In this study, we examined how sexual objectification, abortion circumstance, and sexist attitudes interacted to affect abortion stigma and dehumanization of women who have abortions. A total of 237 participants were randomly assigned to a vignette depicting a woman who was either (a) sexually objectified or (b) not sexually objectified and who sought an abortion in either (a) a typical circumstance (i.e., ill timed) or (b) an exceptionalized circumstance (i.e., fetal anomaly). Results indicated that in typical abortion circumstances, women who have abortions are at risk of dehumanization, regardless of whether they are seen as sexual objects. In contrast, exceptionalized conditions may yield humanizing effects for women who have abortions, unless they are seen as sexual objects. Furthermore, participants with moderate and high levels of hostile sexism judged women who have abortions more harshly: they believed that the woman deserved more punishment for having an abortion for typical reasons compared to having an abortion for exceptionalized reasons. Results also suggested that women who have abortions for more typical reasons may be granted less moral patiency (i.e., moral concern), regardless of sexual objectification. However, under exceptionalized circumstances, sexual objectification diminished perceptions of moral patiency among participants with moderate and high levels of hostile sexism. In short, our findings suggest that sexual objectification, abortion circumstance, and hostile sexism operate concomitantly to affect how women who have abortions are evaluated and perceived.
Watson et al. (2026) studied this question.