Not That There's Anything Wrong with That: The Effect of Personalized Appeals on Marriage Equality Campaigns

Political Behavior

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 325-344

  Harrison, Brian F ^a   Michelson, Melissa R ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Menlo College   (United States)

Author keywords

Contact hypothesis; Field experiment; Group threat; Implicit bias; Marriage equality; Message personalization; Political behavior; Same sex marriage; Social fundraising; Speaker credibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861726298     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-011-9169-6     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Doubleday.
2. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & McKenna K. Y. A. (2006). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11: Article 7. http://jcmc. indiana. edu/vol11/issue3/amichai-hamburger. html. Accessed 24 Aug 2010.
3. Aroopala, C. (2011). Are group sources always credible? An experimental study of sources, stakes, and participation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 23(1), 87-110.
4. Barth, J., Overby, L. M., & Huffmon, S. H. (2009). Community context, personal contact, and support for an anti-gay rights referendum. Political Research Quarterly, 62(2), 355-365.
5. Boudreau, C. (2009). Closing the gap: When do cues eliminate differences between sophisticated and unsophisticated citizens? Journal of Politics, 71, 1-13.
6. Brown, R., Vivian, J., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Changing attitudes through intergroup contact: The effects of group membership salience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 131-142.
7. Calvert, R. L. (1985). Robustness of the multidimensional voting model: Candidate motivations, uncertainty, and convergence. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 69-95.
8. Campbell, D. E., & Monson, J. Q. (2008). The religion card: Gay marriage and the 2004 presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 399-419.
9. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
10. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99-118.
11. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
12. Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
13. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 1-24.
14. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729-745.
15. Egan, P. J. (2010). Findings from a decade of polling on ballot measures regarding the legal status of same-sex couples. Report prepared for the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund. June 15, 2010. http://www. nyu. edu/about/news-publications/news/2010/06/15/campaigns-on-same-sex-marriage-ballot-measures-fail-to-move-voters. html. Accessed 28 Nov 2010.
16. Frey, B., & Meier, S. (2004). Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing "conditional cooperation" in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 94, 1717-1722.
17. Gellman, A., Jeffrey, L., & Justin, P. (2010). Over time, a gay marriage groundswell. NewYorkTimes. com, August 21. http://www. nytimes. com/2010/08/22/weekinreview/22gay.html?_r=1&emc=eta1. Accessed 25 Aug 2010.
18. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102, 33-48.
19. Grack, C., & Richman, C. L. (1996). Reducing general and specific heterosexism through cooperative contact. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 59-68.
20. Green, D. P. (2009). Regression adjustments to experimental data: Do David Freedman's concerns apply to political science? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Sept. 3, Toronto. Available at http://ssrn. com/abstract=1466886.
21. Han, H. C. (2009). Does the content of political appeals matter in motivating participation? A field experiment on self-disclosure in political appeals. Political Behavior, 31, 103-116.
22. Hegatry, P., Pratto, F., & Lemieux, A. F. (2004). Heterosexist ambivalence and heterocentric norms: Drinking in intergroup discomfort. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 119-130.
23. Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). Some of my best friends: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424.
24. Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexual's attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239-244.
25. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the 'contact hypothesis'. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. New York: Basil Blackwell.
26. Hopper, R. (1998). What do we know about telephone conversation? In H. Sawhney & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in communications (Vol. 15, pp. 29-44). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
27. Karlan, D., & List, J. A. (2007). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural experiment. American Economic Review, 97, 1774-1793.
28. Key, V. O. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. New York: A. A. Knopf.
29. Kim, W. (2002). Personalization: Definition, status, and challenges ahead. Journal of Object Technology, 1, 29-40.
30. Lemm, K. M. (2006). Among interpersonal contact, motivation, and implicit and explicit attitudes toward gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 79-99.
31. Lupia, A. (1992). Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. American Political Science Review, 86, 390-403.
32. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76.
33. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Miller, N., Brewer, M. B., & Edwards, K. (1985). Cooperative interaction in desegregated settings: A laboratory analogue. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 63-79.
35. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2004). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment. Political Psychology, 25, 507-523.
36. Moreno, K. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2001). Intergroup affect and social judgment: Feelings as inadmissible information. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 21-29.
37. Nelson, T. E., Sanbonmatsu, K., & McClerking, H. K. (2007). Playing a different race card: Examining the limits of elite influence on perceptions of racism. Journal of Politics, 69, 416-429.
38. Overby, L. M., & Barth, J. (2002). Contact, community context, and public attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Polity, 34, 433-456.
39. Peterson, K. (2004). 50-state rundown on gay marriage laws. Stateline. org. http://www. stateline. org/live/ViewPage. action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576. Accessed 28 Nov 2010.
40. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
41. Prestwich, A., Kenworthy, J. B., Wilson, M., & Kwan-Tat, N. (2008). Differential relations between two types of contact and implicit and explicit racial attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 575-588.
42. Saad, L. (2010). Americans' acceptance of gay relations crosses 50% threshold. Gallup. com, May 25, 2010. http://www. gallup. com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Threshold. aspx. Accessed 2 Dec 2010.
43. Scarberry, N. C., Ratcliff, C. D., Lord, C. G., Lanicek, D. L., & Desforges, D. M. (1997). Effects of individuating information on the generalization of Allport's contact hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1291-1299.
44. Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). Field experiments in charitable contribution: The impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal, 119(54), 1422-1439.
45. Sherman, S. J., Crawford, M. T., & McConnell, A. R. (2004). Looking ahead as a technique to reduce resistance to persuasive attempts. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 149-174). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
46. Skipworth, S. A., Garner, A., & Dettrey, B. J. (2010). Limitations of the contact hypothesis: Heterogeneity in the contact effect on attitudes toward gay rights. Politics & Policy, 38(5), 887-906.
47. Smith, D. A., DeSantis, M., & Kassel, J. (2006). Same-sex marriage ballot measures and the 2004 presidential election. State & Local Government Review, 38, 78-91.
48. Solomon, M. (2010). Our constitution is a living, breathing document. http://www. bilerico. com/2010/08/our_constitution_is_a_living_breathing_document. php. Accessed 4 Aug 2010.
49. Soule, S. A. (2004). Going to the Chapel? Same-sex marriage bans in the United States, 1973-2000. Social Problems, 51, 453-477.
50. Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M., & Wolbert, A. (2002). When are net effects gross products? The power of influence and the influence of power in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 91-107.
51. Stein, R. M., Post, S. S., & Rinden, A. L. (2000). Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 53(2), 285-303.
52. Vives, R. (2010). Activists mark Harvey Milk Day with door-to-door campaign. Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2010. http://articles. latimes. com/2010/may/23/local/la-me-harvey-milk-day-20100523. Accessed 4 Dec 2010.