Human values, legal regulation, and approval of homosexuality in Europe: A cross‐country comparison

Abstract

Although research has revealed a trend toward liberalization of ttitudes toward homosexuality in Western countries, acceptance of homosexuality differs remarkably among individuals and across countries. We examine the roles of individual value priorities and of national laws regarding homosexuality and the interaction between them in explaining approval of homosexuality. Data are drawn from the European Social Survey (ESS) and include representative national samples of 27 European countries in 2010. As hypothesized, individuals who prioritized openness to change and universalism values approved of homosexuality more whereas those who prioritized conservation and power values exhibited more disapproval. Approval was greater in countries whose laws regarding homosexuality were more progressive. In addition, legal regulation of homosexuality moderated the associations of individual value priorities. In countries with more progressive laws, both the positive effect of openness to change values and the negative effect of conservation values on approval of homosexuality were weaker. However, the positive effect of universalism values and the negative effect of power values did not vary as a function of national laws regarding homosexuality.

A Unified Theory of Value-Based Reasoning and U.S. Public Opinion

“…For the past three decades batteries of value items have been administered to hundreds of convenience samples and dozens of nationally representative surveys in Europe and elsewhere (Caprara et al 2006;Davidov and Meuleman 2012;Kuntz et al 2015;Schwartz 1994 We rely on 19 items to construct multiple-indicator measures of self-transcendence, conservation, self-enhancement, and openness values in both surveys. The items cover 9 of the 10 value types listed in Table 1.…”

Universalism, conservation and attitudes toward minority groups

“…Empirical studies have provided comprehensive evidence that social and political attitudes such as prejudices are strongly associated with individual value priorities (Sagiv and Schwartz, 1995;Schwartz, 2010;Schwartz, Caprara, and Vecchione, 2010;Vecchione et al, 2014; for a review on the predictive potential of values, see Datler, Jagodzinski, and Schmidt, 2013). Yet to date, most studies have focused on the role of values for explaining attitudes toward immigration or foreigners (Beckers, Siegers, and Kuntz, 2012;Davidov,Meuleman et al, 2008;Davidov and Meuleman, 2012;Davidov et al, 2014;Schiefer, 2013) with a few explaining attitudes toward other minority groups (Muslims: Helbling, 2014; gays and lesbians: Beckers et al, 2012;Kuntz, Davidov, Schwartz, and Schmidt, 2015; for a review see also Sibley and Duckitt, 2008). As a consequence, these studies concentrated solely on attitudes toward these specific outgroups.…”

“…With his theory of basic human values, Schwartz (1992) proposed a definition and structure of the human value system which has been empirically supported by an abundance of studies (e.g., Davidov, Schmidt, and Schwartz, 2008;Fontaine et al, 2008;Schwartz and Boehnke, 2004;Schwartz et al, 2012;Steinmetz, Isidor, and Bäuerle, 2012 In general, negative attitudes toward minority groups may be boosted or reduced by different values (e.g., Asbrock, Sibley, and Duckitt, 2010;Chambers, Schlenker, and Collisson, 2012;Davidov and Meuleman, 2012;Fasel, Green, and Sarrasin, 2013;Feather and McKee, 2012;Herek and McLemore, 2013;Kuntz et al, 2015;Pedersen and Hartley, 2012).…”

“…Placing priority on universalism values was associated with an increase in the willingness for outgroup contact (Sagiv and Schwartz, 1995), support for immigration (Davidov and Meuleman, 2012;Davidov, Meuleman et al, 2008;Davidov et al, 2014;Schwartz, 2010), positive attitudes toward Muslims (Pedersen and Hartley, 2012), objection to sexism (Feather and McKee, 2012), approval of homosexuality (Kuntz et al, 2015) and support for left-wing parties which accept or support social equality and tolerance for different living concepts in society (e.g., with regard to different sexual orientations) Piurko, Schwartz, and Davidov, 2011). Conservation values, in turn, were found to be positively correlated with negative attitudes toward immigration (Davidov and Meulemann, 2012;Davidov, Meuleman et al, 2008;Davidov et al, 2014), homosexuality (Kuntz et al, 2015) as well as women and poor people (Chambers et al, 2012). Based on our theoretical considerations, we have derived a number of hypotheses which are presented below.…”

Attitudes Toward Parenthood, Partnership, and Social Rights for Diverse Families: Evidence From a Pilot Study in Five Countries

“…On the one hand, the large body of research focusing on attitudes toward the redistributive role of the welfare state (e.g., Raven, Achterberg, van der Veen, & Yerkes, 2011;Sachweh & Olafsdottir, 2012;van Oorschot, 2007;Wright & Reeskens, 2013) does not address social rights connected to living in diverse family forms. On the other hand, the various studies focusing on attitudes toward homosexuality (e.g., Hooghe & Meeusen, 2013;Kuntz, Davidov, Schwartz, & Schmidt, 2015;Kuyper et al, 2013;Takács & Szalma, 2013;van den Akker, van der Ploeg and Scheepers, 2013) or marriage and alternative forms of family formation (Treas, Lui, & Gubernskaya, 2014) have tended to address the general acceptance of "diverse family forms" or "diverse individuals" without addressing the issue of citizenship rights attached to this diversity. Exceptions to this include studies providing insights into attitudes toward the rights of same-sex couples in the United States (Doan, Loehr, & Miller, 2014;Miller & Chamberlain, 2013), Portugal (Costa et al, 2014), and Sweden and Norway (Jakobsson, Kotsadam, & Jakobsson, 2013).…”