The contact hypothesis postulates that being near people of a different social group (e.g., race, class, sexual orientation, etc) translates into greater tolerance for that type of person. In other words, it’s harder to hate all Latinos (for example) when your neighbor is Latino and, damn it, you kind of like him. Andrew Sullivan posted this figure:
Jose at Thick Culture suggests that this could be evidence for the contact hypothesis. But he also asks whether it might also be true that less homophobic people are more likely to come into contact with gays and lesbians because of a third variable that correlates with both (like choosing to live in a big city), making the relationship spurious.
(What’s a spurious relationship? Here’s one: People who eat ice cream are more likely to drown. Both incidence of ice cream eating and rates of drowning are related to summertime. The relationship between ice cream and drowning is spurious. That is, there is no relationship. Yet they appear related because they are both related to a third variable.)
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 13
Posts about Andrew Sullivan as of June 6, 2009 » The Daily Parr — June 6, 2009
[...] about Andrew Sullivan as of June 6, 2009 Gay Marriage And The Contact Hypothesis - thesocietypages.org 06/06/2009 The contact hypothesis postulates that being near people of a different [...]
Deborah — June 6, 2009
Or: People who are homophobic are less likely to realize they know gay people. Or, gay people are less likely to be out to people who are transparently homophobic.
Redhead Metalhead — June 6, 2009
What worries me is that there are still people who say that they personally knew someone and still said that they didn't believe gays should be married. Either they're lying, or maybe I should think about that when I talk to my friends again. I have to wonder what would make the people who said that it shouldn't be legal still think that it's wrong for gays to marry.
Magnetic Crow — June 6, 2009
I rather agree with Deborah, in that people who are intolerant of non-heterosexual leanings are less likely to find out that some of their friends and acquaintances are gay.
I lived with a very devout born-again-Christian for a while in college. Her friends were also very Christian, and incredibly homophobic. They were all fairly nice people in other respects, but I certainly never let them know I am bisexual.
I'm positive I'm not the only non-heterosexual person who has not let certain friends/acquaintances know about their sexuality because they were afraid of alienating them or incurring other consequences, such as physical abuse or being kicked out of their housing establishment, or losing their career, military or otherwise.
Vettekaas — June 6, 2009
I know plenty of people who are totally accept me as an open queer person but who would certainly not support a gay marriage bill. And, yes, they have said that to me in person. And, no, they are not horrible people. And, yes, we are still friends.
I hope they change their minds eventually.
Adrian — June 9, 2009
I'm not so certain it would negate the relationship; in addition to queers being unlikely to be out around open or likely homophobes, many choose to move to that "big city" to more or less "escape" the homophobia they find or assume in their smaller towns and cities.
Therefore, people who don't personally know a queer person, and therefore are intolerant of pro-queer legislation, are primary reasons for queer people to not be out to them or to leave their general presence. It's more of a vicious circle (lack of representation leads to intolerance, which leads to omission/distance, and therefore lack of representation) than a no-connection; though I can see how both models would work.
Vettekaas — June 9, 2009
Also, the idea that queer people migrate in masses to the city is pretty stereotypical.
There are quite a few queer people in small towns (like where I come from!), but, yeah the visibility just isn't there like in the cities.
I'm fairly out in my hometown.. but it's like everybody knows and I'm a respected member of the community, but nobody's out there waiving rainbow flags...
Salome — August 1, 2009
I'd imagine a lot of those people who are against gay marriage say they know an out gay friend as though it's some sort of block against the charge that they're a bigot. But, like the "I can't be racist, I have black friends" people, I imagine quite a bit of them are stretching the truth because it makes them look better.
That said, I know plenty of people who know out gays and still hold to their anti-homosexual beliefs. Some people just can't be convinced of equality even when the reasons for it are staring them in the face. But the majority of people I know, if they weren't supportive of gay rights already, at least changed their minds a little, or reconsidered their beliefs. One of my uber-Catholic friends is going through that right now since one of her close friends came out of the closet a year ago. (She's also starting to question the Catholic Church's beliefs about sexual repression, which I take to be MY good influence on her with my fairly progressive views on sex.)
Support for Same-Sex Marriage by Age and State » Sociological Images — November 5, 2009
[...] more data on support for gay rights, see here and here. Leave a Comment Tags: age/aging, marriage/family, sexual orientation, state [...]
SELF DEVELOPMENT BLOG » Support for Same-Sex Marriage by Age and State — November 6, 2009
[...] more data on support for gay rights, see here and [...]
Spurious « Vincent Gable’s Blog — November 9, 2009
[...] –Lisa Wade [...]
random stats major — March 22, 2010
The name of the third variable is the "lurking variable", sometimes statistical terms make so much sense.
Heidi — May 11, 2021
Hi there!
My name is Heidi.
Your website or a website that your company hosts is infringing on a copyright-protected images owned by myself.
Take a look at this document with the links to my images you used at thesocietypages.org and my earlier publications to get the evidence of my copyrights.
Download it right now and check this out for yourself:
https://sites.google.com/view/b93uhg1fk4jf4c/drive/storage/s/files/download?fileID=130001346991105266
I believe you have willfully infringed my rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (”DMCA”) therein.
This letter is official notification. I seek the removal of the infringing material referenced above. Please take note as a service provider, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires you, to remove or disable access to the infringing materials upon receipt of this notice. If you do not cease the use of the aforementioned copyrighted material a lawsuit will be commenced against you.
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Best regards,
Heidi Wood
05/11/2021