Finally, the item about legalisation of divorce being a step toward reconciliation with Northern Ireland also significantly determined voting behaviour, but at a slightly lower level than the other two items. The addition of attitudes to the equation increased the Multiple R significantly to .74 and the explained variance (R²) to .55 or 55%.

What this analysis shows is that while many issues were debated extensively in the media concerning the effects of divorce on the economic situation of the wife and on the psychological state of children, etc., the key issue which, in the final analysis, determined voting behaviour was people’s underlying attitude about marriage itself - i.e., whether or not they see it as a life long commitment and whether or not they feel people have a right to a second chance at happiness if their first marriage has failed. Religiosity was also quite important. This was reinforced by the evident influence of church sermons. And, of course, people’s views about marriage as a life-long commitment are shaped to a great extent by religious teachings.

Thus, the overriding determinant of voting behaviour in the referendum involved a belief in the Catholic view of marriage as a life-long commitment versus a more secular view that people have a right to a second chance at happiness if their first marriage has failed. However, the results showed that attitudes concerning marriage as a life-long commitment were closely tied into issues concerning the economic and social consequences of divorce for the wife. Such attitudes were most strongly held by older people and those living in rural areas.

TABLE 24 Multiple Regression Analysis of Predictors of Voting Behaviour in Divorce Referendum

As Randall notes (1987), abortion policy in the Republic of Ireland appears to be moving in an opposite direction to that observed in most other countries. Citing Francome (1984), Randall points out that between 1967 (the year that Britain liberalised abortion provision) and 1982 more than 40 countries had widened the legal grounds for abortion, whereas Ireland, in September 1983, reinforced the existing prohibition against abortion in the 1861 Offences against the Person Act by amending the Constitution (Randall, 1987).

Because of the relevance of this issue to the status of women, a series of questions were included in the study concerning people’s attitudes towards abortion, as well as questions concerning their voting behaviour in the 1983 Referendum. Since it is widely believed that the issues were confusing and that even the wording of the referendum may have been confusing to people, particular care was taken to explain the issues clearly to the interviewers in the briefing sessions and to present the questions clearly in the questionnaire.

You may recall that in 1983 there was a referendum on a Constitutional Amendment which acknowledged the “right to life” of the unborn child and thereby made abortion not only illegal, as it already was, but also unconstitutional, thus making it impossible for the Dail to pass any legislation in the future which would legalise abortion. Could you please tell me if you voted in that referendum?

The responses to this question are contained in Table 25, with breakdowns for different groups of respondents. The re-weighted total indicates that 70% of the sample said they had voted, 18.8% said they had not and 11.2% refused or couldn’t remember. The 70% figure is higher than the actual turnout, which was 54.6%. Reported voting among the sample was more prevalent among married people than single and was particularly low among single men. Those who had voted in the referendum were asked how they had voted. The overall total (for the re-weighted sample) was 75.1% in favour of the amendment and 23.5% against, which was higher than the actual figure of approximately 66% in favour of the amendment. An examination of sub-group differences in Table 26 shows that none of those examined was significant.

Respondents were then asked how they felt about the issue at the present time. If the same referendum were held tomorrow, how did they think they would vote? As Table 27 shows, 67.5% said they would vote in favour, 22.2% would vote against and 10.3% refused to answer the question or did not know how they would vote. By and large, there were few differences between the sub-groups examined, however there was a tendency for non-employed married women to be more likely than other groups to be pro the amendment. Single men were more likely than other groups to either be against the amendment or to not know or refuse to answer. It will be recalled that their voting turnout was the lowest in the sample (50%). This group may have been either apathetic to the issue or confused by it.

PERCENTAGE OF VARIOUS GROUPS WHO REPORTED HAVING VOTED IN THE 1983 ABORTION REFERENDUM

Respondents were then asked if they felt abortion should be prohibited under any and all circumstances or did they think there may be certain circumstances under which it might be permissable. The responses to this question were as follows:

It may be seen that 37.9% felt that abortion was not permissable under any circumstances and 58.4% felt it may be permissable under certain circumstances. All, except those who did not see abortion as permissable under any circumstances, were then shown a list of possible circumstances and were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that abortion might be permissable under each of them. The respondent completed this set of questions by himself/herself so as to allow greater privacy. A 7-point agree-disagree response continuum was used in this set of items. Responses to each of the seven items are presented in Table 28. Percentages are presented first for all respondents who said abortion may be permissable under certain circumstances or who were not sure (i.e. 61.6% of the sample).

Percentages are then presented for those who both voted in the referendum and said that abortion might be permissable under certain circumstances. These are broken down on the basis of voting behaviour (i.e. pro vs. anti). Of the 412 respondents who voted, 400 reported how they voted. Of these, 234 felt abortion might be permissable under certain circumstances: 157 (or 67.1%) of these had voted for the amendment and 77 (or 32.9%) had voted against.

Almost all of those who believed that abortion might be permissable under certain circumstances, believed that such a circumstance was in the case of the pregnancy seriously endangering the life of the mother. Ninety-three per cent agreed with this. How one voted in the referendum made little difference in how people felt about this (97% of those voting anti the amendment and 90% of those voting for the amendment). Extrapolating from these data, it may be seen that more than half (55.7%) of the total sample (N=600) i.e., 93% of 61% of the sample) believes that abortion might be permissible if the pregnancy seriously endangered the life of the woman.

A rather high percentage (78.8%) also believed that abortion might be permissible if the pregnancy endangered the woman’s health. This translates into about 48% of the total sample (N=600). Of those voting for the amendment who believe abortion may be permissible under certain circumstances, 73% believed the health of the mother was one such situation. Close to 91% of those voting against the amendment felt this way.

A slightly higher overall proportion felt that abortion might be permissible if it resulted from rape. Close to 83% felt this way (75% of those voting pro-amendment and 87% of those voting anti-amendment). Extrapolating to the total sample, it would appear that 50.5% (i.e. 82.8% of 61%) would consider abortion permissible in cases of rape.

Pregnancy resulting from incest was similarly viewed. Over 84% felt abortion might be permissible in such cases (79.5% of the pro-amendment people felt this way and 85.7% of the anti-amendment people). Extrapolating to the total sample, 51.4% would consider abortion potentially permissable in pregnancy resulting from incest.

Respondents were less inclined to consider potential deformity of the child a potentially acceptable ground for abortion. Fifty per cent felt abortion may be permissible in this situation (43% of pro-amendment voters and 59% of anti-amendment voters). Thus, only 30% of the overall sample would consider this a potentially acceptable reason for abortion.

The remaining two situations - that of a pregnant woman being unmarried and that of a couple being unable to afford another child - elicited far less support than the previous circumstances. Only 14% could envisage abortion as acceptable in the case of an unmarried woman and only 11% in the case of a couple who could not afford another child.

One of the interesting aspects of these results is the fact that there were no significant sex differences on any of the items. This means

EXTENT TO WHICH ABORTION IS PERCEIVED AS PERMISSIBLE1 UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR TOTAL SAMPLE AND BY VOTING BEHAVIOUR IN THE ABORTION REFERENDUM

¹ This table only includes respondents who said abortion may be permissible under certain circumstances (i.e. 61.6% of the sample). It excludes those 38.4% of the sample who said it was not permissible under any circumstances. The Total Sample is re-weighted to reflect the proportions of respondents in the population at large.

² The breakdowns by voting behaviour add up to a smaller number of respondents, since they only include those who voted.

that men and women have similar views on the conditions under which abortion may or may not be permissable. The fact that women were not more permissive is somewhat surprising given that movements to liberalise abortion in other countries, such as Italy and France, have been spearheaded by women (Randall, 1982, 1984) and this was also true to some extent in Ireland (Ibid.). It is also surprising given that women are the ones who suffer if they find themselves in a predicament in which abortion seems the only way out. The fact that women did not differ from men on abortion probably results from the fact that they are significantly more religious than men (MacGreil, 1974; Fine-Davis, 1976) and the attitude of the Church on abortion is unequivocal.

What is also extremely interesting about these results is the unexpectedly high degree of consensus between those voting for and against the amendment. The differences in their attitudes were nonsignificant in the case of the pregnancy endangering the life of the mother, in the cases of rape and incest, and in the case of the unmarried woman. It would seem that even though there was very strong polarity on the issue, in the lead up to the referendum, in certain respects the two groups think alike. However, this is a said bearing in mind that a certain percentage did not see abortion as permissable under any circumstances. Nevertheless, these data have revealed that 55.7% of the total sample would consider abortion permissable if the woman’s life were in danger, 51.4% in cases where pregnancy resulted from incest, 50.5% in cases resulting from rape and 48% in cases in which the woman’s health was in danger.

These results are rather surprising in light of the high proportion which voted for the amendment. However, it has been suggested that the relatively low voter turnout indicated a high degree of confusion on the part of the electorate (eg, O’Carroll, 1984). The data in fact indicate a strong belief on the part of many - including many who voted for the amendment - that abortion should be allowed in certain particular circumstances, notably 1) when the woman’s life is in danger; 2) when the woman’s health is in danger; 3) when the pregnancy results from rape and 4) when the pregnancy results from incest. Overall, it is evident that about half of the total sample approves, at least to some degree, of the availability of abortion on these grounds.

These findings reflect a trend which was reported earlier by Fogarty et al. (1984), authors of The Irish Report of the European Value Systems Study. Based on data collected in 1981, some five years prior to that of the present study, these authors conclude:

In Ireland the proportion who think abortion may be justifiable on ‘social grounds’ remains tiny, except in the case of the non-religious. But the proportion who think it may be justified on the two health grounds, especially on that of the mother’s health, has been rising steadily .... Among people under 45 a majority think that abortion may be justified when the mother’s health is at risk. (Ibid, p.47).

Clearly the Irish people do not wish to have abortion on demand. On the other hand, they can contemplate it under certain highly specific and delimited situations. The fact that these issues did not sufficiently emerge prior to the referendum indicates that the manner in which the referendum occurred did not fully take account of people’s views on this topic in a more differentiated way.

In discussing the medical implications of the amendment, doctors pointed out that in the case of certain diseases of the mother, effective treatment of the patient might damage the foetus. The most important of these is cancer.

if the woman is pregnant at the time the cancer is diagnosed, an individious choice may be presented to the medical practitioner… It may well be that … if the amendment has been passed and the foetus has thereby been guaranteed a ‘right to life’, that treatment for the cancer must be delayed until the woman has delivered by which time her chances of successful treatment may have been severely retarded. (Doctors Against the Amendment, 1982, pp 6 - 7). … although the standards of medical care for the woman with a potentially life-threatening pregnancy will doubtless improve in the years ahead, the passing of the amendment might well mean that the preventative methods of contraception to the woman and the option of an abortion might well be denied to the woman with a life-threatening pregnancy. (Ibid. pp 9 - 10).

In view of such potential medical situations arising, respondents were asked how they thought such situations should be resolved. The question was phrased:

“If a pregnant woman is suffering from a serious illness and treatment could save her life, but would result in the death of her unborn baby, would you:

b)Not favour giving the woman the treatment (woman would die, baby would live)”

There was basically overall consensus among the different groups examined. Overall, about 75% favoured giving the woman the treatment, about 5% did not and about 20% were unsure what should be done in that situation. Single people, particularly single men, were more unsure as to what should be done than married people. The situation is probably one that married women can most readily identify with. Indeed non-employed married women were most sympathetic to the woman’s plight. Over 83% of them said treatment should be given and only 3.5% said no treatment should be given. This group of women has, on average, more children than employed married women and may be particularly able to visualise such a situation. Married men were also more sympathetic to the woman’s situation than were single men and women. Married men have wives and can also probably imagine what such a situation would feel like.

Looking at this question on the basis of voting behaviour in the referendum, the following results emerge:

Not surprisingly, those voting against the amendment were significantly more likely to favour treatment for the woman (89% did so). However, a large majority of those voting pro-amendment also favoured giving the woman treatment (72.5%), although quite a high percentage (21.2%) were not sure what should be done in such a case.

Given that the amendment has passed, such medical situations will arise in which such difficult decisions will have to be made. There are no clear-cut guidelines for action. As pointed out in a discussion of the possible legal consequences of the amendment:

The vagueness of its drafting makes it impossible to say with precision what the result of such use would be but it appears certain that decisions which are now, de factum, private ones could be subjected to legal scrutiny in the attempts to prevent individuals or groups acting in a way of which others disapprove … any person could appoint himself the spokesman for the foetus …

If the course of action is unclear as a result of the amendment, will this affect the treatment which pregnant women now receive? What if a doctor is not sure whether a particular treatment is legal or illegal? It has been suggested that one result of this is that the law will have differential effects on the rich and the poor:

The well off, who can afford to pay for specialist medical care, will be able to choose a doctor who is prepared to continue providing treatment allowed under the (previous) law. Working people, who cannot afford to do this, will be treated by doctors who themselves cannot take the risk of being prosecuted for doing something which might be illegal. Doctors will decide what is legal when the law itself is confused.

Responses to these questions are presented in Table 30. A majority (79.5%) felt the woman should have the “final say” in such a decision, although 20% felt she should have only “some say”, “quite a bit of say” or “a major say”. Very few (3.8%) thought that the woman’s husband should have the “final say”. However, 63.7% thought he should have a “major say”. Only 5.4% thought the doctor should have the final say, but over 60% thought he should have anywhere from “some say” to “a major say”. No one felt that a priest or clergyman should have the “final say”, but 55% felt he should have anywhere from “some say” to “a major say”. Those who voted pro-amendment were somewhat more likely to think the priest should have influence in this decision. (1) Thus, while 79.5% felt the woman should have the final say, it is quite clear that three (usually) male figures would also be actively contributing to the decision on her life. Given that she would be in a state of ill health (life-threatening health), she would not be in a position to put up much resistance if others disagreed with her wish to be treated.

AMOUNT OF “SAY” VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS SHOULD HAVE WHEN A DECISION MUST BE MADE CONCERNING GIVING OR WITHOLDING MEDICAL TREATMENT TO A PREGNANT WOMAN WITH A LIFE-THREATENING DISEASE

Given this situation, it is not surprising that women respondents were significantly more likely to think the woman should have the final say in such a decision, as shown below:

The purpose of the present study has been to examine changing gender role attitudes in Ireland, with particular reference to the implications of such attitudes for the role and status of women. We have thus far examined a wide range of gender role attitudes, with particular focus on their implications for discrimination and employment equality. We have also explored attitudes toward divorce and abortion in relation to voting behaviour in the two recent referenda. Discrimination against women, abortion and divorce are seen as moral issues to varying extents within the population. For this reason it would appear a logical next step to examine people’s attitudes to these issues in a broader matrix of attitudes to moral issues generally. However, it must be emphasised that this is a vast and complex topic and the present study, of necessity, does not go into it in great depth. Other studies have taken this as their primary focus and the reader is referred to these for a fuller examination of moral attitudes in Ireland (e.g., Breslin and Weafer, 1983; 1984; Fogarty et al., 1984). The more delimited purpose of the examination of moral attitudes in the present study was to explore their implications for the status of women, a topic which has not generally been dealt with by other studies of moral issues.

Respondents were presented with 15 different moral issues, or behaviours with moral or potentially moral implications (e.g. lying, stealing, murder etc.). Since it could be assumed that some respondents would be more inclined to evaluate these behaviours in terms of their degree of “sinfulness” and others would be more likely to do so in terms of their “morality” or “immorality”, respondents were first asked which of these two frameworks was applicable to them. The question was phrased as follows:

Many people judge certain acts in terms of ‘sinfulness’. Others might prefer to use a term such as ‘morality’ or immorality’, which is based on one’s own conscience. Which of these two frameworks do you tend to use for the most part in judging acts which people engage in? Do you believe in the concept of ‘sin’ and tend to judge people’s acts accordingly or are you more comfortable with some other concept such as morality/immorality?

Respondents were, of course, free to refuse to make this distinction, if they found it a difficult choice to make, and to opt for a response of “3” or “4”. However, 95.3% of the sample were able to make this choice readily, with only 3.4% choosing “Other” and 1.3% saying they didn’t know or refusing to answer the question.

There were no significant differences between employed married women, non-employed married women, employed single women, employed married men and single men on this breakdown. It may be seen that slightly more than half of the sample tends to think in terms of sin when judging or evaluating human behaviour and approximately half tends to think of these acts in terms of morality. Bearing this in mind, respondents were encouraged to use their own framework to judge the moral issues. The series of questions was introduced by the interviewer as follows:

I’m going to show you a list of things which some people consider to be sinful or immoral and others do not. I’d like you to please indicate how you feel about these things on the scales provided.

Respondents were then asked to respond to each scale by themselves to optimise their privacy. Each issue was followed by a 7-point bi-polar scale, ranging from “Not at all sinful or immoral” to “Extremely sinful or immoral”, utilising the well-known Semantic Differential format (Osgood et al., 1957).

These responses were then factor analysed to see whether people tended to see certain moral issues in a similar way and whether the moral issues divided into clusters with a common thread, i.e. a typology of moral issues. The results of the factor analysis, which are presented in Table 32, show that people’s responses are indeed guided by an underlying typology. The 15 moral issues fell into five clearly interpretable factors. The first contained the items: 1) Religious Intolerance, 2) Discrimination against Women; 3) Racial Prejudice, and 4) Discrimination against Itinerants. This factor was called Discrimination. Factor II, contained the items 1) Divorce, 2) Using Contraceptives and 3) Pre-Marital Sexual Intercourse. These items are all related to sex and all are proscribed by the Catholic Church. Factor III contains the items 1) Rape, 2) Murder and 3) Killings carried out of allegedly political motives. Factor IV contains the items 1) Abortion and 2) Adultery, which are also related to sexual behaviour and are proscribed by the Catholic Church. Factor V contains the items 1) Lying, 2) Stealing and 3) Evading Tax. This last factor is called Dishonesty. Percentage responses to the individual items, grouped by factor, are presented in Table 33.

Mean (average) scores were computed for each respondent on each of the five moral issue factors. The average scores for the total sample are presented below. These are based on the potential range of 1 (not at all sinful or immoral) to 7 (extremely sinful or immoral).

Factor Analysis of Ratings of 15 Moral Issues in Terms of their Perceived Immorality or Sinfulness

ATTITUDES TOWARD MORAL ISSUES, GROUPED BY FACTOR: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR TOTAL SAMPLE1

It may be seen that the most sinful/immoral acts are considered to be those of murder, rape and killings carried out for political motives. The next most serious issues are perceived to be abortion and adultery. Following these are discrimination against women, religious and racial minorities and itinerants. Dishonesty comes next after Discrimination, followed by the other religiously proscribed sex-related behaviours of divorce, contraception and pre-marital sex, which are clearly seen as far less serious than those of abortion and adultery.

If one were to rank order the behaviour in terms of their mean (average scores, the rank order would look as follows:

* Range is 1 - 7 with 1 = not at all sinful or immoral; 7 = extremely sinful or immoral

It is apparent from this that discrimination against women comes fairly down on the list. It is considered less immoral than adultery, racial prejudice and stealing.

It is interesting to note that racial prejudice is considered more serious than discrimination on the basis of sex. This is particularly curious since there are so few members of racial minorities living in Ireland, whereas women comprise approximately 51% of the population. Religious intolerance and discrimination against itinerants are seen as even less immoral than discrimination against women, indicating that religious minorities and itinerants are seen as worthy of less respect than women and racial minorities. The high level of prejudice toward itinerants in Ireland was documented in a recent nationwide study of attitudes toward poverty and related socio-economic issues by Davis et al. (1984).

One wonders whether it may be easier to see racial prejudice as immoral when it is not on one’s own doorstep (but rather in the U.K., U.S. or South Africa). Injustices against groups closer to home, such as women and itinerants, not to mention religious minorities, are apparently easier to overlook.

It is also worthy of consideration that the issues of contraception and divorce are the lowest on the list. They are not seen as particularly immoral. One wonders why then they engendered so much debate and controversy leading to legislation on the one hand and a referendum on the other.

An analysis of the determinants and correlates of the perceived sinfulness or immorality of these moral issue factors was then undertaken. Sex of respondent, age, marital status, socio-economic status and rural vs. urban location were all examined. On the Discrimination factor, those living in rural areas were found to be more likely to find discrimination (against women and minority groups) to be immoral.(1) Members of higher socio-economic groups were also more likely to consider discrimination immoral. (2) There was a trend which approached statistical significance that revealed married men to be most likely to consider discrimination immoral, more so than single men, as illustrated below:

To the extent that this factor deals with discrimination against women, the trend reinforces other results seen so far to the effect that married men show greater empathy toward women than single men do.

Older people and people in rural areas were significantly more likely to see the Religiously Proscribed Sex-Related Behaviours of divorce, contraception and pre-marital sex as immoral or sinful than were younger people and those living in Dublin.(1) These differences also held for abortion and adultery(2), as well as for dishonesty.(3) In addition, single men were less likely to consider lying, stealing and evading tax as immoral than were other groups.(4) There was only a rural/urban difference on the Rape-Murder Factor in the same direction of greater perceived immorality in rural areas.(5)

3. Relationships Between Religiosity and Perceived Immorality/Sinfulness of Various Behaviours

Because of the obvious relationship between religion and morality, an examination of the inter-corrections between Religiosity and attitudes to moral issues was made. There were many significant relationships. These are presented in Table 34. It may be seen that the higher the person scored on the Religiosity factor, which contained items measuring frequency of church attendance, as well as importance of religion to the individual, etc., the more likely the person was to see the five religiously proscribed sex-related behaviours as sinful or immoral. These relationships were very strong and highly significant in all cases.

On the other hand, there was no significant relationship between religiosity and attitudes concerning discrimination against women, itinerants and social and religious minorities, although doctrinal teachings should show a significant positive correlation between religiosity and the viewing of these acts as immoral and sinful. Nor was there a significant relationship between religiosity and perceived immorality of rape or murder (other than political killings), or indeed between religiosity and lying, stealing, and evading tax. This pattern of findings would suggest that the morality or immorality of certain issues may be stressed in Church more than other issues. These would appear to be the sex-related behaviours.

The Dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, The Very Rev. Victor Griffin, pointed out in a paper putting forth the Protestant position prior to the abortion referendum:

This proposed Amendment is one more example of our sex obsessed society. The idea of sin seems to be confined to the sexual sphere. The moral writ of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ runs only in the domain of sexual morality. Hence far more emphasis is placed on so-called sexual rectitude than on matters of personal honesty, national righteousness and social justice (Griffin, 1983, p.3).

Correlations Between Religiosity Composite Score and Perceived Sinfulness/ Immorality of Various Behaviours

1 The p < .01 level of significance is chosen because of the large numbers of correlations carried out and the resulting possibility that if a less conservative ‘p’ level were chosen that some of the relationships could have occurred as a result of chance.

III. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This volume of the report focussed on people’s attitudes and voting behaviour in the two recent national referenda on divorce (1986) and abortion (1983). As these issues are of particular relevance to women and their status they were considered an essential part of a study of changing gender role attitudes. These issues were examined in the overall context of attitudes to a broader range of moral issues.

People’s actual voting behaviour in the June 1986 divorce referendum was ascertained in the study, which was carried out shortly after the referendum. This information was then analysed in relation to several other sets of questions, i.e., a) influence on voting behaviour; b) attitudes to divorce; c) religiosity; and d) demographic characteristics.

An analysis of the demographic determinants of attitudes to divorce revealed no sex differences on most of the dimensions studied. Interestingly enough, women were not more likely to be concerned with the economic and social consequences of divorce on the wife. In contrast, men were more concerned about the economic consequences of divorce for the husband. Marital status was significant, but in an unexpected direction. Older single people were much less likely than married people to think that divorce led to greater well-being for children and those in marital conflict. Given that married people are more likely to know about marital conflict and its effect on children, the discrepant views of older, single people are worthy of consideration, given that their votes helped to determine the outcome of the referendum. Older, single people were also less likely (than married people or younger single people) to believe that people have a right to “a second chance at happiness”, legalised by marriage, if their first marriage has failed. Since they have not yet married themselves and perhaps think it unlikely that they will do so, they may feel cheated out of even “one chance at happiness”, let alone a second one, and thus may feel less generous towards others, who have already had a “first chance at happiness”.

Older people (regardless of marital status) were significantly more concerned about the economic and social effects of divorce on the wife than were younger people, whereas young people were more likely to believe that divorce led to greater well-being in cases of conflict. The young were also more likely to see divorce as facilitating reconciliation with Northern Ireland, with protecting minority rights and showing compassion for those experiencing marital breakdown.

While the attitudes and values of older people prevailed in the 1986 referendum, the results suggest that in the years to come the attitudes and values held by the younger people of today are likely to play a greater role in future discussions and potential legislation on this question.

There were significant rural/urban differences on a majority of the attitudinal factors. Rural dwellers were significantly more concerned than urbans about the economic and social consequences of divorce on the wife. Urban dwellers were more concerned with the issues of reconciliation with Northern Ireland, minority rights, and with compassion for the victims of marital breakdown. They also were more likely to see divorce as leading to greater potential well-being for the victims of marital breakdown. The greater concern of rural respondents with the economic consequences on the wife are probably strongly connected with the complicated situation which would ensue in a rural divorce in terms of the family farm. Since property is so central to rural life, this tends to reinforce the need for continuity of marriage. In urban areas, where there are greater opportunities for female employment and property is less of an issue, the economic consequences of divorce are seen as less important. Thus, the extent to which Ireland remains an agricultural nation vs. the extent to which it continues to urbanise is likely to have an effect on future attitudes on this question.

An analysis of the attitudes of those voting pro and anti-divorce indicated that the item which most strongly differentiated between these two groups was: “If you open the floodgates to divorce you undermine the very nature of marriage as a life-long commitment”. Over 90% of the anti-divorce group agreed with this (47.9% - strongly), whereas only 29.6% of the pro-divorce group did. The use of the phrase “open the floodgates” may have played a role in the responses here. Such language would appear to evoke a response more in one group than the other. It was also interesting to note that the idea of marriage as a “lifelong commitment” was clearly seen by respondents to be tied to economic factors, particularly those concerning a wife’s economic and social security, rather than to feelings, such as love or happiness.

Other issues which were found to be significantly related to voting behaviour in the referendum included 1) the belief that divorce offered protection of minority rights, 2) the implications of divorce for reconciliation with Northern Ireland, and 3) concern for those suffering marital breakdown. The attitudinal items tapping these issues reflect an awareness and concern for the suffering of others (i.e., the victims of marital breakdown and minorities in the Republic, such as Protestants, Jews and others who may not share the Catholic beliefs about divorce). One of the items taps a desire to move toward greater reconciliation with Northern Ireland and sees the legalislation of divorce in the Republic as a step in that direction. This factor differentiated rather clearly between the pro and anti divorce groups. Those voting pro-divorce were much more concerned with these issues than were those voting anti-divorce.

The debate prior to the referendum presented two points of view concerning the effects of divorce on children. One was that divorce is very disruptive and leads to negative psychological effects for children. The other was that children suffer greater psychological damage by living with two parents who are in constant conflict, than by living with one divorced parent in a stable home. The results showed that a majority of the total sample (89%) held the latter view. There was slightly greater support for it among the pro-divorce group (92.6%), but also very high agreement from the anti-divorce group (83.7%). This clearly shows, firstly, that most people believe that divorce is the lesser of two evils with regard to children when parents are in conflict, and 2) that concern for the welfare of children did not significantly determine the voting in the referendum on the part of the anti-divorce group, since their views on this would have been consistent with voting pro-divorce. Such information may be of interest to those running the campaigns, both pro and anti. Had this been known beforehand, this issue might not have formed the basis for so much of the debate, since it did not differentiate between the pro and anti groups at all.

A final analysis examined the relative importance of a range of factors in determining people’s actual voting behaviour. Among the demographic variables, age and rural vs. urban location were found to have been the most important, with older people and rurals having been more likely to have voted anti-divorce and young people and urbans having been most likely to vote pro-divorce.

Religiosity was also found to be a highly significant predictor of voting behaviour - even more so than age or rural/urban location. The more religious were more likely to have voted anti-divorce and the less religious, pro-divorce.

Results concerning informational influences indicated that television and church sermons were each cited by 41% of the sample as having been anywhere from “somewhat” to “very” important in helping them make up their mind. National newspapers were also cited as having been influential (33% cited these as important). Provincial newspapers were reportedly least influential on this issue. However, when analysed in terms of their influence on actual voting behaviour, only the effect of church sermons was significant.

of the 10 individual items measuring attitudes to divorce, only 3 were significant predictors, the strongest being the items: “If you open the floodgates to divorce, you undermine the very nature of marriage as a life-long commitment”. Those voting anti-divorce tended very much to hold this belief, whereas those voting for divorce very much tended to reject it. The second strongest predictor of voting behaviour was the item: “People have a right to a second chance at happiness, legalised by marriage, if their first marriage has failed”. For those who voted pro divorce, this belief was a guiding force in their decision. Finally, the item about legalisation of divorce being a step toward reconciliation with Northern Ireland also significantly determined voting behaviour, but at a slightly lower level than the over two items.

What this analysis shows is that, while many issues were debated extensively in the media concerning the effects of divorce on the economic situation of the wife and on the psychological state of children, etc., the key issue which, in the final analysis, determined voting behaviour was people’s underlying attitude about marriage itself - i.e., whether or not they see it as a life long commitment and whether or not they feel people have a right to a second chance at happiness if their first marriage has failed. Religiosity was also quite important. This was reinforced by the evident influence of church sermons. Needless to say people’s views about marriage as a life-long commitment are shaped to a great extent by religious teachings.

Thus, the overriding determinant of voting behaviour in the referendum involved a belief in the Catholic view that marriage as a life-long commitment versus a more secular view that people have a right to a second chance at happiness if their first marriage has failed. However, the results showed that attitudes concerning marriage as a life-long commitment were closely tied into issues concerning the economic and social consequences of divorce for the wife.

In societies where divorce is quite prevalent (e.g., the U.S. and Great Britain), rates of female labour force participation are far higher than in Ireland. Women are thus more readily able to be economically self-sufficient. When the economic security issue becomes less important , the role which marriage plays in fulfilling emotional needs becomes more important. To he extent that Ireland’s rate of married female labour force participation continues to increase, which it has done dramatically over the last 25 years, it can be expected that marriage will be viewed less in terms of providing economic benefits and more in terms of providing psychological benefits. This trend is likely to lead to a greater desire on the populace for easier dissolution of marriage.

The speed with which these trends occur, may in part be influenced by the economic situation. In times of economic insecurity, people may be more likely to opt for stability or security in the personal sphere. The economic situation may also affect women’s opportunities for employment. As a relatively disadvantaged group in the labour market, their situation is less likely to improve greatly unless overall economic conditions improve. Although, it will be noted that in spite of an increase in the unemployment rate from 1975 to 1986, attitudes toward maternal employment actually became more positive, as did attitudes to equal pay and related issues (see Vol. I of the the present study). This, together with the increasing rate of married female labour force participation (Blackwell, 1986), decreasing fertility rate (Sexton and Dillon, 1984), and decreasing religious belief (Breslin and Weafer, 1984) are likely to contribute to social conditions which would be more favourable to future passage of divorce legislation.

Because of the relevance of this issue to the status of women, a series of questions was included in the study concerning people’s attitudes toward abortion, as well as questions concerning their voting behaviour in the 1983 Referendum.

Respondents were asked if they felt abortion should be prohibited under any and all circumstances or if they felt there may be certain circumstances under which it might be permissable. Just over a third of the sample (37.9%) felt that abortion was not permissable under any circumstances and 58.4% felt it may be permissable under certain circumstances. All, except those who did not see abortion as permissable under any circumstances, were then shown a list of possible circumstances and asked whether they felt abortion might be permissable under each of them.

Almost all of those who believed that abortion might be permissable under certain circumstances, believed that such a circumstance was in the case of the pregnancy seriously endangering the life of the mother. Ninety-three per cent agreed with this. How one voted in the referendum made little difference in how people felt about this (97% of those voting against the amendment and 90% of those voting for the amendment). Extrapolating from these data, it may be seen that more than half (55.7%) of the total sample believes that abortion may be permissible if the pregnancy seriously endangered the life of the woman

A rather high percentage (78.8%) also believed that abortion might be permissible if the pregnancy endangered the woman’s health. This translates into about 48% of the total sample. Of those voting for the amendment who believe abortion may be permissible under certain circumstances, 73% believed the health of the mother was one such situation. Close to 91% of those voting against the amendment felt this way.

A slightly higher overall proportion felt that abortion might be permissible if it resulted from rape. Close to 83% felt this way (75% of those voting pro-amendment and 87% of those voting anti-amendment). Extrapolating to the total sample, it would appear that 50.5% would consider abortion permissible in cases of rape.

Clearly people do not wish to have abortion on demand. On the other hand, they can contemplate it under certain highly specific and delimited circumstances. The data reflect a strong belief on the part of many - including many who voted for the amendment - that abortion should be allowed in certain specific circumstances, notably 1) when the woman’s life is in danger; 2) when the woman’s health is in danger; 3) when the pregnancy results from rape and 4) when the pregnancy results from incest. Overall, it is evident that about half of the total sample approves, at least to some degree, on the availability of abortion on these grounds. These findings in fact reflect a continuing trend which was reported earlier by Fogarty et al. (1984). The fact that these issues did not sufficiently emerge prior to the referendum indicates that the manner in which the referendum occurred did not fully take account of people’s views on this topic in a sufficiently differentiated way.

One of the interesting aspects of these results is the fact that there were no significant sex differences on any of the items. This means that men and women have similar views on the conditions under which abortion may or may not be permissable. The fact that women were not more permissive is somewhat surprising given that movements to liberalise abortion in other countries, such as Italy and France, have been spearheaded by women (Randall, 1982, 1984) and this was also true to some extent in Ireland (Ibid.). It is also surprising given that women are the ones who suffer if they find themselves in a predicament in which abortion seems the only way out.

What is also extremely interesting about these results is the unexpectedly high degree of consensus between those voting for and against the amendment. The differences in their attitudes were nonsignificant in the case of the pregnancy endangering the life of the mother, in the cases of rape and incest, and in the case of the unmarried woman. It would seem that even though there was very strong polarity on the issue, in the lead up to the referendum, in certain respects the two groups think alike. However, as indicated above, the wide consensus on permissable grounds for divorce did not enter the debate in any meaningful way, since the grounds of the debate were highly circumscribed and did not allow for an open and full discussion of all of the relevant issues. It forced people to make a “yes”/“no” decision in an atmosphere of fear, confusion and divisiveness, which did not truly reflect the underlying consensus which the people actually have about the issue.

Given that the amendment has passed, certain medical situations will arise in which difficult decisions will have to be made. There are no clear-cut guidelines for action. Since the course of action is unclear as a result of the amendment, this may affect the treatment which pregnant women now receive. It has been suggested that one result of this is that the law will have differential effects on the rich and the poor.

In view of the potential dilemmas which will arise in medical practice and for couples facing such decisions, a series of questions was put to respondents concerning how much “say” they felt various parties should have in the decision of whether a pregnant woman with a life threatening disease could receive treatment, even if this would result in the loss of her foetus. The results showed that while 79.5% felt the woman should have the final say, it was clear that three (usually) male figures would also be actively contributing to the decision on her life (i.e., husband, doctor and priest). Given that she would be in a state of ill health (life-threatening health), she would not be in a position to put up much resistance if others disagreed with her wish to be treated.

Such a potential situation poses a serious threat to the safety of Irish women and, as such, is an issue which should be of concern to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women’s Rights.

The purpose of the present study has been to examine changing gender role attitudes in Ireland, with particular reference to the implications of such attitudes for the status of women. A wide range of gender role attitudes have been examined, with particular focus on their implications for discrimination and equal opportunity. Attitudes toward divorce and abortion in relation to voting behaviour in the two recent referenda have also been explored. Discrimination against women, abortion and divorce are seen as moral issues to varying extents within the population. For this reason, it was considered appropriate to examine people’s attitudes to these issues in the broader context of attitudes to moral issues generally.

Respondents were presented with 15 different moral issues, or behaviours with moral or potentially moral implications, which they were asked to rate in terms of immorality or sinfulness. These responses were then factor analysed to see whether people tended to see certain moral issues in a similar way and whether the moral issues divided into clusters with a common thread. The results showed that people’s responses were indeed guided by an underlying typology. The 15 moral issues fell into five clearly interpretable factors:

(i.e, religious intolerance, discrimination against women, racial prejudice, and discrimination against itinerants).

Not surprisingly, it was found that the most sinful/immoral acts were considered to be murder, rape and killings carried out for political motives. While it may not be surprising that abortion was considered the next most sinful or immoral act, since many consider it to be akin to murder, it was less predictable that adultery would be seen as the next most sinful/immoral act. It was considered more sinful or immoral, for example, than racial and religious prejudice, discrimination against women, lying, stealing and evading tax. It was also noteworthy, in the context of the focus of the present study, that discrimination against women was considered less immoral than stealing or than racial prejudice - in addition to its lower rank order after adultery.

The fact that racial prejudice is considered more serious than discrimination on the basis of sex is particularly curious since there are so few members of racial minorities living in Ireland, whereas women comprise approximately 51% of the population. Religious intolerance and discrimination against itinerants were seen as even less immoral than discrimination against women, indicating that religious minorities and itinerants are seen as worthy of less respect than women and racial minorities. The high level of prejudice toward itinerants in Ireland has been documented in a recent nationwide study (Davis et al., 1984). It may be easier to acknowledge the immorality of racial prejudice when it is not on one’s own doorstep, whereas injustices against groups closer to home, such as women and itinerants, not to mention religious minorities, may be more comfortable to overlook.

It was also noteworthy that the issues of contraception and divorce were not seen as particularly immoral. In view of this, it is interesting that they engendered so much debate and controversy leading to legislation, on the one hand, and a referendum on the other.

The relationship between religiosity and perceived immorality/sinfulness of these various behaviours was examined. The greater the religiosity, the more likely the person was to see the five religiously proscribed sex-related behaviours (contraception, divorce, pre-marital sex, adultery and abortion) as sinful or immoral. These relationships were very strong and highly statistically significant in all cases.

On the other hand, there was no significant relationship between religiosity and attitudes concerning discrimination against women, itinerants and social and religious minorities, although one might have expected, in view of ethical religious teachings, a significant positive correlation between religiosity and the viewing of these acts as immoral and sinful. Nor was there a significant relationship between religiosity and perceived immorality of rape or murder (other than political killings), or indeed between religiosity and lying, stealing, and evading tax. This pattern of findings would suggest that the morality or immorality of certain issues may be stressed in Church more than other issues. These would clearly appear to be sex-related behaviours.

The apparent pre-occupation with the morality of sex-related behaviours by the Church and the apparent relative under-emphasis of the morality of other issues, such as discrimination, including discrimination against women, has led to a situation in which sex-related issues receive pre-eminent attention in public debates in the Oireachtas and in the media.

Such state of affairs is unusual by international standards and has not gone unnoticed in international fora. For example Ireland’s attitudes towards women have been highlighted in a recent EEC report which shows that it is at the bottom of the league in the EEC attitudinally concerning issues of equality of the sexes (Commission of the European Communities, 1987). The recent Supreme Court decision, upholding a 1986 High Court decision to ban access to information concerning abortion was considered so newsworthy as to merit page one status in a major international newspaper:

the public’s more traditional preferences have been made clear in the explicit constitutional ban on abortion and, two years ago, in the defeat of a proposal to legalise divorce, a campaign that has left Irish politicians warier than ever of public issues that invite church pronouncements … Critics citing the divorce and abortion issues, say the republic’s politics are steeped in church dogma.(1)

Recent events in Ireland, notwithstanding, a change in emphasis from sexual morality to issues of social justice is discernible from recent pronouncements from U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops. In a pastoral letter on women, the Bishops “labeled sexism a sin, recommended removing sexist language from the liturgy and urged that positions of authority and leadership be opened to women”.(2)

Similar views were expressed in the Conclusion to a Report on “Religious Beliefs, Practice and Moral Attitudes”, carried out at the Council for Research and Development, St Patrick’s College, Maynooth (Breslin and Weafer, 1984):

¹ F. X. Clines, “For Irish Women, Even Talk of Abortions is Long Distance”, International Herald Tribune, 16 June 1988, p.1.

² M. Hyer, “U.S. Catholic Bishops Say Sexism is Sinful and Urge its Removal”, International Herald Tribune, 13 April 1988, p.3.

The pastoral response called for would seem to be a pro-active one, by the deliberate espousal of the equal rights of women in all areas of society, including Church-related affairs. The Catholic Church should be, and should be seen to be, in the vanguard of those who seek justice for all oppressed groups in society.

Whether or not the Catholic Church in Ireland responds to such calls remains to be seen. Certainly moves in this direction would be welcomed by wide segments of society. However, regardless of potential changes of emphasis within the Church, it is the primary role of legislators to legislate for the common good. Their task would appear to be quite onerous in view of recent events and one which will require foresight, independence, and a broad vision of morality and social justice.

Barristers Against the Amendment. Possible Consequences of the Proposed Constitutional Amendment. The Anti-Amendment Campaign, Dublin, December 1982.

Blackwell, J. Women in the Labour Force. Dublin: Employment Equality Agency, 1986.

Breslin, A. and Weafer, J. A Survey of Senior Students’ Attitudes towards Religion, Morality, Education. Maynooth: Council for Research and Development, St Patrick’s College, 1983.

Breslin, A. and Weafer, J. Religious Beliefs, Practice and Moral Attitudes: A Comparison of Two Irish Surveys 1974 - 1984. Maynooth: Council for Research and Development, St Patrick’s College, 1984.

Commission of the European Communities. “Men and Women of Europe in 1987”. Supplement No. 26, Women of Europe. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, December 1987.

Davis, E. E., Fine-Davis, M., Breathnach, A. and Moran, R. A study of the factor structure of attitudinal measures of major social psychological constructs in an Irish sample. Economic and Social Review, 1977, 9 (1), 27 - 50.

Davis, E. E., Grube, J. and Morgan, M. Attitudes toward poverty and related social issues in Ireland. Paper No. 117. Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute, 1984.

Doctors Against the Amendment. Some Medical Implications of the Proposed Constitutional Amendment. The Anti-Amendment Campaign, Dublin, December 1982.

Faulkner, J. E. and DeJong, G. F. Religiosity in 5-D: An empirical analysis. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Convention, Chicago, 1965.

Fine-Davis, M. Structure, Determinants and Correlates of Attitudes Toward the Role and Status of Women in Ireland, with Particular Reference to Employment Status of Married Women. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Psychology, University of Dublin, 1976.

Fine-Davis, M. Attitudes toward the status of women: Implications for equal employment opportunity. Report to the Department of Labour. Dublin: Department of Psychology, Trinity College, Dublin, 1977.

Fine-Davis, M. Women and Work in Ireland: A Social Psychological Perspective. Dublin: Council for the Status of Women, 1983.

Fogarty, M., Ryan, L. and Lee, J. Irish Values and Attitudes: The Report of the European Value Systems Study. Dublin: Dominican Press, 1984.

Francome, C. Abortion Freedom: A Worldwide Movement. London: Allen and Unwin, 1984.

Glock, C. and Stark, R. Christian Beliefs and Anti Semitism. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.

Griffin, The Very Rev. Victor, Dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin. Statement on the Anti-Abortion Referendum. 14 February 1983.

MacGreil, M. Church attendance and religious practice of Dublin adults. Social Studies, 1974, 3 (2), 163 - 211.

O’Carroll, J. P. Some sociological aspects of the 1983 abortion referendum debate in the Republic of Ireland. Seminar Paper read at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, 24 May 1984.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. M. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, I11: University of Illinois Press, 1957.

Randall, V. The Politics of Abortion: Ireland in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper No. 1. UCD Women’s Studies Forum, University College Dublin, 1987, pp. 13 - 22.

Sexton, J. J. and Dillon, M. Recent changes in Irish fertility. In T. J. Baker, T. Callan, S. Scott, and D. Madden. Quarterly Economic Commentary. Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute, May 1984, pp. 21-38.

APPENDIX

- Social Indicators of Equality -

CHANGING GENDER ROLE ATTITUDES IN IRELAND: 1975 - 1986

Vol III: Attitudes towards Moral Issues in Relation to Voting Behaviour in Recent Referenda

Margret Fine-Davis

Department of Psychology

Trinity College, Dublin

- Report to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women’s Rights -

I INTRODUCTION

II RESULTS

III. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS