When is it Okay? The Role of State and Trait Disgust in Attitudes Towards Abortion Patients Under Different Circumstances

When is it Okay? The Role of State and Trait Disgust in Attitudes Towards Abortion Patients Under Different Circumstances | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article When is it Okay? The Role of State and Trait Disgust in Attitudes Towards Abortion Patients Under Different Circumstances Gabriella Petruzzello, Natalia Mindowicz, Keith Jones This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6637729/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Introduction. A multitude of personal and contextual factors influence people’s attitudes towards abortion access and abortion patients. This study examines the role of state and trait disgust and abortion context as key factors impacting people’s evaluations of abortion patients. Methods. Across two experimental studies (total N = 415), participants were primed to experience no (Study 1 only), low, or high disgust, followed by one of three abortion stories with differing rationales (medical emergency, socio-economic, family planning). Moderated regressions with covariates examined the predictive effects of abortion context with either state or trait sexual disgust on target judgments. Mediation analyses further probed the effect of trait sexual disgust on abortion attitudes. Results. Although state sexual disgust did not influence attitudes towards the abortion patients, mediation analyses demonstrated that political orientation mediated the link between trait sexual disgust and judgments of target abortion patients and partially mediated the link between trait sexual disgust and general abortion attitudes. Target abortion patients in the medical condition received significantly less blame, more sympathy and warmth, and a higher perceived moral character compared to patients in the socio-economic or family planning conditions, illustrating the interpersonal stigma that certain abortions continue to yield. Conclusion. These studies show the limited effect of disgust beyond that of political orientation on evaluations of abortion patients. Research implications center around the heightened stigmatization of certain abortion contexts and the role of amplifying factors, including political orientation and disgust. Policy Implications. Findings have practical implications for sex educators, counselors, and political organizers. abortion attitudes disgust sensitivity abortion stigma sexual disgust moral judgment abortion context Figures Figure 1 Introduction In 2024, an estimated 1,031,090 clinician-provided abortions occurred in U.S. states where abortion remains legal (Guttmacher, 2025). Worldwide, it is estimated that 73 million abortions occur every year (World Health Organization, 2024). Although abortion care is increasingly being recognized as a reproductive and human right (Fine et al., 2017) and a common health intervention (World Health Organization, 2024), it has been subjected to significant politicization in the form of bans, restrictions, and stigma (Jozkowski et al., 2023b; Monchalin et al., 2023; Pacilli et al., 2024). Since January 2024, an estimated 5,519 abortion-related legislative actions aimed at restricting or banning abortion have been introduced in the United States (Guttmacher, 2025). Given the prevalence of abortion and the increasingly precarious legal and social climate surrounding it, research is needed to better understand the interpersonal and contextual factors that contribute to the stigmatization of abortion patients. Indeed, emotional factors are implicated in many judgements around abortion and have the potential to unlock new insights with regard to attitudes towards abortion. We are especially interested in the relationship between disgust sensitivity and perceptions of abortion patients, an area of work that has received little attention to date. This study investigated the influence of state and trait disgust on attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion patients, as well as the role of contextual factors in shaping these perceptions. Contextual Factors and Abortion Attitudes Public opinion surveys consistently report marked variability in support for abortion, largely depending on the circumstances in which an abortion is sought. Polls conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) reveal that approximately 60% of people support legal abortion without exception, with this figure increasing following the overturn of Roe v. Wade (NORC, 2024). However, support for abortion tends to decline as gestational age advances and becomes increasingly contingent on information about the specific reasons for seeking an abortion (Bueno et al., 2023; Crawford et al., 2022; Doherty, 2022; Saad, 2023). Much of the research on abortion attitudes adopts a legal framework to explore how different circumstances influence public opinions on the legality and accessibility of abortion. When asked about support for abortion legality across six specific scenarios (e.g., health risks, birth defects) in the General Social Survey, respondents demonstrated considerable nuance in their attitudes. Whereas 40% consistently endorsed legality and 10% opposed legality across all scenarios, 50% expressed conditional support, believing abortion should be legal in some situations but not others (Jozkowski et al., 2018). This pattern indicates that abortion attitudes often transcend the traditional “pro-choice” versus “pro-life” dichotomy. A substantial proportion of people would be better classified as situationists, meaning that their support for abortion varies depending on the circumstances (Norrander & Wilcox, 2023; Rye & Underhill, 2020). Furthermore, Jozkowski and colleagues (2018) found that affording respondents with the opportunity to provide open-ended justifications for their views led to articulations of acceptable or unacceptable abortion circumstances that often differed from their self-identified abortion stance. For example, some individuals who identified as pro-choice endorsed limitations to legality under certain circumstances, while others who identified as pro-life acknowledged circumstances under which abortion should be available (Jozkowski et al., 2018). Decades of research demonstrate that public perceptions of abortion are deeply influenced by the perceived cause of pregnancy and the autonomy involved in the abortion decision. Situations perceived as involving external causes, such as sexual assault or medical complications, elicit greater public sympathy, higher support for abortion, and stronger beliefs that the government should assist the pregnant person. In contrast, person-centered reasons (e.g., financial instability, not wanting more children) evoke higher levels of blame, anger, and moral outrage, while reducing support for abortion, willingness to personally help the pregnant person, and belief in government assistance (Zucker, 1999; Pacilli et al., 2024; Peng & Huang, 2022; Pérez et al., 2025; Rye & Underhill, 2019; Young et al., 2020). Polling data corroborate this pattern: abortion circumstances perceived as uncontrollable receive substantially more public support than those perceived as stemming from personal choice. For instance, 87% of respondents supported abortion when the health of the pregnant person was endangered, whereas support was lower when the family had very low income and could not support more children (47%) or when a married woman did not want any more children (49%; Bowman & Goldstein, 2021). These findings have been replicated in research conducted by Jozkowski and colleagues (2018; 2023a). Taken together, these findings demonstrate the significant role of circumstance in shaping attitudes about abortion. Disgust and Abortion Attitudes Although context is a powerful determinant of abortion attitudes, individual factors such as emotional experiences play a key role in support or opposition to abortion. Disgust is one such factor that warrants further investigation as state and trait disgust play critical roles in the formation and maintenance of political and social attitudes (Adams et al., 2014; Inbar & Pizarro, 2022). Disgust is an emotion that is characterized by feelings of aversion to stimuli that are perceived as offensive or contaminating (Rozin et al., 2008). While disgust can be experienced as a transient feeling, disgust sensitivity is a personality trait that describes the level and frequency of aversive reactions to sexual, pathogen, and moral violations (Tybur et al., 2009), making it especially pertinent to the study of attitudes toward abortion. A clear gap in the literature exists regarding the link between state and trait disgust and attitudes towards specific abortion patients and circumstances. Research has only recently begun to investigate the nuanced role of state and trait disgust in contributing to abortion attitudes (e.g., Merlici et al., 2024; Patev et al., 2019). Disgust tends to amplify the need to protect the physical and spiritual self from tainting influences and predicts condemnation of “impure” behaviors (Donner et al., 2023; Horberg et al., 2009; Wagemans et al., 2017) and is implicated in a number of stigmas around sexuality, including same-sex marriage, casual sex, and pornography (Koleva et al., 2012). For instance, people who are perceived as threats to sexual morality (e.g., sexually active individuals, pro-choice activists) are viewed more negatively by individuals high in disgust sensitivity (Crawford et al., 2014). The respective role of state disgust in shaping abortion attitudes is less well understood, but it tends to show a limited effect. Although abortion was not included in the study (Horberg et al., 2009), experimentally inducing disgust increased condemnation of behaviors with purity violations and increased approval for behaviors upholding standards of purity. In contrast, exposure to a disgusting odorant was not related to decreased support for abortion (Adams et al., 2014), and individuals who have a strong disgust response are not more likely to oppose abortion than individuals with a weaker response (Smith et al., 2011). In another study, participant exposure to attitudinally relevant disgust images or incidental disgust images was not related to changes in abortion attitudes (Wisneski & Skitka, 2017). A theoretical review of the disgust literature shows that dispositional or trait disgust was consistently more predictive of social judgments compared to induced disgust (Inbar & Pizarro, 2022). One study found that pathogen, sexual, and moral disgust sensitivity were predictive of abortion attitudes and self-stigmatizing beliefs toward abortion, as mediated by right-wing authoritarianism (Merlici et al., 2024). Likewise, a mediational relationship of benevolent sexism and right-wing authoritarianism was found between sexual disgust and abortion stigmatizing beliefs (Patev et al., 2019). Other researchers have shown relationships between trait disgust sensitivity and general abortion attitudes (Inbar et al., 2009; Kam & Estes, 2016; Smith et al., 2011; Terrizzi Jr. et al., 2010), socio-sexuality (Hlay et al., 2022), and physical and sexual purity (Brenner & Inbar, 2015). Although disgust sensitivity broadly is related to abortion attitudes, larger correlations are found between sexual disgust, or the aversion to certain sex-related stimuli, and abortion attitudes, compared to moral or pathogen disgust (Merlici et al., 2024). All things considered, disgust offers a novel avenue for understanding the stigmatization of abortion patients and the polarization of abortion attitudes. Whereas past research has demonstrated a general link between disgust sensitivity and abortion attitudes, this study seeks to extend these findings by understanding how sexual disgust has the potential to contribute to negative attitudes towards individual abortion patients. Rather than focusing solely on attitudes towards abortion access and legalization, this study will investigate the potential of sexual disgust to contribute to negative perceptions of abortion patients as a function of the situational context surrounding the abortion. Individual Predictors of Abortion Attitudes As with the influence of contextual or emotional factors, other individual factors, particularly religiosity and political orientation, also emerge as predictors of support for or opposition to abortion and subsequent stigma of abortion patients. Religiosity appears frequently in the literature (e.g., Adamczyk & Valdimarsdóttir, 2018; Barringer et al., 2020; Dozier et al., 2020; Dutta et al., 2024; Hout et al., 2022; Jozkowski et al., 2018; Milmine & Fetner, 2024; Osborne et al., 2022; PRRI, 2022; Rye & Underhill, 2019) and tends to be most predictive of stringent abortion attitudes among White evangelical Protestants compared to other major religions in the United States (Hout et al., 2022; Pew Research Center, 2024). This trend merits further investigation, however, to understand how religiosity relates to both broad and specific dimensions of abortion attitudes. Religiosity is a complex phenomenon with wide variability in beliefs, values, and approaches to social issues. Additionally, political orientation serves as a powerful determinant of abortion attitudes and has grown increasingly influential since the 1990s (Deckman et al., 2023; Hout et al., 2022; Osborne et al., 2022; Pérez et al., 2025; Poteat & Mereish, 2012). Although abortion attitudes may appear relatively stable overall, this stability conceals divergent partisan trends: support has decreased over time among Republicans, while increasing over time among Democrats (Deckman et al., 2023; Jozkowski et al., 2021; Saad, 2023). Currently, an overwhelming majority of conservative Republicans (73%) say that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, compared to just 4% of liberal Democrats (Pew Research Center, 2024). Furthermore, Democrats’ abortion attitudes are becoming more absolute, with growing support for abortion regardless of circumstances. In contrast, Republicans tend to adopt a more situationally contingent approach to abortion support (Jozkowski et al., 2021). Given the importance of religiosity and political polarization in shaping abortion attitudes, this study will seek to control these factors and their accompanying attitudinal polarization to better understand the novel potential of disgust sensitivity. The Current Research Across two studies, this research investigated the influence of state and trait sexual disgust on perceptions of warmth, sympathy, and moral character of a hypothetical abortion patient in medical emergency, socio-economic, and family planning contexts. The second study also examined attributions of responsibility. Religiosity, political orientation, and abortion attitude strength were included as covariates based on their consistent implications in the literature. Abortion attitude strength was included to account for the heightened strength of abortion attitudes that frequently accompany partisan polarization. The experimental manipulations of state disgust and abortion context allow for causal conclusions into contextual and state-level factors that shift judgments about abortion patients. Furthermore, the link between trait sexual disgust sensitivity and abortion attitudes was investigated to better understand how an individual’s aversion to certain sexual behaviors related to their attitudes about abortion. To replicate past research, this study assessed direction and strength of the link between sexual disgust and general abortion attitudes, including general warmth towards abortion patients and general support for abortion restrictions. Additionally, this study constitutes the first investigation of how trait sexual disgust relates to attitudes towards specific abortion patients as a function of the contexts surrounding the abortion. The findings from this study will inform what is known about the role of state and trait disgust on context-specific abortion attitudes and provide necessary nuance to the interpersonal judgements of abortion patients beyond just support for the legality of abortion. Based on previous research, the following hypotheses were formulated regarding the associations between abortion context and state and trait disgust. H 1 : An abortion patient depicted in the medical emergency condition will be rated more warmly, elicit more sympathy, and have a higher perceived moral character compared to the patients depicted in the socio-economic or family planning conditions. H 2 : Both state (no, low, and high) and trait disgust will be related to target judgements, such that higher state or trait sexual disgust will be related to more negative perceptions of abortion patients (i.e., lower warmth, sympathy, and perceived moral character) compared to participants with lower state or trait sexual disgust. Study 1 Method Participants A sample of 165 participants aged 18 to 54 ( M = 32.79, SD = 9.13) who resided in the United States were recruited through the online crowdsourcing platform Prolific®. Participants were mostly White (68.5%, n = 113), identified as female (59.4%, n = 98), and politically liberal (69.1%, n = 114). Just over half of participants held a bachelor's degree (43%, n = 71) or higher (12.7%, n = 21). Participants held mixed religious affiliations, with the most prevalent being Christian (29.7%, n = 49), agnostic (23.6%, n = 39), and atheist (15.8%, n = 26). See Table 1 for participant characteristics. Procedure Participants were informed that they would complete a study on the role of emotions in social attitudes that would require them to read a paragraph about an intimate relationship and answer questions about a social issue. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three state sexual disgust conditions (no disgust, low disgust, high disgust) and one of three abortion contexts (medical emergency, socio-economic, and family planning). Participants reported their judgements of a vignette target seeking an abortion and indicated their general support and attitudes about abortion. Participants then completed a brief cognitive resetting task to minimize the influence of the experimental conditions on their responses to measures of trait sexual disgust and religiosity. Finally, participants completed demographic information indicating their political orientation, abortion attitude strength and identity, age, education level, racial identity, religious affiliation, and gender identity. Following responses, participants received an informational debriefing form on the purpose and goals of the study and were compensated for their time in line with Prolific’s standards. This study was approved in full by the authors’ Institutional Review Board. Materials State Sexual Disgust Primes All participants read one of three vignettes designed to induce low, high, or no state disgust. The vignettes described either a woman who is reflecting on how happy she is with her husband and looks forward to spending time with him (control), a woman feeling sexually attracted to her husband and looking forward to having sex with him (low disgust), or a woman at her husband’s funeral feeling sexually aroused by his corpse and wishing to have sex with it (high disgust). Participants then described how disgusting they perceived the situation they had just read using a seven-point scale from 1 ( Not at all Disgusting ) to 7 ( Extremely Disgusting ) as a manipulation check. Complete materials can be found at (OSF link not included for review). Abortion Scenario Participants read one of three abortion scenarios modified from Watts ( 2020 ). These vignettes described a woman who had two children and found out she was pregnant and subsequently decided to have an abortion either because (1) her chemotherapy treatment and health would be harmed by the unplanned pregnancy (medical emergency condition), (2) her financial future would be jeopardized by the unplanned pregnancy (socio-economic condition), or (3) because she did not want any more children (family planning condition). These vignettes provide greater accuracy of the circumstances surrounding abortion decision making, with a large portion of abortion patients already having children and choosing an abortion to maintain economic or future stability for their existing children (Beumer et al., 2025 ; Biggs et al., 2013 ). Person Perceptions Participants rated their perceptions of the vignette target across three dimensions: warmth, sympathy, and moral character. Specifically, they rated how warmly they felt towards the target on a seven-point scale from 1 ( Extremely Cold ) to 7 ( Extremely Warm ). They rated their level of sympathy towards the target on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 ( No Sympathy ) to 7 ( Maximum Sympathy ), and evaluated the target’s moral character, on a scale from 1 ( Extremely Bad Moral Character ) to 7 ( Extremely Good Moral Character ). General Support for Abortion Access Participants reported their overall warmth towards people who receive an abortion on a seven-point scale from 1 ( Extremely Cold ) to 7 ( Extremely Warm ), and their general support for abortion restrictions, with six response options corresponding to those used by the Pew Research Center: 1 ( Legal in all cases with no exceptions ), 2 ( Legal in all cases with exceptions ), 3 ( Legal in most cases ), 4 ( Illegal in most cases ), 5 ( Illegal in all cases with exceptions ), 6 ( Illegal in all cases with no exceptions ; Pew Research Center, 2022 ). Cognitive Resetting Task Participants completed a cognitive resetting task before completing the dispositional measures to reduce any residual effects of the disgust primes. For this task, participants engaged with ten landscape photos with instructions to count the number of photos depicting mountains and the number of photos depicting water. Some photos depicted both mountains and water. Trait Sexual Disgust Participants completed the seven-item Sexual Disgust subscale of the twenty-one-item Three Domains of Disgust Scale (TDDS; Tybur et al., 2009 ), which is a scale intended to measure disgust sensitivity in the sexual, pathogen, and moral domains using a seven-point scale from 1 ( Not at All Disgusting) to 7 ( Extremely Disgusting). Example items from this subscale include “hearing two strangers have sex” and “watching a pornographic video.” Research generally finds internal consistency above .80 for each factor, as well as strong reliability over time (Tybur et al., 2009 ; Olatunji et al., 2012 ). Only the sexual disgust subscale was used in this study and demonstrated an acceptable level of internal consistency (a = .75). Religiosity The Duke Religiosity Scale (DUREL; Koenig & Büssing, 2010 ) is a five-item measure assessing overall religiosity that captures organizational religious activity, non-organizational religious activity, and intrinsic religiosity. Items include “How often do you attend church or other religious meetings?” and “In my life, I experience the presence of the Divine (i.e., God).” Responses for the first two items were collected on a six-point scale ranging from 1 ( Never ) to 6 ( More Than Once a Week ) and on a five-point scale for the remaining items ranging from 1 ( Definitely Not True) to 5 ( Definitely True of Me) . Internal consistency was excellent (α = .94). Political Affiliation Participants reported their political affiliation using two items measuring economic and social ideology. Participants were asked “How liberal or conservative do you tend to be when it comes to [social/economic] policy.” Responses were collected on a six-point scale ranging from 1 ( Strongly Liberal ) to 6 ( Strongly Conservative ). The average of the two scores was used to assess political affiliation. Responses showed high internal consistency (a = .88). Abortion Attitude Strength and Directionality Abortion attitude strength was measured using a standard three-item measure of attitude strength, personal importance, and attitude certainty (adapted from Haddock et al., 1999 ). Participants rated how they felt about abortion access using a seven-point scale from 1 ( Not at All Strong/Important/Certain ) to 7 ( Extremely Strong/Important/Certain ). Internal consistency was acceptable (a = .78). Participants also reported the directionality of their support on a single item using a six-point scale ranging from 1 ( Strongly Pro-Choice ) to 6 ( Strongly Pro-Life ). Design and Data Analysis First, we conducted hierarchical regressions to investigate whether trait sexual disgust uniquely predicts support for the legality of abortion and judgments of abortion patients in general. Next, a series of moderated multiple regressions examined the effects of state disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on judgments of warmth, sympathy, and moral character for the target abortion patient. Abortion context was categorical with three levels (medical, socio-economic, and family planning) and dummy coded with the medical condition as the reference group. State disgust was also coded categorically with three levels (control, low disgust, high disgust) and dummy coded with the control condition as the reference group. Lastly, a series of moderated multiple regressions examined the effects of trait disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on judgments of warmth, sympathy, and moral character for the target abortion patient. Abortion context was coded in the same way as above. Each model included abortion attitude strength, political orientation, and religiosity as covariates. A priori power calculations for this model with a medium effect size at 80% power required a sample size of 158 for the main effects of disgust and context ( α = .05, f 2 = .15; Faul et al., 2007 ). Study 1 Results Abortion Descriptives The majority of participants were strongly pro-choice (65.5%, n = 108), with an additional 15.2% ( n = 25), identifying as either somewhat or moderately pro-choice, and 9.7% ( n = 16) of participants identifying as either somewhat or moderately pro-life. Another 9.7% identified as strongly pro-life. A high percentage of individuals believed that abortion should be legal in all circumstances with no exceptions (47.9%, n = 79), or legal in all circumstances with some exceptions (24.8%, n = 41), with another 10.9% ( n = 18) endorsing that abortion should be legal in most cases. Collectively, less than a quarter of participants believed that abortion should be illegal in most cases (4.8%, n = 8), illegal in all cases with exceptions (9.7%, n = 16), or illegal in all cases with no exceptions (1.8%, n = 3). Participants tended to feel warmly towards abortion patients, with 66.1% ( n = 109) reporting some level of warmth. About a quarter (22.4%, n = 37) of participants fell in the scale midline of feeling neither cold nor warm, and approximately another tenth (11.5%, n = 19) expressed feeling cold towards women who receive an abortion. Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables are presented in Table 2. State Disgust Validity Check A manipulation check assessed the ability of the disgust primes to effectively induce state disgust. A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect of disgust primes on self-reported disgust, F (2,164) = 501.5, p < .001. Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons test showed that average self-reported disgust was significantly higher in the high disgust prime ( M = 6.27, SD = 1.2) compared to the low disgust ( M = 1.43, SD = 1.1) and control ( M = 1.09, SD = .35) primes with no significant differences between the low and control conditions. Cognitive Resetting Task Validity Check A validity check assessed the effectiveness of the brief cognitive resetting task in eliminating residual effects of state disgust on subsequent measures. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with sexual disgust sensitivity, abortion attitude strength, political orientation, and religiosity as dependent variables and the disgust group as the independent variable showed that no significant differences existed on any of the subsequent dependent variables as a function of the no, low, or high disgust manipulation, ν = .04, F (8, 316) = .78, p = .62. General Abortion Judgements Hierarchical regressions investigated the effect of trait sexual disgust on general abortion attitudes while controlling for political orientation, strength of abortion attitudes, and religiosity. General Warmth The first step with the covariates was significant, F (3, 159) = 30.11, p < .001, R 2 = .36. Political orientation, β = − .30, p < .001, sr 2 = .06, strength of abortion attitudes, β = .29, p < .001, sr 2 = .05, and religiosity, β = − .18, p = .01, sr 2 = .03, were significant covariates. In the second step, trait sexual disgust was not a significant predictor of general warmth towards abortion patients, Δ F (1, 158) = 3.68, p = .06, R 2 = .38. Support for Abortion Restrictions The first step with the covariates was significant, F (3, 159) = 47.36, p < .001, R 2 = .46. Political orientation, β = .33, p < .001, sr 2 = .07, strength of abortion attitudes, β = − .23, p < .001, sr 2 = .04, and religiosity, β = .34, p < .001, sr 2 = .10, were significant covariates. The second step was significant, Δ F (1, 158) = 11.86, p < .001, R 2 = .50, with trait sexual disgust contributing s unique variance, β = .20, p < .001, sr 2 = .04, demonstrating that higher levels of trait disgust sensitivity were related to greater support for abortion restrictions. Abortion Scenario Judgements Sexual State Disgust Moderated multiple regressions were conducted to examine the effects of state disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on judgments of warmth, sympathy, and moral character for the target. Abortion context was categorical with three levels (medical, socio-economic, and family planning), and dummy coded with the medical condition as the reference group. State disgust was also coded categorically with three levels (control, low disgust, high disgust), and dummy coded with the control condition as the reference group. See supplemental materials for Study 1 regression tables. Warmth. The first step with the covariates was significant, F (3, 159) = 15.48, p < .001, R 2 = .23. Political orientation, β = − .32, p < .001, sr 2 = .06, and strength of abortion attitudes, β = .17, p = .04, sr 2 = .02, but not religiosity, were significant covariates. The second step was also significant, Δ F (4, 155) = 4.39, p = .002, R 2 = .31. For abortion context, participants in the medical condition rated targets more warmly compared to those in the socio-economic, β = − .23, p = .003, sr 2 = .03 or the family planning conditions, β = − .30, p < .001, sr 2 = .06. Neither the high nor the low state disgust condition significantly affected warmth ratings relative to the control condition. The third step was not significant, indicating no interaction between abortion context and state disgust. Sympathy. The first step was significant, F (3, 159) = 16.39, p < .001, R 2 = .24. Political orientation, β = − .23, p = .01, sr 2 = .03, strength of abortion attitudes, β = .26, p = .001, sr 2 = .05, and religiosity, β = − .15, p = .050, sr 2 = .02, were significant covariates. The second step was also significant, Δ F (4, 155) = 5.58, p < .001, R 2 = .33. Target patients in the medical condition elicited greater sympathy compared to the socio-economic, β = − .32, p < .001, sr 2 = .07, or the family planning conditions, β = − .31, p < .001, sr 2 = .07. State disgust conditions were not significant. The third step was not significant, indicating no interaction. Moral character. The first step was significant, F (3, 159) = 24.09, p < .001, R 2 = .31. Political orientation, β = − .31, p < .001, sr 2 = .06, strength of abortion attitudes, β = .17, p = .03, sr 2 = .02, and religiosity, β = − .25, p < .001, sr 2 = .05, were significant covariates. The second step was also significant, Δ F (4, 155) = 2.75, p = .03, R 2 = .36. Targets in the medical conditions were perceived to have a higher moral character than those in the socio-economic, β = − .22, p = .005, sr 2 = .03, and the family planning abortion conditions, β = − .21, p = .006, sr 2 = .03. Neither state disgust nor its interaction with abortion context were significant. In short, these analyses clarified the relationship between state sexual disgust and judgements of target abortion patients above and beyond the effect of political orientation, strength of abortion attitudes, and religiosity. Sexual Trait Disgust Moderated multiple regressions examined the effects of trait disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on target judgements. Abortion context was dummy coded as above. For each of the dependent variables, the first step with the covariates and the second step with abortion context were significant, with identical values to the moderated regressions for sexual trait disgust. Warmth. As shown in the state analyses, the first and second steps with the covariates and abortion context were significant. Trait sexual disgust was not significant, nor was its interaction with abortion context in the third step. Sympathy. The first and second steps with the covariates and abortion context were significant. Trait sexual disgust was not significant. The third step was not significant, indicating no interaction. Moral character. The first and second steps with the covariates and abortion context were significant. Neither trait sexual disgust nor its interaction significantly predicted judgements of the target abortion patient’s moral character. This set of analyses examined the relationship between sexual trait disgust sensitivity and judgments of target abortion patients above and beyond the effect of relevant covariates. Study 1 Discussion Overall, the results of Study 1 showed a consistent effect of political orientation, abortion attitude strength, and religiosity on ratings of general warmth towards abortion patients, support for abortion restrictions, and perceptions of a target abortion patient (warmth, sympathy, moral character). Furthermore, target patients who received an abortion in cases of medical emergency elicited greater warmth and sympathy and higher moral character ratings compared to those who received an abortion for socio-economic or family planning reasons. Neither induced disgust nor trait disgust predicted attitudes towards the target after accounting for the influence of the covariates. Trait disgust did significantly predict support for abortion restrictions. Further research with greater power for a small effect size is needed to replicate these findings to strengthen scientific confidence in the lack of a relationship between induced disgust and attitudes towards specific abortion patients. Eliminating the control group, which was rated as equally disgusting to the low disgust group, would allow for greater power to accurately determine the presence or absence of the influence of state disgust on perceptions of a target abortion patient. Regarding trait disgust, research has linked this construct with general support for abortion and its legality but has not been used to predict attitudes towards specific abortion patients. Partially supporting our hypotheses and existing research (Inbar et al., 2009 ; Kam & Estes, 2016 ; Smith et al., 2011 ; Terrizzi Jr. et al., 2010 ), increases in trait disgust were related to increases in support for abortion restrictions and marginally related to decreases in warmth towards abortion patients in general. Of note, our study specifically examined this relationship after controlling for the influence of relevant covariates. Given that research using mediational models of the relationship between trait disgust and abortion attitudes have been recently utilized in the literature (Merlici et al., 2024 ; Patev et al., 2019 ), it should be considered that one of the covariates explaining a significant portion of the variance (political orientation in the case of Study 1) could be diminishing the role of trait disgust on abortion attitudes. Future research should consider a mediational model of political orientation in the relationship between trait disgust sensitivity and abortion attitudes. Study 2 We aimed to replicate the primary results of Study 1 using a new, more politically diverse sample, excluding the control disgust condition, and increasing the number of participants to enhance statistical power and improve the detection of small effect sizes. Additionally, we incorporated a new measure assessing dispositional attributions to examine the level of personal responsibility and blame attributed to the abortion patient relative to situational factors influencing the decision to receive an abortion. The primary design and analyses were the same. Additional exploratory analyses were employed to test a mediational relationship of political orientation between trait sexual disgust and abortion attitudes. Study 2 Methods Participants A sample of 250 participants aged 19 to 54 years old ( M = 36.17, SD = 9.53) from the United States were recruited through the online crowdsourcing platform Prolific®. Participants were mostly White, (72.4%, n = 181), identified as male (49.2%, n = 123), and conservative (51.6%, n = 129). Most participants had begun (21.6%, n = 54) or completed a bachelor's degree (36.0%, n = 90). Participants held mixed religious affiliations, with the most prevalent being Christian (48.8%, n = 122), agnostic (15.6%, n = 39), and atheist (19.2%, n = 48). Compared to Study 1, this sample had greater male and conservative political orientation representation. A complete sample breakdown is included in Table 1. Procedure and Materials Participants completed the same measures and followed the same procedure as Study 1, except for a modification to the sexual disgust state primes and an additional dependent variable of attributions of responsibility. The sexual disgust state primes were modified to remove the no disgust prime/control condition, as the Study 1 manipulation check demonstrated no significant difference in reported disgust between the control and low disgust conditions. The three abortion conditions remained the same. Target judgments were measured in the same way as Study 1, with the addition of attributions of responsibility as a fourth dependent variable. Procedures were approved in full by the author’s Institutional Review Board prior to the onset of the study. Attributions of Responsibility Participants also rated how much responsibility they attributed to the target abortion patient in the decision to terminate the pregnancy from 0 ( No Responsibility ) to 100 ( Complete Responsibility ). Data Analysis Primary analyses replicated Study 1, with additional exploratory analyses examining a mediational model of the relationship between trait disgust sensitivity and abortion attitudes via political orientation. A priori power calculations for this model required a sample size of 244 for small-medium main effects ( f 2 = .20) and 196 for a medium interaction effect ( f 2 = .25) between disgust and context ( α = .05, 1-β = .80; Faul et al., 2007 ). Study 2 Results Descriptives Similar trends in general abortion attitudes were shown as in Study 1, although support for abortion was generally lower given the increase in conservative representation. Slightly less than half of the participants were strongly pro-choice (46.6%, n = 116), with an additional 16% ( n = 40) identifying as either somewhat or moderately pro-choice and 17.2% ( n = 43) of participants identifying as either somewhat or moderately pro-life. Another 20.1% ( n = 50) identified as strongly pro-life. Over a third of individuals believed that abortion should be legal in all circumstances with no exceptions (37.6%, n = 94), or legal in all circumstances with some exceptions (20.4%, n = 51), with another 10.4% ( n = 26) endorsing that abortion should be legal in most cases. Collectively, slightly less than a third of participants believed that abortion should be illegal in most cases (8.0%, n = 20), illegal in all cases with exceptions (14.8%, n = 37), or illegal in all cases with no exceptions (8.8%, n = 22). Participants tended to feel warmly towards women who received an abortion, with 49.8% ( n = 124) of participants reporting some level of warmth. About a quarter (21.7%, n = 54) of participants fell in the scale midline of feeling neither cold nor warm, and approximately another third (28.5%, n = 71) expressed feeling cold towards women who receive an abortion. Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables are presented in Table 3. General Abortion Judgments As with Study 1, hierarchical regressions were conducted to investigate whether sexual disgust predicts general warmth towards abortion patients and support for abortion restrictions. General Warmth The first step with covariates was significant, F (3, 239) = 84.23, p < .001, R 2 = .51. Political orientation, β = − .61, p < .001, sr 2 = .20 and religiosity, β = − .14, p = .02, sr 2 = .01, but not strength of abortion attitudes, were significant covariates in this step. The second step was significant, Δ F (1, 238) = 4.87, p = .03, R 2 = .52, suggesting that trait sexual disgust explained significant unique variance, β = − .11, p = .03, sr 2 = .01, and that individuals higher in trait sexual disgust expressed less warmth towards abortion patients. Support for Abortion Restrictions The first step was significant, F (3, 240) = 95.22, p < .001, R 2 = .54. Political orientation, β = .52, p < .001, sr 2 = .14, and religiosity, β = .29, p < .001, sr 2 = .05, but not strength of abortion attitudes, were significant. The second step was also significant, Δ F (1, 239) = 12.36, p < .001, R 2 = .50, showing that trait sexual disgust contributes significant unique variance, β = .17, p < .001, sr 2 = .02, with individuals higher in trait sexual disgust expressing greater support for abortion restrictions. Abortion Scenario Judgements Sexual State Disgust Mirroring Study 1, moderated multiple regressions examined the effects of state disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on judgments of warmth, sympathy, moral character, and internal attributions for the target. Abortion context was categorical with three levels (medical, socio-economic, and family planning) and dummy coded with the medical condition as the reference group. State disgust was also coded categorically with two levels (low and high disgust). Warmth. The first step with the covariates was significant, F (3, 240) = 42.63, p < .001, R 2 = .35, but political orientation was the only significant predictor, β = − .51, p < .001, sr 2 = .14. The second step was also significant, Δ F (3, 237) = 16.79, p < .001, R 2 = .46. Warmth ratings were significantly higher in the medical condition compared to the socio-economic, β = − .24, p < .001, sr 2 = .04, and the family planning condition, β = − .38, p < .001, sr 2 = .11. State disgust was not significant. The final step was not significant. Sympathy. The first step was significant, F (3, 240) = 30.68, p < .001, R 2 = .28. Only political orientation was significant, β = − .52, p < .001, sr 2 = .14. The second step was also significant, Δ F (3, 237) = 15.99, p < .001, R 2 = .40. The socio-economic, β = − .28, p < .001, sr 2 = .07, and the family planning condition, β = − .38, p < .001, sr 2 = .11, elicited significantly lower sympathy compared to the medical condition. Neither state disgust nor its interaction were significant. Moral character. The first step with the covariates was significant, F (3, 240) = 44.27, p < .001, R 2 = .36, with political orientation as the only significant predictor, β = − .52, p < .001, sr 2 = .14. The second step was also significant, Δ F (3, 237) = 12.85, p < .001, R 2 = .45. Participants in the socio-economic, β = − .28, p < .001, sr 2 = .06, and the family planning condition, β = − .38, p < .001, sr 2 = .11, condition judged the target as significantly less moral than those in the medical emergency condition. State disgust was not significant. The final step was not significant. Attributions. The first step was significant, F (3, 240) = 8.98, p < .001, R 2 = .10, but political orientation was the only significant covariate, β = .23, p = .006, sr 2 = .03. The second step was also significant, Δ F (3, 237) = 20.35, p < .001, R 2 = .29. The socio-economic, β = .33, p < .001, sr 2 = .08, and the family planning conditions, β = .49, p < .001, sr 2 = .18, elicited significantly higher internal attributions compared to the medical emergency condition. No other significant findings were found. Sexual Trait Disgust Moderated multiple regressions examined the effects of trait disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on judgments of warmth, sympathy, moral character, and attributions. Abortion context was dummy coded as above. For each of the dependent variables, the first step with the covariates and the second step with abortion context were significant, with identical values to the moderated regressions for sexual state disgust. Results with sexual trait disgust replicated Study 1. Trait sexual disgust was not related to ratings of warmth, sympathy, moral character, or dispositional attributions of the target abortion patient. There was no interaction between sexual trait disgust and abortion context. Results are shown in Table 4. A full write up can be found in the supplemental materials. Mediational Analyses Mediational analyses using Hayes’ ( 2018 ) PROCESS macro (Model 4) were conducted for both the general abortion attitudes (general warmth, support for abortion restrictions) and vignette-specific variables (warmth, sympathy, moral character, attributions). The model specified sexual disgust sensitivity (X) as the independent variable and political orientation (M) as the mediator. A bootstrap method with 10000 resamples was used to calculate the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the indirect effect. No covariates were placed in the model. General Abortion Judgments General Warmth. For general warmth towards abortion patients, the total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity was significant, b = − .56, SE = .08, t (243) = -6.94, p < .001, [-.72, − .40]. Sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with lower warmth ratings towards abortion patients. The direct effect of sexual disgust on general warmth remained significant after accounting for political orientation, b = − .19, SE = .07, t (243) = -2.80, p = .006, [-.33, − .06]. To examine the mediation, the indirect effect of sexual disgust was tested, for which the bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect was [-.48, − .27], excluding zero, indicating that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between sexual disgust and general warmth towards abortion patients. Overall, political orientation partially mediated the relationship between sexual disgust sensitivity and general warmth towards abortion patients. Support for Abortion Restrictions. The total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity on support for abortion restrictions was significant, b = .60, SE = .07, t (244) = 8.43, p < .001, [.46, .73], showing that sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with greater support for abortion restrictions. The direct effect of sexual disgust on abortion restrictions remained significant after accounting for political orientation, b = .28, SE = .06, t (244) = 4.65, p < .001, [.16, .40]. The bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect excluded zero ([.23, .41]), meaning that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between sexual disgust and support for abortion restrictions. Political orientation partially mediated the relationship between sexual disgust sensitivity and support for abortion restrictions. Vignette-Specific Judgements Warmth. The total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity on warmth ratings was significant, b = − .40, SE = .08, t (244) = -5.01, p < .001, [-.55, − .24], demonstrating that sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with lower ratings of warmth for the target abortion patient. The direct effect of sexual disgust on warmth was not significant after accounting for political orientation, b = − .11, SE = .08, t (244) = -1.45, p = .15, [-.26, .04]. The bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect of political orientation on warmth was [-.40, − .20], excluding zero, signifying that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between sexual disgust and warmth towards the target abortion patient (see Fig. 1). Additionally, moderated mediation models confirmed the moderating effect of abortion context in these mediating relationships (see Supplemental materials for more information). Sympathy. An identical mediational procedure to the warmth dependent variable was implemented. The total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity on sympathy ratings was significant, b = − .41, SE = .08, t (243) = -4.91, p < .001, [-.57, − .24], demonstrating that sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with lower sympathy for abortion patients. The direct effect of sexual disgust on sympathy was not significant after accounting for political orientation, b = − .14, SE = .08, t (243) = -1.76, p = .08, [-.30, .02]. To examine the mediation, the indirect effect of sexual disgust was tested, for which the bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect was [-.38, − .17], excluding zero, signifying that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between sexual disgust and sympathy towards an abortion patient. Moral Character. As with the results on warmth and sympathy, the total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity on moral character ratings was significant, b = − .44, SE = .08, t (244) = -5.36, p < .001, [-.60, − .28], demonstrating that sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with lower sympathy for abortion patients. The direct effect of sexual disgust on sympathy was not significant after accounting for political orientation, b = − .14, SE = .08, t (244) = -1.82, p = .07, [-.29, .01]. The bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect was [-.41, − .20], excluding zero, indicating that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between sexual disgust and moral character ratings of an abortion patient. Attributions. Mirroring previous results, the total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity on dispositional attributions was significant, b = 3.71, SE = 1.53, t (244) = 2.43, p = .02, [.70, 6.71], demonstrating that sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with higher individual blame for abortion patients. The direct effect of sexual disgust on attributions was not significant after accounting for political orientation, b = .87, SE = 1.62, t (244) = .54, p = .59, [-2.32, 4.06]. The bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect ([1.40, 4.56]) excluded zero, demarcating that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between increases in sexual disgust and heightened dispositional attributions of an abortion patient. Study 2 Discussion Overall, the results of Study 2 replicated and extended findings from Study 1, including the consistent effect of political orientation on broad and patient-specific abortion attitudes and the elevated judgments of targets receiving abortion for socio-economic or family planning reasons as compared to targets receiving abortions for medical emergencies. Likewise, there was no effect of state or trait disgust on target-specific abortion attitudes above and beyond the effect of the covariates. Trait sexual disgust did significantly predict general warmth towards abortion patients and support for abortion restrictions. Study 2 showed that trait sexual disgust sensitivity (via its relationship to political orientation) relates to broad perceptions of abortion patients and support for abortion restrictions, and as a factor that is linked to judgments towards target abortion patients. Supporting the mediational model of disgust and abortion attitudes proposed in past research (Merlici et al., 2024 ; Patev et al., 2019 ), individuals higher in sexual disgust sensitivity rated abortion patients more negatively and supported restrictions on abortion legality, an association that was partially explained by individuals higher in disgust sensitivity identifying as more politically conservative. These individuals felt less warmth and sympathy towards a target abortion patient, rated them as less moral, and held them personally accountable for their abortion circumstances to a greater extent than individuals lower in sexual disgust sensitivity. Furthermore, the link between trait disgust and target abortion judgments was mediated by increased conservatism of individuals high in disgust sensitivity. The results supported a mediational model of sexual disgust sensitivity operating on abortion attitudes through increased political conservatism. On the other hand, Study 2 provided further support for the absence of a relationship between induced sexual disgust and elevated negative judgments of a target abortion patient in line with past research (Adams et al., 2014 ; Smith et al., 2011 ; Wisneski & Skitka, 2017 ). Participants who were primed to experience sexual disgust did not rate the target individual more negatively than individuals who were primed to experience a minimal level of disgust. Consistent with Study 1, the target who received an abortion due to a medical emergency was afforded more positive judgments in the form of more warmth and sympathy, higher moral character ratings, and less personal responsibility for the abortion compared to the targets who received an abortion for socio-economic or family planning reasons. General Discussion Abortion stigma remains pervasive despite abortion care being declared a commonplace medical procedure and a human right. These two studies provide continued empirical support that individuals who receive abortions for non-life-threatening reasons, such as to avoid economic peril or a simple desire not to have more children, are viewed more negatively than abortion patients who have minimal autonomy over their situations, as in the case of a medical emergency. This study further demonstrates that dispositional levels of sexual disgust operate to stigmatize abortion patients through its relationship to increased levels of conservatism. In the tenuous climate surrounding abortion legality and access, one’s political orientation, and similar interpersonal traits such as sexual disgust, remain the strongest predictors of one’s stance on abortion. This article replicates key research findings while advancing scientific understanding about the role of disgust in attitudes towards abortion patients in specific contexts. First, the role of political alignment, strength of one’s attitudes towards abortion and religiosity on general support for abortion restrictions, feelings about abortion patients, and feelings towards specific abortion circumstances is consistent with research showing the influence of these factors on perceptions of abortion access and abortion patients (Deckman et al., 2023 ; Jozkowski et al., 2021 ; Osborne et al., 2022; Pew Research Center, 2024 ; Rye & Underhill, 2019 ). As conservatism increased, participants demonstrated more positive attitudes towards abortion restrictions and more negative attitudes towards abortion patients. Across studies, political orientation held a large and consistent ability to explain a multitude of attitudes and judgments of abortion (e.g., general abortion attitudes, target-specific abortion attitudes) in alignment with past research (Deckman et al., 2023 ; Hout et al., 2022 ; Pérez et al., 2025 ; Osborne et al., 2022). Abortion attitude strength had a modest relationship to abortion attitudes in Study 1, showing that as abortion attitudes increased in strength, there was a corresponding decrease in support for abortion restrictions and more positive views of abortion patients. This relationship is likely explained by the fact that political liberals tended to have stronger abortion attitudes in Study 1. In the sample with greater political diversity (Study 2), the relationship between abortion attitude strength and abortion attitudes disappeared, which aligns with research showing that the stability of abortion attitudes is eclipsed by partisan polarization. As abortion attitudes increase in strength, both liberals and conservatives retreat further to their respective sides, with strong attitudes on both sides neutralizing the directional relationship between attitude strength and more liberal or conservative abortion attitudes (Deckman et al., 2023 ; Jozkowski et al., 2021 ). The relationship between religiosity and general warmth towards abortion patients and support for restrictions was consistent, with more religious individuals expressing lower warmth for abortion patients and greater support for abortion restrictions. Religiosity was minimally and inconsistently related to attitudes towards the target abortion patient, yielding evidence that religion impacts abortion attitudes in theory more than attitudes towards specific individuals who have had an abortion. Research has supported the notion that religiosity influences abortion attitudes more than abortion behavior, and religious individuals are actually less likely to provide no support for abortion patients compared to non-religious individuals (Cary et al., 2025 ; Cowan et al., 2022 ; Milmine & Fetner, 2024 ). Second, the results showing that certain abortion patients are viewed more favorably align with our hypotheses, as well as past academic research and public polling (Bowman & Goldstein, 2021 ; Jozkowski et al., 2018 ). These two studies demonstrated that participants felt more warmth and sympathy for a target individual who received an abortion to preserve their long-term health and viewed them as more moral and less blameworthy than target individuals who received an abortion to avoid going into economic decline and being unable to support their existing children or a mother who already had two children and did not want another. Supported by existing research, individuals who receive an abortion for an uncontrollable reason such as a medical emergency tend to be viewed more positively than individuals who receive abortions for reasons that are viewed as more controllable or demonstrate greater autonomy (e.g., social or economic insecurity, not wanting more children; Pacilli et al., 2024 ; Peng & Huang, 2022 ; Rye & Underhill, 2019 ; Young et al., 2020 ; Zucker, 1999 ). Third, the findings surrounding state and trait disgust present a complex picture of the relationship between disgust and abortion attitudes. Although contrary to hypotheses, this study replicates findings showing no relationship between induced (state) sexual disgust and abortion attitudes (Adams et al., 2014 ; Smith et al., 2011 ; Wisneski & Skitka, 2017 ) and adds to a growing body of research demonstrating the limitations of state disgust (for a review, see Inbar & Pizarro, 2022 ). While participants did experience high levels of disgust in response to the experimental primes, this did not translate to more negative reactions to the target abortion patients. Though these two studies yielded null results pertaining to the role of state disgust, this study was able to demonstrate a similar trend of results with regard to specific abortion circumstances, whereas past research only included broader abortion attitudes, which are more resistant to attitude change. Higher levels of trait sexual disgust sensitivity were related to greater support for restrictions on abortion as demonstrated in previous studies (Inbar et al., 2009 ; Merlici et al., 2024 ; Patev et al., 2019 ). Trait sexual disgust was related, although to a smaller degree, to general warmth towards individuals who receive an abortion, which adds an interpersonal dimension to how disgust relates to general abortion attitudes. These effects were present above and beyond the effect of political orientation on abortion attitudes. Indeed, mediational models revealed that political orientation only partially mediated the relationship between elevated sexual disgust sensitivity and more restrictive attitudes towards abortion. This research replicates and extends past results showing a link between disgust and general abortion attitudes by controlling for an important dimension that relates to both variables. As a novel contribution to the literature, this study demonstrated that the effect of trait sexual disgust on sentiments towards specific abortion patients could be explained by its association with political orientation. After accounting for political orientation, dispositional levels of sexual disgust were not related to how much warmth or sympathy participants felt towards a target abortion patient or their ratings of the target’s moral character and personal responsibility/blame for their situation. Mediational models showed that disgust is related to attitudes towards these target abortion patients, but only because individuals higher in disgust are more politically conservative (Inbar et al., 2009 ), and conservatism is strongly linked to more restrictive abortion attitudes (Pew Research Center, 2024 ). These results reflect the nuanced relationships between political orientation, sexual disgust, and abortion attitudes and offer avenues for stigma reduction by interrupting these pathways. Policy and Practice Implications The first primary implication is that abortion stigma remains pervasive, and individuals continue to be judged negatively for the decision to have an abortion unless their life is literally under threat. Decades of research have confirmed the harmfulness of abortion stigma on physical and psychological outcomes (Hanschmidt et al., 2016 ; O’Shea & Watson, 2025 ; Sorhaindo et al., 2022). The negative influence of such stigma requires proper education to reframe the existing narratives around abortion. Sex educators should seek to incorporate a wide scope of reproductive health care, including abortion care, into their curricula to increase knowledge and decrease stigma around abortion. Individuals who have greater knowledge about pregnancy tend to have more positive attitudes and less stigma surrounding abortion (Elder et al., 2024 ). Furthermore, educators and politicians should include a range of abortion narratives into public dialogue to avoid perpetuating the stigma that only certain individuals are deserving of abortion (Jozkowski et al., 2018 ; Pacilli et al., 2024 ). Another key implication stems from the link between political orientation and attitudes and perceptions of abortion and the individuals who receive it. Politicians have utilized inflammatory and inaccurate language to amplify political polarization of abortion for decades, yet public opinion polls show that framing the debate in terms of government non-interference and healthcare yields greater support for access and patient care. Over two-thirds (67%) of Americans believe that abortion decisions should be made by a woman and her doctor, and over three-quarters (78%) believe that access to abortion is a somewhat or very important part of health care (Perry Undem, 2025 ). Continued efforts to separate partisanship from abortion attitudes offer promise in reducing stigma towards abortion patients. By understanding the mechanisms through which disgust is related to abortion attitudes, educators and policymakers can seek to interrupt this process. Although disgust tends to be related to political orientation and subsequent attitudes and beliefs, one study found that reappraisal of disgust is linked to lower opposition to abortion and same sex marriage (Feinberg et al., 2013). Connecting this line of research to concrete action, research by Kumar ( 2018 ) and Cahill ( 2013 ) has focused on the role of disgust in attitudes towards abortion, its surrounding legal culture, and pathways to interrupt these negative relationships. The findings from this study and those that precede it highlight the importance of continued education and stigma reduction to reduce the influence of emotional and political narratives on dialogues around abortion. Limitations and Future Research Although this study effectively demonstrated some of the contextual and individual factors that influence abortion attitudes, a few limitations should be acknowledged that would strengthen future research in this area. One limitation from the current study is that the findings were potentially limited by statistical concerns surrounding power. A larger sample could potentially identify interactions but would likely produce very small effects that would have minimal utility in the scientific understanding of abortion attitudes. While future researchers should recruit larger and more diverse samples, these two studies provide support for the role of abortion context and trait disgust that align with previous research on disgust and abortion (Merlici et al., 2024 ; Smith et al., 2011 ; Terrizzi Jr. et al., 2010 ). Another limitation of this study is the simplicity of the mediation model. Though this model is parsimonious, models incorporating additional mediators such as social dominance orientation or sexism should be considered in future research. Utilizing structural equation modeling would allow researchers to better examine the relationships between the variables and parse out the relationships between broad and situation-specific abortion attitudes and the influence of individual differences in responses to abortion patients and public policy scenarios. Despite this model’s simplicity, previous research has utilized similar models in explaining the relationship between disgust and abortion attitudes (Merlici et al., 2024 ; Patev et al., 2019 ). Future research should continue to investigate the role of disgust in attitudes towards both reproductive rights policy and perceptions of individuals receiving certain types of reproductive rights care (e.g., miscarriage, IVF, sterilization) and seek to tease out the unique effects of disgust as compared with political orientation on these attitudes and perceptions. A robust body of research has shown a link between disgust and a range of attitudes towards sexual and gender minorities and links disgust with homophobia and transphobia (Miller et al., 2017 ; van Leeuwen et al., 2023). Future research could demonstrate how disgust operates in social interactions both as a result of political attitudes and as a distinct force for contempt of these individuals. Conclusion These studies illustrate the continued stigma around certain abortion contexts and the accompanying interpersonal backlash as manifested by the decreased emotional responsiveness (e.g., warmth, sympathy) and judgments of the abortion patient’s character as less moral and more deserving of responsibility and blame. Being disgust sensitive (rather than momentarily disgusted) was more useful for understanding judgments of general warmth towards abortion patients and support for abortion restrictions. Additionally, being more disgust sensitive was related to more negative evaluations of abortion patients. Individuals who were disgust sensitive tended to be more politically conservative, which helped to explain how disgust was related to broad abortion attitudes and judgments of specific abortion patients. This study suggests that disrupting the links between abortion attitudes, political orientation, and disgust could serve to reduce abortion stigma. These findings have important implications for educators, policymakers, and counselors as they seek to detach political polarization from abortion care. Declarations Author Contribution All authors contributed to study conception and design. G.P. wrote the main manuscript text. This research was supervised by K.J. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Kaitlyn M. Wilson and Dr. Lucia F. O’Sullivan for their help with aspects of data analysis and manuscript review. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [GP] upon reasonable request. References Adamczyk, A., & Valdimarsdóttir, M. (2018). Understanding Americans' abortion attitudes: The role of the local religious context. Social Science Research , 71 (1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.005 Adams, T. G., Stewart, P. A., & Blanchar, J. C. (2014). Disgust and the politics of sex: Exposure to a disgusting odorant increases politically conservative views on sex and decreases support for gay marriage. PloS one , 9 (5), e95572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095572 Barringer, M. N., Sumerau, J. E., & Gay, D. A. (2020). Generational variation in young adults’ attitudes toward legal abortion: Contextualizing the role of religion. Social Currents , 7 (3), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496520905020 Beumer, W. Y., Reilingh, A.Y.A. M., Dalmijn, E., Roseboom, T. J., & van Ditzhuijzen, J. (2025). Motivations for abortion or continuation of an unwanted pregnancy: A scoping review of the global literature. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 57 (1), 45-62 . https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.12293 Biggs, M. A., Gould, H. & Foster, D. G. (2013). Understanding why women seek abortions in the US. BMC Women's Health , 13 (1) , Article 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29 Brenner, C. J., & Inbar, Y. (2015). Disgust sensitivity predicts political ideology and policy attitudes in the Netherlands. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45 (1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2072 Bowman, K., & Goldstein, S. (2021). Attitudes about abortion: A comprehensive review of polls from the 1970s to today (AEI Public Opinion Studies). American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Attitudes-About-Abortion.pdf?x85095 Bueno, X., LaRoche, K. J., Crawford, B. L., Turner, R. C., Lo, W.-J., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2023). Do fetal development markers influence attitudes toward abortion legality? Social Currents , 10 (2), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965221137830 Cahill, C. M. (2013) Abortion and disgust. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 48 (2), 409–456. Cary, K. M., Crawford, B. L., Turner, R. C., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2025). Associations between U.S. adults’ abortion attitudes and abortion-related helping intentions. Women’s Reproductive Health , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/23293691.2024.2445526 Crawford, J. T., Inbar, Y., & Maloney, V. (2014). Disgust sensitivity selectively predicts attitudes toward groups that threaten (or uphold) traditional sexual morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.001 Crawford, B. L., Laroche, K. J., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2022). Examining abortion attitudes in the context of gestational age. Social Science Quarterly , 103 (4), 855-867. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13157 Cowan, S. K., Bruce, T. C., Perry, B. L., Ritz, B., Perrett, S., & Anderson, E. M. (2022). Discordant benevolence: How and why people help others in the face of conflicting values. Science Advances , 8 (7), eabj5851. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj5851 Deckman, M., Elder, L., Greene, S., & Lizotte, M.-K. (2023). Deceptively stable? How the stability of aggregate abortion attitudes conceals partisan induced shifts. Political Research Quarterly , 77 (2), 500-517. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129231222883 Doherty, D. (2022). What can conjoint experiments tell us about Americans’ abortion attitudes? American Politics Research , 50 (2), 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211053211 Donner, M. R., Azaad, S., Warren, G. A., & Laham, S. M. (2023). Specificity versus generality: A meta-analytic review of the association between trait disgust sensitivity and moral judgment. Emotion Review , 15 (1), 63-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221114643 Dozier, J. L., Hennink, M., Mosley, E., Narasimhan, S., Pringle, J., Clarke, L., Blevins, J., James-Portis, L., Keithan, R., Hall, K. S., & Rice, W. S. (2020). Abortion attitudes, religious and moral beliefs, and pastoral care among Protestant religious leaders in Georgia. PloS one , 15 (7), e0235971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235971 Dutta, N., Giddings, L., & Sobel, R. (2024). Attitudes towards abortion: What role do educational attainment and cultural traits play? Review of Social Economy , 82 (3), 343-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2021.2014066 Elder, L., Greene, S., & Lizotte, M-K. (2024, January 10-13). Public opinion on abortion in post-Roe America. [Paper presentation]. SPSA 2024, New Orleans, LA, United States. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787058 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods , 39 (2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146 Feinberg, M., Antonenko, O., Willer, R., Horberg, E. J., & John, O. P. (2014). Gut check: Reappraisal of disgust helps explain liberal–conservative differences on issues of purity. Emotion, 14 (3), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033727 Fine, J. B., Mayall, K., & Sepúlveda, L. (2017). The role of international human rights norms in the liberalization of abortion laws globally. Health and Human Rights , 19 (1), 69–80. Guttmacher. (2025). Monthly abortion provision study: US abortion data dashboard. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/monthly-abortion-provision-study Haddock, G., Rothman, A. J., Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Forming judgments of attitude certainty, intensity, and importance: The role of subjective experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (7), 771–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025007001 Hanschmidt, F., Linde, K., Hilbert, A., Riedel-Heller, S. G., Kersting, A. (2016). Abortion stigma: A systematic review. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health , 48 (4), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.1363/48e8516 Hayes, A. F. (2018). An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Hlay, J.K., Albert, G., Batres, C., Waldron, K.A., Richardson, G., Placek, C.D., Arnocky, S., Şenveli, Z., Lieberman, D., & Hodges-Simeon, C.R. (2022). Disgust sensitivity predicts sociosexuality across cultures. Evolution and Human Behavior , 43 (5), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.04.005 Hout, M., Perrett, S., & Cowan, S. K. (2022). Stasis and sorting of Americans’ abortion opinions: Political polarization added to religious and other differences. Socius , 8 , 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221117648 Horberg, E. J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohen, A. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 97 (6), 963–976. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017423 Inbar, Y., & Pizarro, D. A. (2022). How disgust affects social judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 65 , 109–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2021.11.002 Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion , 23 (4), 714-725.https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802110007 Jozkowski, K. N., Bueno, X., Turner, R. C., Crawford, B. L., & Lo, W. J. (2023a). People’s knowledge of and attitudes toward abortion laws before and after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters , 31 (1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2023.2233794 Jozkowski, K. N., Crawford, B. L., & Hunt, M. E. (2018). Complexity in attitudes toward abortion access: Results from two studies. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 15 (4), 464–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0322-4 Jozkowski, K. N., Crawford, B. L. & Willis, M. (2021). Abortion complexity scores from 1972 To 2018: A cross-sectional time-series analysis using data from the General Social Survey. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18 (3), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00439-9 Jozkowski, K. N., Mena-Meléndez, L., Crawford, B. L., & Turner, R. C. (2023b). Abortion stigma: Attitudes toward abortion responsibility, illegal abortion, and perceived punishments of “illegal abortion.” Psychology of Women Quarterly , 47 (4), 443-461. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231181350 Kam, C. D., & Estes, B. A. (2016). Disgust sensitivity and public demand for protection. The Journal of Politics, 78 (2), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1086/684611 Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemiological studies. Religions , 1 (1), 78-85. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078 Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research on Personality , 46 (2), 184-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006 Kumar, A. (2018). Disgust, stigma, and the politics of abortion. Feminism & Psychology , 28 (4), 530-538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353518765572 Merlici, I.-A., Maftei, A., & Lăzărescu, G. (2024). Abortion attitudes and the underlying mechanisms: Emotions and political views. Sexuality Research & Social Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-01012-4 Miller, P. R., Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Lewis, D. C., Tadlock, B. L., & Taylor, J. K. (2017). Transgender politics as body politics: Effects of disgust sensitivity and authoritarianism on transgender rights attitudes. Politics, Groups, and Identities , 5 (1), 4-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1260482 Milmine, L., & Fetner, T. (2024). Practice what you preach: Complicating the relationship among Christian religious identity, abortion attitudes, and reported abortion experiences among Canadians. Socius , 10 , 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231241245843 Monchalin, R., Jubinville, D., Pérez Piñán, A. V., Paul, W., Wells, M., Ross, A., Law, K., Chaffey, M., & Pruder, H. (2023). “I would love for there not to be so many hoops…”: recommendations to improve abortion service access and experiences made by Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQIA+ people in Canada. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters , 31 (1), Article 2247667. https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2023.2247667 NORC. (2024). Support for legal abortion increased since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Retrieved from https://apnorc.org/projects/support-for-legal-abortion-increased-since-roe-v-wade-was-overturned/ Norrander, B., & Wilcox, C. (2023). Trends in abortion attitudes: From Roe to Dobbs. Public Opinion Quarterly , 87 (2), 427-458. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad014 Olatunji, B. O., Adams, T., Ciesielski, B., David, B., Sarawgi, S., & Broman-Fulks, J. (2012). The Three Domains of Disgust Scale: Factor structure, psychometric properties, and conceptual limitations. Assessment , 19 (2), 205-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111432881 Osborne, D., Huang, Y., Overall, N. C., Sutton, R. M., Petterson, A., Douglas, K. M., Davies, P. G., & Sibley, C. G. (2022). Abortion attitudes: An overview of demographic and ideological differences. Political Psychology , 43 (1), 29-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12803 O’Shea, K. & Watson, L. B. (2025). Navigating abortion stigma: Abortion identity centrality, stigma management strategies, and psychological outcomes. Sex Roles , 91 (36).https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-025-01588-0 Pacilli, M. G., Spaccatini, F., Pagliaro, S., & Giovannelli, I. (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 Patev, A. J., Hall, C. J., Dunn, C. E., Bell, A. D., Owens, B. D., & Hood, K. B. (2019). Hostile sexism and right-wing authoritarianism as mediators of the relationship between sexual disgust and abortion stigmatizing attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, Article 109528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109528 Peng, W., & Huang, Q. (2022). When we feel compassionate: Stereotypical and attributional determinants of attitudes toward abortion. Atlantic Journal of Communication , 32 (1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2022.2094381 Pérez, B., Jara Sepúlveda, L., Saiz, J. L., & Alveal-Álamos, C. (2025). Influence of women’s circumstances and ideology on abortion acceptance. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07709-y Perry Undem. (2025). Public opinion toward abortion and reproductive health policy in 2025: Findings from a national survey. Retrieved from https://perryundem.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/PerryUndem-Public-Opinion-on-Abortion-and-Repro-Policy-in-2025-.pdf Pew Research Center. (2022). America’s abortion quandary. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/ Pew Research Center. (2024). Public opinion on abortion. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ Poteat, V. P., & Mereish, E. H. (2012). (Dis)similarity between liberals and conservatives: Predicting variability in group differences on abortion and same-sex marriage rights attitudes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34 (1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.637852 PRRI. (2022). Abortion attitudes in a post-Roe world: Findings from the 50-state 2022 American Values Atlas. https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/PRRI-Feb-2023- Abortion-D-1.pdf Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. R. (2008). Disgust. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 757–776). The Guilford Press. Rye, B. J., & Underhill, A. (2019). Contraceptive context, conservatism, sexual liberalism, and gender-role attitudes as predictors of abortion attitudes. Women’s Reproductive Health , 6 (1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/23293691.2018.1556425 Rye, B. J., & Underhill, A. (2020). Pro-choice and pro-life are not enough: An investigation of abortion attitudes as a function of abortion prototypes. Sexuality & Culture, 24 (6), 1829–1851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09723-7 Saad. (2023). Broader support for abortion rights continues post-Dobbs. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion-rights-continues-post-dobbs.aspx Smith, K. B., Oxley, D., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Disgust sensitivity and the neurophysiology of left-right political orientations. PloS one , 6 (10), e25552. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025552 Sorhaindo, A. M., & Lavelanet, A. F. (2022). Why does abortion stigma matter? A scoping review and hybrid analysis of qualitative evidence illustrating the role of stigma in the quality of abortion care. Social Science & Medicine , 311 , 115271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115271 Terrizzi Jr., J. A., Shook, N. J., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes towards homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences , 49 (6), 587-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.024 Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 97 (1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015474 van Leeuwen, F., Inbar, Y., Petersen, M. B., Aarøe, L., Barclay, P., Barlow, F. K., de Barra, M., Becker, D. V., Borovoi, L., Choi, J., Consedine, N. S., Conway, J. R., Conway, P., Adoric, V. C., Demirci, E., Fernández, A. M., Ferreira, D. C. S., Ishii, K., Jakšić, I., … Tybur, J. M. (2023). Disgust sensitivity relates to attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women across 31 nations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 26 (3), 629-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211067151 Wagemans, F. M. A., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2018). Disgust sensitivity is primarily associated with purity-based moral judgments. Emotion , 18 (2), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000359 Watts, M. (2020). Investigating moral underpinning of attitudes about abortion. [Unpublished honors thesis]. Appalachian State University. Wisneski, D. C., & Skitka, L. J. (2017). Moralization through moral shock: Exploring emotional antecedents to moral conviction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 43 (2), 139-150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216676479 World Health Organization. (2024). Abortion. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion Young, I. F., Sullivan, D., & Hamann, H. A. (2020). Abortions due to the Zika virus versus fetal alcohol syndrome: Attributions and willingness to help. Stigma and Health, 5 (3), 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000203 Zucker, G. S. (1999). Attributional and symbolic predictors of abortion attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29 (6), 1218–1245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02037.x Tables Table 1 Study 1 and Study 2 Demographic Characteristics Study 1 ( N = 165) Study 2 ( N = 250) Political Orientation n % n % Liberal 114 74.0 121 48.4 Conservative 40 26.0 129 51.6 Gender/Sex Female 99 60.0 123 49.2 Male 58 35.1 124 49.6 Non-Binary/Third Gender 3 1.8 2 0.8 Genderqueer 3 1.8 - - Agender 1 0.6 1 0.4 Prefer not to say 1 0.6 - - Race/Ethnicity Caucasian/White 113 68.5 165 66.3 Black or African American 10 6.0 27 10.8 Asian 12 7.3 24 9.6 Biracial 17 10.3 19 7.6 Hispanic or Latino 13 7.9 9 3.6 Some other race or ethnicity - - 3 1.2 Prefer not to say - - 2 0.8 Education Some high school or less 2 1.2 2 0.8 High school diploma or GED 24 14.5 28 11.2 Some college, but no degree 35 21.2 54 21.6 Associates or technical degree 12 7.3 36 14.4 Bachelor’s degree 71 43.0 90 36.0 Master’s degree 17 10.3 36 14.4 Terminal degree 4 2.4 3 1.2 Prefer not to say - - 1 0.4 Religious Affiliation Christian 49 29.7 122 49.2 Agnostic 39 23.6 39 15.7 Atheist 26 15.8 48 19.4 Spiritual, but not religious 18 10.9 14 5.6 Nothing in particular 13 7.9 13 5.2 Jewish 4 2.4 4 1.6 Other/Mixed 13 7.9 8 3.2 Prefer not to say 3 1.8 - - Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 1) Intercorrelations M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Political Orientation 2.60 1.35 - . 2. Abortion Attitude Strength 5.01 1.14 -.53 ** - 3. Religiosity 2.12 1.30 .37 ** -.17 * - 4. Trait Sexual Disgust 3.42 1.12 .09 -.02 .26 ** - 5. General Warmth 5.28 1.60 -.53 ** .49 ** -.34 ** -.20 ** - . 6. Support for Restrictions 2.09 1.40 .58 ** -.47 ** .50 ** .30 ** -.66 ** - 7. Warmth 5.31 1.52 -.45 ** .36 ** -.23 ** -.18 * .73 ** -.55 ** - 8. Sympathy 5.92 1.64 -.42 ** .40 ** -.28 ** -.13 .62 ** -.52 ** .77 ** - 9. Moral Character 5.48 1.57 -.50 ** .38 ** -.39 ** -.17 * .68 ** -.63 ** .74 ** .73 ** - Note. Items 1-4 & 6 were on a 6-point scale and Items 5 & 7-9 were on a 7-point scale. ** p < .01, * p < .05 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 2) Intercorrelations M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Political Orientation 3.29 1.76 - . 2. Abortion Attitude Strength 4.89 1.05 -.25 ** - 3. Religiosity 2.62 1.49 .63 ** -.008 - 4. Trait Sexual Disgust 3.70 1.40 .41 ** .03 .45 ** - 5. General Warmth 4.47 1.93 -.70 ** .19 ** -.53 ** -.41 ** - . 6. Support for Restrictions 2.68 1.76 .70 ** -.15 * .61 ** .48 ** -.71 ** - 7. Attributions 59.6 33.7 .30 ** -.05 .27 ** .15 * -.41 ** .33 ** - 8. Warmth 4.55 1.82 -.57 ** .19 ** -.41 ** -.31 ** .81 ** -.57 ** -.52 ** - 9. Sympathy 5.08 1.90 -.51 ** .11 -.35 ** -.30 ** .70 ** -.48 ** -.52 ** .84 ** - 10. Moral Character 4.64 1.89 -.57 ** .19 ** -.44 ** -.32 * .79 ** -.61 ** -.55 ** .87 ** .80 ** - Note. Items 1-4 & 6 were on a 6-point scale and Items 5 & 8-10 were on a 7-point scale. Attributions (item 7) was out of 100. ** p < .01, * p < .05 Table 4 Effects of Abortion Context, Trait Disgust, and Their Interaction on Judgements of the Target (Study 2) Warmth Sympathy Moral Character Attributions Predictors R 2 Δ F β p R 2 Δ F β p R 2 Δ F β p R 2 Δ F β p Step 1 .35 42.6 <.001 .28 30.7 <.001 .36 44.3 <.001 .10 8.98 <.001 Religiosity -.09 .21 -.02 .81 -.11 .10 .11 .16 Political Orientation -.51 <.001 -.52 <.001 -.50 <.001 .23 .006 Attitude Strength .07 .19 -.01 .93 .07 .21 .01 .99 Step 2 .46 16.8 <.001 .40 16.0 <.001 .45 12.9 <.001 .29 20.4 <.001 Socio-Economic a -.24 <.001 -.28 <.001 -.25 <.001 .33 <.001 Family Planning a -.38 <.001 -.38 <.001 -.32 <.001 .49 <.001 Trait Disgust -.06 .28 -.09 .13 -.08 .18 -.01 .82 Step 3 .47 1.42 .24 .41 2.01 .14 .46 1.85 .16 .29 .23 .80 Trait Disgust x SE a -.10 .11 -.10 .11 -.11 .07 .01 .92 Trait Disgust x FP a -.07 .24 -.10 .08 -.07 .19 -.04 .57 Note . a = Reference group: Medical Condition. SE = Socio-Economic, FP = Family Planning. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files 5.11.25SupplementalMaterialsSRSPPaper.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6637729","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":524503194,"identity":"33b62c07-199c-48e1-82b5-cfa37d6797bd","order_by":0,"name":"Gabriella Petruzzello","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of New Brunswick","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gabriella","middleName":"","lastName":"Petruzzello","suffix":""},{"id":524503195,"identity":"4df0c714-873c-4ac4-874a-3852f8f9b4dc","order_by":1,"name":"Natalia Mindowicz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"George Washington University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Natalia","middleName":"","lastName":"Mindowicz","suffix":""},{"id":524503196,"identity":"f8d1b602-4f96-4ca4-b05e-cebf6887e9c7","order_by":2,"name":"Keith Jones","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Keith","middleName":"","lastName":"Jones","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-11 05:23:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6637729/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6637729/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93250165,"identity":"324b48cf-446c-4a37-8db0-c5997f1c4177","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 15:41:30","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":198248,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5.11.25AbortionManuscript.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6637729/v1/8fcbd717785ad99107ce7463.docx"},{"id":93248194,"identity":"bcd38041-76d1-4bdc-b0e1-188744660342","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 15:33:29","extension":"json","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5595,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"e10e6554146f44b7ba87fef8b3d059ca.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6637729/v1/7a607d87bd9be7cc90ff7f5e.json"},{"id":93248202,"identity":"6b737282-a863-47bb-9bd5-8f5761b682cb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 15:33:30","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":137987,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5.11.25SupplementalMaterialsSRSPPaper.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6637729/v1/6fe807bab1a709cb73e8dbd4.docx"},{"id":93250164,"identity":"a75f785a-5f10-4684-b28d-240e95c96bc4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 15:41:30","extension":"xml","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":275185,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"e10e6554146f44b7ba87fef8b3d059ca1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6637729/v1/59606b65c4446871f731f050.xml"},{"id":93248196,"identity":"6aba3c17-73aa-40bb-8ac8-555290e45f88","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 15:33:30","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":92099,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6637729/v1/10bd56ccffa364ab9ed643f9.png"},{"id":93248201,"identity":"566c806d-3f69-475b-8b09-e6c410e7dc6a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 15:33:30","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":271962,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"e10e6554146f44b7ba87fef8b3d059ca1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6637729/v1/98157eb970dff5b8ac1598a6.xml"},{"id":93248200,"identity":"8b37f484-0e2c-4f57-8a90-dc485dc2f098","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 15:33:30","extension":"html","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":303006,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6637729/v1/e8bf746c32daf64d40f53aec.html"},{"id":93248195,"identity":"e8fb34d1-4747-4c6d-b032-351355d5ab4c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 15:33:30","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":156709,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStandardized regression coefficients for the relationship between sexual disgust sensitivity and warmth towards a target abortion patient as mediated by political orientation. The standardized regression coefficient between sexual disgust and warmth, controlling for political orientation, is in parentheses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6637729/v1/a0138b94725243f137f3db15.jpeg"},{"id":100372116,"identity":"d9f39ef5-9542-433d-bbe7-ec381be3478e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 08:11:43","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1976092,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6637729/v1/88dda645-60e8-4345-a85a-8009cf34adf4.pdf"},{"id":93248197,"identity":"a5ee8037-22a3-4377-aa5e-5c9d4998d6cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 15:33:30","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":137987,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5.11.25SupplementalMaterialsSRSPPaper.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6637729/v1/4c51432c95e329fcba5569d5.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"When is it Okay? The Role of State and Trait Disgust in Attitudes Towards Abortion Patients Under Different Circumstances","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn 2024, an estimated 1,031,090 clinician-provided abortions occurred in U.S. states where abortion remains legal (Guttmacher, 2025). Worldwide, it is estimated that 73 million abortions occur every year (World Health Organization, 2024). Although abortion care is increasingly being recognized as a reproductive and human right (Fine et al., 2017) and a common health intervention (World Health Organization, 2024), it has been subjected to significant politicization in the form of bans, restrictions, and stigma (Jozkowski et al., 2023b; Monchalin et al., 2023; Pacilli et al., 2024). Since January 2024, an estimated 5,519 abortion-related legislative actions aimed at restricting or banning abortion have been introduced in the United States (Guttmacher, 2025). Given the prevalence of abortion and the increasingly precarious legal and social climate surrounding it, research is needed to better understand the interpersonal and contextual factors that contribute to the stigmatization of abortion patients. Indeed, emotional factors are implicated in many judgements around abortion and have the potential to unlock new insights with regard to attitudes towards abortion. We are especially interested in the relationship between disgust sensitivity and perceptions of abortion patients, an area of work that has received little attention to date. This study investigated the influence of state and trait disgust on attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion patients, as well as the role of contextual factors in shaping these perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContextual Factors and Abortion Attitudes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePublic opinion surveys consistently report marked variability in support for abortion, largely depending on the circumstances in which an abortion is sought. Polls conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) reveal that approximately 60% of people support legal abortion without exception, with this figure increasing following the overturn of \u003cem\u003eRoe v. Wade\u003c/em\u003e (NORC, 2024). However, support for abortion tends to decline as gestational age advances and becomes increasingly contingent on information about the specific reasons for seeking an abortion (Bueno et al., 2023; Crawford et al., 2022; Doherty, 2022; Saad, 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMuch of the research on abortion attitudes adopts a legal framework to explore how different circumstances influence public opinions on the legality and accessibility of abortion. When asked about support for abortion legality across six specific scenarios (e.g., health risks, birth defects) in the General Social Survey, respondents demonstrated considerable nuance in their attitudes. Whereas 40% consistently endorsed legality and 10% opposed legality across all scenarios, 50% expressed conditional support, believing abortion should be legal in some situations but not others (Jozkowski et al., 2018). This pattern indicates that abortion attitudes often transcend the traditional \u0026ldquo;pro-choice\u0026rdquo; versus \u0026ldquo;pro-life\u0026rdquo; dichotomy. A substantial proportion of people would be better classified as situationists, meaning that their support for abortion varies depending on the circumstances (Norrander \u0026amp; Wilcox, 2023; Rye \u0026amp; Underhill, 2020). Furthermore, Jozkowski and colleagues (2018) found that affording respondents with the opportunity to provide open-ended justifications for their views led to articulations of acceptable or unacceptable abortion circumstances that often differed from their self-identified abortion stance. For example, some individuals who identified as pro-choice endorsed limitations to legality under certain circumstances, while others who identified as pro-life acknowledged circumstances under which abortion should be available (Jozkowski et al., 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDecades of research demonstrate that public perceptions of abortion are deeply influenced by the perceived cause of pregnancy and the autonomy involved in the abortion decision. Situations perceived as involving external causes, such as sexual assault or medical complications, elicit greater public sympathy, higher support for abortion, and stronger beliefs that the government should assist the pregnant person. In contrast, person-centered reasons (e.g., financial instability, not wanting more children) evoke higher levels of blame, anger, and moral outrage, while reducing support for abortion, willingness to personally help the pregnant person, and belief in government assistance (Zucker, 1999; Pacilli et al., 2024; Peng \u0026amp; Huang, 2022; P\u0026eacute;rez et al., 2025; Rye \u0026amp; Underhill, 2019; Young et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePolling data corroborate this pattern: abortion circumstances perceived as uncontrollable receive substantially more public support than those perceived as stemming from personal choice. For instance, 87% of respondents supported abortion when the health of the pregnant person was endangered, whereas support was lower when the family had very low income and could not support more children (47%) or when a married woman did not want any more children (49%; Bowman \u0026amp; Goldstein, 2021). These findings have been replicated in research conducted by Jozkowski and colleagues (2018; 2023a). Taken together, these findings demonstrate the significant role of circumstance in shaping attitudes about abortion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisgust and Abortion Attitudes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough context is a powerful determinant of abortion attitudes, individual factors such as emotional experiences play a key role in support or opposition to abortion. Disgust is one such factor that warrants further investigation as state and trait disgust play critical roles in the formation and maintenance of political and social attitudes (Adams et al., 2014; Inbar \u0026amp; Pizarro, 2022). Disgust is an emotion that is characterized by feelings of aversion to stimuli that are perceived as offensive or contaminating (Rozin et al., 2008). While disgust can be experienced as a transient feeling, \u003cem\u003edisgust sensitivity\u003c/em\u003e is a personality trait that describes the level and frequency of aversive reactions to sexual, pathogen, and moral violations (Tybur et al., 2009), making it especially pertinent to the study of attitudes toward abortion.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA clear gap in the literature exists regarding the link between state and trait disgust and attitudes towards specific abortion patients and circumstances. Research has only recently begun to investigate the nuanced role of state and trait disgust in contributing to abortion attitudes (e.g., Merlici et al., 2024; Patev et al., 2019). Disgust tends to amplify the need to protect the physical and spiritual self from tainting influences and predicts condemnation of \u0026ldquo;impure\u0026rdquo; behaviors (Donner et al., 2023; Horberg et al., 2009; Wagemans et al., 2017) and is implicated in a number of stigmas around sexuality, including same-sex marriage, casual sex, and pornography (Koleva et al., 2012). For instance, people who are perceived as threats to sexual morality (e.g., sexually active individuals, pro-choice activists) are viewed more negatively by individuals high in disgust sensitivity (Crawford et al., 2014).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe respective role of state disgust in shaping abortion attitudes is less well understood, but it tends to show a limited effect. Although abortion was not included in the study (Horberg et al., 2009), experimentally inducing disgust increased condemnation of behaviors with purity violations and increased approval for behaviors upholding standards of purity. In contrast, exposure to a disgusting odorant was not related to decreased support for abortion (Adams et al., 2014), and individuals who have a strong disgust response are not more likely to oppose abortion than individuals with a weaker response (Smith et al., 2011). In another study, participant exposure to attitudinally relevant disgust images or incidental disgust images was not related to changes in abortion attitudes (Wisneski \u0026amp; Skitka, 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA theoretical review of the disgust literature shows that dispositional or trait disgust was consistently more predictive of social judgments compared to induced disgust (Inbar \u0026amp; Pizarro, 2022). One study found that pathogen, sexual, and moral disgust sensitivity were predictive of abortion attitudes and self-stigmatizing beliefs toward abortion, as mediated by right-wing authoritarianism (Merlici et al., 2024). Likewise, a mediational relationship of benevolent sexism and right-wing authoritarianism was found between sexual disgust and abortion stigmatizing beliefs (Patev et al., 2019). Other researchers have shown relationships between trait\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003edisgust sensitivity and general abortion attitudes (Inbar et al., 2009; Kam \u0026amp; Estes, 2016; Smith et al., 2011; Terrizzi Jr. et al., 2010), socio-sexuality (Hlay et al., 2022), and physical and sexual purity (Brenner \u0026amp; Inbar, 2015). Although disgust sensitivity broadly is related to abortion attitudes, larger correlations are found between sexual disgust, or the aversion to certain sex-related stimuli, and abortion attitudes, compared to moral or pathogen disgust (Merlici et al., 2024). All things considered, disgust offers a novel avenue for understanding the stigmatization of abortion patients and the polarization of abortion attitudes. Whereas past research has demonstrated a general link between disgust sensitivity and abortion attitudes, this study seeks to extend these findings by understanding how sexual disgust has the potential to contribute to negative attitudes towards individual abortion patients. Rather than focusing solely on attitudes towards abortion access and legalization, this study will investigate the potential of sexual disgust to contribute to negative perceptions of abortion patients as a function of the situational context surrounding the abortion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndividual Predictors of Abortion Attitudes\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs with the influence of contextual or emotional factors, other individual factors, particularly religiosity and political orientation, also emerge as predictors of support for or opposition to abortion and subsequent stigma of abortion patients. Religiosity appears frequently in the literature (e.g., Adamczyk \u0026amp; Valdimarsd\u0026oacute;ttir, 2018; Barringer et al., 2020; Dozier et al., 2020; Dutta et al., 2024; Hout et al., 2022; Jozkowski et al., 2018; Milmine \u0026amp; Fetner, 2024; Osborne et al., 2022; PRRI, 2022; Rye \u0026amp; Underhill, 2019) and tends to be most predictive of stringent abortion attitudes among White evangelical Protestants compared to other major religions in the United States (Hout et al., 2022; Pew Research Center, 2024). This trend merits further investigation, however, to understand how religiosity relates to both broad and specific dimensions of abortion attitudes. Religiosity is a complex phenomenon with wide variability in beliefs, values, and approaches to social issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, political orientation serves as a powerful determinant of abortion attitudes and has grown increasingly influential since the 1990s (Deckman et al., 2023; Hout et al., 2022; Osborne et al., 2022; P\u0026eacute;rez et al., 2025; Poteat \u0026amp; Mereish, 2012). Although abortion attitudes may appear relatively stable overall, this stability conceals divergent partisan trends: support has decreased over time among Republicans, while increasing over time among Democrats (Deckman et al., 2023; Jozkowski et al., 2021; Saad, 2023). Currently, an overwhelming majority of conservative Republicans (73%) say that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, compared to just 4% of liberal Democrats (Pew Research Center, 2024). Furthermore, Democrats\u0026rsquo; abortion attitudes are becoming more absolute, with growing support for abortion regardless of circumstances. In contrast, Republicans tend to adopt a more situationally contingent approach to abortion support (Jozkowski et al., 2021). Given the importance of religiosity and political polarization in shaping abortion attitudes, this study will seek to control these factors and their accompanying attitudinal polarization to better understand the novel potential of disgust sensitivity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Current Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross two studies, this research investigated the influence of state and trait sexual disgust on perceptions of warmth, sympathy, and moral character of a hypothetical abortion patient in medical emergency, socio-economic, and family planning contexts. The second study also examined attributions of responsibility. Religiosity, political orientation, and abortion attitude strength were included as covariates based on their consistent implications in the literature. Abortion attitude strength was included to account for the heightened strength of abortion attitudes that frequently accompany partisan polarization. The experimental manipulations of state disgust and abortion context allow for causal conclusions into contextual and state-level factors that shift judgments about abortion patients. Furthermore, the link between trait sexual disgust sensitivity and abortion attitudes was investigated to better understand how an individual\u0026rsquo;s aversion to certain sexual behaviors related to their attitudes about abortion. To replicate past research, this study assessed direction and strength of the link between sexual disgust and general abortion attitudes, including general warmth towards abortion patients and general support for abortion restrictions. Additionally, this study constitutes the first investigation of how trait sexual disgust relates to attitudes towards specific abortion patients as a function of the contexts surrounding the abortion. The findings from this study will inform what is known about the role of state and trait disgust on context-specific abortion attitudes and provide necessary nuance to the interpersonal judgements of abortion patients beyond just support for the legality of abortion. Based on previous research, the following hypotheses were formulated regarding the associations between abortion context and state and trait disgust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: An abortion patient depicted in the medical emergency condition will be rated more warmly, elicit more sympathy, and have a higher perceived moral character compared to the patients depicted in the socio-economic or family planning conditions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: Both state (no, low, and high) and trait disgust will be related to target judgements, such that higher state or trait sexual disgust will be related to more negative perceptions of abortion patients (i.e., lower warmth, sympathy, and perceived moral character) compared to participants with lower state or trait sexual disgust.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Study 1 Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA sample of 165 participants aged 18 to 54 (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32.79, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.13) who resided in the United States were recruited through the online crowdsourcing platform Prolific\u0026reg;. Participants were mostly White (68.5%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;113), identified as female (59.4%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;98), and politically liberal (69.1%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;114). Just over half of participants held a bachelor's degree (43%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;71) or higher (12.7%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21). Participants held mixed religious affiliations, with the most prevalent being Christian (29.7%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;49), agnostic (23.6%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;39), and atheist (15.8%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26). See Table\u0026nbsp;1 for participant characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e Participants were informed that they would complete a study on the role of emotions in social attitudes that would require them to read a paragraph about an intimate relationship and answer questions about a social issue. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three state sexual disgust conditions (no disgust, low disgust, high disgust) and one of three abortion contexts (medical emergency, socio-economic, and family planning). Participants reported their judgements of a vignette target seeking an abortion and indicated their general support and attitudes about abortion. Participants then completed a brief cognitive resetting task to minimize the influence of the experimental conditions on their responses to measures of trait sexual disgust and religiosity. Finally, participants completed demographic information indicating their political orientation, abortion attitude strength and identity, age, education level, racial identity, religious affiliation, and gender identity. Following responses, participants received an informational debriefing form on the purpose and goals of the study and were compensated for their time in line with Prolific\u0026rsquo;s standards. This study was approved in full by the authors\u0026rsquo; Institutional Review Board.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMaterials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eState Sexual Disgust Primes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll participants read one of three vignettes designed to induce low, high, or no state disgust. The vignettes described either a woman who is reflecting on how happy she is with her husband and looks forward to spending time with him (control), a woman feeling sexually attracted to her husband and looking forward to having sex with him (low disgust), or a woman at her husband\u0026rsquo;s funeral feeling sexually aroused by his corpse and wishing to have sex with it (high disgust). Participants then described how disgusting they perceived the situation they had just read using a seven-point scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003eNot at all Disgusting\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003eExtremely Disgusting\u003c/em\u003e) as a manipulation check. Complete materials can be found at (OSF link not included for review).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAbortion Scenario\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants read one of three abortion scenarios modified from Watts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR137\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These vignettes described a woman who had two children and found out she was pregnant and subsequently decided to have an abortion either because (1) her chemotherapy treatment and health would be harmed by the unplanned pregnancy (medical emergency condition), (2) her financial future would be jeopardized by the unplanned pregnancy (socio-economic condition), or (3) because she did not want any more children (family planning condition). These vignettes provide greater accuracy of the circumstances surrounding abortion decision making, with a large portion of abortion patients already having children and choosing an abortion to maintain economic or future stability for their existing children (Beumer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Biggs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePerson Perceptions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants rated their perceptions of the vignette target across three dimensions: warmth, sympathy, and moral character. Specifically, they rated how warmly they felt towards the target on a seven-point scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003eExtremely Cold\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003eExtremely Warm\u003c/em\u003e). They rated their level of sympathy towards the target on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003eNo Sympathy\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003eMaximum Sympathy\u003c/em\u003e), and evaluated the target\u0026rsquo;s moral character, on a scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003eExtremely Bad Moral Character\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003eExtremely Good Moral Character\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eGeneral Support for Abortion Access\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported their overall warmth towards people who receive an abortion on a seven-point scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003eExtremely Cold\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003eExtremely Warm\u003c/em\u003e), and their general support for abortion restrictions, with six response options corresponding to those used by the Pew Research Center: 1 (\u003cem\u003eLegal in all cases with no exceptions\u003c/em\u003e), 2 (\u003cem\u003eLegal in all cases with exceptions\u003c/em\u003e), 3 (\u003cem\u003eLegal in most cases\u003c/em\u003e), 4 (\u003cem\u003eIllegal in most cases\u003c/em\u003e), 5 (\u003cem\u003eIllegal in all cases with exceptions\u003c/em\u003e), 6 (\u003cem\u003eIllegal in all cases with no exceptions\u003c/em\u003e; Pew Research Center, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCognitive Resetting Task\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants completed a cognitive resetting task before completing the dispositional measures to reduce any residual effects of the disgust primes. For this task, participants engaged with ten landscape photos with instructions to count the number of photos depicting mountains and the number of photos depicting water. Some photos depicted both mountains and water.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTrait Sexual Disgust\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants completed the seven-item Sexual Disgust subscale of the twenty-one-item Three Domains of Disgust Scale (TDDS; Tybur et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR131\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), which is a scale intended to measure disgust sensitivity in the sexual, pathogen, and moral domains using a seven-point scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003eNot at All Disgusting)\u003c/em\u003e to 7 (\u003cem\u003eExtremely Disgusting).\u003c/em\u003e Example items from this subscale include \u0026ldquo;hearing two strangers have sex\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;watching a pornographic video.\u0026rdquo; Research generally finds internal consistency above .80 for each factor, as well as strong reliability over time (Tybur et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR131\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Olatunji et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Only the sexual disgust subscale was used in this study and demonstrated an acceptable level of internal consistency (a\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eReligiosity\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Duke Religiosity Scale (DUREL; Koenig \u0026amp; B\u0026uuml;ssing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) is a five-item measure assessing overall religiosity that captures organizational religious activity, non-organizational religious activity, and intrinsic religiosity. Items include \u0026ldquo;How often do you attend church or other religious meetings?\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;In my life, I experience the presence of the Divine (i.e., God).\u0026rdquo; Responses for the first two items were collected on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003eNever\u003c/em\u003e) to 6 (\u003cem\u003eMore Than Once a Week\u003c/em\u003e) and on a five-point scale for the remaining items ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003eDefinitely Not True)\u003c/em\u003e to 5 (\u003cem\u003eDefinitely True of Me)\u003c/em\u003e. Internal consistency was excellent (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.94).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePolitical Affiliation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported their political affiliation using two items measuring economic and social ideology. Participants were asked \u0026ldquo;How liberal or conservative do you tend to be when it comes to [social/economic] policy.\u0026rdquo; Responses were collected on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003eStrongly Liberal\u003c/em\u003e) to 6 (\u003cem\u003eStrongly Conservative\u003c/em\u003e). The average of the two scores was used to assess political affiliation. Responses showed high internal consistency (a\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.88).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAbortion Attitude Strength and Directionality\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbortion attitude strength was measured using a standard three-item measure of attitude strength, personal importance, and attitude certainty (adapted from Haddock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Participants rated how they felt about abortion access using a seven-point scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003eNot at All Strong/Important/Certain\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003eExtremely Strong/Important/Certain\u003c/em\u003e). Internal consistency was acceptable (a\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.78). Participants also reported the directionality of their support on a single item using a six-point scale ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003eStrongly Pro-Choice\u003c/em\u003e) to 6 (\u003cem\u003eStrongly Pro-Life\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDesign and Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, we conducted hierarchical regressions to investigate whether trait sexual disgust uniquely predicts support for the legality of abortion and judgments of abortion patients in general. Next, a series of moderated multiple regressions examined the effects of state disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on judgments of warmth, sympathy, and moral character for the target abortion patient. Abortion context was categorical with three levels (medical, socio-economic, and family planning) and dummy coded with the medical condition as the reference group. State disgust was also coded categorically with three levels (control, low disgust, high disgust) and dummy coded with the control condition as the reference group. Lastly, a series of moderated multiple regressions examined the effects of trait disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on judgments of warmth, sympathy, and moral character for the target abortion patient. Abortion context was coded in the same way as above. Each model included abortion attitude strength, political orientation, and religiosity as covariates. A priori power calculations for this model with a medium effect size at 80% power required a sample size of 158 for the main effects of disgust and context (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e \u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .15; Faul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy 1 Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAbortion Descriptives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe majority of participants were strongly pro-choice (65.5%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;108), with an additional 15.2% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25), identifying as either somewhat or moderately pro-choice, and 9.7% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16) of participants identifying as either somewhat or moderately pro-life. Another 9.7% identified as strongly pro-life. A high percentage of individuals believed that abortion should be legal in all circumstances with no exceptions (47.9%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;79), or legal in all circumstances with some exceptions (24.8%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41), with another 10.9% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18) endorsing that abortion should be legal in most cases. Collectively, less than a quarter of participants believed that abortion should be illegal in most cases (4.8%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8), illegal in all cases with exceptions (9.7%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16), or illegal in all cases with no exceptions (1.8%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3). Participants tended to feel warmly towards abortion patients, with 66.1% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;109) reporting some level of warmth. About a quarter (22.4%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;37) of participants fell in the scale midline of feeling neither cold nor warm, and approximately another tenth (11.5%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19) expressed feeling cold towards women who receive an abortion. Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;2.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eState Disgust Validity Check\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA manipulation check assessed the ability of the disgust primes to effectively induce state disgust. A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect of disgust primes on self-reported disgust, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,164)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;501.5, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001. Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons test showed that average self-reported disgust was significantly higher in the high disgust prime (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.27, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.2) compared to the low disgust (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.43, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.1) and control (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.09, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.35) primes with no significant differences between the low and control conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCognitive Resetting Task Validity Check\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA validity check assessed the effectiveness of the brief cognitive resetting task in eliminating residual effects of state disgust on subsequent measures. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with sexual disgust sensitivity, abortion attitude strength, political orientation, and religiosity as dependent variables and the disgust group as the independent variable showed that no significant differences existed on any of the subsequent dependent variables as a function of the no, low, or high disgust manipulation, ν\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(8, 316)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.78, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.62.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eGeneral Abortion Judgements\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eHierarchical regressions investigated the effect of trait sexual disgust on general abortion attitudes while controlling for political orientation, strength of abortion attitudes, and religiosity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eGeneral Warmth\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first step with the covariates was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 159)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.36. Political orientation, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.30, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, strength of abortion attitudes, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05, and religiosity, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, were significant covariates. In the second step, trait sexual disgust was not a significant predictor of general warmth towards abortion patients, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 158)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.38.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSupport for Abortion Restrictions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first step with the covariates was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 159)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;47.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.46. Political orientation, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07, strength of abortion attitudes, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, and religiosity, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, were significant covariates. The second step was significant, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 158)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.86, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.50, with trait sexual disgust contributing s unique variance, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, demonstrating that higher levels of trait disgust sensitivity were related to greater support for abortion restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAbortion Scenario Judgements\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSexual State Disgust\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eModerated multiple regressions were conducted to examine the effects of state disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on judgments of warmth, sympathy, and moral character for the target. Abortion context was categorical with three levels (medical, socio-economic, and family planning), and dummy coded with the medical condition as the reference group. State disgust was also coded categorically with three levels (control, low disgust, high disgust), and dummy coded with the control condition as the reference group. See supplemental materials for Study 1 regression tables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWarmth.\u003c/b\u003e The first step with the covariates was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 159)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.23. Political orientation, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, and strength of abortion attitudes, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, but not religiosity, were significant covariates. The second step was also significant, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(4, 155)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.31. For abortion context, participants in the medical condition rated targets more warmly compared to those in the socio-economic, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03 or the family planning conditions, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.30, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06. Neither the high nor the low state disgust condition significantly affected warmth ratings relative to the control condition. The third step was not significant, indicating no interaction between abortion context and state disgust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSympathy.\u003c/b\u003e The first step was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 159)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.24. Political orientation, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, strength of abortion attitudes, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.26, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05, and religiosity, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.050, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, were significant covariates. The second step was also significant, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(4, 155)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.58, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.33. Target patients in the medical condition elicited greater sympathy compared to the socio-economic, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07, or the family planning conditions, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07. State disgust conditions were not significant. The third step was not significant, indicating no interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMoral character.\u003c/b\u003e The first step was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 159)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.31. Political orientation, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, strength of abortion attitudes, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, and religiosity, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05, were significant covariates. The second step was also significant, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(4, 155)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.36. Targets in the medical conditions were perceived to have a higher moral character than those in the socio-economic, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, and the family planning abortion conditions, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03. Neither state disgust nor its interaction with abortion context were significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn short, these analyses clarified the relationship between state sexual disgust and judgements of target abortion patients above and beyond the effect of political orientation, strength of abortion attitudes, and religiosity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSexual Trait Disgust\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eModerated multiple regressions examined the effects of trait disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on target judgements. Abortion context was dummy coded as above. For each of the dependent variables, the first step with the covariates and the second step with abortion context were significant, with identical values to the moderated regressions for sexual trait disgust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWarmth.\u003c/b\u003e As shown in the state analyses, the first and second steps with the covariates and abortion context were significant. Trait sexual disgust was not significant, nor was its interaction with abortion context in the third step.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSympathy.\u003c/b\u003e The first and second steps with the covariates and abortion context were significant. Trait sexual disgust was not significant. The third step was not significant, indicating no interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMoral character.\u003c/b\u003e The first and second steps with the covariates and abortion context were significant. Neither trait sexual disgust nor its interaction significantly predicted judgements of the target abortion patient\u0026rsquo;s moral character.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis set of analyses examined the relationship between sexual trait disgust sensitivity and judgments of target abortion patients above and beyond the effect of relevant covariates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy 1 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, the results of Study 1 showed a consistent effect of political orientation, abortion attitude strength, and religiosity on ratings of general warmth towards abortion patients, support for abortion restrictions, and perceptions of a target abortion patient (warmth, sympathy, moral character). Furthermore, target patients who received an abortion in cases of medical emergency elicited greater warmth and sympathy and higher moral character ratings compared to those who received an abortion for socio-economic or family planning reasons. Neither induced disgust nor trait disgust predicted attitudes towards the target after accounting for the influence of the covariates. Trait disgust did significantly predict support for abortion restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther research with greater power for a small effect size is needed to replicate these findings to strengthen scientific confidence in the lack of a relationship between induced disgust and attitudes towards specific abortion patients. Eliminating the control group, which was rated as equally disgusting to the low disgust group, would allow for greater power to accurately determine the presence or absence of the influence of state disgust on perceptions of a target abortion patient. Regarding trait disgust, research has linked this construct with general support for abortion and its legality but has not been used to predict attitudes towards specific abortion patients.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePartially supporting our hypotheses and existing research (Inbar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Kam \u0026amp; Estes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR125\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Terrizzi Jr. et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR129\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), increases in trait disgust were related to increases in support for abortion restrictions and marginally related to decreases in warmth towards abortion patients in general. Of note, our study specifically examined this relationship after controlling for the influence of relevant covariates. Given that research using mediational models of the relationship between trait disgust and abortion attitudes have been recently utilized in the literature (Merlici et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Patev et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), it should be considered that one of the covariates explaining a significant portion of the variance (political orientation in the case of Study 1) could be diminishing the role of trait disgust on abortion attitudes. Future research should consider a mediational model of political orientation in the relationship between trait disgust sensitivity and abortion attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Study 2","content":"\u003cp\u003e We aimed to replicate the primary results of Study 1 using a new, more politically diverse sample, excluding the control disgust condition, and increasing the number of participants to enhance statistical power and improve the detection of small effect sizes. Additionally, we incorporated a new measure assessing dispositional attributions to examine the level of personal responsibility and blame attributed to the abortion patient relative to situational factors influencing the decision to receive an abortion. The primary design and analyses were the same. Additional exploratory analyses were employed to test a mediational relationship of political orientation between trait sexual disgust and abortion attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy 2 Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA sample of 250 participants aged 19 to 54 years old (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;36.17, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.53) from the United States were recruited through the online crowdsourcing platform Prolific\u0026reg;. Participants were mostly White, (72.4%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;181), identified as male (49.2%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;123), and conservative (51.6%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;129). Most participants had begun (21.6%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;54) or completed a bachelor's degree (36.0%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;90). Participants held mixed religious affiliations, with the most prevalent being Christian (48.8%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;122), agnostic (15.6%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;39), and atheist (19.2%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;48). Compared to Study 1, this sample had greater male and conservative political orientation representation. A complete sample breakdown is included in Table\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eProcedure and Materials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants completed the same measures and followed the same procedure as Study 1, except for a modification to the sexual disgust state primes and an additional dependent variable of attributions of responsibility. The sexual disgust state primes were modified to remove the no disgust prime/control condition, as the Study 1 manipulation check demonstrated no significant difference in reported disgust between the control and low disgust conditions. The three abortion conditions remained the same. Target judgments were measured in the same way as Study 1, with the addition of attributions of responsibility as a fourth dependent variable. Procedures were approved in full by the author\u0026rsquo;s Institutional Review Board prior to the onset of the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAttributions of Responsibility\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants also rated how much responsibility they attributed to the target abortion patient in the decision to terminate the pregnancy from 0 (\u003cem\u003eNo Responsibility\u003c/em\u003e) to 100 (\u003cem\u003eComplete Responsibility\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary analyses replicated Study 1, with additional exploratory analyses examining a mediational model of the relationship between trait disgust sensitivity and abortion attitudes via political orientation. A priori power calculations for this model required a sample size of 244 for small-medium main effects (\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e \u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .20) and 196 for a medium interaction effect (\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e \u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .25) between disgust and context (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05, 1-β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.80; Faul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy 2 Results\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec37\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDescriptives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilar trends in general abortion attitudes were shown as in Study 1, although support for abortion was generally lower given the increase in conservative representation. Slightly less than half of the participants were strongly pro-choice (46.6%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;116), with an additional 16% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40) identifying as either somewhat or moderately pro-choice and 17.2% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43) of participants identifying as either somewhat or moderately pro-life. Another 20.1% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;50) identified as strongly pro-life. Over a third of individuals believed that abortion should be legal in all circumstances with no exceptions (37.6%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;94), or legal in all circumstances with some exceptions (20.4%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51), with another 10.4% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26) endorsing that abortion should be legal in most cases. Collectively, slightly less than a third of participants believed that abortion should be illegal in most cases (8.0%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20), illegal in all cases with exceptions (14.8%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;37), or illegal in all cases with no exceptions (8.8%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;22). Participants tended to feel warmly towards women who received an abortion, with 49.8% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;124) of participants reporting some level of warmth. About a quarter (21.7%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;54) of participants fell in the scale midline of feeling neither cold nor warm, and approximately another third (28.5%, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;71) expressed feeling cold towards women who receive an abortion. Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;3.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eGeneral Abortion Judgments\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs with Study 1, hierarchical regressions were conducted to investigate whether sexual disgust predicts general warmth towards abortion patients and support for abortion restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec39\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eGeneral Warmth\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first step with covariates was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 239)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;84.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.51. Political orientation, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.61, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.20 and religiosity, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01, but not strength of abortion attitudes, were significant covariates in this step. The second step was significant, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 238)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.87, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.52, suggesting that trait sexual disgust explained significant unique variance, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01, and that individuals higher in trait sexual disgust expressed less warmth towards abortion patients.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec40\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSupport for Abortion Restrictions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first step was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 240)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;95.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.54. Political orientation, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.52, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.14, and religiosity, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05, but not strength of abortion attitudes, were significant. The second step was also significant, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 239)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.50, showing that trait sexual disgust contributes significant unique variance, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, with individuals higher in trait sexual disgust expressing greater support for abortion restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAbortion Scenario Judgements\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSexual State Disgust\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMirroring Study 1, moderated multiple regressions examined the effects of state disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on judgments of warmth, sympathy, moral character, and internal attributions for the target. Abortion context was categorical with three levels (medical, socio-economic, and family planning) and dummy coded with the medical condition as the reference group. State disgust was also coded categorically with two levels (low and high disgust).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWarmth.\u003c/b\u003e The first step with the covariates was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 240)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;42.63, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.35, but political orientation was the only significant predictor, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.14. The second step was also significant, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 237)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.79, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.46. Warmth ratings were significantly higher in the medical condition compared to the socio-economic, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, and the family planning condition, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.38, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.11. State disgust was not significant. The final step was not significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSympathy.\u003c/b\u003e The first step was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 240)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.28. Only political orientation was significant, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.52, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.14. The second step was also significant, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 237)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.99, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.40. The socio-economic, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.28, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07, and the family planning condition, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.38, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.11, elicited significantly lower sympathy compared to the medical condition. Neither state disgust nor its interaction were significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMoral character.\u003c/b\u003e The first step with the covariates was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 240)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;44.27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.36, with political orientation as the only significant predictor, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.52, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.14. The second step was also significant, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 237)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.85, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.45. Participants in the socio-economic, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.28, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, and the family planning condition, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.38, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.11, condition judged the target as significantly less moral than those in the medical emergency condition. State disgust was not significant. The final step was not significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAttributions.\u003c/b\u003e The first step was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 240)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.98, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, but political orientation was the only significant covariate, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03. The second step was also significant, Δ\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 237)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20.35, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29. The socio-economic, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, and the family planning conditions, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.49, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003esr\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.18, elicited significantly higher internal attributions compared to the medical emergency condition. No other significant findings were found.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSexual Trait Disgust\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eModerated multiple regressions examined the effects of trait disgust, abortion context, and their interaction on judgments of warmth, sympathy, moral character, and attributions. Abortion context was dummy coded as above. For each of the dependent variables, the first step with the covariates and the second step with abortion context were significant, with identical values to the moderated regressions for sexual state disgust. Results with sexual trait disgust replicated Study 1. Trait sexual disgust was not related to ratings of warmth, sympathy, moral character, or dispositional attributions of the target abortion patient. There was no interaction between sexual trait disgust and abortion context. Results are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;4. A full write up can be found in the supplemental materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMediational Analyses\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMediational analyses using Hayes\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) PROCESS macro (Model 4) were conducted for both the general abortion attitudes (general warmth, support for abortion restrictions) and vignette-specific variables (warmth, sympathy, moral character, attributions). The model specified sexual disgust sensitivity (X) as the independent variable and political orientation (M) as the mediator. A bootstrap method with 10000 resamples was used to calculate the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the indirect effect. No covariates were placed in the model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGeneral Abortion Judgments\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGeneral Warmth.\u003c/b\u003e For general warmth towards abortion patients, the total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity was significant, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.56, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(243) = -6.94, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, [-.72, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.40]. Sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with lower warmth ratings towards abortion patients. The direct effect of sexual disgust on general warmth remained significant after accounting for political orientation, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.19, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(243) = -2.80, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006, [-.33, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06]. To examine the mediation, the indirect effect of sexual disgust was tested, for which the bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect was [-.48, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.27], excluding zero, indicating that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between sexual disgust and general warmth towards abortion patients. Overall, political orientation partially mediated the relationship between sexual disgust sensitivity and general warmth towards abortion patients.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSupport for Abortion Restrictions.\u003c/b\u003e The total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity on support for abortion restrictions was significant, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.60, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(244)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, [.46, .73], showing that sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with greater support for abortion restrictions. The direct effect of sexual disgust on abortion restrictions remained significant after accounting for political orientation, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.28, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(244)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.65, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, [.16, .40]. The bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect excluded zero ([.23, .41]), meaning that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between sexual disgust and support for abortion restrictions. Political orientation partially mediated the relationship between sexual disgust sensitivity and support for abortion restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVignette-Specific Judgements\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWarmth.\u003c/b\u003e The total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity on warmth ratings was significant, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.40, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(244) = -5.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, [-.55, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.24], demonstrating that sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with lower ratings of warmth for the target abortion patient. The direct effect of sexual disgust on warmth was not significant after accounting for political orientation, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(244) = -1.45, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, [-.26, .04]. The bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect of political orientation on warmth was [-.40, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.20], excluding zero, signifying that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between sexual disgust and warmth towards the target abortion patient (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). Additionally, moderated mediation models confirmed the moderating effect of abortion context in these mediating relationships (see Supplemental materials for more information).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSympathy.\u003c/b\u003e An identical mediational procedure to the warmth dependent variable was implemented. The total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity on sympathy ratings was significant, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.41, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(243) = -4.91, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, [-.57, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.24], demonstrating that sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with lower sympathy for abortion patients. The direct effect of sexual disgust on sympathy was not significant after accounting for political orientation, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(243) = -1.76, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, [-.30, .02]. To examine the mediation, the indirect effect of sexual disgust was tested, for which the bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect was [-.38, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.17], excluding zero, signifying that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between sexual disgust and sympathy towards an abortion patient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMoral Character.\u003c/b\u003e As with the results on warmth and sympathy, the total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity on moral character ratings was significant, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.44, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(244) = -5.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, [-.60, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.28], demonstrating that sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with lower sympathy for abortion patients. The direct effect of sexual disgust on sympathy was not significant after accounting for political orientation, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(244) = -1.82, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07, [-.29, .01]. The bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect was [-.41, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.20], excluding zero, indicating that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between sexual disgust and moral character ratings of an abortion patient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAttributions.\u003c/b\u003e Mirroring previous results, the total effect of sexual disgust sensitivity on dispositional attributions was significant, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.71, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.53, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(244)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, [.70, 6.71], demonstrating that sexual disgust sensitivity was associated with higher individual blame for abortion patients. The direct effect of sexual disgust on attributions was not significant after accounting for political orientation, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.87, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.62, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(244)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.59, [-2.32, 4.06]. The bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect ([1.40, 4.56]) excluded zero, demarcating that political orientation significantly mediated the relationship between increases in sexual disgust and heightened dispositional attributions of an abortion patient.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy 2 Discussion\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, the results of Study 2 replicated and extended findings from Study 1, including the consistent effect of political orientation on broad and patient-specific abortion attitudes and the elevated judgments of targets receiving abortion for socio-economic or family planning reasons as compared to targets receiving abortions for medical emergencies. Likewise, there was no effect of state or trait disgust on target-specific abortion attitudes above and beyond the effect of the covariates. Trait sexual disgust did significantly predict general warmth towards abortion patients and support for abortion restrictions. Study 2 showed that trait sexual disgust sensitivity (via its relationship to political orientation) relates to broad perceptions of abortion patients and support for abortion restrictions, and as a factor that is linked to judgments towards target abortion patients.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupporting the mediational model of disgust and abortion attitudes proposed in past research (Merlici et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Patev et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), individuals higher in sexual disgust sensitivity rated abortion patients more negatively and supported restrictions on abortion legality, an association that was partially explained by individuals higher in disgust sensitivity identifying as more politically conservative. These individuals felt less warmth and sympathy towards a target abortion patient, rated them as less moral, and held them personally accountable for their abortion circumstances to a greater extent than individuals lower in sexual disgust sensitivity. Furthermore, the link between trait disgust and target abortion judgments was mediated by increased conservatism of individuals high in disgust sensitivity. The results supported a mediational model of sexual disgust sensitivity operating on abortion attitudes through increased political conservatism.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, Study 2 provided further support for the absence of a relationship between induced sexual disgust and elevated negative judgments of a target abortion patient in line with past research (Adams et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR125\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Wisneski \u0026amp; Skitka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR139\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Participants who were primed to experience sexual disgust did not rate the target individual more negatively than individuals who were primed to experience a minimal level of disgust. Consistent with Study 1, the target who received an abortion due to a medical emergency was afforded more positive judgments in the form of more warmth and sympathy, higher moral character ratings, and less personal responsibility for the abortion compared to the targets who received an abortion for socio-economic or family planning reasons.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"General Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAbortion stigma remains pervasive despite abortion care being declared a commonplace medical procedure and a human right. These two studies provide continued empirical support that individuals who receive abortions for non-life-threatening reasons, such as to avoid economic peril or a simple desire not to have more children, are viewed more negatively than abortion patients who have minimal autonomy over their situations, as in the case of a medical emergency. This study further demonstrates that dispositional levels of sexual disgust operate to stigmatize abortion patients through its relationship to increased levels of conservatism. In the tenuous climate surrounding abortion legality and access, one\u0026rsquo;s political orientation, and similar interpersonal traits such as sexual disgust, remain the strongest predictors of one\u0026rsquo;s stance on abortion. This article replicates key research findings while advancing scientific understanding about the role of disgust in attitudes towards abortion patients in specific contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, the role of political alignment, strength of one\u0026rsquo;s attitudes towards abortion and religiosity on general support for abortion restrictions, feelings about abortion patients, and feelings towards specific abortion circumstances is consistent with research showing the influence of these factors on perceptions of abortion access and abortion patients (Deckman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Jozkowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Osborne et al., 2022; Pew Research Center, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR111\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Rye \u0026amp; Underhill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR119\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). As conservatism increased, participants demonstrated more positive attitudes towards abortion restrictions and more negative attitudes towards abortion patients. Across studies, political orientation held a large and consistent ability to explain a multitude of attitudes and judgments of abortion (e.g., general abortion attitudes, target-specific abortion attitudes) in alignment with past research (Deckman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Hout et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; P\u0026eacute;rez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Osborne et al., 2022). Abortion attitude strength had a modest relationship to abortion attitudes in Study 1, showing that as abortion attitudes increased in strength, there was a corresponding decrease in support for abortion restrictions and more positive views of abortion patients. This relationship is likely explained by the fact that political liberals tended to have stronger abortion attitudes in Study 1. In the sample with greater political diversity (Study 2), the relationship between abortion attitude strength and abortion attitudes disappeared, which aligns with research showing that the stability of abortion attitudes is eclipsed by partisan polarization. As abortion attitudes increase in strength, both liberals and conservatives retreat further to their respective sides, with strong attitudes on both sides neutralizing the directional relationship between attitude strength and more liberal or conservative abortion attitudes (Deckman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Jozkowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between religiosity and general warmth towards abortion patients and support for restrictions was consistent, with more religious individuals expressing lower warmth for abortion patients and greater support for abortion restrictions. Religiosity was minimally and inconsistently related to attitudes towards the target abortion patient, yielding evidence that religion impacts abortion attitudes in theory more than attitudes towards specific individuals who have had an abortion. Research has supported the notion that religiosity influences abortion attitudes more than abortion behavior, and religious individuals are actually less likely to provide no support for abortion patients compared to non-religious individuals (Cary et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Cowan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Milmine \u0026amp; Fetner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, the results showing that certain abortion patients are viewed more favorably align with our hypotheses, as well as past academic research and public polling (Bowman \u0026amp; Goldstein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Jozkowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These two studies demonstrated that participants felt more warmth and sympathy for a target individual who received an abortion to preserve their long-term health and viewed them as more moral and less blameworthy than target individuals who received an abortion to avoid going into economic decline and being unable to support their existing children or a mother who already had two children and did not want another. Supported by existing research, individuals who receive an abortion for an uncontrollable reason such as a medical emergency tend to be viewed more positively than individuals who receive abortions for reasons that are viewed as more controllable or demonstrate greater autonomy (e.g., social or economic insecurity, not wanting more children; Pacilli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Peng \u0026amp; Huang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Rye \u0026amp; Underhill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR119\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Young et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR143\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Zucker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR145\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, the findings surrounding state and trait disgust present a complex picture of the relationship between disgust and abortion attitudes. Although contrary to hypotheses, this study replicates findings showing no relationship between induced (state) sexual disgust and abortion attitudes (Adams et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR125\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Wisneski \u0026amp; Skitka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR139\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and adds to a growing body of research demonstrating the limitations of state disgust (for a review, see Inbar \u0026amp; Pizarro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). While participants did experience high levels of disgust in response to the experimental primes, this did not translate to more negative reactions to the target abortion patients. Though these two studies yielded null results pertaining to the role of state disgust, this study was able to demonstrate a similar trend of results with regard to \u003cem\u003especific\u003c/em\u003e abortion circumstances, whereas past research only included broader abortion attitudes, which are more resistant to attitude change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigher levels of trait sexual disgust sensitivity were related to greater support for restrictions on abortion as demonstrated in previous studies (Inbar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Merlici et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Patev et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Trait sexual disgust was related, although to a smaller degree, to general warmth towards individuals who receive an abortion, which adds an interpersonal dimension to how disgust relates to general abortion attitudes. These effects were present above and beyond the effect of political orientation on abortion attitudes. Indeed, mediational models revealed that political orientation only partially mediated the relationship between elevated sexual disgust sensitivity and more restrictive attitudes towards abortion. This research replicates and extends past results showing a link between disgust and general abortion attitudes by controlling for an important dimension that relates to both variables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a novel contribution to the literature, this study demonstrated that the effect of trait sexual disgust on sentiments towards specific abortion patients could be explained by its association with political orientation. After accounting for political orientation, dispositional levels of sexual disgust were not related to how much warmth or sympathy participants felt towards a target abortion patient or their ratings of the target\u0026rsquo;s moral character and personal responsibility/blame for their situation. Mediational models showed that disgust is related to attitudes towards these target abortion patients, but only because individuals higher in disgust are more politically conservative (Inbar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), and conservatism is strongly linked to more restrictive abortion attitudes (Pew Research Center, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR111\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These results reflect the nuanced relationships between political orientation, sexual disgust, and abortion attitudes and offer avenues for stigma reduction by interrupting these pathways.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePolicy and Practice Implications\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first primary implication is that abortion stigma remains pervasive, and individuals continue to be judged negatively for the decision to have an abortion unless their life is literally under threat. Decades of research have confirmed the harmfulness of abortion stigma on physical and psychological outcomes (Hanschmidt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Shea \u0026amp; Watson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Sorhaindo et al., 2022). The negative influence of such stigma requires proper education to reframe the existing narratives around abortion. Sex educators should seek to incorporate a wide scope of reproductive health care, including abortion care, into their curricula to increase knowledge and decrease stigma around abortion. Individuals who have greater knowledge about pregnancy tend to have more positive attitudes and less stigma surrounding abortion (Elder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, educators and politicians should include a range of abortion narratives into public dialogue to avoid perpetuating the stigma that only certain individuals are deserving of abortion (Jozkowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Pacilli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother key implication stems from the link between political orientation and attitudes and perceptions of abortion and the individuals who receive it. Politicians have utilized inflammatory and inaccurate language to amplify political polarization of abortion for decades, yet public opinion polls show that framing the debate in terms of government non-interference and healthcare yields greater support for access and patient care. Over two-thirds (67%) of Americans believe that abortion decisions should be made by a woman and her doctor, and over three-quarters (78%) believe that access to abortion is a somewhat or very important part of health care (Perry Undem, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Continued efforts to separate partisanship from abortion attitudes offer promise in reducing stigma towards abortion patients.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy understanding the mechanisms through which disgust is related to abortion attitudes, educators and policymakers can seek to interrupt this process. Although disgust tends to be related to political orientation and subsequent attitudes and beliefs, one study found that reappraisal of disgust is linked to lower opposition to abortion and same sex marriage (Feinberg et al., 2013). Connecting this line of research to concrete action, research by Kumar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Cahill (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) has focused on the role of disgust in attitudes towards abortion, its surrounding legal culture, and pathways to interrupt these negative relationships. The findings from this study and those that precede it highlight the importance of continued education and stigma reduction to reduce the influence of emotional and political narratives on dialogues around abortion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough this study effectively demonstrated some of the contextual and individual factors that influence abortion attitudes, a few limitations should be acknowledged that would strengthen future research in this area. One limitation from the current study is that the findings were potentially limited by statistical concerns surrounding power. A larger sample could potentially identify interactions but would likely produce very small effects that would have minimal utility in the scientific understanding of abortion attitudes. While future researchers should recruit larger and more diverse samples, these two studies provide support for the role of abortion context and trait disgust that align with previous research on disgust and abortion (Merlici et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR125\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Terrizzi Jr. et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR129\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother limitation of this study is the simplicity of the mediation model. Though this model is parsimonious, models incorporating additional mediators such as social dominance orientation or sexism should be considered in future research. Utilizing structural equation modeling would allow researchers to better examine the relationships between the variables and parse out the relationships between broad and situation-specific abortion attitudes and the influence of individual differences in responses to abortion patients and public policy scenarios. Despite this model\u0026rsquo;s simplicity, previous research has utilized similar models in explaining the relationship between disgust and abortion attitudes (Merlici et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Patev et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture research should continue to investigate the role of disgust in attitudes towards both reproductive rights policy and perceptions of individuals receiving certain types of reproductive rights care (e.g., miscarriage, IVF, sterilization) and seek to tease out the unique effects of disgust as compared with political orientation on these attitudes and perceptions. A robust body of research has shown a link between disgust and a range of attitudes towards sexual and gender minorities and links disgust with homophobia and transphobia (Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; van Leeuwen et al., 2023). Future research could demonstrate how disgust operates in social interactions both as a result of political attitudes and as a distinct force for contempt of these individuals.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThese studies illustrate the continued stigma around certain abortion contexts and the accompanying interpersonal backlash as manifested by the decreased emotional responsiveness (e.g., warmth, sympathy) and judgments of the abortion patient\u0026rsquo;s character as less moral and more deserving of responsibility and blame. Being disgust sensitive (rather than momentarily disgusted) was more useful for understanding judgments of general warmth towards abortion patients and support for abortion restrictions. Additionally, being more disgust sensitive was related to more negative evaluations of abortion patients. Individuals who were disgust sensitive tended to be more politically conservative, which helped to explain how disgust was related to broad abortion attitudes and judgments of specific abortion patients. This study suggests that disrupting the links between abortion attitudes, political orientation, and disgust could serve to reduce abortion stigma. These findings have important implications for educators, policymakers, and counselors as they seek to detach political polarization from abortion care.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to study conception and design. G.P. wrote the main manuscript text. This research was supervised by K.J. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank Kaitlyn M. Wilson and Dr. Lucia F. O\u0026rsquo;Sullivan for their help with aspects of data analysis and manuscript review.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [GP] upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdamczyk, A., \u0026amp; Valdimarsd\u0026oacute;ttir, M. (2018). Understanding Americans\u0026apos; abortion attitudes: The role of the local religious context. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e71\u003c/em\u003e(1), 129\u0026ndash;144.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdams, T. G., Stewart, P. A., \u0026amp; Blanchar, J. C. (2014). Disgust and the politics of sex: Exposure to a disgusting odorant increases politically conservative views on sex and decreases support for gay marriage. \u003cem\u003ePloS one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(5), e95572.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095572\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarringer, M. N., Sumerau, J. E., \u0026amp; Gay, D. A. (2020). Generational variation in young adults\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp; attitudes toward legal abortion: Contextualizing the role of religion. \u003cem\u003eSocial Currents\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 279-296.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496520905020\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeumer, W. Y., Reilingh, A.Y.A. M., Dalmijn, E., Roseboom, T. J., \u0026amp; van Ditzhuijzen, J. \u0026nbsp;(2025). Motivations for abortion or continuation of an unwanted pregnancy: A scoping review of the global literature. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 57\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45-62\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.12293\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBiggs, M. A., Gould, H. \u0026amp; Foster, D. G. (2013). Understanding why women seek abortions \u0026nbsp;in the US. \u003cem\u003eBMC Women\u0026apos;s Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1)\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eArticle 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrenner, C. J., \u0026amp; Inbar, Y. (2015). Disgust sensitivity predicts political ideology and policy attitudes in the Netherlands. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Social Psychology, 45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 27\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2072\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBowman, K., \u0026amp; Goldstein, S. (2021). \u003cem\u003eAttitudes about abortion: A comprehensive review of polls \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003efrom the 1970s to today (AEI Public Opinion Studies).\u003c/em\u003e American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Attitudes-About-Abortion.pdf?x85095\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBueno, X., LaRoche, K. J., Crawford, B. L., Turner, R. C., Lo, W.-J., \u0026amp; Jozkowski, K. N. (2023). Do fetal development markers influence attitudes toward abortion legality? \u003cem\u003eSocial Currents\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 107-120.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965221137830\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCahill, C. M. (2013) Abortion and disgust. \u003cem\u003eHarvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eReview\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(2), 409\u0026ndash;456.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCary, K. M., Crawford, B. L., Turner, R. C., \u0026amp; Jozkowski, K. N. (2025). Associations between U.S. adults\u0026rsquo; abortion attitudes and abortion-related helping intentions. \u003cem\u003eWomen\u0026rsquo;s Reproductive Health\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org/10.1080/23293691.2024.2445526\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCrawford, J. T., Inbar, Y., \u0026amp; Maloney, V. (2014). Disgust sensitivity selectively predicts attitudes toward groups that threaten (or uphold) traditional sexual morality. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences, 70,\u003c/em\u003e 218\u0026ndash;223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCrawford, B. L., Laroche, K. J., \u0026amp; Jozkowski, K. N. (2022). Examining abortion attitudes in the context of gestational age. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;103\u003c/em\u003e(4), 855-867.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13157\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCowan, S. K., Bruce, T. C., Perry, B. L., Ritz, B., Perrett, S., \u0026amp; Anderson, E. M. (2022). Discordant benevolence: How and why people help others in the face of conflicting values. \u003cem\u003eScience Advances\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(7), eabj5851. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj5851\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeckman, M., Elder, L., Greene, S., \u0026amp; Lizotte, M.-K. (2023). Deceptively stable? How the stability of aggregate abortion attitudes conceals partisan induced shifts. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Research Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e77\u003c/em\u003e(2), 500-517.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129231222883\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDoherty, D. (2022). What can conjoint experiments tell us about Americans\u0026rsquo; abortion attitudes? \u003cem\u003eAmerican Politics Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(2), 147-156.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211053211\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDonner, M. R., Azaad, S., Warren, G. A., \u0026amp; Laham, S. M. (2023). Specificity versus generality: A meta-analytic review of the association between trait disgust sensitivity and moral judgment. \u003cem\u003eEmotion Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 63-84.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221114643\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDozier, J. L., Hennink, M., Mosley, E., Narasimhan, S., Pringle, J., Clarke, L., Blevins, J., James-Portis, L., Keithan, R., Hall, K. S., \u0026amp; Rice, W. S. (2020). Abortion attitudes, religious and moral beliefs, and pastoral care among Protestant religious leaders in Georgia. \u003cem\u003ePloS one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(7), e0235971.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235971\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDutta, N., Giddings, L., \u0026amp; Sobel, R. (2024). Attitudes towards abortion: What role do educational attainment and cultural traits play? \u003cem\u003eReview of Social Economy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(3), 343-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2021.2014066\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElder, L., Greene, S., \u0026amp; Lizotte, M-K. (2024, January 10-13). Public opinion on abortion in post-Roe America. [Paper presentation]. SPSA 2024, New Orleans, LA, United States. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787058\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFaul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., \u0026amp; Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(2), 175\u0026ndash;191.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFeinberg, M., Antonenko, O., Willer, R., Horberg, E. J., \u0026amp; John, O. P. (2014). Gut check: Reappraisal of disgust helps explain liberal\u0026ndash;conservative differences on issues of purity. \u003cem\u003eEmotion, 14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 513\u0026ndash;521. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033727\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFine, J. B., Mayall, K., \u0026amp; Sep\u0026uacute;lveda, L. (2017). The role of international human rights norms in the liberalization of abortion laws globally. \u003cem\u003eHealth and Human Rights\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 69\u0026ndash;80.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGuttmacher. (2025). \u003cem\u003eMonthly abortion provision study: US abortion data dashboard.\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/monthly-abortion-provision-study\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHaddock, G., Rothman, A. J., Reber, R., \u0026amp; Schwarz, N. (1999). Forming judgments of attitude certainty, intensity, and importance: The role of subjective experiences. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25\u003c/em\u003e(7), 771\u0026ndash;782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025007001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHanschmidt, F., Linde, K., Hilbert, A., Riedel-Heller, S. G., Kersting, A. (2016). Abortion stigma: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(4), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.1363/48e8516\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHayes, A. F. (2018). \u003cem\u003eAn Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnalysis: A Regression-Based Approach\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2nd ed.). Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHlay, J.K., Albert, G., Batres, C., Waldron, K.A., Richardson, G., Placek, C.D., Arnocky, S., Şenveli, Z., Lieberman, D., \u0026amp; Hodges-Simeon, C.R. (2022). Disgust sensitivity predicts sociosexuality across cultures. \u003cem\u003eEvolution and Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(5), 335-346.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.04.005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHout, M., Perrett, S., \u0026amp; Cowan, S. K. (2022). Stasis and sorting of Americans\u0026rsquo; abortion opinions: Political polarization added to religious and other differences. \u003cem\u003eSocius\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e, 1-11.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221117648\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHorberg, E. J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., \u0026amp; Cohen, A. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e97\u003c/em\u003e(6), 963\u0026ndash;976.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017423\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInbar, Y., \u0026amp; Pizarro, D. A. (2022). How disgust affects social judgments. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eExperimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e, 109\u0026ndash;166.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2021.11.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. \u003cem\u003eCognition and Emotion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 714-725.https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802110007\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJozkowski, K. N., Bueno, X., Turner, R. C., Crawford, B. L., \u0026amp; Lo, W. J. (2023a). People\u0026rsquo;s knowledge of and attitudes toward abortion laws before and after the \u003cem\u003eDobbs v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e decision. \u003cem\u003eSexual and Reproductive Health Matters\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-22.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2023.2233794\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJozkowski, K. N., Crawford, B. L., \u0026amp; Hunt, M. E. (2018). Complexity in attitudes toward abortion access: Results from two studies. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research \u0026amp; Social Policy, 15\u003c/em\u003e(4), 464\u0026ndash;482.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0322-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJozkowski, K. N., Crawford, B. L. \u0026amp; Willis, M. (2021). Abortion complexity scores from 1972 To 2018: A cross-sectional time-series analysis using data from the General Social Survey. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research and Social Policy,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 13\u0026ndash;26.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00439-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJozkowski, K. N., Mena-Mel\u0026eacute;ndez, L., Crawford, B. L., \u0026amp; Turner, R. C. (2023b). Abortion stigma: Attitudes toward abortion responsibility, illegal abortion, and perceived punishments of \u0026ldquo;illegal abortion.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Women Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(4), 443-461.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231181350\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKam, C. D., \u0026amp; Estes, B. A. (2016). Disgust sensitivity and public demand for protection. \u003cem\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eJournal of Politics, 78\u003c/em\u003e(2), 481\u0026ndash;496.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1086/684611\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKoenig, H. G., \u0026amp; B\u0026uuml;ssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemiological studies. \u003cem\u003eReligions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 78-85.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKoleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., \u0026amp; Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research on Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(2), 184-194.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKumar, A. (2018). Disgust, stigma, and the politics of abortion. \u003cem\u003eFeminism \u0026amp; Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(4), 530-538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353518765572\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMerlici, I.-A., Maftei, A., \u0026amp; Lăzărescu, G. (2024). Abortion attitudes and the underlying mechanisms: Emotions and political views. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research \u0026amp; Social Policy.\u003c/em\u003e Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-01012-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMiller, P. R., Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Lewis, D. C., Tadlock, B. L., \u0026amp; Taylor, J. K. (2017). Transgender politics as body politics: Effects of disgust sensitivity and authoritarianism on transgender rights attitudes. \u003cem\u003ePolitics, Groups, and Identities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 4-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1260482\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMilmine, L., \u0026amp; Fetner, T. (2024). Practice what you preach: Complicating the relationship among Christian religious identity, abortion attitudes, and reported abortion experiences among Canadians. \u003cem\u003eSocius\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e, 1-15.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231241245843\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMonchalin, R., Jubinville, D., P\u0026eacute;rez Pi\u0026ntilde;\u0026aacute;n, A. V., Paul, W., Wells, M., Ross, A., Law, K., Chaffey, M., \u0026amp; Pruder, H. (2023). \u0026ldquo;I would love for there not to be so many hoops\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;: recommendations to improve abortion service access and experiences made by Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQIA+ people in Canada. \u003cem\u003eSexual and Reproductive Health Matters\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(1), Article 2247667.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2023.2247667\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNORC. (2024). \u003cem\u003eSupport for legal abortion increased since Roe v. Wade was overturned.\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved from https://apnorc.org/projects/support-for-legal-abortion-increased-since-roe-v-wade-was-overturned/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNorrander, B., \u0026amp; Wilcox, C. (2023). Trends in abortion attitudes: From Roe to Dobbs. \u003cem\u003ePublic\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpinion Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e(2), 427-458.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad014\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOlatunji, B. O., Adams, T., Ciesielski, B., David, B., Sarawgi, S., \u0026amp; Broman-Fulks, J. (2012). The Three Domains of Disgust Scale: Factor structure, psychometric properties, and conceptual limitations. \u003cem\u003eAssessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 205-225.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111432881\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOsborne, D., Huang, Y., Overall, N. C., Sutton, R. M., Petterson, A., Douglas, K. M., Davies, P. G., \u0026amp; Sibley, C. G. (2022). Abortion attitudes: An overview of demographic and ideological differences. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(1), 29-76.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12803\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Shea, K. \u0026amp; Watson, L. B. (2025). Navigating abortion stigma: Abortion identity centrality, stigma management strategies, and psychological outcomes. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e(36).https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-025-01588-0\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePacilli, M. G., Spaccatini, F., Pagliaro, S., \u0026amp; Giovannelli, I. (2024). From \u0026ldquo;bad\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;good\u0026rdquo; motivations to abort to \u0026ldquo;bad\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;good\u0026rdquo; women: Abortion stigma and backlash against women who interrupt their pregnancy. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research \u0026amp; Social Policy, 21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 645\u0026ndash;656.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00927-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePatev, A. J., Hall, C. J., Dunn, C. E., Bell, A. D., Owens, B. D., \u0026amp; Hood, K. B. (2019). Hostile sexism and right-wing authoritarianism as mediators of the relationship between sexual disgust and abortion stigmatizing attitudes. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences, 151,\u003c/em\u003e Article 109528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109528\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePeng, W., \u0026amp; Huang, Q. (2022). When we feel compassionate: Stereotypical and attributional determinants of attitudes toward abortion. \u003cem\u003eAtlantic Journal of Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 16\u0026ndash;30.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2022.2094381\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eP\u0026eacute;rez, B., Jara Sep\u0026uacute;lveda, L., Saiz, J. L., \u0026amp; Alveal-\u0026Aacute;lamos, C. (2025). Influence of women\u0026rsquo;s circumstances and ideology on abortion acceptance. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07709-y\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePerry Undem. (2025). \u003cem\u003ePublic opinion toward abortion and reproductive health policy in 2025:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eFindings from a national survey.\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved from https://perryundem.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/PerryUndem-Public-Opinion-on-Abortion-and-Repro-Policy-in-2025-.pdf\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePew Research Center. (2022). \u003cem\u003eAmerica\u0026rsquo;s abortion quandary.\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePew Research Center. (2024). \u003cem\u003ePublic opinion on abortion.\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePoteat, V. P., \u0026amp; Mereish, E. H. (2012). (Dis)similarity between liberals and conservatives: Predicting variability in group differences on abortion and same-sex marriage rights attitudes. \u003cem\u003eBasic and Applied Social Psychology, 34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 56\u0026ndash;65. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.637852\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePRRI. (2022). \u003cem\u003eAbortion attitudes in a post-Roe world: Findings from the 50-state 2022 American\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eValues Atlas.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ehttps://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/PRRI-Feb-2023- \u0026nbsp;Abortion-D-1.pdf\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRozin, P., Haidt, J., \u0026amp; McCauley, C. R. (2008). Disgust. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, \u0026amp; L. F. Barrett (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of emotions\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed., pp. 757\u0026ndash;776). The Guilford Press.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRye, B. J., \u0026amp; Underhill, A. (2019). Contraceptive context, conservatism, sexual liberalism, and gender-role attitudes as predictors of abortion attitudes. \u003cem\u003eWomen\u0026rsquo;s Reproductive Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 34\u0026ndash;51.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1080/23293691.2018.1556425\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRye, B. J., \u0026amp; Underhill, A. (2020). Pro-choice and pro-life are not enough: An investigation of abortion attitudes as a function of abortion prototypes. \u003cem\u003eSexuality \u0026amp; Culture, 24\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1829\u0026ndash;1851.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09723-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaad. (2023). \u003cem\u003eBroader support for abortion rights continues post-Dobbs.\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion-rights-continues-post-dobbs.aspx\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmith, K. B., Oxley, D., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., \u0026amp; Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Disgust sensitivity and the neurophysiology of left-right political orientations. \u003cem\u003ePloS one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(10), e25552.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025552\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSorhaindo, A. M., \u0026amp; Lavelanet, A. F. (2022). Why does abortion stigma matter? A scoping review and hybrid analysis of qualitative evidence illustrating the role of stigma in the quality of abortion care. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science \u0026amp; Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e311\u003c/em\u003e, 115271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115271\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTerrizzi Jr., J. A., Shook, N. J., \u0026amp; Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes towards homosexuals. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(6), 587-592.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.024\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., \u0026amp; Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e97\u003c/em\u003e(1), 103\u0026ndash;122.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015474\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003evan Leeuwen, F., Inbar, Y., Petersen, M. B., Aar\u0026oslash;e, L., Barclay, P., Barlow, F. K., de Barra, M., Becker, D. V., Borovoi, L., Choi, J., Consedine, N. S., Conway, J. R., Conway, P., Adoric, V. C., Demirci, E., Fern\u0026aacute;ndez, A. M., Ferreira, D. C. S., Ishii, K., Jak\u0026scaron;ić, I., \u0026hellip; Tybur, J. M. (2023). Disgust sensitivity relates to attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women across 31 nations. \u003cem\u003eGroup Processes \u0026amp; Intergroup Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 629-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211067151\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWagemans, F. M. A., Brandt, M. J., \u0026amp; Zeelenberg, M. (2018). Disgust sensitivity is primarily associated with purity-based moral judgments. \u003cem\u003eEmotion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 277\u0026ndash;289.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000359\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWatts, M. (2020). \u003cem\u003eInvestigating moral underpinning of attitudes about abortion.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[Unpublished honors thesis]. Appalachian State University.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWisneski, D. C., \u0026amp; Skitka, L. J. (2017). Moralization through moral shock: Exploring emotional antecedents to moral conviction. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(2), 139-150.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216676479\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. (2024). \u003cem\u003eAbortion.\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYoung, I. F., Sullivan, D., \u0026amp; Hamann, H. A. (2020). Abortions due to the Zika virus versus fetal alcohol syndrome: Attributions and willingness to help. \u003cem\u003eStigma and Health, 5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 304\u0026ndash;314.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000203\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZucker, G. S. (1999). Attributional and symbolic predictors of abortion attitudes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eApplied Social Psychology, 29\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1218\u0026ndash;1245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02037.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1 and Study 2 Demographic Characteristics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"570\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 1 (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 165)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 2 (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 250)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolitical Orientation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Liberal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e114\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e121\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Conservative\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e129\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender/Sex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Female\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Male\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Non-Binary/Third Gender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Genderqueer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Agender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Prefer not to say\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRace/Ethnicity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Caucasian/White\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e113\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e165\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Black or African American\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Asian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Biracial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Hispanic or Latino\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Some other race or ethnicity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Prefer not to say\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Some high school or less\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;High school diploma or GED\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Some college, but no degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Associates or technical degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Master\u0026rsquo;s degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Terminal degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Prefer not to say\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligious Affiliation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Christian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e122\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Agnostic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Atheist\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Spiritual, but not religious\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Nothing in particular\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Jewish\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Other/Mixed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 239px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Prefer not to say\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"791\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"12\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 791px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 1)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"9\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 485px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntercorrelations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;1. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Political Orientation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Abortion Attitude Strength\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.53\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Religiosity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.37\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.17\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Trait Sexual Disgust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.26\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. General Warmth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.53\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.49\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.34\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.20\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Support for Restrictions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.58\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.47\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.50\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.30\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.66\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7. Warmth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.45\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.36\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.23\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.18\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.73\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.55\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8. Sympathy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.42\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.40\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.28\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.52\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.77\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9. Moral Character\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.50\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.38\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.39\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.17\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.68\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.63\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.74\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.73\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"12\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 791px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Items 1-4 \u0026amp; 6 were on a 6-point scale and Items 5 \u0026amp; 7-9 were on a 7-point scale. **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01, *\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05\u0026emsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"938\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"12\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 908px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"9\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 581px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntercorrelations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;1. \u0026nbsp;Political Orientation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Abortion Attitude Strength\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.25\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Religiosity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.63\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Trait Sexual Disgust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.41\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.45\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. General Warmth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.70\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.53\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.41\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Support for Restrictions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.70\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.15\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.61\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.48\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.71\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;7. Attributions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.30\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.27\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.15\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.41\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.33\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e-\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8. Warmth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.57\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.41\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.31\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.81\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.57\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.52\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9. Sympathy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.51\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.35\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.30\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.70\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.48\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.52\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.84\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10. Moral Character\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.57\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.44\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.32\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.79\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.61\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.55\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.87\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eItems 1-4 \u0026amp; 6 were on a 6-point scale and Items 5 \u0026amp; 8-10 were on a 7-point scale. Attributions (item 7) was out of 100.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e**\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01, *\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEffects of Abortion Context, Trait Disgust, and Their Interaction on Judgements of the Target (Study 2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"960\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWarmth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSympathy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoral Character\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 213px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAttributions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredictors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026Delta; F\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026Delta; F\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026Delta; F\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026Delta; F\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligiosity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolitical Orientation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAttitude Strength\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocio-Economic \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily Planning \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrait Disgust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrait Disgust x SE \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrait Disgust x FP \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 153px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. a = Reference group: Medical Condition. SE = Socio-Economic, FP = Family Planning.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"abortion attitudes, disgust sensitivity, abortion stigma, sexual disgust, moral judgment, abortion context","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6637729/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6637729/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eIntroduction.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA multitude of personal and contextual factors influence people\u0026rsquo;s attitudes towards abortion access and abortion patients. This study examines the role of state and trait disgust and abortion context as key factors impacting people\u0026rsquo;s evaluations of abortion patients.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross two experimental studies (total \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;415), participants were primed to experience no (Study 1 only), low, or high disgust, followed by one of three abortion stories with differing rationales (medical emergency, socio-economic, family planning). Moderated regressions with covariates examined the predictive effects of abortion context with either state or trait sexual disgust on target judgments. Mediation analyses further probed the effect of trait sexual disgust on abortion attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough state sexual disgust did not influence attitudes towards the abortion patients, mediation analyses demonstrated that political orientation mediated the link between trait sexual disgust and judgments of target abortion patients and partially mediated the link between trait sexual disgust and general abortion attitudes. Target abortion patients in the medical condition received significantly less blame, more sympathy and warmth, and a higher perceived moral character compared to patients in the socio-economic or family planning conditions, illustrating the interpersonal stigma that certain abortions continue to yield.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese studies show the limited effect of disgust beyond that of political orientation on evaluations of abortion patients. Research implications center around the heightened stigmatization of certain abortion contexts and the role of amplifying factors, including political orientation and disgust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePolicy Implications.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFindings have practical implications for sex educators, counselors, and political organizers.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"When is it Okay? The Role of State and Trait Disgust in Attitudes Towards Abortion Patients Under Different Circumstances","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-10 15:33:25","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6637729/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"baddb5ba-3847-4868-b888-7b8c59f3937c","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 10th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-14T19:38:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-10 15:33:25","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6637729","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6637729","identity":"rs-6637729","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}