![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
We offer an expanded version of attribution theory that incorporates macro- and micro-elements. We then use this theory on a test case and propose an explanation of how individual beliefs about the origins of homosexuality have changed over time and become polarized along partisan lines. We argue that attributions on the origins of homosexuality have been shaped over time by the emergence of a macro-level debate about gay civil rights policy, the related macro-level partisan polarization on gay rights policies, and the strategic framing efforts of in-groups within the parties. We employ aggregate and individual level survey data, descriptive analysis, and content analysis and find support for a theory of attribution that accounts for macro-level factors when explaining individual-level attitudes. We conclude that policy debates can fundamentally shift as attributions become partisan or otherwise politicized.
Notes
1 CitationLewis and Gossett (2008) observe this pattern of polarization on the issue of same-sex marriage. CitationLindaman and Haider-Markel (2002) observe that elites polarized on gay rights issues, but mass polarization was not as evident.
2 CitationCarsey and Layman (2006) argue that only those who are aware of issue differences across the parties and find the issue salient will shift their views or party.
3 The two-step flow of attributions from Party activists and elites (macro-level) to a mass public (micro-level) could likely work in the same manner in religious settings as well (CitationLeege et al., 2002). The clergy's position in the church and Biblical accounts can unite into powerful expressions of causal attributions. Religious education often includes negative references to homosexuals (CitationLayman & Carmines, 1997; CitationWood & Bartkowski, 2004). Examples of this teaching include the idea that homosexuality is considered a sin or crime against nature (CitationTygart, 2000). The logic of sin is that it is always a choice—that temptations exist and we choose to resist or submit to our temptations. Therefore, as a sin, homosexuality could hardly be genetically based or deterministic. Instead, viewing homosexuality as a sin presumes that it is a controllable choice. However, homosexuality was not a significant political issue in America until the late 1970s and then in the early 1980s, with the advent of AIDS (CitationHaider-Markel, 2010). Thus, although we expect the controllability attribution to be prominent among individuals with the strongest religious ties, we suspect that this relationship will not appear until the 1980s at the earliest.
4 Protestant denominations have traditionally held the most negative public stance on homosexuality (CitationMelton, 1991).
5 It is possible that opinions on gay civil rights could be polarized even if everyone agreed on the attribution. This logic supports our claim that the macro partisan debate over gay civil rights helped to drive evolving partisan differences in attributions. And although there is certainly some reciprocal relationship between policy positions and attributions, the pattern of evidence is suggestive of a policy debate leading to attributions the support subsequent individual level policy positions. Perhaps not surprisingly, the statistical evidence for a reciprocal relationship is clear. If the dependent variables in 1977 and 1982 are switched to the born with attribution and support for equal rights is included as an independent variable, support for equal rights is a significant predictor of the attribution in 1977 (1.08, p > .00) and in 1982 (.653, p > .00).
6 Indeed, the 1992 proposed, but failed, amendment to the Oregon constitution stated, in part “This state shall not recognize any categorical provision such as “sexual orientation,” “sexual preference,” and similar phrases that includes homosexuality. Quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or any similar concepts, shall not apply to these forms of conduct, nor shall government promote these behaviors” (emphasis added, CitationEgan, 1992). The language makes clear that opponents of gay civil rights believed homosexuality was a behavioral choice, not a biological characteristic.
7 Not all activists were willing to make this argument. In fact, homosexual activists from a “liberationist” school of thought preferred to suggest the opposite—that homosexuality was a choice; a conscious rejection of oppressive gender, sexual, relationship, and family stereotypes and standards (CitationRimmerman, 2007; CitationVaid, 1995).
8 Newsbank includes the archives of hundreds of national, regional, and local newspapers, from the New York Times to the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard. However, the number of years archived for each newspaper varies by newspaper.
9 Here we include only the results from 1977 to 2008. The searches were conducted from 1970 to 2008, but no related articles appeared in the period prior to 1977.
10 Although special rights argument has faded away, we can turn to surveys conducted around the time that partisan polarization on attributions began to appear. From April 22 to 24, 1993 the Gallup organization included a question (for the first time) about special rights for homosexuals in a national random-sample telephone survey of 1000 adults. Recall that this was at the height of the use of the term in media coverage. Gallup asked respondents the following question: “Which comes closer to your view: (1) Homosexual groups are asking for special rights for homosexuals that most other people do not have, or, (2) homosexual groups are asking only for the same rights for homosexuals that other people already have.” In essence we can assess the effectiveness of the special rights argument by using multivariate analysis to predict which respondents would be more likely to suggest the special rights perspective comes closer to their view. Given the partisan messages presented by elites, we expect that Democrats and Independents would have been less likely to indicate the special rights argument came closer to their own view than Republicans. We tested this hypothesis while controlling for respondent gender, education, age, race, living in a Southern state, and living in a rural area. From the same sample we also estimate a model predicting individual likelihood of accepting a biological attribution for homosexuality. We expect that respondents who accepted the ‘special rights’ argument would be less likely to make a biological attribution. The full results are available from the authors and not reported here but the results of our models indicate that partisanship clearly matters on this issue—relative to Republicans, Democrats and Independents were significantly less likely to agree with the special rights argument. Based on the marginal effects coefficients we can also conclude that partisanship (Democrat) played a relatively greater role in predicting attitudes than any other variable in the model. In addition, in a model predicting biological attributions for homosexuality the results suggest that relative to Republicans, both Democrats and Independents are more likely to believe that homosexuality is something that people are born with. However, the relative influence of these variables on the likelihood of accepting a biological attribution is greatly reduced when controlling for an individual's acceptance the special rights argument. Thus, it does appear that accepting the special rights argument is associated with a belief that homosexuality can be attributed to a controllable cause.
11 We chose not to pool the surveys because the inconsistent data on particular variables would mean that many cases would be lost.
12 For the 1993 and 1998 analysis we supplemented the lack of religion variables with a variable for knowing someone who is gay or lesbian and a variable for living in the South. Research suggests that the experience of knowing someone that is gay or lesbian and living in the South may have a significant influence on attitudes about homosexuality (CitationEgan and Sherrill, 2005; CitationHerek, 2002; CitationRiggle & Ellis, 1994; CitationRiggle & Tadlock, 1999; CitationSherrill & Yang, 2000; CitationTygart, 2000; CitationWood & Bartkowski, 2004).
13 In preliminary analysis we also tried to create a surrogate measure of partisanship with religion and ideology variables. Unfortunately these variables were also lacking in the survey where partisanship was not included.
14 We also estimated the marginal effects of variables in these models to determine if partisanship plays a greater role than other variables. The marginal effects of Democrat are as follows: 1977 (.002), 1982 (−.019), 1989 (none, Protestant was highest at −.122), 1993 (.148), 1996 (.270), 1998 (.191), 1999 (.231), 2000 (.180), 2006 (.275), 2007 (.367). Other than 1977 and 1982, in each year the variable for Democrat at the greatest marginal effect in each model, except in the case of 2000 when born-again had a higher marginal effect than Democrat at −.245. In addition, the marginal effect of Independent was typically second in each model.
15 As expected, knowing a gay person increases the likelihood of indicating a biological attribution for homosexuality in the 1993 and 1998 models; this tends to confound the gender variables since women are far more likely to know a gay or lesbian person (CitationHaider-Markel & Joslyn, 2008).
