The strategic use of harm-based moral arguments in the context of women's bodily autonomy.

IF 6.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-27 DOI:10.1037/pspa0000441
Thekla Morgenroth, Michelle K Ryan, Abigael S Click, Nadira S Faber
{"title":"The strategic use of harm-based moral arguments in the context of women's bodily autonomy.","authors":"Thekla Morgenroth, Michelle K Ryan, Abigael S Click, Nadira S Faber","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Women's bodies have long been the subject of restrictive policies and practices, and the discourse on whether or not these are justified often focuses on a universal moral concern: harm. But are those arguing for or against restrictions on women's bodily autonomy truly as concerned about harm as they claim or is harm also used strategically? In seven studies (total <i>N</i> = 3,431), we find that concerns about harm are a common theme in the discourse around the control of women's bodies (Studies 1-3). However, concerns about harm do not seem to truly underlie views on women's bodily autonomy in all cases (Studies 2a-b and 3a-b). Instead, people strategically adjust their use of harm-based arguments (relative to fairness-based and purity-based arguments) depending on what they regard as useful to justify their preexisting views (Study 3a-b) and to convince others of their own opinion (Study 4a-b). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":"477-495"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000441","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Women's bodies have long been the subject of restrictive policies and practices, and the discourse on whether or not these are justified often focuses on a universal moral concern: harm. But are those arguing for or against restrictions on women's bodily autonomy truly as concerned about harm as they claim or is harm also used strategically? In seven studies (total N = 3,431), we find that concerns about harm are a common theme in the discourse around the control of women's bodies (Studies 1-3). However, concerns about harm do not seem to truly underlie views on women's bodily autonomy in all cases (Studies 2a-b and 3a-b). Instead, people strategically adjust their use of harm-based arguments (relative to fairness-based and purity-based arguments) depending on what they regard as useful to justify their preexisting views (Study 3a-b) and to convince others of their own opinion (Study 4a-b). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

在女性身体自主的背景下策略性地使用基于伤害的道德论点。
长期以来,妇女的身体一直是限制性政策和做法的主题,而关于这些政策和做法是否合理的讨论往往集中在一个普遍的道德问题上:伤害。但是,那些支持或反对限制女性身体自主权的人是否真的像他们所说的那样关注伤害,还是伤害也被策略性地利用了呢?在七项研究(总人数 = 3,431)中,我们发现对伤害的关注是围绕控制女性身体的讨论中的一个共同主题(研究 1-3)。然而,在所有情况下,对伤害的担忧似乎并不是妇女身体自主观点的真正基础(研究 2a-b 和 3a-b)。相反,人们会根据他们认为对证明自己已有观点的合理性(研究 3a-b)和说服他人接受自己观点(研究 4a-b)的有用性,有策略地调整伤害性论据(相对于公平性论据和纯洁性论据)的使用。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信