Scholarlink

Introduction <p>There has been a recent surge of anti-transgender legislation with growing support from U.S. voters. While there is a growing body of research examining anti-LGBT attitudes, support for anti-transgender legislation is still understudied despite the far-reaching ramifications of legislation on transgender individuals. The current paper uses Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT) as well as research on the underpinnings of anti-transgender prejudice to explore the potential role of symbolic threat, realistic threat, and specific false beliefs about transgender individuals, such as the belief that they are deceptive, as possible predictors of support for restrictive legislation.</p> Methods <p>Two studies evaluated the roles of symbolic and realistic threats, as well as beliefs surrounding deceptiveness and confusion, as predictors of support for restrictive legislation and prejudice. Study 1 (N = 246, collected in June 2024) used a correlational design to investigate the relationship between realistic threat, symbolic threat, perceived deception, and perceived confusion with anti-transgender prejudice and support for anti-transgender legislation. Study 2 (N = 674, collected in October 2024) used a between-participants two-cell design (“gay people”, “transgender people”) to evaluate symbolic and realistic threats as mediators of prejudice and legislation support. </p> Results <p>Study 1 demonstrated that both symbolic and realistic threats were associated with anti-transgender prejudice and legislation support and were better predictors than perceived deceptiveness or confusion. Study 2 found that, while symbolic threat was a better mediator of prejudice, both symbolic and realistic threats independently mediated support for anti-transgender legislation. </p> Conclusion and Policy Implications <p>Our studies demonstrate that support for restrictive legislation is more complex than prejudice and is driven by both symbolic and realistic threats. This work highlights the need for pro-transgender advocacy to take a multifaceted approach to bias reduction.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Threatened Restrictions: The Role of Symbolic and Realistic Threat in Anti-transgender Legislation Support

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月5日

查看全文
  • Rebecca R. Totton,
  • Ali Eppinga

摘要

Introduction

There has been a recent surge of anti-transgender legislation with growing support from U.S. voters. While there is a growing body of research examining anti-LGBT attitudes, support for anti-transgender legislation is still understudied despite the far-reaching ramifications of legislation on transgender individuals. The current paper uses Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT) as well as research on the underpinnings of anti-transgender prejudice to explore the potential role of symbolic threat, realistic threat, and specific false beliefs about transgender individuals, such as the belief that they are deceptive, as possible predictors of support for restrictive legislation.

Methods

Two studies evaluated the roles of symbolic and realistic threats, as well as beliefs surrounding deceptiveness and confusion, as predictors of support for restrictive legislation and prejudice. Study 1 (N = 246, collected in June 2024) used a correlational design to investigate the relationship between realistic threat, symbolic threat, perceived deception, and perceived confusion with anti-transgender prejudice and support for anti-transgender legislation. Study 2 (N = 674, collected in October 2024) used a between-participants two-cell design (“gay people”, “transgender people”) to evaluate symbolic and realistic threats as mediators of prejudice and legislation support.

Results

Study 1 demonstrated that both symbolic and realistic threats were associated with anti-transgender prejudice and legislation support and were better predictors than perceived deceptiveness or confusion. Study 2 found that, while symbolic threat was a better mediator of prejudice, both symbolic and realistic threats independently mediated support for anti-transgender legislation.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

Our studies demonstrate that support for restrictive legislation is more complex than prejudice and is driven by both symbolic and realistic threats. This work highlights the need for pro-transgender advocacy to take a multifaceted approach to bias reduction.