Group Cohesion without Group Mobilization: The Case of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals

Abstract

Group identities that are chosen, rather than inherited, are often associated with cohesive political attitudes and behaviours. Conventional wisdom holds that this distinctiveness is generated by mobilization through processes such as intra-group contact and acculturation. This article identifies another mechanism that can explain cohesiveness: selection. The characteristics that predict whether an individual selects a group identity may themselves determine political attitudes, and thus may account substantially for the political cohesion of those who share the identity. This mechanism is illustrated with analyses of the causes and consequences of the acquisition of lesbian, gay or bisexual identity. Seldom shared by parents and offspring, gay identity provides a rare opportunity to cleanly identify the selection process and its implications for political cohesion.

Sexual Orientation and Social Attitudes

“…Because it is a marginalized identity often fraught with social costs, especially for those embedded in conservative social contexts, sexual minority identity could be a particularly strong predictor of social attitudes (Egan 2012). People from more progressive backgrounds can be more likely to affirm a sexual minority identity, and the experience of recognizing and affirming that identity could shape sexual minorities' social outlook (see Baunach and Burgess 2013;Brown-Saracino 2015;Wedow et al 2017 on affirmation of sexual minority identity).…”

“…A large and rapidly growing body of literature examines sexual minorities as social objects (i.e., attitudes toward them) (Adamczyk 2017;Baunach 2012;Doan, Loehr, and Miller 2014;Powell et al 2010;Powell, Schnabel, and Apgar 2017;Schnabel and Sevell 2017;Sherkat et al 2011), but less research has examined sexual minorities as social subjects (i.e., their attitudes). Scholars have increasingly explored how sexuality relates to religion (Sherkat 2002;Yip and Page 2013) and voting behavior (Egan 2012;Hertzog 1996;Lewis, Rogers, and Sherrill 2011;Mucciaroni 2011;Schaffner and Senic 2006), but only a handful of studies have examined sexuality and social attitudes (Egan and Sherrill 2005;Sherrill 1996;Worthen, Sharp, and Rodgers 2012). The few available studies typically have used non-representative data and/or examined a limited number of attitudes.…”

College Students, Sexualities Identities, and Participation in Political Marches

“…Egan (2012) suggests that the selection characteristics of being raised in a rural area, having fewer siblings, and being a US citizen can explain the liberalism of sexual minorities. Other educational factors could have also netted bigger effects.…”

Modeling Nonprofit Employment

“…LGBs are also much more liberal than heterosexuals (Egan, 2009;Lewis, Rogers, & Sherrill, 2003). If liberalism and out-group identification predict a public service orientation, then nonprofit employment may attract LGBs more than heterosexuals.…”

“…If liberalism and out-group identification predict a public service orientation, then nonprofit employment may attract LGBs more than heterosexuals. On the other hand, LGBs are also strikingly less religious than others (Egan, 2009;Lewis et al, 2003), which would tend to discourage nonprofit employment, especially in the many religious NPOs.…”