An extensive and growing body of research has demonstrated that knowing someone who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual can substantially increase support for policies, such as same‐sex marriage, that are designed to promote equal rights for gays. However, cognitive psychological theories and contemporary theories of public opinion also suggest that the effect of interpersonal contact could be highly contextual, facing limitations based on the context and prior beliefs or stereotypes of the contact situation. This article explores the limitations implied by these theories and tests for heterogeneity in the contact effect according to the individual's predispositions. We find considerable variability in the contact effect based on ideology, religion, culture, and other important political groups, such as white southern evangelicals. We conclude by considering the practical and policy implications of these limitations in the ability of interpersonal contact to generate support for same‐sex marriage and other gay rights policies. Un extenso y creciente cuerpo de investigación ha demostrado que conocer a alguien gay, lesbiana, o bisexual puede aumentar sustancialmente el apoyo a políticas tales como la del matrimonio entre parejas del mismo sexo que están diseñadas para promover la igualdad de derechos de los gays. Sin embargo, teorías cognitivas psicológicas y teorías contemporáneas de opinión pública también sugieren que el efecto del contacto interpersonal puede ser altamente contextual, lo que enfrenta limitaciones basadas en el contexto y creencias previas o los estereotipos de la situación en la que se da el contacto. Este artículo explora las limitantes sugeridas por estas teorías y examina la heterogeneidad en el efecto del contacto basado en ideología, religión, cultura, y otros grupos políticos importantes tales como los evangélicos blancos sureños. Concluimos considerando las implicaciones prácticas y para la hechura de políticas de estas limitaciones del contacto interpersonal para generar apoyo para el matrimonio entre parejas del mismo sexo y otras políticas de derechos de los gays.

This article examines the effect of contact with gays and lesbians on inducing or decreasing ambivalence among citizens’ attitudes toward gay rights. Contact may create cross‐pressure or ambivalence among strong conservative‐leaning citizens, causing internal conflict between their political values and their contact with gays and lesbians. Citizens torn between conflicting values will have less predictable attitudes than those not experiencing such conflict. Contact, however, is likely to have the opposite effect among liberal‐leaning citizens, reducing ambivalence and making their attitudes more predictable and uniform. Results from heteroskedastic regression models indicate that contact increases the error variance among evangelical Christians, strong conservatives, and strong Republicans while decreasing it among their liberal‐leaning counterparts. The results suggest that contact with gays and lesbians can impact the mean level of support for gay rights, as well as the clarity or certainty of those attitudes, although its effect differs across these two dimensions of public opinion. Related Articles Related Media It Gets Better Project. . “What Is the It Gets Better Project?” Accessed on December 20, 2012. Available online at http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about‐it‐gets‐better‐project Thomas B.Edsall . “Let the Nanotargeting Begin.” The New York Times (April 15). http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/let‐the‐nanotargeting‐begin

Critics of U.S. congressional and state legislative redistricting have argued that gerrymandering severely undermines electoral competitiveness to the point of violating constitutional equal protection standards. In this article, we evaluate whether redistricting principles and processes have any measurable consequence on state legislative electoral competition. In addition to their substantive importance, state legislative general election contests provide greater variance than congressional data for empirically assessing theoretical propositions regarding redistricting principles and processes. We find that electoral competitiveness in state legislative races declined throughout the 1990s, even after term limit reforms were implemented. The proportion of uncontested state legislative seats has doubled since the 1970s, and there has also been a slight increase in average margin of election district victory. Our results show that political principles and some traditional, “politically-neutral” redistricting principles significantly decrease the probability of uncontested state legislative elections. In contrast, independent redistricting commissions did not appear to affect state legislative competition. We conclude with a discussion of how our findings relate to the redistricting reform debate.