Researchers from Virginia Tech and Cornell University published a new paper in the Journal of Marketing that examines why people object to bodily markets and how those objections differ for liberals and conservatives.
The study, forthcoming in the Journal of Marketing, is titled “Why is it Wrong to Sell Your Body? Understanding Liberals’ vs. Conservatives’ Moral Objections to Bodily Markets” and is authored by Shreyans Goenka and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer.
Policymakers around the world debate how commercial bodily markets (e.g., prostitution, commercial surrogacy, trade of kidneys, blood plasma, sperm, ovum, and hair) should be regulated. For example, New York state lawmakers are deciding whether to decriminalize prostitution while lawmakers in the Netherlands are considering increasing restrictions on prostitution. This study aims to understand why people object to these markets and how those objections differ for liberals and conservatives. The researchers find that both liberals and conservatives consider bodily markets to be morally wrong; however, they do so for different reasons.
As Goenka explains, “We show that liberals consider bodily markets to be wrong because they can be exploitative. That is, liberals believe that the commercialization of these markets can cause harm to vulnerable people and magnify the entrenched inequality in society. They think that bodily markets can become another means for rich buyers to exploit poor sellers, causing the latter systematic physical, psychological, and economic harm.”
Van Osselaer continues with, “Conservatives consider bodily markets to be wrong because they violate the sanctity of the human body. That is, conservatives believe that the commercialization of these markets places a monetary value on the human body and reduces it to any other commodity. They believe that the inherent sanctity of the divinely created human body is diminished or corrupted when it is bought or sold.”
The researchers conducted five studies to examine liberals’ and conservatives’ moral attitudes towards bodily markets and how socio-political leaders use the different moral objections to persuade their respective audiences. For example, they analyzed church sermons to examine how pastors talk about prostitution and found that relatively conservative pastors tend to emphasize how prostitution violates the sanctity of the human body. Contrastingly, relatively liberal pastors tend to emphasize how prostitution can lead to the exploitation of sellers.
Other findings show:
- How the different moral objections impact the persuasiveness of marketing campaigns designed to influence consumer advocacy. Specifically, liberals were more likely to sign a petition against prostitution when it highlighted exploitation concerns. However, conservatives were more likely to sign a petition against prostitution when it highlighted violation of sanctity concerns.
- How the different moral objections impact the persuasiveness of marketing campaigns designed to increase support towards these markets and to solicit donations. Specifically, liberals were more likely to donate to a campaign to legalize commercial surrogacy when the donation appeal assuaged exploitation concerns. In contrast, conservatives were more likely to donate to a campaign in favor of legalizing commercial surrogacy when the donation appeal assuaged violation of sanctity concerns.
- How liberals and conservatives support different regulatory laws to govern these markets. Liberals support laws that punish the buyers in these markets. On the other hand, conservatives support laws that punish both the buyers and sellers of bodily products.
Overall, the research sheds light on why liberals and conservatives object differently to commercial bodily markets. Consequently, the findings can help policymakers and advocacy groups anticipate reactions to regulatory laws, policy changes, and advocacy actions involving bodily markets.
Full article and author contact information available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429211046936
About the Journal of Marketing
The Journal of Marketing develops and disseminates knowledge about real-world marketing questions useful to scholars, educators, managers, policy makers, consumers, and other societal stakeholders around the world. Published by the American Marketing Association since its founding in 1936, JM has played a significant role in shaping the content and boundaries of the marketing discipline. Christine Moorman (T. Austin Finch, Sr. Professor of Business Administration at the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University) serves as the current Editor in Chief.
About the American Marketing Association (AMA)
As the largest chapter-based marketing association in the world, the AMA is trusted by marketing and sales professionals to help them discover what is coming next in the industry. The AMA has a community of local chapters in more than 70 cities and 350 college campuses throughout North America. The AMA is home to award-winning content, PCM® professional certification, premiere academic journals, and industry-leading training events and conferences.