Person-positivity bias, social category labels, and attitudes toward gays and lesbians

Abstract

This study assesses how social category labels influence public opinion toward gay and lesbian attitude objects. The results provide some support for the existence of person-positivity bias whereby people express more positive attitudes toward attitude objects that are personalized. In a survey experiment, respondents rated attitude objects where the question wording was manipulated to include either person descriptors or sexuality construct descriptors and either colloquial or clinical terminology. In particular, the findings show that respondents express significantly colder feeling thermometer scores toward the clinical construct “homosexuality” than the person descriptor “gays and lesbians.” The results suggest, first, that survey researchers should be mindful of these terminology effects in question wording, and that the strategic choice of using more or less personalized terminology in elite rhetoric has the potential to marginally influence public opinion. However, the effects of terminology should not be overstated. The effects of using person descriptors or sexuality construct descriptors are not significant in all cases and are generally smaller than differences in attitudes between respondents of different social and political backgrounds.

How Warm are Partisan Political Interactions? A Frequency-based Measure of Affective Fractionalization

“…The feeling thermometer survey question asks respondents to rate a group on a "thermometer" scale, often from either 0-10 or 0-100 where higher ratings denote warmer feelings. Outside of research on partisan affect, these thermometer ratings have been used in studies of attitudes towards different religious, racial, and ethnic groups, as well as attitudes towards immigrants and the LGBTQ+ community (Lewis et al, 2017;Utych, 2018;McCabe, 2019). Our data relies on the question as it appears in the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, which asks respondents: "I'd like…”

Academic LGBTQ+ Terminology 1900-2021: Increasing Variety, Increasing Inclusivity?

“…Employing terms evidently used within the LGBTQ+ community suggests an in-group perspective or cultural competence rather than an out-group perspective (Matsick et al,, in press) or microaggression. In the USA, it associates with negative attitudes in some contexts (McCabe, 2019;Smith et al, 2018) and some organisations consider it to be offensive (e.g., GLAAD, 2022). Thus, study participants might feel demeaned to see that they had participated in an investigation into "homosexuals".…”

Migrants, Caravans, and the Impact of News Photos on Immigration Attitudes

“…This bias has been shown in the arena of politics, specifically in relation to public figures (Lau et al 1979), politicians (Nilsson and Ekehammar 1987), and charitable giving to less fortunate populations (Small and Loewenstein 2003). 4 Other work finds evidence of person positivity in the evaluation of social categories, for instance, in the evaluation of gender groups (Miller and Felicio 1990) and gay and lesbian sexual identification (McCabe 2019).…”