Fine for Adam & Eve but not Adam & Steve? Homonegativity bias, parasocial contact, and public support for surrogacy

Figures & data

Figure 1. Support for surrogacy by treatment condition.

Table 1. Average effect of treatment condition vs control group.

	Supports surrogacy (1–5)			Pr (Supports surrogacy)
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Celebrity gay couple	−0.041	−0.043	−0.039	−0.040	−0.043	−0.041
	(0.078)	(0.074)	(0.074)	(0.030)	(0.029)	(0.029)
Celebrity straight couple	−0.095	−0.100	−0.094	−0.048	−0.049*	−0.046
	(0.078)	(0.074)	(0.074)	(0.030)	(0.029)	(0.029)
Ordinary gay couple	−0.210***	−0.200***	−0.209***	−0.109***	−0.104***	−0.107***
	(0.078)	(0.074)	(0.074)	(0.030)	(0.029)	(0.029)
Ordinary straight couple	0.114	0.104	0.105	0.018	0.017	0.016
	(0.078)	(0.073)	(0.074)	(0.030)	(0.029)	(0.029)
Socio-demographic covariates		Yes	Yes		Yes	Yes
Political covariates			Yes			Yes
Constant	4.039***	5.169***	5.273***	0.811***	1.189***	1.233***
	(0.055)	(0.132)	(0.139)	(0.021)	(0.052)	(0.055)
Observations	1954	1935	1935	1954	1935	1935
R^2 Adj.	0.008	0.127	0.134	0.009	0.086	0.099
AIC	5860.9	5588.7	5585.6	2123.5	1983.5	1969.7
BIC	5894.4	5811.4	5880.7	2157.0	2206.2	2264.8
Log.Lik.	−2924.444	−2754.328	−2739.823	−1055.753	−951.758	−931.830
F	4.769	8.392	6.861	5.531	5.815	5.161

*p < 0.1, ***p < 0.01.

Figure 2. Asymmetric effect of treatment factors.

Figure 3. Exploratory subgroup analysis: age.

Figure 4. Exploratory subgroup analysis: gender.

Figure 5. Modelling response rationales by treatment factors.