Abortion Stigma and Dehumanization as Reproductive Control: The Roles of Sexual Objectification,Abortion Circumstance,and Sexism

Abstract

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.

Keywords

abortion abortion stigma dehumanization objectification theory sexism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bach

W. A.

Wasilczuk

M. K.

(2024). Pregnancy as a crime: A preliminary report on the first year after Dobbs. Scholarly Works, 1042. https://ir.law.utk.edu/utklaw_facpubs/1042/t

Baker

M. R.

Papp

L. J.

Crawford

B. L.

McClelland

S. I.

(2023). Abortion stigma: Imagined consequences for people seeking abortion care in the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 47(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843221131544

Bareket

Fiske

S. T.

(2023). A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles. Psychological Bulletin, 149(11-12), 637–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000400

Begun

Walls

N. E.

(2015). Pedestal or gutter: Exploring ambivalent sexism’s relationship with abortion attitudes. Affilia: Journal of Women & Social Work, 30(2), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109914555216

Bernard

Content

Deltenre

Colin

(2018a). When the body becomes no more than the sum of its parts: The neural correlates of scrambled versus intact sexualized bodies. Neuroreport, 29(1), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/wnr.0000000000000926

Bernard

Gervais

S. J.

Allen

Delmée

Klein

(2015). From sex objects to human beings: Masking sexual body parts and humanization as moderators to women’s objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4), 432–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315580125

Bernard

Rizzo

Hoonhorst

Deliens

Gervais

S. J.

Eberlen

Bayard

Deltenre

Colin

Klein

(2018b). The neural correlates of cognitive objectification: An ERP study on the body inversion effect associated with sexualized bodies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5), 550–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617714582

Bernard

Wollast

(2019). Why is sexualization dehumanizing? The effects of posture suggestiveness and revealing clothing on dehumanization. SAGE Open, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019828230

Bevens

C. L.

Loughnan

(2019). Insights into men’s sexual aggression toward women: Dehumanization and objectification. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 81(11–12), 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01024-0

10.

Biggs

M. A.

Brown

Foster

D. G.

(2020). Perceived abortion stigma and psychological well-being over five years after receiving or being denied an abortion. PLoS ONE, 15(1), e0226417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226417

11.

Bruce

T. C.

Hutchens

Cowan

(2024). The “abortion imaginary”: Shared perceptions of personal representations among everyday Americans. Science Advances, 10(9). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj3135

12.

Buddie

A. M.

Miller

A. G.

(2001). Beyond rape myths: A more complex view of perceptions of rape victims. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 45(3–4), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013575209803

13.

Cockrill

Upadhyay

U. D.

Turan

Greene Foster

(2013). The stigma of having an abortion: Development of a scale and characteristics of women experiencing abortion stigma. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 45(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1363/4507913

14.

Cohen

Bonifield

(2023). Texas woman almost died because she couldn’t get an abortion. CNN Health. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html

15.

Diamant

Mohamed

(2023). What the data says about abortion in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/01/11/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/

16.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization . (2022). F. 3d. 265. No. 19-1392.

17.

Dyer

R. L.

Checkalski

O. R.

Gervais

S. J.

(2023). Abortion decisions as humanizing acts: The application of ambivalent sexism and objectification to women-centered anti-abortion rhetoric. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 47(4), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231173673

18.

Dyer

R. L.

Klessig

C. S. B.

Jiwani

(2025). Beyond dichotomy: An exploratory qualitative analysis of therapists’ abortion attitudes. Women & Therapy, 48(4), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2025.2461577

19.

Field

A. P.

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock’n’roll (4th ed.). Sage.

20.

Fikslin

R. A.

(2021). Toward an intersectional psychological science of reproductive norms: Generating research across the natalism spectrum. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(3), 308–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211011716

21.

Fiske

S. T.

(2013). Varieties of (de)humanization: Divided by competition and status. In Gervais

S. J.

(Ed.), Objectification and (de)humanization: 60th Nebraska symposium on motivation. Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_2

22.

Forman

(2023). After being denied life-saving abortion, Oklahoma woman files hospital complaint. Oklahoma Voice. https://oklahomavoice.com/2023/09/13/after-being-denied-life-saving-abortion-oklahoma-woman-files-hospital-complaint/#:∼:text=Just%20a%20few%20months%20into,her%20fetus%20would%20not%20survive

23.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Roberts

T.-A.

(1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x

24.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

25.

Gray

Knobe

Sheskin

Bloom

Barrett

L. F.

(2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025883

26.

Guttmacher Institute. (2024). One in four US women expected to have an abortion in their lifetime. Guttmacher. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2024/one-four-us-women-expected-have-abortion-their-lifetime

27.

Hanschmidt

Linde

Hilbert

Riedel-Heller

S. G.

Kersting

(2016). Abortion stigma: A systematic review. Perspectives in Sexual Reproductive Health, 48(4), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1363/48e8516

28.

Haslam

(2006). Dehumanization: An integrated review. Personlity and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4

29.

Haslam

Loughnan

Holland

(2013). The psychology of humanness. In Gervais

S. J.

(Ed.), Objectification and (de)humanization: 60th Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 25–51). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_2

30.

Haycraft Mee

(2025). Prolific: Setting standards for authentic human data collection. Prolific. https://www.prolific.com/resources/prolific-setting-standards-for-authentic-human-data-collection

31.

Hayes

A. F.

(2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.

32.

Heflick

N. A.

Goldenberg

J. L.

(2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 598–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008

33.

Heflick

N. A.

Goldenberg

J. L.

Cooper

D. P.

Puvia

(2011). From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.020

34.

Holland

Haslam

(2013). Worth the weight: The objectification of overweight versus thin targets. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(4), 462–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312474800

35.

Huang

Osborne

Sibley

C. G.

Davies

P. G.

(2014). The precious vessel: Ambivalent sexism and opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 71(11-12), 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0423-3

36.

Hunt

M. E.

(2019). Shifting abortion attitudes using an empathy-based media intervention: A randomized controlled study [Graduate theses and dissertations]. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/3256

37.

Jozkowski

K. N.

LaRoche

K. J.

Solon

Crawford

B. L.

Turner

R. C.

W. J.

(2021). Using the reasoned action approach to guide measurement of abortion beliefs. American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.

38.

Kortsmit

Nguyen

A. T.

Mandel

M. G.

Hollier

L. M.

Ramer

Rodenhizer

Whiteman

M. K.

(2023). Abortion surveillance—United States, 2021. Surveillance Summaries, 72(9), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7209a1

39.

Kumar

(2013). Everything is not abortion stigma. Women's Health Issues: Official Publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, 23(6), e329–e331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2013.09.001

40.

Kumar

Hessini

Mitchell

E. M. H.

(2009). Conceptualising abortion stigma. Culture, Health, & Sexuality, 11(6), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050902842741

41.

Langton

(2009). Autonomy-denial in objectification. In Langton

(Ed.), Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and objectification (pp. 223–240). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199247066.003.0011

42.

Link

B. G.

Phelan

J. C.

(2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

43.

Loughnan

Haslam

Murnane

Vaes

Reynolds

Suitner

(2010). Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(5), 709–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.755

44.

Loughnan

Pina

Vasquez

E. A.

Puvia

(2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(4), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313485718

45.

Mollen

Hargons

Klann

E. M.

Mosley

D. V.

(2018). Abortion knowledge and attitudes among psychologists and graduate students. The Counseling Psychologist, 46(6), 738–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000018795296

46.

Mook

D. G.

(1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379

47.

Moore

(2019). Indignity in unwanted pregnancy: Denial of abortion as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The International Journal of Human Rights, 23(6), 1010–1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1592160

48.

Moradi

Gervais

S. J.

Checkalski

O. R.

Mciltrot

E. A.

(2025). Objectification, sexism, and attitudes about abortion access. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 49(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843251352873

49.

Nolen

Siegel

J. A.

Mendoza

R. R.

Cubbin

Vohra-Gupta

Dosanjh

L. H.

Lewis- Smith

(2024). The impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on young women’s experiences of objectification and sexual well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 48(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843241238174

50.

North

(2019). How the abortion debate moved away from “safe, legal, and rare”. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2019/10/18/20917406/abortion-safe-legal-and-rare-tulsi-Gabbard

51.

Nussbaum

M. C.

(1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x

52.

Osborne

Davies

P. G.

(2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists’ opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x

53.

Osborne

Huang

Overall

N. C.

Sutton

R. M.

Petterson

Douglas

K. M.

Davies

P. G.

Sibley

C. G.

(2022). Abortion attitudes: An overview of demographic and ideological differences. Political Psychology, 43(S1), 29–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12803

54.

O’Shea

Watson

L. B.

(2025). Navigating abortion stigma: Abortion identity centrality, stigma management strategies, and psychological outcomes. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 91(36). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-025-01588-0

55.

Pacilli

M. G.

Giovannelli

Spaccatini

Vaes

Barbaranelli

(2018). Elective abortion predicts the dehumanization of women and men through the mediation of moral outrage. Social Psychology, 49(5), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000351

56.

Pacilli

M. G.

Spaccatini

Pagliaro

Giovannelli

(2024). From “bad” and “good” motivations to abort to “bad” and “good” women: Abortion stigma and backlash against women who interrupt their pregnancy. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 21(2), 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00927-8

57.

Pew Research Center. (2025). Public opinion on abortion. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

58.

Reardon

D. C.

(2018). The embrace of the proabortion turnaway study: Wishful thinking or willful deceptions? Linacre Quarterly, 85(3), 204–2012. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0024363918782156

59.

Roberti

(2021). “Women deserve better:” The use of the pro-woman frame in anti-abortion policies in U.S. States. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 42(3), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2021.1925478

60.

Roberts

T.-A.

Calogero

R. M.

Gervais

S. J.

(2018). Objectification theory: Continuing contributions to feminist psychology. In Travis

C. B.

White

J. W.

Rutherford

Williams

W. S.

Cook

S. L.

Wyche

K. F.

(Eds.), APA handbook of the psychology of women: History, theory, and battlegrounds (pp. 249–271). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000059-013

61.

Rollero

Glick

Tartaglia

(2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence toward Men Inventory. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(2), 149–159.

62.

Ross

(2020). Understanding reproductive justice. In McCann

C. R.

Kim

S.-K.

Ergun

(Eds.), Feminist theory reader: Local and global perspectives (5th ed., pp. 77–82). Routledge.

63.

Ruzzante

Monachesi

Orabona

Vaes

(2022). The Sexual OBjectification and EMotion database: A free stimulus set and norming data of sexually objectified and non-objectified female targets expressing multiple emotions. Behavioral Research Methods, 54(2), 541–555. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01640-3

64.

Rye

B. J.

Underhill

(2020). Pro-choice and pro-life are not enough: An investigation of abortion attitudes as a function of abortion prototypes. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 24(6), 1829–1851. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-020-09723-7#citeas

65.

SisterSong: Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective. (n.d.). Reproductive justice. https://www.sistersong.net/reproductive-justice

66.

Smith

Son

(2013). General Social Survey 2012 final report: Trends in public attitudes towards abortion. National Opinion Research Center.

67.

Spence

J. T.

Helmreich

Stapp

(1973). A short version of the attitudes toward women scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2(4), 219–220. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329252

68.

Tanenbaum

(2017). We’re all sluts now: From Hollywood to Capital Hill, American punishes women who exert sexual agency. U.S News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2017-10-12/harvey-weinstein-birth-control-abortion-and-slut-shaming-american-women

69.

Tracey

T. J. G.

(2016). A note on socially desirable responding. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000135

70.

Ward

L. M.

Daniels

E. A.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

Rosenscruggs

(2023). The sources and consequences of sexual objectification. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2, 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00192-x

71.

Watson

(2018). Why we should stop using the term “elective abortion”. The American Journal of Ethics, 20(12), E1175–E1180. https://doi.org/10.1011/amajethics.2018.1175

72.

Watson

L. B.

Germain

J. M.

(2024). Reproductive justice in the post-Roe v. Wade era: Examining reactions to Dobbs v. Jackson and psychological distress among cisgender women and people assigned female at birth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 48(2), 163–179. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231210219

73.

Weston

Gore

P. A.

Jr . (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345

74.

Wollast

Puvia

Bernard

Tevichapong

Klein

(2018). How sexual objectification generates dehumanization in Western and Eastern cultures: A comparison between Belgium and Thailand. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 77(2), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000209

75.

Woodruff

Ren

Cardenas

Mugol

N. A.

Whalen

Pleasants

(2024). Coverage of abortion in major U.S. newspapers, 2022-2023. Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/Woodruff%20et%20al%202024%2C%20Abortion%20in%20U.S.%20Newspapers%2C%202022-23%2C%20poster%20presentation%20for%20National%20Abortion%20Federation%20annual%20meeting%2C%20April%202024.pdf

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.

0.00 MB

39.81 MB