To Know You is Not Necessarily to Love You: The Partisan Mediators of Intergroup Contact
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.
KeywordsIntergroup contact Same sex marriage Elite cues Party identification Gay rights
- Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
- 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/.
- 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
- 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
- Brewer, P. R. (2008). Value war: Public opinion and the politics of gay rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Key, V. O. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. Knoxville: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2003). Regression models for categorical outcomes using Stata, Revised First Edition. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Overby, L. M., & Barth, J. (2002). Contact, community context, and public attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Polity, 34(4), 433–456.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Waldman, P. (2010). The democrats Gay-marriage problem. The American Prospect. Printed August 9, 2010.Google Scholar
- 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