The psychological reason news reports single out women and children

The phrase “women and children” creates a specific image in the mind of a news consumer. It appears frequently in headlines covering war, natural disasters, and humanitarian crises. A new study published in the journal Cognition suggests that this wording is not merely a descriptive habit of journalists. The research reveals that highlighting these specific groups amplifies a psychological response known as moral outrage. The findings indicate that this reaction relies heavily on traditional views regarding gender roles rather than a simple instinct to protect the vulnerable.

In the modern media landscape, news organizations compete fiercely for engagement. Reporters and editors often frame stories to elicit a strong emotional reaction from the audience. Psychologists recognize that different types of victims trigger different levels of sympathy. The researchers behind this new work wanted to understand if grouping women with children alters how observers judge a tragedy. They focused on moral outrage, which is distinct from empathy. While empathy involves feeling the pain of a victim, moral outrage is an anger directed at a perpetrator. It is a mobilizing emotion that drives people to want to punish wrongdoers.

The study was conducted by Anastasiia D. Grigoreva Crean, Stella F. Lourenco, and Arber Tasimi. They are researchers affiliated with the Department of Psychology at Emory University. They sought to determine if the phrase “women and children” is a rhetorical tool that effectively manipulates moral judgment. They also investigated why adult women might elicit a protective response similar to that afforded to young children.

The investigation involved six distinct experiments with over 3,000 participants. In the first experiment, the team presented participants with a short news article describing a bombing during the Syrian Civil War. The text was identical for everyone, except for the headline and a sentence specifying the victims. One group read about “women and children,” while another group read a baseline version that did not specify the demographic of the victims.

The results showed a clear divide in emotional responses. Participants who read about “women and children” reported higher levels of moral outrage. They were more likely to agree that the perpetrators were “despicable” and deserved severe punishment. The researchers considered whether this reaction was due to a misunderstanding of the facts. It is possible that the phrase leads people to believe that a larger number of people died.

Free daily newsletter

To test this, the team asked participants to estimate the number of casualties based on the article. The data showed that highlighting women and children did not cause people to overestimate the death toll. The participants knew the numbers were the same, yet their anger was more intense when the victims were identified as women and children. This proved that the identity of the victims, not the scale of the loss, drove the emotional response.

The researchers next tested whether the effect was simply due to identifying any specific group. They compared the phrase “women and children” against the term “civilians.” The label “civilian” already implies that the victims are innocent non-combatants. If the outrage was solely about the violation of rules of war, both groups should elicit similar reactions. The study found that “women and children” still generated more outrage than “civilians.” This suggested that gender and age carry specific moral weight that exceeds the general status of a bystander.

A pivotal moment in the research came during the third experiment. The team attempted to isolate the two components of the phrase. It is widely accepted in psychology that children are viewed as the ultimate innocent victims. The researchers hypothesized that the word “children” might be doing all the heavy lifting in the phrase. They separated the groups, presenting stories that highlighted only “women,” only “children,” or “civilians.”

The findings challenged the assumption that children are unique in their ability to generate outrage. The study revealed that highlighting “women” alone elicited levels of moral outrage comparable to highlighting “children” alone. Both groups generated more anger than the “civilians” condition. This implied that adult women are afforded a moral status similar to that of children in the context of victimization.

The researchers then sought to pinpoint the source of this “moral pull” for women. A common cultural narrative suggests that women are valued primarily as mothers. If this were true, the outrage might stem from the disruption of the maternal bond. To test this theory, the team created narratives involving parents versus students. They contrasted “civilians who were mothers” and “civilians who were fathers” with “students who were young women” and “students who were young men.”

The analysis showed that parenthood was not the deciding factor. Women elicited more moral outrage than men regardless of whether they were identified as mothers or college students. The “moral pull” appeared to be attached to womanhood itself rather than the role of caregiver. This led the team to investigate the limits of this protection. They asked if all women receive this sympathy or if it is reserved for those who fit a certain mold.

The fifth experiment introduced a condition that challenged traditional gender roles. The researchers compared the reaction to “civilians who were women” against “soldiers who were women.” They also included “soldiers who were men” as a control group. The results highlighted a stark boundary to the sympathy afforded to women. While female civilians triggered high outrage, female soldiers did not.

In fact, the moral outrage in response to the deaths of female soldiers was statistically indistinguishable from the reaction to male soldiers. This suggested that the protection granted to women is conditional. It appears to depend on women conforming to perceived norms of innocence or passivity. When women enter a role associated with aggression or agency, such as military service, they lose the moral advantage usually associated with their gender.

To explain this phenomenon, the researchers looked to a psychological concept called “benevolent sexism.” This is a belief system that does not necessarily view women with hostility. Instead, it views women as pure, refined, and morally superior to men, but also as weaker and in need of male protection. The final experiment measured how strongly participants endorsed these views.

The study found a direct correlation between benevolent sexism and moral outrage. Participants who believed that women have a “superior moral sensibility” were the most outraged by the victimization of women. This correlation vanished when the victims were female soldiers. The data suggests that the “moral pull” of women is a byproduct of sexist attitudes that strip women of agency in exchange for protection.

There are limitations to the study that provide context for these results. The participants were located in the United States. Cultural attitudes toward gender and war vary globally. It is possible that the results would look different in societies with different gender hierarchies. The researchers also note that the study used a conflict in a foreign country as the stimulus. Responses might differ if the victims belonged to the participants’ own national group.

The team also points out that while the phrase “women and children” is effective at grabbing attention, it carries hidden costs. By consistently grouping adult women with children, media narratives reinforce the idea that women are perpetually vulnerable. This framing denies women full moral agency. It paints them as passive subjects rather than active participants in society.

This dynamic creates a double-edged sword. Women who conform to traditional roles receive increased concern during tragedies. However, this same mechanism may lead to a lack of empathy for men, who are viewed as the default agents of violence. It also penalizes women who step outside traditional boundaries, such as those in the military. The researchers suggest that future work should examine the long-term societal consequences of this rhetoric.

The study, “The moral pull of ‘women and children’,” was authored by Anastasiia D. Grigoreva Crean, Stella F. Lourenco, and Arber Tasimi.