Concerning Europe, the lay public, mainly in Central regions, still lacks information about what surrogacy is and how the process works in practice. It is one of the most controversial methods of assisted reproduction precisely because it goes against traditional social norms and ideas about the conception of life. The main aim of our study was to map the social representations of lay people that are formed in internet discussions. We focused on discussion forums over a time span of the last 10 years, from 2013 to 2022. We were also interested in whether perceived risks or benefits formed the core of social representations. Through a reflexive thematic analysis, we identified two distinct constructions of social representations of surrogacy, finding that value settings in terms of liberalism and conservatism appear to have the greatest influence on the anchoring and objectification of surrogacy.
AarssenLWAltmanST (2006) Explaining below-replacement fertility and increasing childlessness in wealthy countries: Legacy drive and the “transmission competition” hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology4: 290–302.
2.
ArvidssonAVauqulinePJohnsdotterS, et al (2017) Surrogate mother – praiseworthy or stigmatized: A qualitative study on perceptions of surrogacy in Assam, India. Global Health Action10(1): 1328890.
3.
BearthASiegristM (2016) Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: A meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology49: 14–23.
4.
BieńkowskaA (2019) The conservative turn in Poland: Social policy and gender ideology. Critical Social Policy39(4): 516–534.
5.
BoeufB (2019) Political ideology and health risk perceptions of food. Social Science & Medicine236: 112405.
6.
BottiniMRosatoNGloriaF, et al (2011) Public optimism towards nanomedicine. International Journal of Nanomedicine6: 3473–3485.
7.
BrandãoPGarridoN (2022) Commercial surrogacy: An overview. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia44(12): 1141–1158.
8.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
9.
BraunVClarkeV (2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health11(4): 589–597.
10.
BraunVClarkeV (2021a) Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research21: 37–47.
11.
BraunVClarkeV (2021b) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?Qualitative Research in Psychology18(3): 328–352.
12.
BryantCJBarnettJC (2019) What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite137: 104–113.
13.
CacciatoreMAScheufeleDACorleyE (2011) From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science20(3): 385–404.
14.
CampbellKOrrEDureposP, et al (2021) Reflexive thematic analysis for applied qualitative health research. The Qualitative Report 202126(6): 2011–2028.
15.
ChomaBLHanochYHodsonG, et al (2014) Risk propensity among liberals and conservatives: The effect of risk perception, expected benefits, and risk domain. Social Psychological and Personality Science5(6): 713–721.
DeekshithaRI (2015) The role of media in spreading awareness of surrogacy/surrogate mother. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development4(4): 212–218.
18.
ErdősováA (2016) Aktuálne otázky o človeku a jeho právach v bioetike. Bratislava: Wolters Kluwer.
19.
FarrRMoscoviciS (1984) Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
FlickU (2000) Qualitative inquiries into social representations of health. Journal of Health Psychology5(3): 315–324.
21.
FreedenM (2019) Social liberalism. In: FormanRKCKøppeT (eds) Handbook of Political Ideologies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.207–219.
22.
HunterJD (1991) Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York, NY: Basic Books.
23.
JadvaV (2003) Surrogacy: The experiences of surrogate mothers. Human Reproduction18(10): 2196–2204.
24.
JadvaVImrieSGolombokS (2015) Surrogate mothers 10 years on: A longitudinal study of psychological wellbeing and relationships with the parents and child. Human Reproduction30(2): 373–379.
25.
KahnSM (1997) Reproducing Jews: The social uses and cultural meanings of the new reproductive technologies in Israel. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.
26.
KalmijnMKraaykampG (2016) Political context and attitudes towards immigration in the Netherlands, 1990–2010. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies42(10): 1590–1611.
27.
Kirkman-BrownJCMartinsMV (2020) ‘Genes versus children’: If the goal is parenthood, are we using the optimal approach?Human Reproduction35(1): 5–11.
28.
KleinpeterCHHohmanMM (2000) Surrogate motherhood: Personality traits and satisfaction with service providers. Psychological Reports87(3): 957–970.
29.
LambaNJadvaVKadamK, et al (2018) The psychological well-being and prenatal bonding of gestational surrogates. Human Reproduction33(4): 646–653.
MoscoviciS (1973) Foreword. In: HerzlichC (ed.) Health and Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis. London: Academic Press, pp.ix–xiv.
34.
MoscoviciS (1998) The history and actuality of social representations. In: FlickU (Ed.) The Psychology of the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.209–247.
35.
MoscoviciS (2000) Social Representations – Explorations in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
36.
OlofssonAÖhmanSRashidS (2006) Attitudes to gene technology: The significance of trust in institutions. European Societies8(4): 601–624.
37.
PapaligouraZPapadatouDBellaliT (2015) Surrogacy: The experience of Greek commissioning women. Women Birth28: e110–e118.
38.
PatelAKumarASharmaPSNV (2020) “The miracle mothers and marvelous babies”: Psychosocial aspects of surrogacy – a narrative review. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences13(2): 89–99.
39.
PengL (2013) Surrogate mothers: An exploration of the empirical and the normative. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law21(3): 555–582.
40.
PidgeonNHerr HarthornBBryantK, et al (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology4: 95–98.
41.
PrägPMillsMC (2017) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe: Usage and regulation in the context of cross-border reproductive care. In: KreyenfeldMKonietzkaD (eds) Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences. Demographic Research Monographs (A series of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research). Cham: Springer, pp.289–309.
42.
PurohitRMittalADalelaS, et al (2017) Social, environmental and ethical impacts of nanotechnology. Materials Today: Proceedings4: 5461–5467.
43.
RateauPMolinerPGuimelliC, et al (2012) Social Representation Theory, vol. 2. London: Sage, pp.477–497.
44.
RiggsDWDueC (2012) Representations of surrogacy in submissions to a parliamentary inquiry in New South Wales. Society for Philosophy and Technology Quarterly Electronic Journal16(1): 71–84.
45.
RobertsonJA (1983) Surrogate mothers: Not so novel after all. The Hastings Center Report13(5): 28–34.
46.
SchoverLR (2014) Cross-border surrogacy: The case of Baby Gammy highlights the need for global agreement on protections for all parties. Fertility and Sterility102(5): 1258–1259.
47.
SegersSPenningsGMetersH (2019) Getting what you desire: The normative significance of genetic relatedness in parent–child relationships. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy16: 71–84.
48.
Söderström-AnttilaVWennerholmU-BLoftA, et al (2016) Surrogacy: Outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families-a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update22(2): 260–276.
49.
StennerP (2021) A feast of liminal experiences and expressions. In: WagonerBZittounT (eds) Experience on the Edge: Theorizing Liminality. Cham: Springer, pp.173–196.
50.
SterlingJJostJTHardinCD (2019) Liberal and conservative representations of the good society: A (social) structural topic modeling approach. Sage Open9(2): 2158244019846211.
51.
TemanE (2003) The medicalization of “nature” in the “artificial body”: Surrogate motherhood in Israel. Medical Anthropology Quarterly17(1): 78–98.
52.
Van den AkkerO (2000) The importance of a genetic link in mothers commissioning a surrogate baby in the UK. Human Reproduction15(8): 1849–1855.
53.
Van Den AkkerO (2005) A longitudinal pre-pregnancy to post-delivery comparison of genetic and gestational surrogate and intended mothers: Confidence and genealogy. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology26(4): 277–284.
54.
Van den AkkerO (2007) Psychological aspects of surrogate motherhood. Human Reproduction13: 53–62.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
