IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/socinc/v13y2025a10597.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Religious Affiliation and Religiosity Shape Attitudes Toward Medically Assisted Reproduction in Switzerland

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Henrike Schroedter

    (University Research Priority Program “Human Reproduction Reloaded,” University of Zurich, Switzerland)

Abstract

Although Western societies are becoming increasingly secular, religion continues to play a significant role in shaping attitudes toward family‐related issues, including medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Existing research on this topic is limited, often focuses on specific procedures or subgroups, and frequently overlooks the multifaceted nature of religion. Our study addresses these research gaps by examining how various dimensions of religiosity—affiliation, religious socialization, self‐assessed religiosity, and religious practice— relate to attitudes toward a broad spectrum of MAR procedures in the general Swiss population. Using data from the representative CHARLS 2023 survey, we assessed public acceptance of nine MAR techniques through both a composite index and evaluations of individual procedures. Our findings show that higher religiosity across all dimensions is consistently associated with lower moral acceptance of MAR. While religious affiliation mattered, especially among Muslims and Evangelical Christians, its effect was significantly reduced when personal religiosity and practice were taken into account. Personal religiosity and frequent prayer emerged as the strongest predictors of lower acceptance. Religious socialization also had a modest negative impact, particularly among those raised in highly religious households. Acceptance was generally lower for procedures involving third‐party contributions (e.g., donor gametes, surrogacy), though differences between procedures were not statistically significant. Overall, the results underscore the enduring influence of religion on attitudes toward reproductive technologies—even in a secularizing context.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Henrike Schroedter, 2025. "How Religious Affiliation and Religiosity Shape Attitudes Toward Medically Assisted Reproduction in Switzerland," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v13:y:2025:a:10597
    DOI: 10.17645/si.10597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/10597
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/si.10597?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura R. Olson & Wendy Cadge & James T. Harrison, 2006. "Religion and Public Opinion about Same‐Sex Marriage," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(2), pages 340-360, June.
    2. Caroline Berghammer & Dimiter Philipov, 2007. "Religion and fertility ideals, intentions and behaviour: a comparative study of European countries," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 5(1), pages 271-305.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lisa Van Landschoot & Helga de Valk & Jan Van Bavel, 2017. "Fertility among descendants of immigrants in Belgium: The role of the partner," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(60), pages 1827-1858.
    2. Kumo, Kazuhiro & Perugini, Cristiano, 2023. "Religion, Ideology and Fertility," IZA Discussion Papers 16159, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Laura Cavalli & Alessandro Bucciol & Paolo Pertile & Veronica Polin & Nicola Sartor & Alessandro Sommacal, 2012. "Modelling life-course decisions for the analysis of interpersonal and intrapersonal redistribution," Working Papers 25/2012, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    4. Arnold Fleischmann & Laura Moyer, 2009. "Competing Social Movements and Local Political Culture: Voting on Ballot Propositions to Ban Same‐Sex Marriage in the U.S. States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(1), pages 134-149, March.
    5. David A. Gay & John P. Lynxwiler & Patrick Smith, 2015. "Religiosity, Spirituality, and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, August.
    6. Janetta Nestorová Dická & Filip Lipták, 2024. "Regional fertility predictors based on socioeconomic determinants in Slovakia," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 1-43, September.
    7. Jona Schellekens & A’as Atrash, 2018. "Religiosity and marital fertility among Muslims in Israel," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(34), pages 911-926.
    8. Sam Hyun Yoo & Victor Agadjanian, 2021. "The paradox of change: Religion and fertility decline in South Korea," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(23), pages 537-562.
    9. Samuel H. Preston & Caroline Sten Hartnett, 2010. "The Future of American Fertility," NBER Chapters, in: Demography and the Economy, pages 11-36, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Anna Rotkirch, 2020. "The wish for a child," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 18(1), pages 49-61.
    11. Gouveia, Filipe & Nilsson, Therese & Berggren, Niclas, 2020. "Religiosity and discrimination against same-sex couples: The case of Portugal's rental market," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    12. Colleen Ray & Julia McQuillan & Arthur Greil & Stacy Tiemeyer & Sela Harcey, 2018. "Stability and change in personal fertility ideals among U.S. women in heterosexual relationships," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(16), pages 459-486.
    13. Samuel H. Preston & Caroline Sten Hartnett, 2008. "The Future of American Fertility," NBER Working Papers 14498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Stephen Cranney, 2017. "Is There a Stronger Association Between Children and Happiness Among the Religious? Religion as a Moderator in the Relationship Between Happiness and Child Number," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1713-1727, December.
    15. Djundeva, Maja & Szalma, Ivett, 2018. "What shapes public attitudes towards assisted reproduction technologies?," OSF Preprints ymhbt, Center for Open Science.
    16. Julia Behrman & Jeylan Erman, 2019. "An exploration of differences in ideal family size between Muslim and non-Muslim women in France," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 41(22), pages 617-648.
    17. Hill Kulu & Tina Hannemann, 2016. "Why does fertility remain high among certain UK-born ethnic minority women?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(49), pages 1441-1488.
    18. Robert Postic & Elizabeth Prough, 2014. "That’s Gay! Gay as a Slur Among College Students," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, November.
    19. Donald P. Haider‐Markel & Mark R. Joslyn, 2008. "Pulpits Versus Ivory Towers: Socializing Agents and Evolution Attitudes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(3), pages 665-683, September.
    20. Annegret Gawron & Nadja Milewski, 2024. "Migration, Partner Selection, and Fertility in Germany: How Many Children are Born in Mixed Unions?," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 40(1), pages 1-29, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v13:y:2025:a:10597. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.