title: Euthanasia attitude; A comparison of two scales.
abstract: The main purposes of the present study were to see how the term "euthanasia" influences people's support for or opposition to euthanasia; and to see how euthanasia attitude relates to religious orientation and personality factors. In this study two different euthanasia attitude scales were compared. 197 students were selected to fill out either the Euthanasia Attitude Scale (EAS) or Wasserman's Attitude Towards Euthanasia scale (ATE scale). The former scale includes the term "euthanasia", the latter does not. All participants filled out 50 items of International Personality Item Pool, 16 items of the the HEXACO openness, and 14 items of Religious Orientation Scale-Revised. Results indicated that even though the two groups were not different in terms of gender, age, education, religiosity and personality, mean score on the ATE scale was significantly higher than that of the EAS. Euthanasia attitude was negatively correlated with religiosity and conscientiousness and it was positively correlated with psychoticism and openness. It can be concluded that analyzing the attitude towards euthanasia with the use of EAS rather than the ATE scale results in lower levels of opposition against euthanasia. This study raises the question of whether euthanasia attitude scales should contain definitions and concepts of euthanasia or they should describe cases of it.
authors.affiliation: MA in General Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran;
authors.forename: Naser
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Aghababaei
authors.forename: Hojjatollah
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Farahani
authors.forename: Javad
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Hatami
keywords: Attitude towards euthanasia; Euthanasia; Personality
references.citation: Med Health Care Philos. 2004;7(3):333-9
references.pmid: 15679025
references.citation: Public Health. 2002 Nov;116(6):322-31
references.pmid: 12407471
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2006 Aug;63(3):743-56
references.pmid: 16537097
references.citation: J Pers Assess. 2009 Jul;91(4):340-5
references.pmid: 20017063
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2003 Aug;57(4):721-31
references.pmid: 12821019
references.citation: J Pain Symptom Manage. 2006 Sep;32(3):230-6
references.pmid: 16939847
references.citation: Omega (Westport). 2005;51(3):229-37
references.pmid: 16459436
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2008 Aug;67(4):647-56
references.pmid: 18514992
references.citation: Death Stud. 2005 Jan-Feb;29(1):29-54
references.pmid: 15726742
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2009 Dec;69(11):1659-66
references.pmid: 19837498
references.citation: Omega (Westport). 2008;57(1):93-112
references.pmid: 18507328
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2000 Jan;50(1):137-54
references.pmid: 10622700
references.citation: J Clin Forensic Med. 2004 Jun;11(3):133-40
references.pmid: 15260998
references.citation: J Soc Issues. 1996 Summer;52(2):63-84
references.pmid: 15156862
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2005 May;60(9):1961-74
references.pmid: 15743647
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2007 May;11(2):150-66
references.pmid: 18453460
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2006 Feb;62(3):654-67
references.pmid: 16046040
references.citation: J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999 Mar;17(3):188-96
references.pmid: 10098362
references.citation: J Psychol. 2005 Jan;139(1):81-95
references.pmid: 15751832
references.citation: Adv Ther. 2007 Jan-Feb;24(1):135-45
references.pmid: 17526470
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2010 Feb;14(1):108-25
references.pmid: 20023209
references.citation: BMC Med. 2008 Feb 12;6:4
references.pmid: 18269735
references.citation: J Adv Nurs. 1998 Jul;28(1):70-6
references.pmid: 9687132
references.citation: J Bioeth Inq. 2005;2(2):82-9
references.pmid: 16317867
references.citation: Arch Med Res. 2008 May;39(4):452-8
references.pmid: 18375258
references.citation: Intensive Care Med. 2008 Mar;34(3):423-30
references.pmid: 18157484