2 > 1 + 1? The Impact of Contact with Gay and Lesbian Couples on Attitudes about Gays/Lesbians and Gay‐Related Policies

Abstract

Contact with individual lesbians and gay men leads to more positive evaluations of the group and more support for pro-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) public policies. Increasingly, gay rights activists are making "gay families" central to their communications to the public about gay issues and policies. This prompts a new question in the area of contact theory: does contact with same-sex couples have a different impact on attitudes about gays/lesbians and gay-related public policies than contact with gay/lesbian individuals? On general attitudes, the two versions of contact perform similarly, but in specific policies, divergence shows itself. Contact with couples is a stronger force in shaping support for expansion of same-sex partnership recognition. However, while contact with individual gay men and lesbians is a significant indicator, contact with couples is not on other issues raising questions about the effectiveness of the focus on "gay families" for the broader goals of the contemporary LGBT movement.1 Endogeneity is the possibility that the true lines of causality between the dependent variable and a crucial independent variable is reversed. In this area of research, it is the possibility that LGBT individuals are more likely to be open with already tolerant straight persons rather than the contact with LGBT folks promoting such tolerance.

Contact with gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage support: The moderating role of social context

“…Reasons for this liberalization include demographic shifts, more positive media portrayals of gays and lesbians, changing beliefs about the nature of homosexuality, and more frequent personal contact with gays and lesbians . Personal contact with gays or lesbians is associated with lower levels of prejudice (Herek and Capitanio, 1996;Lance, 1987;Smith et al, 2009) and greater support for gay rights Lewis and Gossett, 2008;Barth and Parry, 2009;Lewis, 2011). In fact, in their comparison of intergroup contact effects across various societal subgroups, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) report that the largest effects stem from contact between heterosexuals and gay men or lesbians.…”

The “Persuadable Middle” on Same-Sex Marriage: Formative Research to Build Support among Heterosexual College Students

“…This is not meant to downplay the significance that such a policy change would have for countless gay and lesbian couples who seek to marry, but rather a political strategy geared toward those who have not yet formed their opinion about same-sex marriage. Campaigns that highlight personal stories about the importance of same-sex marriage to real-life same-sex couples have been shown to demonstrate positive results in this regard (Barth and Parry 2009).…”

The Contact Hypothesis and Millennial Evangelical Protestants’ Attitudes toward Same-Sex Families

“…Relatedly, although contact with people who are LGBQ or same-sex couples had a significant impact on attitudes towards same-sex marriage in general and legalizing same-sex relations (Tables 3 and 6), it did not affect attitudes towards same-sex adoption. A variation in impact with LGBQ individuals and same-sex couples on attitudes towards different types of same-sex-headed families was also evident in the work of Barth and Parry (2009), who determined that same-sex couples had more impact on attitudes towards same-sex marriage, whereas simply knowing someone who is lesbian or gay better predicted attitudes towards same-sex adoption.…”

“…Barth and J. Parry (2009) expanded on this line of research by testing whether knowing someone in a same-sex romantic relationship had greater impact on attitudes than simply knowing someone who identified as gay or lesbian. They concluded that knowing same-sex couples had a distinct impact on attitudes towards legal recognition of same-sex partnerships; however, knowing a lesbian or gay man, whether in couples or not, was a stronger predictor of support in regard to other policies (e.g., nondiscrimination laws, adoption of children by lesbians and gay men; Barth and Parry 2009).…”