Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 553–580 | Cite as

To Know You is Not Necessarily to Love You: The Partisan Mediators of Intergroup Contact

Original Paper

Abstract

We propose the contact–cue interaction approach to studying political contact—that cues from trusted political elites can moderate the effect of contact on the formation of public policy opinions. Allport’s initial formulation of the contact effect noted that it relies on authority support. In a highly polarized political era, authoritative voices for individuals vary based on party identification. Social experiences may affect public policy, but they must also be considered in light of partisan filters. Using data from the 2006 CCES, we examine the manner in which straight respondents with gay family members, friends, co-workers and acquaintances view same-sex marriage policy, finding a strong contact effect among Democrats, but no contact effect among the strongest Republican identifiers. Our data and analyses strongly support the perspective that social interactions (and their effect on policy) are understood through the lens of partisanship and elite cues.

Keywords

Intergroup contact Same sex marriage Elite cues Party identification Gay rights 

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  2. Anderssen, N. (2002). Does contact with lesbians and gays lead to friendlier attitudes? A two year longitudinal study. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12, 124–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auxier, R. C, & Tyson, A. (2007). Democrats address gay community. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/2007/08/10/democrats-address-gay-community/.
  4. Barth, J., Overby, L. M., & Huffmon, S. H. (2009). Community context, personal contact, and support for an anti—gay rights referendum. Political Research Quarterly, 62(2), 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barth, J. L., & Parry, J. (2009). 2 > 1+1? The impact of contact with gay and lesbian couples on attitudes about gays/lesbians and gay-related policies. Politics & Policy, 37(1), 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, A. B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2011). New voters, new outlook? Predisopositions, social networks, and the changing politics of gay civil rights. Social Science Quarterly, 92(2), 324–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berg, J. A. (2009). Core networks and whites’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bramlett, B. H. (2012). The cross-pressures of religion and contact with Gays and Lesbians, and their impact on same-sex marriage opinion. Politics & Policy, 40(1), 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Branton, R. P., & Jones, B. S. (2005). Reexamining racial attitudes: The conditional relationship between diversity and socioeconomic environment. Political Research Quarterly, 49(2), 359–372.Google Scholar
  11. Brewer, P. R. (2008). Value war: Public opinion and the politics of gay rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, M. J., & Henriquez, E. (2011). Support for Gay and Lesbian civil rights: Development and examination of a New Scale. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(4), 462–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, D. A., & Monson, J. Q. (2008). The religion card: gay marriage and the 2004 presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cirakoglu, O. C. (2006). Perception of homosexuality among Turkish university students: The roles of labels, gender, and prior contact. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(3), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cotten-Huston, A. L., & Waite, B. M. (2000). Anti-homosexual attitudes in college students: Predictors and classroom interventions. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Darmofal, D. (2005). Elite cues and citizen disagreement with expert opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dixon, J. C. (2006). The ties that bind and those that don’t: Toward reconciling group threat and contact theories of prejudice. Social Forces, 84(4), 2179–2204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dixon, J. C., & Rosembaum, M. S. (2004). Nice to know you? Testing contact, cultural, and group threat theories of anti-Black and anti-Hispanic stereotypes. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2), 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Druckman, J. N., Fein, J., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 430–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dyck, J., & Pearson-Merkowitz, S. (2012). The conspiracy of silence: Context and voting on gay marriage ballot measures. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 745–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: a theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24(1), 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Finlay, B., & Walther, C. S. (2003). The relation of religious affiliation, service attendance, and other factors to homophobic attitudes among university students. Review of Religious Research, 44(4), 370–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fossett, M. A., & Kiecolt, K. J. (1989). The relative size of minority populations and white racial attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 70(4), 820–835.Google Scholar
  30. Fox, C. (2004). The changing color of welfare? How whites’ attitudes toward Latinos influence support for welfare. American Journal of Sociology, 110(3), 580–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frisbie, W. P., & Niedert, L. J. (1977). Inequality and the relative size of minority populations: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 1007–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Giles, M. W., & Buckner, M. (1993). David Duke and Black Threat: An old hypothesis revisited. Journal of Politics, 55(3), 702–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gimpel, J. G., Dyck, J. J., & Shaw, D. R. (2004). Registrants, voters, and turnout variability across neighborhoods. Political Behavior, 26(4), 343–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gimpel, J. G., Kaufmann, K. M., & Pearson-Merkowitz, S. (2007). Battleground states versus blackout states: The behavioral implications of modern presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 786–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Glaser, J. (1994). Back to the black belt: Racial environment and white racial attitudes in the South. Journal of Politics, 56(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206–228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 412–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 30(3), 239–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. J. (1996). A racial/ethnic diversity interpretation of politics and policy in the states of the US. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 851–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hodson, G., Harry, H., & Mitchell, A. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hood, M. V, I. I. I., & Morris, I. L. (1997). Amigo o enemigo? Context, attitudes, and anglo public opinion toward immigration. Social Science Quarterly, 72(2), 309–323.Google Scholar
  45. Hood, M. V, I. I. I., & Morris, I. L. (1998). Give us your tired, your poor, … But make sure they have a green card: The effects of documented and undocumented migrant context on Anglo opinion toward immigration. Political Behavior, 20(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hood, M. V, I. I. I., & Morris, I. L. (2000). Brother, can you spare a dime? Racial/ethnic context and the Anglo vote on Proposition 187. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 194–206.Google Scholar
  47. Hopkins, D. J. (2010). Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 40–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Huckfeldt, R. R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to control the family, art, education, law, and politics in America. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Jackman, M. R., & Crane, M. (1986). ‘Some of My Best Friends Are Black.’.: Interracial friendships and whites’ racial attitudes. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(4), 459–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to child. American Political Science Review, 62, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Key, V. O. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. Knoxville: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.Google Scholar
  54. Kuklinski, J. H., & Hurley, N. L. (1994). On hearing and interpreting political messages: A cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. The Journal of Politics, 56(3), 729–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lance, L. M. (1987). The effects of interaction with gay persons on attitudes toward homosexuality. Human Relations, 40(6), 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Landis, D., Hope, R. O., & Day, H. R. (1984). Training for desegregation in the military. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 257–258). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (2002). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lemm, K. M. (2006). Positive associations among interpersonal contact, motivation, and implicit and explicit attitudes toward Gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(2), 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lewis, G. B. (2006). Who knows gay people and what impact does it have on attitudes toward homosexuality and gay rights?. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA. 2011-03-13 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p153611_index.html.
  60. Lewis, G. B. (2011). The friends and family plan: Contact with Gays and support for Gay rights. Policy Studies Journal, 39(2), 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lewkowicz, M. A. (2006). The effectiveness of elite cues as heuristics in proposition elections. American Politics Research, 34(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2003). Regression models for categorical outcomes using Stata, Revised First Edition. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  63. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. The American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Magleby, D. B., Monson, J. Q., & Patterson, K. D. (2007). Dancing without partners: how candidates, parties, and interest groups interact in the presidential campaign. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  66. Mondak, J. J. (1993). Source cues and policy approval: the cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 186–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Morrison, E. W., & Herlihy, J. M. (1992). Becoming the best place to work: Managing diversity at American Express Travel related services. In S. E. Jackson (Ed.), Diversity in the workplace (pp. 203–226). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  68. Miller, G., & Schofield, N. (2008). The transformation of the republican and democratic party coalitions in the U.S. Perspectives on Politics, (3): 433–450.Google Scholar
  69. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Durkin, K., & Griffiths, J. (2005a). Group norms, threat, and children’s racial prejudice. Child Development, 76(3), 652–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Durkin, K., & Griffiths, J. (2005b). Threat, group identification, and children’s ethnic prejudice. Social Development, 14(2), 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Oliver, J. E., & Wong, J. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 567–582 (Did not find a 2002 article from these authors).Google Scholar
  75. Overby, L. M., & Barth, J. (2002). Contact, community context, and public attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Polity, 34(4), 433–456.Google Scholar
  76. Parker, J. H. (1968). The interaction of Negroes and whites in an integrated church setting. Social Forces, 46, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three models. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pew Research Center. (2013). Growing support for Gay marriage: Changed minds and changing demographics. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Available at http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/3-20-13%20Gay%20Marriage%20Release.pdf.
  81. Pomper, G. M. (1972). From confusion to clarity: Issues and American voters, 1956–1968. The American Political Science Review, 66(2), 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  83. Scarberry, N. C., Ratcliff, C. D., Lord, C. G., Lanicek, D. L., & Desforges, D. M. (1997). Effects of individuating information on the generalization of Allport’s contact hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1291–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schafer, M. (1997). Cooperation in an objective conflict of interest? testing two psychological approaches. The Journal of Politics, 59(3), 729–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schneider, S. K., & Jacoby, W. G. (2005). Elite discourse and American public opinion: The case of welfare spending. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Interracial contact and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71, 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Skipworth, S. A., Garner, A., & Dettrey, B. J. (2010). Limitations of the contact hypothesis: Heterogeneity in the contact effect on attitudes toward Gay rights. Politics & Policy, 38(5), 877–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion (pp. 133–165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Stangor, C., Sechrist, G. B., & Jost, J. T. (2001). Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 486–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Swank, E., & Raiz, L. (2010). Attitudes toward Gays and Lesbians among undergraduate social work students. Journal of Women and Social Work, 25(1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tezanos-Pinto, P. D., Bratt, C., & Brown, R. (2010). What will the others think? In-group norms as a mediator of the effects of intergroup contact. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tredoux, C., & Finchilescu, G. (2010). Mediators of the contact–Prejudice relation among South African students on four University Campuses. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Vonofakou, C. V., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Contact with out-group friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes toward gay men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 804–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Waldman, P. (2010). The democrats Gay-marriage problem. The American Prospect. Printed August 9, 2010.Google Scholar
  95. Wilcox, C., & Wolpert, R. (2000). Gay rights in the public sphere: Public opinion on gay and lesbian equality. In C. A. Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, & C. Wilcox (Eds.), The politics of gay rights. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  96. Wills, G., & Crawford, R. (2000). Attitudes towards homosexuality in Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wood, P., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2004). Attribution style and public policy attitudes toward Gay rights. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations