articol de cercetare

Eugene K. Ofosu, Michelle K. Chambers, Jacqueline M. Chen si Eric Hehman

  1. Editat de Claude M. Steele, Stanford University, CA, si aprobat pe 7 martie 2019 (primit pentru revizuire 6 aprilie 2018)

Semnificatie

Cum influenteaza legislatia adoptata de guverne atitudinile cetatenilor? Profitam de modul esalonat in care s-a produs legalizarea casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex in Statele Unite pentru a examina aceasta intrebare cu privire la prejudecatile antigay. Geolocalizand aproximativ 1 milion de respondenti in timp ce au finalizat masurile de partinire pe o fereastra de 12 ani, am testat daca legalizarea locala a casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex a fost asociata cu schimbari in prejudecatile implicite si explicite ale cetatenilor. In timp ce prejudecatile antigay au scazut de-a lungul timpului, in urma legalizarii casatoriei locale de acelasi sex, prejudecata antigay a scazut cu aproximativ dublul ratei, ceea ce indica faptul ca legislatia guvernamentala poate informa atitudinile chiar si asupra pozitiilor inradacinate religios si politic. Aceste rezultate au implicatii importante pentru cei interesati de prejudecata, normele intergrupului,

Abstract

Cercetarile actuale au testat daca adoptarea legislatiei guvernamentale, care semnaleaza atitudinile predominante ale majoritatii locale, a fost asociata cu schimbarile in atitudinea cetatenilor. In mod specific, cu million1 milioane de raspunsuri pe o fereastra de 12 ani, am testat daca legislatia privind casatoria dintre persoane de acelasi sex a fost asociata cu scaderi ale prejudecatii implicite si implicite antigay. Rezultatele la cinci operationalizari ofera in mod constant sprijin pentru aceasta posibilitate. Atat prejudecatile implicite, cat si cele explicite au scazut inainte de legalizarea casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex, dar au scazut intr-un ritm mai accentuat in urma legalizarii. Modificarea acestui efect a fost daca statele au adoptat legislatia la nivel local. Desi statele care adopta legislatia au inregistrat o scadere mai mare a prejudecatii in urma legislatiei, statele care nu au adoptat niciodata legislatia au demonstrat o tendinta crescuta antigay in urma legalizarii federale. Lucrarile noastre evidentiaza modul in care legislatia guvernamentala poate informa atitudinile indivizilor, chiar si atunci cand aceste atitudini pot fi profund inradacinate si volatile din punct de vedere social si politic.

  • prejudecata
  • atitudini
  • dinamica intergrupurilor
  • norme

Normele sociale pot exercita o influenta puternica asupra atitudinilor si comportamentelor (1, 2). Oamenii isi modifica adesea opiniile si actiunile pentru a se alinia cu normele percepute in mediul lor (3). Normele nu sunt neaparat explicite si adesea trebuie deduse (4). Oamenii au tendinta de a deduce si consolida normele sociale prin interactiunea sociala (5, 6). Avand in vedere natura implicita a normelor sociale, atitudinile si comportamentele considerate acceptabile sunt predispuse la schimbare in timp. Chiar si atunci cand un individ nu este de acord cu un comportament acceptat normativ, il poate sustine prin disonanta cognitiva (7). Concret, in masura in care unul isi modifica in mod constant comportamentul pentru a fi in concordanta cu normele percepute (8, 9), atitudinile personale, inclusiv prejudecatile fata de grupurile sociale (10), s-ar putea schimba si in timp. Cercetarile actuale se concentreaza pe rolul administratiei locale in semnalarea unor astfel de norme. Mai exact, examinam daca schimbarile locale ale politicii guvernamentale care sustin un grup social marginalizat au informat prejudecatile cetatenilor fata de acel grup.

Exista mai multe motive pentru care legislatia adoptata de un guvern democratic ar putea fi perceputa ca o norma. Traducerea literala a democratiei este „regula poporului” si, teoretic, o democratie este un sistem de guvernare in care reprezentantii alesi creeaza legi care sa se alinieze intereselor majoritatii populatiei. Realist, in timp ce modul de formare a legislatiei este mult mai complex, oamenii din cadrul unui sistem democratic pot percepe in general legi care sa reflecte vointa oamenilor. In consecinta, ei pot interpreta legislatia adoptata ca fiind in concordanta cu valorile si convingerile majoritatii. In concordanta cu acest punct de vedere, oamenii deduc ca politicile adoptate de un grup reflecta aprobarea grupului, chiar daca politica nu a fost adoptata de o opinie majoritara (11). Prin urmare, Legislatia adoptata ar putea fi perceputa ca un semnal puternic al normelor locale actuale. In cazul in care vreo legislatie ar avea impact asupra rezultatelor unor grupuri sociale specifice, aceasta legislatie ar putea fi perceputa ca reflectand atitudinile societatii predominante fata de aceste grupuri. Intr-adevar, indivizii isi actualizeaza perceptiile asupra normelor sociale de-a lungul timpului pe baza unor indicii de mediu (12). In mod similar, din legislatia locala, indivizii pot afla in ce masura pot fi in majoritate sau minoritate si, prin urmare, cat de acceptabil este sa exprimati atitudini cu privire la aceste grupuri sociale. indivizii isi actualizeaza perceptiile asupra normelor sociale de-a lungul timpului pe baza unor indicii de mediu (12). In mod similar, din legislatia locala, indivizii pot afla in ce masura pot fi in majoritate sau minoritate si, prin urmare, cat de acceptabil este sa exprimati atitudini cu privire la aceste grupuri sociale. indivizii isi actualizeaza perceptiile asupra normelor sociale de-a lungul timpului pe baza unor indicii de mediu (12). In mod similar, din legislatia locala, indivizii pot afla in ce masura pot fi in majoritate sau minoritate si, prin urmare, cat de acceptabil este sa exprimati atitudini cu privire la aceste grupuri sociale.

Oportunitatile de a examina impactul politicii guvernamentale asupra atitudinilor fata de grupurile sociale marginalizate sunt foarte rare, insa exista unele dovezi ca politica guvernamentala poate schimba atitudinile. De exemplu, a existat o crestere de 60% a sprijinului pentru casatoriile interraziale in urma legalizarii din 1978 (13), o modificare pe care diversi savanti au atribuit-o partial verdictului Curtii Supreme (14, 15). In istoria mai recenta, in urma alegerilor prezidentiale din 2016 ale Statelor Unite ale Americii, Donald Trump, participantii au raportat o crestere a acceptabilitatii prejudiciilor fata de grupurile stigmatizate (16). Mai mult, lucrarile experimentale sustin aceste concluzii, constatand ca informatiile despre consens provoaca schimbari in atitudinile participantilor (17, 18).

Legalizarea casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex este un fenomen unic care ofera o oportunitate de a studia relatia dintre legislatia locala si atitudinile cetatenilor. Acest lucru se datoreaza faptului ca, in timp ce Curtea Suprema a Statelor Unite a pronuntat ca dreptul de a se casatori era fundamental si inalienabil (19) pe 26 iunie 2015, 35 de state si Washington, DC, au adoptat legalizarea casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex intr-o forma inainte de aceasta data la ore diferite fata de 11 ani precedenti. Acest model de legalizare in timp ofera o serie de timp naturala, cvasi-experimentala, cu grupuri multiple, intrerupte, cu tratamente esalonate in grupuri (state), un design care atenueaza multe dintre amenintarile la concluziile cauzale, de obicei asociate cu datele observationale (20⇓– 22).

Dovada privind legislatia guvernului are un impact asupra atitudinilor cetatenilor. Desi institutiile pot schimba cu succes atitudinile personale din jurul problemelor politice sau sociale in conditii date (17, 23), atitudinile despre problemele controversate care implica experiente personale sau opinii religioase si politice puternice sunt mai putin maleabile (24, 25). Prin urmare, atitudinile cu privire la legalizarea casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex si problemele de sexualitate in general pot fi mai putin susceptibile sa se schimbe. Au existat doar cercetari anterioare limitate, cu concluzii mixte, cu privire la impactul legalizarii casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex asupra atitudinilor personale. De exemplu, cercetatorii au gasit un sprijin sporit pentru legalizarea casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex in urma legalizarii, dar numai printre unele grupuri demografice, iar datele lor proveneau doar din Iowa (26). Altii au gasit atitudini mai calde fata de barbatii gay si lesbiene in urma legalizarii, desi datele grupului erau limitate la trei state (27). In schimb, cercetatorii care examineaza datele reprezentative la nivel national cu doua valuri reprezentative la nivel national au descoperit ca rezidentii statelor in care au fost introduse politici de legalizare a casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex au avut cea mai mare reducere a partinirilor antigay explicite, dar aceste date au fost colectate inainte de legalizarea la nivel de stat pentru o majoritate de legalizarea statelor si inaintea legalizarii nationale (27). Cercetarile recente care s-au concentrat pe perioada de 1 an in jurul legalizarii federale nu au gasit nicio schimbare de atitudine fata de persoanele gay in urma legalizarii, dar au constatat schimbari in perceptiile normelor sociale (18). cercetatorii care examineaza datele reprezentative la nivel national cu doua valuri reprezentative la nivel national au descoperit ca rezidentii statelor in care au fost introduse politici de legalizare a casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex au avut cea mai mare reducere a partinirilor antigay explicite, dar aceste date au fost colectate inainte de legalizarea la nivel de stat pentru o majoritate de state legalizatoare si inainte de legalizarea nationala (27). Cercetarile recente care s-au concentrat pe perioada de 1 an in jurul legalizarii federale nu au gasit nicio schimbare de atitudine fata de persoanele gay in urma legalizarii, dar au constatat schimbari in perceptiile normelor sociale (18). cercetatorii care examineaza datele reprezentative la nivel national cu doua valuri reprezentative la nivel national au descoperit ca rezidentii statelor in care au fost introduse politici de legalizare a casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex au avut cea mai mare reducere a partinirilor antigay explicite, dar aceste date au fost colectate inainte de legalizarea la nivel de stat pentru o majoritate de state legalizatoare si inainte de legalizarea nationala (27). Cercetarile recente care s-au concentrat pe perioada de 1 an in jurul legalizarii federale nu au gasit nicio schimbare de atitudine fata de persoanele gay in urma legalizarii, dar au constatat schimbari in perceptiile normelor sociale (18). dar aceste date au fost colectate inainte de legalizarea la nivel de stat pentru o majoritate de state legalizatoare si inainte de legalizarea nationala (27). Cercetarile recente care s-au concentrat pe perioada de 1 an in jurul legalizarii federale nu au constatat nicio schimbare de atitudine fata de persoanele gay in urma legalizarii, dar au constatat modificari in perceptiile normelor sociale (18). dar aceste date au fost colectate inainte de legalizarea la nivel de stat pentru o majoritate de state legalizatoare si inainte de legalizarea nationala (27). Cercetarile recente care s-au concentrat pe perioada de 1 an in jurul legalizarii federale nu au gasit nicio schimbare de atitudine fata de persoanele gay in urma legalizarii, dar au constatat schimbari in perceptiile normelor sociale (18).

Ne extindem din aceasta lucrare in mai multe moduri cheie. In primul rand, analizam atitudinile a 500.000-1.000 de persoane, in functie de analiza, in timp ce cele mai mari probe colectate anterior au fost in jur de 1.000 de participanti. In al doilea rand, atitudinile fata de persoanele homosexuale au fost colectate pe o perioada de 12 ani, comparativ cu ferestrele de cercetare anterioara de 1 pana la 2 y, oferind o lentila mai larga cu care sa surprinda continuitatea sau schimbarea atitudinilor sociale in timp. Cel mai important, lucrarea curenta exploreaza in mod unic atitudinile evaluate cu alte metode decat auto-rapoartele care sunt mai putin sensibile la dezirabilitatea sociala (28).

Ne concentram asupra modului in care legalizarea casatoriei la nivel de stat la nivel de stat a schimbat implicit si partinirea antigay explicita in timp. Preocuparea poate fi masurata relativ direct (adica explicit) sau indirect (adica implicit). Pregatirea masurata in mod explicit se considera ca reflecta procese mentale relativ deliberate si constiente, prezicand adesea judecati si comportamente intentionate, in timp ce prejudecatile implicite au fost traditional conceptualizate ca reflectand procese mai putin intentionate sau controlate (29, 30) care pot influenta judecatile si comportamentele in afara constientizarii constiente. . Toate cercetarile anterioare care examineaza schimbarile in atitudinile fata de homosexuali ca urmare a legalizarii casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex au masurat atitudinile prin raspunsuri explicite (de exemplu, „Cat de cald sau rece simtiti fata de barbatii si lesbienii gay?”). Este posibil ca aceste rezultate anterioare sa se fi dat cel putin partial din reticenta respondentilor de a raporta atitudini in contradictie cu normele percepute. Pentru a concluziona ca schimbarea legislatiei guvernamentale poate informa atitudinile reale ale popoarelor, este esential sa examinam acele atitudini cu masuri care sunt mai putin sensibile la dezirabilitatea sociala decat atitudinile explicite auto-raportate. Utilizarea de masuri implicite pentru evaluarea prejudecatii abordeaza aceasta problema, deoarece acestea masoara prejudecata indirect din viteza sau exactitatea cu care se face un raspuns, mai degraba decat din continutul raspunsului in sine (31, 32). Cercetarile actuale abordeaza aceasta preocupare examinand atat prejudecatile antigay implicite, cat si explicite de-a lungul timpului. Pentru a concluziona ca schimbarea legislatiei guvernamentale poate informa atitudinile reale ale popoarelor, este esential sa examinam acele atitudini cu masuri care sunt mai putin sensibile la dezirabilitatea sociala decat atitudinile explicite auto-raportate. Utilizarea de masuri implicite pentru evaluarea prejudecatii abordeaza aceasta problema, deoarece acestea masoara prejudecata indirect din viteza sau exactitatea cu care se face un raspuns, mai degraba decat din continutul raspunsului in sine (31, 32). Cercetarile actuale abordeaza aceasta preocupare examinand atat prejudecatile antigay implicite, cat si explicite de-a lungul timpului. Pentru a concluziona ca schimbarea legislatiei guvernamentale poate informa atitudinile reale ale popoarelor, este esential sa examinam acele atitudini cu masuri care sunt mai putin sensibile la dezirabilitatea sociala decat atitudinile explicite auto-raportate. Utilizarea de masuri implicite pentru evaluarea prejudecatii abordeaza aceasta problema, deoarece acestea masoara prejudecata indirect din viteza sau exactitatea cu care se face un raspuns, mai degraba decat din continutul raspunsului in sine (31, 32). Cercetarile actuale abordeaza aceasta preocupare examinand atat prejudecatile antigay implicite, cat si explicite de-a lungul timpului. deoarece acestea masoara indirect prejudecata de la viteza sau exactitatea cu care se face un raspuns, si nu din continutul raspunsului in sine (31, 32). Cercetarile actuale abordeaza aceasta preocupare examinand atat prejudecatile antigay implicite, cat si explicite de-a lungul timpului. deoarece acestea masoara indirect prejudecata de la viteza sau exactitatea cu care se face un raspuns, si nu din continutul raspunsului in sine (31, 32). Cercetarile actuale abordeaza aceasta preocupare examinand atat prejudecatile antigay implicite, cat si explicite de-a lungul timpului.

Cercetari curente

Am facut acest lucru prin geolocalizarea a 1 milion de respondenti cand au finalizat masuri implicite si explicite de partinire antigay la Project Implicit (Fig. 1). Din 2002, Project Implicit a operat un site web pe care oamenii il pot vizita pentru a finaliza un test implicit de asociere (IAT), o masura a partinirii implicite (33). Marea majoritate a cercetarilor privind prejudecatile s-au concentrat pe indivizi, dar, prin geolocarea milioanelor de raspunsuri la Project Implicit, cercetatorii au inceput foarte recent sa examineze asocierile dintre diverse rezultate si tendintele regionale ale prejudecatilor (34 – 38). Aici, examinam schimbarea prejudecatilor antigay implicite si explicite regionale in timp, comparand aceste tendinte inainte si dupa legalizarea locala la nivel de stat a casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex in fiecare stat.

Fig. 1.

Antigay la nivel de stat implicit si partinire explicita, mediat pentru toate raspunsurile intre 2005 si 2016.

In concordanta cu constatarea cercetarii ca normele influenteaza atitudinile personale si invers (2, 5, 7), dovezi in sprijinul ipotezei noastre ar fi obtinute in cazul in care prejudecata antigay implicita si explicita ar fi diminuata in urma legalizarii la nivel de stat. Cu alte cuvinte, am emis ipoteza ca legislatia guvernamentala ar contribui la schimbari in atitudinile celor afectate local de politici. Inferentele noastre au fost permise de modul in care s-a produs legalizarea casatoriei la acelasi sex la nivel de stat in Statele Unite. Legalizarea s-a produs intr-o serie de timp naturala, cvasi-experimentala, cu mai multe intreruperi, cu tratamente esalonate in grupuri (adica, in state). Pentru ca avem un numar mare de observatii de prejudecata pre si post legalizare si pentru ca tratamentul (adica, legalizarea casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex) s-a intamplat pe o perioada de 12 ani intr-un esantion larg de state diferite in mod esalonat, este putin probabil ca o variabila nemasurata sa explice sistematic reduceri de prejudecati (20 – 22). Dat fiind faptul ca datele sunt observationale, acest proiect nu este o dovada definitiva a cauzalitatii. Cu toate acestea, permite concluzii mai puternice cu privire la faptul daca legalizarea casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex a determinat scaderea implicitului antigay si a prejudecatii explicite.

Am testat ipotezele noastre intr-un model de regresie pe mai multe niveluri, in care respondentii Project Implicit ( n = ∼1 milioane) au fost grupati in state si Washington, DC ( k = 51). In modele separate, prejudecatile antigay implicite si explicite au fost regresate pe variabilele noastre principale de interes (adica, ora si daca data a fost inaintea legalizarii casatoriei dupa acelasi sex) si a covariatelor demografice. La nivelul respondentului, toate modelele au fost controlate pentru sex, varsta si statut de minoritate rasiala. La nivel de stat, toate modelele au controlat rata medie a ocuparii, educatia, veniturile si densitatea populatiei. Concluziile au fost identice la examinarea corelatiilor de ordine zero.

Consideram ca primul nostru model este cel mai puternic test al ipotezei noastre, limitand analizele la cei care s-au autoidentificat drept heterosexuali. Cu toate acestea, am efectuat o serie de analize suplimentare pe variante ale acestui set de date, pentru a ne asigura ca concluziile noastre nu au fost rezultatul deciziilor subiective ale cercetatorilor luate de-a lungul conductei analitice. Modelul 2 a inclus participanti la toate sexualitatile, pentru a confirma rezultatele noastre initiale nu s-au datorat sexualitatii esantionului nostru. Folosind un esantion heterosexual de autoidentificare, modelul 3 a abordat generalizarea concluziilor noastre prin replicarea rezultatelor cu un set de date reprezentativ la nivel national American Election Studies (ANES) reprezentativ la nivel national. Modelul 4 a comparat schimbarile de prejudecata in urma legalizarii casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex in statele care au adoptat legi la nivel local cu cele in care casatoria intre persoane de acelasi sex a fost legalizata numai in urma legalizarii federale. Pe scurt, am adoptat o abordare „multivers” (39), care examineaza cat de puternice au fost efectele noastre la deciziile subiective ale cercetatorului inevitabile luate in cursul analizelor. Examinam influenta legalizarii casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex atat asupra prejudecatilor implicite, cat si explicite in modele separate. Coerenta dintre toate analizele este o dovada mai puternica in sprijinul concluziilor noastre. Examinam influenta legalizarii casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex atat asupra prejudecatilor implicite, cat si explicite in modele separate. Coerenta dintre toate analizele este o dovada mai puternica in sprijinul concluziilor noastre. Examinam influenta legalizarii casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex atat asupra prejudecatilor implicite, cat si explicite in modele separate. Coerenta dintre toate analizele este o dovada mai puternica in sprijinul concluziilor noastre.

Rezultate

Model 1: Numai heterosexual.

Ipoteza noastra principala a fost testata examinand daca relatia dintre timp si partinirea antigay a variat in functie de daca a fost inainte sau dupa legalizarea casatoriei la acelasi sex la nivel de stat. Cu alte cuvinte, s-a schimbat tendinta de prejudecata antigay in interiorul statului in urma legalizarii casatoriei gay? Modelul 1 a fost implementat pe Dataset 1 (https://osf.io/prcd8/) (40), restrictionat la heterosexuali auto-raportati. Prima examinare a prejudecatii implicite, in concordanta cu ipotezele noastre, a aparut o interactiune de anul × legalizare ( B = −0.0025, SE = 0.0003, P <0.001). Pantele simple au relevat faptul ca, in timp ce prejudecata a scazut in timp inainte de legalizare ( B = −0.0062, SE = 0,0003, P<0,001), aceasta scadere s-a dublat ca marime in urma legalizarii ( B = −0.0111, SE = 0,0006, P <0,001) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Conturul comploturilor de prejudecati implicite de-a lungul timpului inainte de legalizarea ( stanga ) si dupa ( dreapta ) a casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex, in toate statele, care arata tendinta descrescatoare a partinirilor implicite de-a lungul timpului dupa legalizare. Deoarece exista cateva sute de mii de puncte, diagramele de contur utilizate ca date au o densitate prea mare pentru a fi vizualizate cu ajutorul scatterplot-urilor. Valorile mai mari ale densitatii (culori mai stralucitoare) reprezinta puncte de date mai observate in acea regiune a figurii.

Un model identic a fost prezent cu partinire explicita. Un an × Interactiunea de legalizare ( B = −0.0053, SE = 0.0016, P <0.001) a indicat ca, in timp ce prejudecata a scazut in timp inainte de legalizare ( B = −0.0915, SE = 0.0016, P <0.001), aceasta scadere a fost mai accentuata dupa legalizare ( B = −0.1022, SE = 0.0029, P <0.001). Vezi apendicele SI, Tabelul S1 A si B, pentru modelele complete. Prin urmare, atat partinirea implicita, cat si cea explicita au aratat scaderi accentuate in timp, in urma legalizarii casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex. Modelul complet a explicat 4,29% din variatia totala in prejudecata implicita si 3,27% din variatia in interiorul statului. Efectele noastre de interes au explicat in mod unic 1% din variatia dintre state, dincolo de covariatele demografice. Modelul complet explicat a explicat 8,79% din variatia totala in prejudecati explicite si 6,46% din variatia in interiorul statului. Legalizarea a explicat in mod unic 1,67% din variatia in interiorul statului dincolo de covariatele demografice.

O preocupare care ameninta validitatea concluziilor noastre este ca respondentii Proiect Implicit in urma legalizarii ar putea fi o populatie diferita de cea care viziteaza site-ul inainte de legalizare. Am examinat aceasta posibilitate cu datele demografice disponibile, comparand respondentii inainte si dupa legalizarea pe defalcare de varsta si sex. Proiectul respondentilor implicati inainte ( M = 24,56, SD = 10,64) fata de legalizare ( M = 25,06, SD = 11,13) in medie erau cu 6 luni mai mari [ t (632,413) = 20,70, P <0,001]. Mai mult, 2% mai multi dintre respondenti au fost identificati ca femei in urma legalizarii [ t (38,810) = 13,12, P<0,001]. Aceste comparatii sunt semnificative datorita puterii noastre statistice ridicate, dar mici si nu sunt deosebit de semnificative (pentru mai multe informatii, a se vedea Modelul 3: Replicarea cu o fisa de date reprezentativa la nivel national ). Interpretam aceste diferente ca fiind putin probabil sa fie responsabile pentru schimbarile observate in prejudecati de-a lungul timpului si consideram ca populatiile inainte si dupa legalizare sunt functionale cu acelasi procent de varsta si sex.

Modelul 2: Sexualitate nereportata.

Model 2 was identical to model 1 but performed on Dataset 2 (https://osf.io/prcd8/) (40), which relaxed the restriction that respondents self-identified as heterosexual, and therefore was 11% larger (n = 765,425). Repeating our primary analyses in this dataset provided identical conclusions. For implicit bias, a Year × Legalization interaction was present (B = −0.0046, SE = 0.0003, P < 0.001). Again, bias decreased more sharply over time following legalization relative to prior conditions. The pattern was identical when examining explicit bias. The effect size was slightly larger, with effects of interest explaining 1 and 2.2% of the within-state variance for implicit and explicit bias, respectively. See SI Appendix, Table S2 A and B, for full models.

Model 3: Replication with a Nationally Representative Dataset.

A major threat to the conclusions of the above analyses are that the subpopulation visiting Project Implicit is not representative of the US population and thus that any change in Project Implicit respondents’ biases cannot be generalized. To address this concern, we turned to a publically available, nationally representative survey sample, the ANES dataset (https://electionstudies.org/data-center/). The ANES gathers information on public opinions and political participation during every presidential election cycle and is representative of the both spatial and temporal demographics of the United States. Ideal for our purposes, the ANES surveys contained an explicit thermometer item similar to that of Project Implicit, regarding the extent to which participants felt warmth toward gay men and lesbians, with a score between 0 (cold) and 100 (warm). Critically, these data were collected across all 50 states and Washington, DC, before, during, and after same-sex marriage legalization. Therefore, we could test a model identical to models 1 and 2 reported above, examining whether antigay biases decreased at a greater rate following same-sex marriage legalization, but with a dataset weighted to be representative.

It is noteworthy that state-level antigay biases from the Project Implicit and ANES data were highly correlated [r = 0.75, P < 0.001, 95% CI (0.60, 0.85)], indicating that, despite sampling differences, the antigay bias captured by Project Implicit was highly correlated with a nationally representative estimate of explicit bias. Most importantly, we repeated model 1 with the ANES data across the three most recent time points corresponding with the passing of same-sex marriage legislation: 2008, 2012, and 2016. Identical to models 1 and 2, a Year × Legalization interaction was present (B = 1.1142, SE = 0.3943, P = 0.005). Unlike the Project Implicit data that indicated prelegalization bias was declining slowly, simple slopes indicated that prelegalization warmth toward gay men and lesbians was stable over time (B = 0.1466, SE = 1.5062, P = 0.813). However, consistent with Project Implicit data and our hypotheses, warmth toward gay men and lesbians increased over time after legalization (B = 2.3750, SE = 0.6107, P < 0.001). See SI Appendix, Table S3, for the full model. Because the ANES is a US representative sample, these results provide evidence that our conclusions generalize beyond Project Implicit respondents.

Model 4: State- vs. Federal-Level Legalization.

Although models 1–3 revealed that antigay prejudice was, on average, decreasing at a sharper rate across all US states following same-sex marriage legalization, it is possible that this broad effect is concealing important moderators. For example, we have hypothesized that local norms influence individuals’ attitudes. While 35 states and Washington, DC, passed same-sex marriage legalization before federal legalization, 15 states did not. Therefore, any norms signaled by federal legalization would not be local within-state and may have different implications for local antigay attitudes. To test this possibility, we coded states for whether legalization was first passed at the state or federal level and included a Year × Legalization × State–Federal interaction testing whether the Year × Legalization effects reported above varied by whether legislation was passed at the state or federal level.

For implicit bias, this three-way interaction was significant (B = 0.0088, SE = 0.0016, P < 0.001), indicating that the pattern of change in bias over time depended on whether same-sex marriage legalization happened as a result of local (i.e., state) or federal law. Before legalization, antigay bias was decreasing both in states that ultimately passed same-sex marriage legislation (B = −0.0051, SE = 0.0004, P < 0.001) and in those that did not (B = −0.0077, SE = 0.0005, P < 0.001). For the states passing same-sex marriage at the state level, the demonstrated pattern was identical to that evident in models 1–3 (Fig. 3). Bias decreased at roughly double the rate over time following legalization (B = −0.0112, SE = 0.0006, P < 0.001). In sharp contrast, for the 15 states that did not pass same-sex marriage legalization locally, antigay bias increased over time following legalization (B = 0.0215, SE = 0.0065, P < 0.001). An identical pattern was present with explicit bias. Effects of interest explained 1 and 4.4% of the within-state variance for implicit and explicit bias, respectively. See SI Appendix, Table S4, A and B, for full models. [Model 4 could not be replicated with the ANES dataset as the measurement over time was at a lower resolution (i.e., data were collected only around the presidential election in 2008, 2012, and 2016), which did not capture differences between states passing legalization at the state vs. federal level.] These results, while exploratory, suggest that the locality of legislation may be an important moderator in influencing the biases of local residents. We return to this issue in greater detail in Discussion.

Fig. 3.

The trends in implicit and explicit antigay bias over time, comparing the trend before and after same-sex marriage legalization in states that passed same-sex marriage legalization locally compared with states that did not pass same-sex marriage legalization locally. The dates of these trends vary across different states, so they have been plotted on the same panels for purposes of comparison.

Discussion

We find consistent evidence in support of the hypothesis that local government legislation informs changes in citizens’ attitudes. Consistent with previous research (41), we find that both implicit and explicit antigay bias was decreasing or stable over time before same-sex marriage legalization. However, following the passing of legislation perceived as supportive of this marginalized population, on average, antigay bias declined at a steeper rate. This conclusion converges with previous research finding that citizens of states passing state-level legislation had the greatest decrease in antigay attitudes (27). Evidence is consistent across five different operationalizations and data from two distinct sources. The limited “multiverse” approach (39) that we pursued helps ensure that these conclusions are robust to unavoidable subjective researcher decisions. The manner in which same-sex marriage legalization naturally unfolded across the United States, as a multiple-group, time-staggered quasi-experimental design, mitigates many of the threats to causal conclusions typically associated with observational data (20⇓–22).

Results indicate that attitudes and legislation may be mutually reinforcing. More specifically, because results generally indicate that attitudes toward the gay community were improving in all states before legalization (although see Model 3: Replication with a Nationally Representative Dataset), evolving attitudes toward same-sex marriage may have served as impetus and momentum for both state and federal legalization. These enacted legislations in turn strengthened and consolidated favorable attitudes toward lesbians and gay men.

Importantly, we find identical effects among both implicit and explicit measures of bias. The limited previous research on whether same-sex marriage legislation was associated with changes in attitudes used self-reported measures that were susceptible to concerns regarding social desirability (28), especially so given the politically sensitive and controversial nature of the topic. That a similar pattern is evident among implicit measures, which are less susceptible to conscious control and social desirability, is important evidence supporting that government legislation is associated with true changes in the attitudes of its citizens. Traditionally, implicit and explicit biases at the individual-level have been treated as weakly positively correlated but distinct phenomena (42), yet throughout all analyses here results were identical across both, and the correlation between the two constructs was surprisingly high (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). Determining how regional biases may differ from individual-level biases is beyond the scope of the present research, but future work might examine this discrepancy to better understand regional biases. Here, examining both implicit and explicit biases revealed identical conclusions.

A critical moderator of this effect appears to be whether same-sex marriage legalization was passed locally or at the federal level. In states that did not pass same-sex marriage legalization locally, we find a reactive or “backlash” effect (27) such that federal legalization was associated with increased antigay bias over time, despite the decreasing trend in bias in these states before federal legalization. The specific factors driving this effect cannot be addressed by the present data. One possibility is that, even though attitudes were improving, a tipping point of local support had not yet been reached for the majority to accept the federal ruling. Research at the individual level suggests that the attention given the federal decision may have sharpened some respondents’ sense of symbolic threat to their lifestyle and values (43), and this sense of threat could have exacerbated antigay biases among those individuals. Most of the 15 states that did not pass state legislation are those with generally stronger and more traditional social norms (44⇓–46).

These increasingly positive attitudes in some states and increasingly negative attitudes in others indicate that the federal legalization of same-sex marriage may have prompted national group polarization on attitudes toward gay people. We have proposed that legislation signals majority norms, and this polarized result highlights the potential importance of the perceived locality of that norm. Should legislation be perceived as imposed upon the local culture, a backlash effect might be expected. The analyses marshalled above provide tentative evidence that more localized policies may be more strongly associated with attitude change, perhaps because the norm is perceived as stronger and arising from a more local population.

One limitation of the present work concerns the representativeness of Project Implicit respondents. In general, these respondents are unlikely to be representative of the North American population, and indeed, our comparisons in the present research reveal they are younger and more likely to be female. And yet a growing body of literature using this sample finds that it is predictive of meaningful population-level behaviors. Thus far, these include outcomes such as being killed by police (36), mortality rates from cardiovascular disease (37, 38), segregation (35), and Google searches for racial slurs (35). These results collectively indicate that Project Implicit is tapping meaningful variation in the population, but the generalizability of these results was a concern. Accordingly, a strength of the present research is finding an identical pattern of results in a representative sample, the ANES dataset. That we find that antigay bias declines at a sharper rate following same-sex marriage legalization in a representative sample strongly buttresses the conclusions of the present research.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the effects of same-sex marriage legalization reported here are modest in size, with models explaining between 1 and 5% of the within-state variance. In the field, smaller or similar effect sizes have been considered meaningful across diverse domains, including a baseball player’s batting skill on their likelihood of getting a hit (R2 = 0.0033) (47) or the daily use of aspirin on heart attacks (R2 = 0.0011) (48). As others have pointed out, these seemingly small effect sizes may be societally meaningful when scaled across entire populations (49). See SI Appendix for more detailed contextualization of our effect sizes.

The broad conclusion of the present research—that representative governments can contribute to and/or intensify change in the attitudes of citizens by passing legislation—has important implications. For example, research reviewing the effectiveness of bias interventions found limited effects, and no effect that persisted beyond several days (50). However, the current results suggest that perceived norms may evoke more persistent change. Additionally, we examine attitudes toward a sexual minority, which previous research has found to be particularly entrenched (24, 25), and the current results therefore provide a strong test of our hypotheses. In this case, attitudes toward minority groups became more positive, although government signaling of norms might increase prejudice as well. For example, recent research using a different theoretical lens has found increased xenophobic attitudes following Trump’s election (16), which might be interpreted as signaling support of such attitudes. Furthermore, results might be extended toward other more malleable attitudes not involving social categories, such as toward littering or marijuana use. In addition, the amount of publicity any legislation receives may moderate these effects (51). For example, should legislation pass with little media attention or fanfare, the possibility that this legislation represents the attitudes of the majority will be less salient to citizens. Subsequently, the norm-based model of legislation changing attitudes would predict little change in citizens’ attitudes. Finally, as government legislation may only be perceived as signaling “the will of the people” in representative governments, effects may be limited to such governing styles (i.e., not extending to citizens’ of autocratic governments). In summary, our results evince that state and federal legalization was associated with changes in antigay bias, providing important evidence supporting the idea that government legislation can cause changes in the attitudes of its citizens regarding minority groups.

Materials and Methods

Source of Data.

Antigay bias.

Measures of implicit and explicit antigay prejudice were obtained from Project Implicit (33). Implicit bias was represented by the IAT d score (52) from an IAT task requiring participants to respond to social targets (e.g., Gay, Straight) and attributes (e.g., Good, Bad) simultaneously by timed keyboard input. Explicit bias was calculated from thermometer items. Participants had reported how warm they felt toward straight men, straight women, gay men, and lesbians on a 0 (coldest feelings) to 10 (warmest feelings) scale. Ratings of heterosexuals were averaged, and ratings of gay men and lesbians were averaged. Consistent with previous research (36⇓–38), explicit bias was represented by the difference between rated warmth toward heterosexuals and gay people. Greater positive values for both implicit and explicit biases thus reflected more positive attitudes toward heterosexuals relative to the gay community.

Legalization.

Same-sex marriage legalization date was defined as the date on which state-level institutions passed legalization locally. The earliest available data in the Project Implicit antigay dataset was 2005, after Vermont and Massachusetts had already passed forms of same-sex marriage legalization. All data from these states were coded as post legalization. California initially enacted same-sex legislation in 2008, but it was subsequently blocked 5 mo later. In 2010, legislation was again enacted legalizing same-sex marriage. Thus, implicit and explicit responses from California were coded as post state legalization if they were performed on or after the 2010 date to be as conservative as possible. (See SI Appendix for analyses examining changes in California specifically.) In some states (e.g., Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma), we defined same-sex marriage legalization as the date on which legislation defining marriage as “between woman and man” was ruled unconstitutional by state courts.

Time-varying covariates.

A number of demographic variables were included as controls. These variables varied by year. Employment was represented by 5-y estimates of state-employment rates reported by the 2005–2016 American Community Survey (53).

escorte domiciliu cluj http://alwayscruisingforfun.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/
escorte gara de nord bucuresti http://www.gadgetmom.net/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/
escorte pe whatsapp http://arsenalarts.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/
escorte sex alba http://vag.co.in/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/alba
agentii escorte http://kleierfamily.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/arad
escorte ploiesti http://hack-fb-online.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/arges
escorte taberei http://gracecafayate.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/bacau
escorte fulda http://silvermod.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/bihor
publi24 onesti escorte http://thislittlepiglet.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/bistrita-nasaud
escorte timusoara http://affordabledentaloffices.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/botosani
escorte bucuresti verificate http://missionspeech.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/braila
escorte cu sani mari http://iwillnotbedenied.org/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/suceava/satu-mare
escorte p neamt http://anonet2.org/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/suceava/scheia
escorte linsa http://bisnews.co.th/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/suceava/serbauti
escorte brasov deplasari http://basicresources.net/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/suceava/siminicea
escorte oana hot http://heattomorrow.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/suceava/siret
escorte comarnic http://mobilehomestead.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/suceava/slatina
escorte borsa http://ww5.ardustry.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/suceava/solca
escorte bucuresri http://kerberos-md.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/suceava/sti
anunturi escorte valcea http://burningspirit.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=escortelux.vip/escorte/suceava/straja

Education was represented by the percentage of state residents with a BA or equivalent degree (53). Population density was computed based on 2000 and 2010 census data (53). Socioeconomic status was represented for by 5-y estimates of mean household income (53).

Datasets.

A number of different datasets with different exclusion criteria were created for different analyses. The antigay bias dataset had 949,664 respondents, completed between 2005 and 2016. Across all datasets, participants (Mage = 24.72, SD = 10.8; 60% female, 32% male, 8% undisclosed) were included only if they were US-based, had state-level geographic information included and either implicit or explicit data, and gender, age, and racial majority/minority status reported. All reported effects are robust to inclusion of participant-level covariates, as models fully replicate when not included. In Dataset 1 (https://osf.io/prcd8/), analyses were restricted to participants who had self-identified as heterosexual, resulting in a sample of n = 680,376. In Dataset 2 (https://osf.io/prcd8/) we relaxed this assumption, including both gay respondents and those who had not answered this question, resulting in a sample of n = 765,425.

ANES data.

Commencing in 1948, the ANES has gathered information on public opinions and political participation. We limited our analyses to the time-series cumulative dataset (n = 10,870; Mage = 49.11, SD = 17.2; 52.6% female, 47.1% male, 0.3% undisclosed) from 2008, 2012, and 2016, corresponding with the Project Implicit data. All ANES models were identical to Project Implicit models with the exception of racial majority or minority status. Models were weighted with the sample weight from online sampling only (“VCF0011y” in the ANES data), as it uniquely included Alaska and Hawaii. See https://electionstudies.org/ for more information on sampling methodology.

Analytic Approach.

Results were analyzed in a multilevel framework using lme4 (54) in the R environment, with respondents nested within states and Washington, DC (k = 51). States were selected as the clustering unit since same-sex marriage legislation was passed at the state level. State-level variables were grand-mean–centered. Degrees of freedom, test statistics, and P values were derived from Satterthwaite approximations in the lmerTest R package (55). Models included random intercepts and fixed slopes. Intraclass correlation coefficients across all three datasets consistently revealed that ∼3–4% of the variance was between states for implicit bias and that 1–5% of the variance was between states for explicit bias. The vast majority of variance was within-state. Model-explained variance was calculated using the formulas laid out by Rights and Sterba (56).

Footnotes

  • Author contributions: E.K.O., M.K.C., J.M.C., and E.H. designed research; E.K.O., M.K.C., and E.H. performed research; E.K.O. and E.H. analyzed data; and E.K.O., M.K.C., J.M.C., and E.H. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • Data deposition: Datasets 1 and 2 have been deposited in the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/prcd8/.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1806000116/-/DCSupplemental.

View Abstract

ARTICOLE SIMILAREDE LA ACELAȘI AUTOR