New research shows people shift moral arguments to fit their stance on women’s bodies

A new study published in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology finds that people often use harm-based moral arguments strategically, rather than sincerely, when debating women’s bodily autonomy.

Public debates about women’s bodily autonomy frequently revolve around contentious issues such as abortion, sex work, or clothing regulations. These discussions often invoke morality, with harm being one of the most commonly cited principles. For example, arguments are sometimes framed around whether particular practices cause physical, psychological, or social harm. Psychologists have questioned whether harm truly drives public opinion, or whether it is used as a broadly persuasive justification.

Thekla Morgenroth and colleagues examined this question through the lens of moral foundations theory, which identifies several domains of moral reasoning including harm, fairness, purity, authority, and loyalty. They focused on two particularly contentious issues in the United States: the decriminalization of sex work and legal access to abortion.

Across seven studies with a total of 3,431 U.S. participants recruited online, the researchers explored both self-reported and experimentally manipulated reasoning. In the first two studies, participants were asked to explain their views on the decriminalization of sex work. In Study 1, they gave open-ended responses, which were then coded by independent raters to determine whether arguments reflected harm, fairness, purity, or authority.

Study 2a built on this by asking participants directly how much each moral foundation mattered in shaping their views, while also administering the Moral Foundations Questionnaire to measure their general moral beliefs. Study 2b replicated this design but shifted the focus to abortion, allowing the researchers to test whether the patterns extended beyond sex work.

Free daily newsletter

The next set of studies examined whether harm arguments were not only common but also strategically used. In Studies 3a and 3b, participants read claims suggesting that decriminalizing sex work either increased harm (e.g., making sex work less safe) or decreased harm (e.g., reducing exploitation). The researchers then measured whether participants adjusted how important they thought harm was to their position depending on whether the information supported or challenged their stance.

Studies 4a and 4b explored whether harm-based arguments were strategically deployed to persuade others. Participants were asked to evaluate how convincing different types of moral arguments (centered on harm, fairness, or purity) would be to political in-group members compared to out-group members. This design allowed the researchers to test whether harm was seen as a particularly effective rhetorical tool when trying to reach those who might otherwise disagree.

Across the studies, harm consistently appeared in people’s explanations of their views on women’s bodily autonomy, but its role was not necessarily straightforward. In Study 1, supporters of sex work decriminalization tended to rely most on fairness arguments, while opponents emphasized purity. Despite these differences, both sides frequently invoked harm, suggesting it was a shared point of reference. Study 2a confirmed this pattern; when asked directly, both supporters and opponents reported that harm was highly important to their positions.

Yet when their general moral foundations were measured, harm did not actually predict their attitudes toward sex work. Instead, fairness predicted support, and purity predicted opposition. Study 2b revealed the same pattern in the abortion context. Participants claimed harm was central to their views, but the real predictors were fairness and purity. This suggests that people may overstate the role of harm in their reasoning.

The experimental studies provided further evidence for strategic use. In Studies 3a and 3b, when participants were told that sex work increased harm and this aligned with their preexisting opposition, they rated harm as highly important. When told that sex work decreased harm, contradicting their position, they downplayed harm and instead emphasized other foundations such as fairness or purity. In other words, people adjusted their moral reasoning to fit and protect their preexisting stance.

Studies 4a and 4b further showed that harm arguments were seen as especially persuasive tools. Both Republicans and Democrats judged harm-based arguments as more convincing than purity- or fairness-based arguments when trying to sway political opponents, underscoring harm’s role as a kind of moral “common denominator.”

Together, these results demonstrate that harm is not necessarily the true driver of people’s views on women’s bodily autonomy but is often used tactically, both to bolster one’s own position and to persuade others.

The authors note that data was collected online and exclusively within the U.S., which may limit how broadly the findings apply to other contexts or offline discussions.

The research, “The Strategic Use of Harm-Based Moral Arguments in the Context of Women’s Bodily Autonomy,” was authored by Thekla Morgenroth, Michelle K. Ryan, Abigael S. Click, and Nadira S. Faber.