Perceptions of trans folks and rights are mutable, social and ideological factors and exposure shift orientation
Jones et al 18, Jones is an Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware, a faculty member at the Center for Political Communication at UD, and an Associate Editor at Public Opinion Quarterly; Brewer is a Professor of Communication and Political Science at UD; Young is Professor of Communication and Political Science at UD; Lambe is an Associate Professor of Communication at UD; Hoffman is an Associate Professor of Communication. (Philip Edward, Paul, Dannagal, Jennifer, Lindsay, 2018, “EXPLAINING PUBLIC OPINION TOWARD TRANSGENDER PEOPLE, RIGHTS, AND CANDIDATES,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 82, no. 2, p. 270-272, doi: 10.1093/poq/nfy009)
*need for cognitive closure (NFCC) refers to one’s tendency to impose fixed meanings on situations and to feel an aversion toward ambiguous information and experiences.
Beyond these descriptive findings, the results offered support for—and illuminate the limitations of—several broader theories of public opinion. Broad values helped explain opinions about specific groups and issues. In particular, moral traditionalism predicted negative views of transgender people and opposition toward transgender rights. These results echo earlier studies showing moral traditionalism’s relationship with attitudes toward LGB rights (Brewer 2008). The other values studied (egalitarianism, religiosity, ideology, and party) had similarly expected relationships with support for transgender rights (but not with views of transgender people). As hypothesized, more egalitarian, more liberal, less religious, and more Democratic respondents expressed greater support for transgender rights.
Likewise, there was support for theories linking need for cognitive closure to political attitudes. Respondents who had a high need for closure were less supportive of transgender rights, indicating the political consequences of seemingly nonpolitical psychological characteristics.
In contrast, there was no evidence supporting interpersonal contact theory. Consistent with Flores (2015), respondents who knew a transgender person were not significantly more likely to view transgender people positively nor be more supportive of their rights. Only 11 percent of respondents reported knowing a transgender person, however, making it difficult to discern any true impact of contact. Experimental studies in which exposure to transgender people is manipulated (and hence more prevalent than in probability samplingbased survey research) may offer a greater opportunity to discern contact’s actual effects (see Flores et al. 2018).
There was support for parasocial contact theory. Consistent with the notion that positive media portrayals can cultivate more positive attitudes toward marginalized groups, there was a positive association between TV consumption (but not other forms of media exposure) and views of transgender people. Absent a larger-scale content analysis of media portrayals of transgender people and measures of more specific media consumption, we are hesitant to say more here. Still, there is indication that respondents with greater exposure to media portrayals of transgender people viewed them more positively.
Indeed, views of transgender people as a group are central to understanding attitudes toward transgender rights. The more positive a person’s views of transgender people, the more they tended to support protecting their rights. Akin to research on support for LGB rights (Brewer 2003), those with more positive views of transgender people were more supportive of policies benefiting them.