Suchergebnisse

AbstractAt least partly due to data limitations, academic analyses of public opinion rarely acknowledge lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identities. Our models of political attitudes almost always overlook respondents' sexual orientation and gender identities, and targeted research on the views of LGBT people is uncommon. This omission has obscured both the distinctiveness of LGBT Americans and the diversity within the group. Using recent large-N surveys, this article shows that LGBT Americans are distinctively liberal compared to otherwise similar straight and cisgender respondents—in their general political predispositions, electoral choices, and attitudes on a wide range of policy matters. At the same time, there is substantial diversity within the community—bisexual and transgender respondents are frequently less liberal than lesbians and gay men. Analysis of intersecting identities reveals substantial differences between bisexual men and bisexual women, but little evidence of diversity based on gender within lesbian/gay and transgender subgroups. Given these findings, public opinion scholars should routinely incorporate measures of LGBT identities in their analyses, alongside race, gender, class, and other politically salient respondent characteristics.

Marginalized groups frequently adopt a respectability politics strategy, presenting themselves as adhering to dominant norms to gain public support. The LGBTQ movement, for example, has consciously portrayed same-gender relationships as exemplifying heteronormative values to win over straight Americans. But how effective is this strategy? Two survey experiments show that presenting LGB people as adhering to, or violating, norms of monogamy and exclusivity has null to minimal effects on straight respondents' views of them or support for their rights. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the effects are moderated by (1) respondents' political predispositions; or (2) the race, ethnicity, or gender of the LGB people being highlighted. Emphasizing the respectability of same-gender relationships is not as effective as the movement has assumed. More broadly, these results call into question the assumption that highlighting "respectable" members of marginalized groups is an effective way to change public opinion.

Objectives: This article examines whether the descriptive representation of race and ethnicity influences how constituents respond to the substantive representation of their policy preferences. Hypotheses derived from theories of descriptive representation suggest that voters may overestimate policy congruence, or downplay its importance, while evaluating politicians who "look like" them. Methods: A unique sample of black, Hispanic, and white Americans was asked to evaluate a (fictitious) member of the U.S. Congress whose race/ethnicity and policy positions are randomly manipulated. Results: Regardless of their actual policy positions, blacks perceived greater substantive representation from black politicians. Also holding policy congruence constant, whites approved of white politicians at distinctly higher rates. Education moderates this effect, such that less‐educated whites respond more negatively to representation by nonwhite legislators. Conclusions: Being represented by someone of the same race can diminish accountability for legislators' substantive records, an important cost of descriptive representation.

This research revisits when and how voters use race as a cue for politicians' ideological and partisan orientations. Using an embedded survey experiment that manipulates the race and policy positions of a (fictitious) Member of Congress, I provide a more comprehensive view of the role of ideological and partisan stereotypes in impression formation. Voters perceive non-White politicians as more liberal and more likely to be Democrats than otherwise-identical White politicians. This stereotyping persists even when the politician takes counter-stereotypical positions (e.g., a Black or Hispanic politician with a conservative record), and shapes non-White legislators' approval ratings in significant ways.

Representing uncompetitive, homogeneous constituencies is increasingly the norm for American legislators. Extensive research has investigated how competition affects the way representatives respond to their constituents' policy preferences. This paper explores competition's effect on the other side of representation, how constituents respond to their legislators' policy record. Combining multiple measures of state competitiveness with large-N survey data, I demonstrate that competition enhances democratic accountability. Voters in competitive states are more interested in politics, more aware of the policy positions their U.S. senators have taken, and more likely to hold them accountable for those positions at election time. Robustness checks show that these effects are not due to the intensity of campaigning in a state: general competition, not particular campaign activities, drives citizens' response. The recent increase in uncompetitive constituencies has likely lessened the degree to which legislators are held accountable for their actions in office. Adapted from the source document.