Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fringe benefits: secondary transfer effects of lesbian, gay, and bisexual contact on transgender prejudice

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intergroup contact is often an effective means of prejudice reduction. However, transgender individuals, a highly stigmatized group, make up a small proportion (0.58%; Flores et al., 2016) of the U.S. population, which significantly limits the feasibility of direct contact for most people. Thus, secondary transfer effects, wherein the benefits of contact with one group generalizes to other related groups, may be an important means of transgender prejudice reduction. Across two studies (Ns = 242 and 172), we assessed the extent to which contact with sexual minority (i.e., lesbian, gay, or bisexual) individuals was associated with secondary transfer effects on transgender prejudice. We also examined the extent to which secondary transfer effects varied by relationship type (i.e., friend, family, acquaintance). Participants completed online surveys that assessed prejudice and contact experience with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Overall, contact with lesbians and gay men was associated with less prejudice toward transgender individuals indirectly through lower prejudice toward each respective group, and friendships were the most consistent relationship type associated with secondary transfer effects. Contact with bisexuals, as well as family members, was inconsistently associated with transgender prejudice. The findings suggest secondary transfer effects as a potential means of transgender prejudice reduction and emphasize the need to assess relationship type and contact group, as patterns of prejudice reduction were not uniform across groups often perceived to be similar.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Materials and/or code availability

All study materials and data analysis coding are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. The contact variables were correlated with demographic and psychosocial variables (e.g., age, gender, race, political orientation, education, relationship status, employment status, hometown, church attendance; see Table S1 for a description of each variable). Analyses were also conducted including related demographic or psychosocial characteristics (i.e., gender, political orientation, and frequency of church attendance) as covariates. Results were largely the same (see Supplemental Material).

  2. As in Study 1, the contact variables were correlated with demographic and psychosocial variables (e.g., age, gender, race, political orientation, education, relationship status, employment status, hometown, residence town size, income, church attendance; see table S4) to determine if other factors may be influencing responses. Again, gender (dichotomized), political orientation, and frequency of church attendance were the only variables consistently correlated. When these characteristics were controlled for, mediation results remained the same. Results for all models are presented in Supplemental Material.

References

  • Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.43

  • Baunach, D. M., Burgess, E. O., & Muse, C. S. (2009). Southern (dis)comfort: Sexual prejudice and contact with gay men and lesbians in the South. Sociological Spectrum, 30(1), 30–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170903340893

  • Berkman, C. S., & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and heterosexism in social workers. Social Work, 42(4), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/42.4.319

  • Bockting, W. O., Miner, M. H., Romine, S., Hamilton, R. E. A., & Coleman, E. (2013). Stigma, mental health, and resilience in an online sample of the US transgender population. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 943–951. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301241

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

  • Castellanos, H. D. (2016). The role of institutional placement, family conflict, and homosexuality in homelessness pathways among latino LGBT youth in New York City. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(5), 601–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1111108

  • Ceglian, C. M. P., & Lyons, N. N. (2004). Gender type and comfort with cross-dressers. Sex Roles, 50(7–8), 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:sers.0000023073.99146.2d

  • Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4), 2053168015622072. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072

  • D’Augelli, A. R., & Grossman, A. H. (2006). Researching lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: Conceptual, practical, and ethical considerations. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(2–3), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v03n02_03

  • Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103

  • de Bruin, K., & Arndt, M. (2010). Attitudes toward bisexual men and women in a university context: Relations with race, gender, knowing a bisexual man or woman and sexual orientation. Journal of Bisexuality, 10(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2010.500955

  • de Tezanos-Pinto, P., 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(3), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X471020

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001009

  • Elkin, L. A., Kay, M., Higgins, J. J., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2021, October). An aligned rank transform procedure for multifactor contrast tests. In The 34th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (pp. 754–768). https://doi.org/10.1145/3472749.3474784

  • Fehr, B. (2004). Intimacy expectations in same-sex friendships: A prototype interaction-pattern model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.265

  • Flores, A. R. (2021). Social acceptance of LGBTI people in 175 countries and locations, 1981 to 2020. The Williams Institute.

  • Flores, A. R., Herman, J. L., Gates, G. J., & Brown, T. N. T. (2016). How many adults identify as transgender in the United States? (pp. 1–13). The Williams Institute.

  • Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R companion to applied regression (3rd ed.). SAGE.

  • Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x

  • Harwood, J., Paolini, S., Joyce, N., Rubin, M., & Arroyo, A. (2011). Secondary transfer effects from imagined contact: Group similarity affects the generalization gradient. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X524263

  • Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin, 135(5), 707–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016441

  • Haukoos, J. S., & Lewis, R. J. (2005). Advanced statistics: Bootstrapping confidence intervals for statistics with “difficult” distributions. Academic Emergency Medicine: Official Journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 12(4), 360–365. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2004.11.018

  • Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians, 22(4),412–424. https://doi.org/10.1.1.488.7140

  • Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30(3), 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499309551707

  • Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development and validation of the genderism and transphobia scale. Sex Roles, 53(7–8), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7140-x

  • Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2018). When intergroup contact is uncommon and bias is strong: The case of anti-transgender bias. Psychology & Sexuality, 9(3), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2018.1470107

  • Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2020). Coming out, intergroup relations, and attitudes toward LGBT rights. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1179

  • Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2010). Causal mediation analysis using R. Advances in social science research using R (pp. 129–154). New York, NY: Springer

  • Israel, T., & Mohr, J. J. (2004). Attitudes toward bisexual women and men. Journal of Bisexuality, 4(1–2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1300/J159v04n01_09

  • Jafari, M., & Ansari-Pour, N. (2019). Why, when and how to adjust your p values? Cell Journal, 20, 604–607. https://doi.org/10.22074/cellj.2019.5992

  • James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 US transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality.

  • Katz-Wise, S. L., Rosario, M., & Tsappis, M. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth and family acceptance. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 63(6), 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.005

  • Kenworthy, J. B., Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2005). Intergroup contact: When does it work, and why? In Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P., & Rudman, L. A. (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 278–292). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773963.ch17

  • Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P., & Christensen, R. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

  • LaMar, L., & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551932

  • Lenth, R. V. (2021). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.6.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans

  • Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. Sage Open, 6(1), 2158244016636433. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433

  • Luhur, W., Brown, T. N. T., & Flores, A. R. (2019). Public opinion of transgender rights in the United States. The Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Public-Opinion-Trans-US-Aug-2019.pdf

  • MacDonald, A. P, Jr (1981). Bisexuality: Some comments on research and theory. Journal of Homosexuality, 6(3), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v06n03_02

  • McCann, E., & Brown, M. (2019). Homelessness among youth who identify as LGBTQ+: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(11–12), 2061–2072. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14818

  • Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

  • Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.353

  • National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (2013). Hate violence against transgender communities.

  • Newport, F. (2018). In U.S., Estimate of LGBT Population Rises to 4.5%. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx

  • Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of U.S. adults. Sex Roles, 68(11–12), 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0110-6

  • Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 770–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262848

  • Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact. Social Psychology, 40(2), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.2.55

  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Hewstone, M. (2017). The single factor fallacy: Implications of missing critical variables from an analysis of intergroup contact theory. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 8–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12026

  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2013). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York: Psychology Press

  • Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001

  • Pew Research Center (2013). A survey of LGBT Americans: Attitudes, experiences and values in changing times Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/06/SDT_LGBT-Americans_06-2013.pdf

  • R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  • Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In A. L. Vangelisti, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 637–654). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511606632.035

  • Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2012). Risk factors for homelessness among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A developmental milestone approach. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.09.016

  • Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(4), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x

  • Shelton, J. N., Trail, T. E., West, T. V., & Bergsieker, H. B. (2010). From strangers to friends: The interpersonal process model of intimacy in developing interracial friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509346422

  • Smith, S. J., Axelton, A. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2009). The effects of contact on sexual prejudice: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9627-3

  • Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., Cairns, E., & Hughes, J. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018553

  • Tee, N., & Hegarty, P. (2006). Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans persons in the United Kingdom. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.851

  • Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007a). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.369

  • Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Paolini, S., & Christ, O. (2007b). Reducing prejudice via direct and extended cross-group friendship. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 212–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701680297

  • Vonofakou, C., 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.804

  • Whitley, B. E. (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45(11–12), 691–721. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015640318045

  • Wobbrock, J. O., Findlater, L., Gergle, D., & Higgins, J. J. (2011, May). The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only ANOVA procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 143–146). https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963

  • Worthen, M. G. F. (2013). An argument for separate analyses of attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual men, bisexual women, MtF and FtM transgender individuals. Sex Roles, 68(11–12), 703–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0155-1

Download references

Funding

This work was not funded by any organization, grant, or other means of support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    Holly N. Fitzgerald & Natalie J. Shook

  2. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Christopher K. Owen & Natalie J. Shook

  3. Department of Psychological Sciences, Bousfield Psychology Building 406 Babbidge Road Unit 1020, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA

    Holly N. Fitzgerald

Authors
  1. Holly N. Fitzgerald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher K. Owen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natalie J. Shook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Holly Fitzgerald and Natalie Shook contributed to both study conceptualization and design. Collection of study materials, data collection, and data analysis were performed by Holly Fitzgerald. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Holly Fitzgerald, and all authors contributed to subsequent revisions of the manuscript. The final manuscript was read and approved by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holly N. Fitzgerald.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

Institutional ethics approvals were obtained.

Consent

All participants provided their consent prior to participating in the study.

Data

All data generated and analyzed during these studies are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fitzgerald, H.N., Owen, C.K. & Shook, N.J. Fringe benefits: secondary transfer effects of lesbian, gay, and bisexual contact on transgender prejudice. Curr Psychol 43, 3548–3561 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04469-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04469-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation