In recent decades, Americans’ thinking regarding the causes of human behavior has changed considerably. In particular, there has been a swing toward attributing a variety of behaviors to biological factors, and perhaps nowhere is this more evident than for sexual orientation. In this paper, we draw on two overtime survey datasets to argue that new scientific evidence on the biological bases of homosexuality in the 1990s rapidly changed commonly held beliefs. However, because these scientific explanations were perceived to be relevant to gay rights, persuasion tended to be conditioned on citizens’ political values. In short, liberals were considerably more likely than conservatives to embrace biological attributions for homosexuality during this period. Furthermore, these changing—and diverging—causal beliefs about homosexuality appear to have contributed to both increasing support for, and left–right disagreements over, gay rights.
BaileyJ. MichaelPillardRichard C.1991. “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation.”Archives of General Psychiatry48 (12): 1089–96.
2.
BarabasJasonJeritJennifer. 2009. “Estimating the Causal Effects of Media Coverage on Policy-Specific Knowledge.”American Journal of Political Science53 (1): 73–89.
3.
BrewerPaul R.2008. Value War: Public Opinion and the Politics of Gay Rights. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
4.
BullockJohn G.GreenDonald P.HaShang E.2010. “Yes, but What’s the Mechanism? (Don’t Expect an Easy Answer).”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology98 (4): 550–58.
5.
BurgessSusan. 2011. The New York Times on Gay and Lesbian Issues. Los Angeles: CQ Press.
6.
ConradPeterMarkensSusan. 2001. “Constructing the ‘Gay Gene’ in the News: Optimism and Skepticism in the US and British Press.”Health5:373–400.
7.
Dar-NimrodIlanHeineSteven J.2010. “Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA.”Psychological Bulletin137 (5): 800–18.
8.
DiamondLisa M.2009. Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
DruckmanJames N.BolsenToby. 2011. “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies.”Journal of Communication61:659–88.
10.
FloresAndrew R.2015. “Examining Variation in Surveying Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage: A Meta-Analysis.”Public Opinion Quarterly72 (2): 580–93.
GarretsonJeremiah J.2015a. “Does Change in Minority and Women’s Representation on Television Matter? A Thirty Year Study of Television Portrayals and Social Tolerance.”Politics, Groups, and Identities3: 615–32.
14.
GarretsonJeremiah J.2015b. “Exposure to the Lives of Lesbians and Gays and the Origin of Young People’s Greater Support for Gay Rights.”International Journal of Public Opinion Research27 (2): 277–88.
15.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.JoslynMark R.2008. “Beliefs about the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory.”Public Opinion Quarterly72 (2): 291–310.
16.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.JoslynMark R.2013. “Politicizing Biology: Social Movements, Parties, and the Case of Homosexuality.”The Social Science Journal50:603–15.
17.
HamerDean H.HuStellaMagnusonVictoria L.HuNanPattatucciAngela M. L.1993. “A Linkage between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation.”Science261 (5119): 321–27.
18.
HerekG. M.2003. “Why Tell If You’re Not Asked? Self-Disclosure, Intergroup Contact, and Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men (pp. 270-298).” In Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences, edited by GarnetsLinda D.KimmelDouglas C., 2nd ed.New York: Columbia University Press.
19.
ImaiKosukeKeeleLukeTingleyDustinYamamotoTeppei. 2010. "Causal Mediation Analysis Using R (pp. 129-154)." In Advances in Social Science Research Using R, edited by VinodHrishikesh D.New York: Springer.
20.
ImaiKosukeKeeleLukeTingleyDustinYamamotoTeppei. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies.”American Political Science Review105 (4): 765–89.
21.
IyengarShanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
KahanDan M.2011. “Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law.”Harvard Law Review125 (1): 1–78.
23.
KahanDan M.2013. “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection.”Judgment and Decision Making8 (4): 407–24.
24.
KahanDan M.PetersEllenDawsonErica CantrellSlovicPaul. 2013. “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government.”Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 307.(Social Science Research Network: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992)
25.
KamCindy D.FranzeseRobert J.Jr.2007. Modeling and Interpretation of Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
26.
KraftPatrick W.LodgeMiltonTaberCharles S.2015. “Why People ‘Don’t Trust the Evidence: Motivated Reasoning and Scientific Beliefs.”The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658:121–33.
27.
KundaZiva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.”Psychological Bulletin108 (3): 480–98.
28.
LeVaySimon. 1991. “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men.”Science253 (5023): 1034–37.
29.
LewisGregory B.2009. “Does Believing Homosexuality Is Innate Increase Support for Gay Rights?”Policy Studies Journal37 (4): 669–93.
30.
LewisGregory B.2011. “The Friends and Family Plan: Contact with Gays and Support for Gay Rights.”Policy Studies Journal39 (2): 217–38.
31.
LindamanKaraHaider-MarkelDonald P.2002. “Issue Evolution, Political Parties, and the Culture Wars.”Political Research Quarterly55 (1): 91–110.
32.
LodgeMiltonTaberCharles S.2013. The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
LordCharles G.RossLeeLepperMark R.1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37 (11): 2098–109.
34.
MalkaArielKrosnickJon A.LangerGary. 2009. “The Association of Knowledge with Concern about Global Warming: Trusted Information Sources Shape Public Thinking.”Risk Analysis29 (5): 633–47.
35.
MooneyChris. 2012. The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—And Reality. Hoboken: John Wiley.
36.
MorganG. ScottMullenElizabethSkitkaLinda J.2010. “When Values and Attributions Collide: Liberals’ and Conservatives’ Values Motivate Attributions for Alleged Misdeeds.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin36:1241–54.
37.
MunroGeoffrey D.DittoPeter H.LockhartLisa K.FagerlinAngelaGreadyMitchellPetersonElizabeth. 2002. “Biased Assimilation of Sociopolitical Arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. Presidential Debate.”Basic and Applied Social Psychology24 (1): 15–26.
38.
NisbetErik C.CooperKathryn E.GarrettR. Kelly. 2015. “The Partisan Brain: How Dissonant Science Messages Lead Conservatives and Liberals to (Dis)Trust Science.”The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658:36–66.
39.
PitmanGayle E.2011. Backdrop: The Politics and Personalities behind Sexual Orientation Research. Sacramento: Active Voice Press.
40.
RedlawskDavid P.CivettiniAndrew J.2010. “The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners Ever ‘Get It?’”Political Psychology31 (4): 563–93.
41.
SheldonJane P.PfefferCarla A.JayaratneToby Epstein2007. “Beliefs about the Etiology of Homosexuality and about the Ramifications of Discovering Its Possible Genetic Origin.”Journal of Homosexuality52 (3–4): 111–50.
42.
SkitkaLinda J.MullenElizabethGriffinThomasHutchinsonSusanChamberlinBrian. 2002. “Dispositions, Scripts, or Motivated Correction? Understanding Ideological Differences in Explanations for Social Problems.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83 (2): 470–87.
43.
SkitkaLinda J.TetlockPhilip E.1993. “Providing Public Assistance: Cognitive and Motivational Processes Underlying Liberal and Conservative Policy Preferences.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology65 (6): 1205–23.
44.
SuhayElizabethDruckmanJames N., eds. 2015. “The Politics of Science: Political Values and the Production Communication, and Reception of Scientific Knowledge.”The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658:6–15.
45.
SuhayElizabethJayaratneToby Epstein. 2013. “Does Biology Justify Ideology? The Politics of Genetic Attribution.”Public Opinion Quarterly77 (2): 497–521.
46.
TetlockPhilip E.MitchellGregory. 1993. “Liberal and Conservative Approaches to Justice: Conflicting Psychological Portraits (pp. 234-255).” In Psychological Perspectives on Justice: Theory and Applications, edited by MellersBarbara A.BaronJonathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
WeinerBernard. 1995. Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct. Los Angeles: Guilford Press.
48.
WeinerBernardOsborneDannyRudolphUdo. 2011. “An Attributional Analysis of Reactions to Poverty: The Political Ideology of the Giver and the Perceived Morality of the Receiver.”Personality and Social Psychology Review15 (2): 199–213.
WilcoxSarah A.2003. “Cultural Context and the Conventions of Science Journalism: Drama and Contradiction in Media Coverage of Biological Ideas about Sexuality.”Critical Studies in Media Communication20 (3): 225–47.
51.
ZallerJohn R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
ZallerJohn R.1994. “Elite Leadership of Mass Opinion: New Evidence from the Gulf War (pp.186-209).” In Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War, edited by BennettLancePaletzDavid. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
