Ideological Orientations, LGBT Contact, and Formation of LGBT Policy Position*

Abstract

Objective We seek to understand how political ideology and LGBT contact experiences exert influence on an individual's level of LGBT policy support. Methods We apply multivariate regression and posterior simulation‐based conditional process analysis using data collected from a recent national survey of 1,500 American adults. Results We find that LGBT contact moderates the effects of individuals’ political ideology on the formation of their LGBT policy preference in distinctive ways. Furthermore, such analytical results hold nuanced differences depending on the specific topic of LGBT policy in consideration. Conclusion These findings are significant in terms of previous understandings of the contact theory of attitude change. Regarding the formation of policy positions, it is not simply contact, ideology, or the combination of the two that is influential. Instead, there appears to be a distinction in attitudinal valence toward what a specific policy represents, and thus the support for LGBT equality in that domain.

Contact With Gay Men and Lesbian Women Moderates the Negative Relationship Between Religiosity and Endorsement of Same-Sex Unions’ and Families’ Rights

“…Previous research using the same source of secondary data analyzed here has adopted the current operationalization of this variable to measure contact with gay men and lesbian women (Salvati et al, 2019). Moreover, past inter-group research testing the moderating effect of contact adopted a similar binary operationalization of this variable (Kordsmeier et al, 2019; Laurence, 2014).…”

“…However, findings pertaining to whether contact may be more beneficial for individuals reporting stronger or less strong ideological positions are not univocal. Kordsmeier, Tumlison, and Song (2019), observed how LGBT contact had different effects on policy positions regarding support for same-sex marriage and same-sex-family adoption policies across ideological orientations: increased support for LGBT-oriented policies as a function of LGBT contact was observed especially among liberals rather conservatives. Conversely, for what concerns the specific case of religiosity levels, Cunningham and Melton (2013) found a significant mitigating effect of contact on sexual prejudice only among individuals reporting high levels of religious fundamentalism, whereas those with low levels of religious fundamentalism did not differ in sexual prejudice as a function of contact with lesbian and gay friends.…”