The incidence of psychological problems following abortion is hotly debated. This article uses a methodological critique of the key research to argue that prevalence rates for psychological risks following legal abortions in the U.S. should be viewed with great caution. Knowledge of prevalence alone, however, is inadequate for policy decisions. Information is also needed about the risks associated with the policy options intended to replace abortion (relative risk). Studies that used a comparison group have shown that the psychological risks associated with abortion are similar to those associated with childbirth. Furthermore, past research cannot answer whether abortion causes psychological responses that sometimes occur. We conclude that, although the studies cited by pro‐choice advocates are much more methodologically sound than those cited by pro‐life advocates, decisions about what risks are acceptable are largely political decisions rather than scientific ones.

This article presents the historical and policy background for the articles comprising this volume on psychological perspectives on abortion. President Reagan brought new life to public health concerns about abortion. Although Surgeon General Koop concluded that the scientific evidence was inadequate to say whether abortion did or did not cause psychological harm, debate continues. This article describes this debate and the policy differences between pro‐life and pro‐choice advocates. “Right‐to‐know” (informed consent) legislation is presented as a case study of how policy based on inadequate and flawed research evidence will result in implementation problems.

An expectancy-value model was used to measure and explain receptivity attitudes (i.e., change climate) toward the implementation of deinstitutionalization programs. Questionnaires measuring values, expectancies, and behavioral intentions were mailed to community leaders and to members of community groups believed to be important in setting opinions and making decisions. Responses from 599 persons revealed that (a) the size of a proposed group home affected neither attitudes nor intentions of support, (b) group homes for mental health clients were viewed with less favorable attitudes and intentions than those for the retarded or the elderly, (c) members of various community groups held significantly different attitudes and intentions toward the programs, and (d) attitudes and intentions toward deinstitutionalization were more favorable than toward institutionalization. The application of this approach for assessing the implementation climate for planned change was discussed.

United States General Accounting Office2This article describes the consulting role the author, a psycholo gist, performs at the United States General Accounting Office (GAO). It explains how GAO responds to information requests from Congress, GAO's process of evaluating human capital efforts and policies at federal agencies, and the special circumstances of designing studies at GAO. Management challenges and techniques of working in a matrix-management setting are also discussed.This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

No abstract