Sperm donation: Mostly altruistic, donors favored anonymity; education level, conscientiousness, empathic concern were positively correlated to donation; age, & conservative and religious values were negatively associated

Motivations and Attitudes of Men Towards Sperm Donation: Whom to Donate and Why? João Areias, Jorge Gato & Mariana Moura-Ramos. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, Jan 27 2021. https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-020-00531-0

Abstract

Background: The widespread access to medically assisted reproduction (MAR) techniques for all women, regardless of any infertility diagnosis, has led to an increased, but as yet unmet, demand for sperm donors in Portugal. For this study, we deployed an online survey to explore men’s motivations for donating and their attitudes toward anonymity and donating for specific groups.

Method: The study’s sample comprised men who were eligible to donate sperm (N = 282). The relationships between these factors and participants’ psychological and sociodemographic characteristics were also explored.

Results: The results mostly indicated altruistic reasons for donating, positive attitudes toward anonymity, and a greater willingness to donate to infertile women. Overall, sexual orientation was not associated with the participants’ attitudes and motivations. Age, education level, conscientiousness, empathic concern, and conservative and religious values were associated with the participants’ motivations and attitudes toward sperm donation.

Conclusion: Recruitment campaigns should therefore consider the specific motivations, attitudes, and psychosocial characteristics of potential sperm donors. Indeed, parenthood is a universal right, so sperm donation should be encouraged, regardless of recipients’ fertility status. Clear information about the identifiability of sperm donors should also be provided.

Discussion

The main goal of this study was to highlight what drives men to donate sperm, their attitudes toward anonymity, and their attitudes toward donating for specific groups, as well as to investigate how sexual orientation, psychological traits, and sociodemographic characteristics influence these motivations and attitudes. For reasons of clarity, the results will be discussed in terms of (i) motivations to donate, (ii) attitudes toward anonymity, and (iii) attitudes toward donating for specific groups.

Motivations to Donate

Consistent with the literature, altruistic motivation seems to be the most significant motivation for donating sperm, emphasizing a desire to help childless couples have children (Ekerhovd et al., 2008; Hedrih & Hedrih, 2012; Thijssen et al., 2017; Van der Broeck et al., 2013) and diminishing the role of financial compensation in return for donation (Ekerhovd et al., 2008; Hedrih & Hedrih, 2012; Thijssen et al., 2017). Motivations to donate were generally not associated with the participants’ sexual orientation, except for the motivation of “knowing one’s fertility,” with heterosexual men assigning more importance to this than other men. Non-heterosexual men’s lack of interest in their fertility status may be because they generally show a weaker intent to parent children and anticipate stigma upon achieving parenthood (Gato, Leal, Coimbra, & Tasker, 2020). Furthermore, many non-heterosexual men seem to be unfamiliar with alternative paths to parenthood (Patterson & Riskind, 2010), and some still envisage parenting as a feminine role (Gato & Fontaine, 2017; Pelka, 2009). Nevertheless, future research should further examine the genesis of these differences.

Age was negatively associated with the motivation of “knowing one’s fertility,” with younger men assigning more importance to this motivation. According to Thijssen et al. (2017), this association is expected because younger, childless men have not yet confirmed their fertility status. Furthermore, the men with a lower level of education also valued this motivation more, so future research should explore this association.

Considering the psychological characteristics of the participants, men with higher levels of Conscientiousness assigned more importance to learning their fertility status. People with high levels of conscientiousness may be more motivated to donate based on willingness to pass on their “good genes” (Thijssen et al., 2017), because this will confirm their purpose and usefulness to society and themselves. Similarly, men with higher levels of Conservative values also ascribed more importance to learning their fertility status. This is unsurprising if we consider that more conservative individuals tend to value social order and assign more importance to traditional institutions (Schwartz, 1992, 1994), such as heteronormative families where children generally have a genetic link with their parents.

People with high levels of empathic concern donate in various contexts, and they are compassionate toward others and seem to be oriented toward alleviating the suffering of others in need (Verhaert & Van den Poel, 2011). This explains the positive association between empathic concern and the motivation to help others have a child, as was found in this study. Conversely, religious values were negatively correlated with this motivation. Even though modern Portugal is a secular country, Catholic values still exert a certain influence (Dix, 2010). In our study, the negative association between adherence to religious values and helping someone to have a child may derive from the fact that Catholicism tends to reject alternative family configurations, including the pursuit of pregnancy through MAR (Rubio, 2015).

Attitudes Toward Anonymity

Willingness to be contacted by the child was the least-indicated attitude, differing from the assertions “parents should disclose DI conception with the child” and “the institution where DI was realized can provide information about me to the child, since that information does not identify me.” This finding agrees with research that found that men tend to avoid donation if their identities may be disclosed (Bay et al., 2014; Thijssen et al., 2017). Nevertheless, a relatively positive view about non-anonymous donation was noticeable, because all participants endorsed disclosing DI conception to the child and releasing non-identifying information about the donor. No differences in attitudes toward anonymity were found as a function of sexual orientation, thus contradicting the study of Freeman et al. (2016), which verified that gay and bisexual men, when compared to their heterosexual peers, were more open minded when it came to anonymity and more willing to have contact with children conceived using their sperm. This study’s results refuted our hypotheses about differences between heterosexual and non-heterosexual men for attitudes toward sperm donation.

For sociodemographic characteristics, age was negatively associated with the attitude that “parents should disclose DI conception to the child,” with younger participants subscribing more to this attitude. According to Riggs and Russell (2011), men under the age of 26 preferred identity-release legislation, and this may reflect in the opinion that parents should disclose DI conception to the child. No psychological characteristics were associated with attitudes toward anonymity, perhaps due to the choice of psychological correlates in this study. Future research should therefore include other aspects, such as neuroticism and agreeableness.

Attitudes Toward Donating for Specific Groups

Regarding attitudes toward donating for specific groups, a positive tendency toward donating to all groups was discernible, and this is consistent with the findings of other studies (Bay et al., 2014; Ekerhovd et al., 2008; Thijssen et al., 2017). Nevertheless, donating to heterosexual women with fertility problems was the group regarded the most positively. This may come from the altruistic motivations to donate that participants reported. Indeed, altruism is based on a desire to help someone to have a child (Ekerhovd et al., 2008; Hedrih & Hedrih, 2012; Thijssen et al., 2017; Van der Broeck et al., 2013), and infertile women may be perceived, a priori, as being at a greater disadvantage.

Empathic concern was positively associated with donating to most recipient groups. This likely derives from the fact that people with high levels of empathic concern tend to focus more on alleviating the suffering of others and showing compassion (Verhaert & Van den Poel, 2011). In contrast, adherence to religious values was negatively associated with donating to all groups. As mentioned earlier, this may stem from the influence of Catholic views about family (Rubio, 2015).

Limitations, Future Directions, and Implications for Practice

Like any research endeavor, this study is not without limitations. More than half of our sample was highly educated, so it was not representative of the wider Portuguese population. Additionally, the imbalance in the number of heterosexual and non-heterosexual men may have further compromised the results and prevented us from drawing conclusions about the influence of this variable. The small magnitude of effects (except in the RM ANOVAs) also raised concerns and somewhat limited generalization of the findings.

Despite these limitations, however, our findings do have implications for practice. By shedding light on the motivations, attitudes, and characteristics of possible candidate donors, the findings of this study may inform future recruitment campaigns. Indeed, based on these findings, it could be argued that campaigns should target specific motivations, attitudes, and characteristics of potential donors. As Ferguson, Atsma, de Kort, and Veldhuizen (2012) reported in the context of blood donation, emphasizing the positive feelings that are associated with donation can increase donation rates, so a similar concept could be applied in the context of sperm donation. For example, in this study, the most frequently reported motivation to donate was to help someone have a child, which is an altruistic motivation. It may therefore be useful to highlight the altruistic nature of donation in any campaign.

This study also contributes to the view that withdrawing donation anonymity, which took place in Portugal in 2018, may not necessarily affect the number of potential donors, thus reflecting the positive trend toward non-anonymity reported by other studies (Bay et al., 2014; Thijssen et al., 2017). However, given a pattern of disengagement when the disclosed information is too personal or when there is a chance of contact with the child, the issue of anonymity should be further debated and clarified. Future recruitment campaigns should therefore stress that upon release of anonymity, the donor bears no obligation or commitment to the child. Likewise, it is crucial to emphasize that parenthood is a universal right in order to encourage sperm donation for any person or couple, regardless of fertility status or sexual orientation.