A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology explored the strategic ways in which individuals appeal to “harm” in discourse surrounding women’s bodily autonomy.

Across seven studies with more than 3,400 participants, the authors of the study found that while concerns about harm often appear in public discourse, they don’t always reflect genuine moral concern. Instead, people strategically shift between harm-based, fairness-based and purity-based arguments depending on what helps them justify their views or persuade others.

I recently spoke with the study’s lead author — Thekla Morgenroth, from the Department of Psychological Sciences at Purdue University — to unpack what these results reveal about the strategic side of moral argumentation, and what it means for ongoing struggles around women’s equality and autonomy. Here’s a summary of our conversation.

What drew you to study the way people use moral arguments when talking about women’s bodily autonomy, and why do you think this issue is so pressing right now?

Originally, my research focus was much narrower. I was interested in why people oppose the decriminalization of sex work — that is, the consensual exchange of sexual services for money between adults. In the first study we ran, we just asked people to give us their reasons why they oppose or support the decriminalization of sex work, and it was very clear from the responses that people’s responses come from a place of morality. 

More specifically, both opponents and supporters talked a lot about harm. The responses reminded me a lot of other debates, and I realized that there was an interesting pattern there that probably applied to women’s bodily autonomy more broadly. 

We started this project right around the time when Roe v. Wade was overturned, so reproductive rights were very hotly debated. Therefore, we looked at those arguments next and found very similar patterns. Understanding where disagreements about women’s bodily autonomy are coming from seems more important than ever right now, at a time where women’s rights are under threat.

People often appeal to “harm” when debating women’s rights. What does that usually sound like in everyday conversations or policy debates?

It’s interesting because it seems like everybody appeals to harm, regardless of what side of the debate they are on. 

For example, in the context of abortion rights, people who oppose legal access to abortion talk about the harm done to unborn life, but also about harm to the women themselves, such as the psychological distress or trauma that abortions may cause. Those who support legal access to abortion also talk about harm — for example, the health risks pregnant people may face or how traumatizing going through an unwanted pregnancy can be. 

Sex work is another example of bodily autonomy. Here, those who oppose the decriminalization of sex work talk about how engaging in sex work harms people psychologically, for example. Those who support the decriminalization of sex work also talk about harm — how, for example, making sex work legal prevents violence against sex workers because they can report this violence to the police without fear of repercussions for themselves. 

So, the arguments take all kinds of different forms, but at their core, they all talk about how preventing harm for women and others is important.

You looked at harm, fairness and purity as different moral lenses in your research. What did you learn about the kinds of arguments people find most convincing when it comes to women’s rights?

In general, those who support women’s bodily autonomy tended to care most about harm and fairness, while those who opposed women’s bodily autonomy cared most about harm and purity. 

This isn’t necessarily surprising — there is a lot of research suggesting that preventing harm is a universal moral value that pretty much everyone shares. “Purity,” on the other hand, is often primarily endorsed as a moral value by conservatives. “Fairness” is more strongly endorsed by liberals. 

And people seem to be aware of this, at least to some extent: When addressing people who do not share their political leanings, they use harm-based moral arguments more often. So, for example, if a Republican tries to convince other Republicans, they use both purity-based and harm-based moral arguments, but when trying to convince Democrats, they focus more on harm, likely because they know that Democrats won’t be convinced by purity-based arguments. 

However, our research suggests that this strategy is not necessarily successful because people shift the extent to which they care about harm strategically. For example, if you tell people who oppose the decriminalization of sex work that decriminalizing sex work reduces harm, they indicate that they care about harm less than if you were to tell them that it increases harm. 

In other words, people shift what they care about based on the arguments they hear so that they can hold on to their original opinion.

Your work suggests people sometimes use moral arguments less to express their true beliefs and more to persuade others. What does that tell us about how debates on women’s rights actually play out in practice?

To me, it suggests that debating the harms of giving women bodily autonomy or restricting their bodily autonomy is fairly useless. If people don’t express their true beliefs, engaging with the beliefs that are expressed is not going to change much. Unfortunately, our research doesn’t provide a magical solution to this problem — so we definitely need more research in this area.

If moral arguments can be used strategically, what does that mean for women’s rights? For example, who gets to define what counts as “harm,” and whose harm is taken most seriously?

This is a great question! Often, our views on what is harmful are primarily influenced by our own experiences, values and the experiences and values of those around us. 

Additionally, the voices of people who have more power and influence are often taken more seriously. But many issues of bodily autonomy primarily affect women who don’t necessarily have a lot of power and influence. 

For example, sex work is primarily carried out by women with lower socioeconomic status. If we truly want to understand the harms of the sex work industry and how to best prevent those harms, those are the voices who we should listen to.

What’s next for your research? And what questions do you think still need answering about moral arguments and women’s rights?

I’m interested in bodily autonomy broadly, and we’re currently planning to follow up on some other work examining the psychological underpinnings of opposition to bodily autonomy. The research described above mostly talks about the arguments people make and how those don’t always reflect people’s true reasons. 

To me, the next obvious question is, “Okay, then what are the true reasons?” In another line of work, my collaborators and I found that people moralize women’s bodies — that is, they view their bodies through a moral lens and apply morality to their bodies in a way they don’t do for men. In future work, we’re planning to look at how this moralization affects how people think about women’s, but also men’s bodily self-determination.