From Perception to Policy: Integrated Threat, Anti-Transgender Stereotypes, and Political Orientation as Predictors of Anti-Transgender Voting

Location

CELA & Mary Church Terrell Library, First Floor

Document Type

Poster - Open Access

Start Date

4-25-2025 12:00 PM

End Date

4-25-2025 2:00 PM

Research Program

OSRI (OARS)

Abstract

Prejudiced reactions to the growing number of transgender individuals in the United States have motivated the support and proposal of much legislation that targets and restricts these individuals. Indeed, in the first six months of 2024, already 619 such anti-transgender bills have been proposed in the U.S. (translegislation.com). Integrated threat theory offers a partial explanation for this prejudice, positing that prejudice toward a group is forecasted by a perception of that group as threatening. Within integrated threat theory, this threat is either symbolic (threatening to cultural values, social norms, or personal beliefs) or realistic (threatening to physical safety, financial security, or political power), with recent research suggesting that symbolic threat evokes more hatred than realistic threat. In the current research, we explore the underpinnings of support for anti-transgender legislation by harnessing integrated threat theory and building on previous research, which has found that perceiving transgender people as deceptive or confused about their identities (especially the former) garners both anti-transgender distrust and prejudice. We found that perceived symbolic threat, realistic threat, deceptiveness, and confusion, as well as social political views, all individually predicted support for anti-transgender legislation. All variables were also significantly correlated with one another. However, in a model including all five variables, we found that social political orientation, symbolic threat, and realistic threat remained significant predictors, while deceptiveness and confusion no longer predicted anti-transgender voting. Subsequent follow-up studies will examine if these results generalize to gay individuals and to transgender youth.

Keywords:

Transgender, Integrated threat, Prejudice, Legislation

Notes

Presenter: Ali Eppinga

Major

Psychology
East Asian Studies

Project Mentor(s)

Rebecca Totton, Psychology

2025

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 25th, 12:00 PM Apr 25th, 2:00 PM

From Perception to Policy: Integrated Threat, Anti-Transgender Stereotypes, and Political Orientation as Predictors of Anti-Transgender Voting

CELA & Mary Church Terrell Library, First Floor

Prejudiced reactions to the growing number of transgender individuals in the United States have motivated the support and proposal of much legislation that targets and restricts these individuals. Indeed, in the first six months of 2024, already 619 such anti-transgender bills have been proposed in the U.S. (translegislation.com). Integrated threat theory offers a partial explanation for this prejudice, positing that prejudice toward a group is forecasted by a perception of that group as threatening. Within integrated threat theory, this threat is either symbolic (threatening to cultural values, social norms, or personal beliefs) or realistic (threatening to physical safety, financial security, or political power), with recent research suggesting that symbolic threat evokes more hatred than realistic threat. In the current research, we explore the underpinnings of support for anti-transgender legislation by harnessing integrated threat theory and building on previous research, which has found that perceiving transgender people as deceptive or confused about their identities (especially the former) garners both anti-transgender distrust and prejudice. We found that perceived symbolic threat, realistic threat, deceptiveness, and confusion, as well as social political views, all individually predicted support for anti-transgender legislation. All variables were also significantly correlated with one another. However, in a model including all five variables, we found that social political orientation, symbolic threat, and realistic threat remained significant predictors, while deceptiveness and confusion no longer predicted anti-transgender voting. Subsequent follow-up studies will examine if these results generalize to gay individuals and to transgender youth.