Transgender Knowledge Mediates U.S. Political Differences in Prejudice and Support for Trans-inclusive Policies

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Ethan Zell, Meriel I. Burnett
{"title":"Transgender Knowledge Mediates U.S. Political Differences in Prejudice and Support for Trans-inclusive Policies","authors":"Ethan Zell, Meriel I. Burnett","doi":"10.1007/s11199-024-01539-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There are sharp U.S. political differences in transgender attitudes, with liberals expressing much more favorable attitudes and support for trans-inclusive policies than conservatives. Transgender attitudes likely contribute to numerous public policies that are being passed or considered, including policies that impact transgender health, safety, and well-being. Thus, it is imperative to understand why vast partisan differences in transgender attitudes occur. Here we present two preregistered studies examining whether transgender knowledge (i.e., knowledge about transgender identities, experiences, causes, and health care) differs in Democrats versus Republicans, and whether knowledge mediates political differences in attitudes and policy support (<i>N</i> = 439, Prolific). Participants completed a transgender quiz, followed by measures of transgender prejudice and support for trans-inclusive policies. Democrats had superior transgender knowledge compared to Republicans (<i>d</i>s &gt; 1.39). Further, as predicted, transgender knowledge significantly mediated political differences in transgender prejudice and policy support. Exploratory analyses found that the predicted mediation effects held when knowledge was operationalized in different ways and after adjusting for demographic covariates. These data suggest that knowledge gaps help to explain political differences in transgender attitudes and may stimulate additional work on how to improve such knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":48425,"journal":{"name":"Sex Roles","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sex Roles","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01539-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are sharp U.S. political differences in transgender attitudes, with liberals expressing much more favorable attitudes and support for trans-inclusive policies than conservatives. Transgender attitudes likely contribute to numerous public policies that are being passed or considered, including policies that impact transgender health, safety, and well-being. Thus, it is imperative to understand why vast partisan differences in transgender attitudes occur. Here we present two preregistered studies examining whether transgender knowledge (i.e., knowledge about transgender identities, experiences, causes, and health care) differs in Democrats versus Republicans, and whether knowledge mediates political differences in attitudes and policy support (N = 439, Prolific). Participants completed a transgender quiz, followed by measures of transgender prejudice and support for trans-inclusive policies. Democrats had superior transgender knowledge compared to Republicans (ds > 1.39). Further, as predicted, transgender knowledge significantly mediated political differences in transgender prejudice and policy support. Exploratory analyses found that the predicted mediation effects held when knowledge was operationalized in different ways and after adjusting for demographic covariates. These data suggest that knowledge gaps help to explain political differences in transgender attitudes and may stimulate additional work on how to improve such knowledge.

Abstract Image

跨性别知识调节了美国在偏见和支持跨性别包容性政策方面的政治差异
在变性人的态度上,美国存在着鲜明的政治差异,自由派比保守派对变性人包容性政策的态度和支持要好得多。变性人的态度很可能促成了许多正在通过或考虑中的公共政策,包括影响变性人健康、安全和福祉的政策。因此,当务之急是了解变性人的态度为何会出现巨大的党派差异。在此,我们将介绍两项预先登记的研究,考察民主党人与共和党人对跨性别知识(即有关跨性别身份、经历、原因和医疗保健的知识)的了解是否存在差异,以及跨性别知识是否会调节态度和政策支持方面的政治差异(N = 439,Prolific)。参与者完成了变性人测验,随后进行了变性人偏见和支持变性人包容性政策的测量。与共和党人相比,民主党人对变性人的了解程度更高(ds > 1.39)。此外,正如预测的那样,跨性别知识在很大程度上调节了跨性别偏见和政策支持方面的政治差异。探索性分析发现,当以不同方式对知识进行操作并对人口统计学协变量进行调整后,预测的中介效应依然存在。这些数据表明,知识差距有助于解释变性人态度上的政治差异,并可能激励人们进一步研究如何提高变性人知识水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sex Roles
Sex Roles Multiple-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Sex Roles: A Journal of Research is a global, multidisciplinary, scholarly, social and behavioral science journal with a feminist perspective. It publishes original research reports as well as original theoretical papers and conceptual review articles that explore how gender organizes people’s lives and their surrounding worlds, including gender identities, belief systems, representations, interactions, relations, organizations, institutions, and statuses. The range of topics covered is broad and dynamic, including but not limited to the study of gendered attitudes, stereotyping, and sexism; gendered contexts, culture, and power; the intersections of gender with race, class, sexual orientation, age, and other statuses and identities; body image; violence; gender (including masculinities) and feminist identities; human sexuality; communication studies; work and organizations; gendered development across the life span or life course; mental, physical, and reproductive health and health care; sports; interpersonal relationships and attraction; activism and social change; economic, political, and legal inequities; and methodological challenges and innovations in doing gender research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信