Cross-pressures should have three political implications according to Mutz:
Ambivalence (new per David, as “moderation” alone is too obvious)
Moderation
Lower participation
Cross pressures should be strongest among:
evangelicals (vs Catholic/Mainline)
traditionalists (vs modernists) (new per David…operationalized the way he suggested)
Hypotheses
H1: Being both LGB and Christian should be associated with ambivalence in (a) political ideology, (b) partisanship, and (c) support for candidates. This should be especially so for evangelicals (versus Catholics/Mainline) and traditionalists (vs modernists).
H2: Being both LGB and Christian should be associated with moderation in (a) political ideology, (b) partisanship, and (c) support for candidates. This should be especially so for evangelicals (versus Catholics/Mainline) and traditionalists (vs modernists).
H3: Being both LGB and Christian should be associated with lower rates of political participation. This should be especially so for evangelicals (versus Catholics/Mainline) and traditionalists (vs modernists).
Methods
Sample
All CES Christians and Nones (excluding “other”…. incorporating non-LGBT into sample per David)
Key Independent variables
Belonging = evangelical/Catholic/mainline, categorized by denomination
evangelical religiosity (traditionalism) = evangelical denomination + attendance + born again + prayer (per David)
LGB (excluding the “T” per David)
Key dependent variables
Attitudes
ambivalence (0 = “not sure”, 1 = takes a position)
moderation (folded 7pt lib/con scale)
Partisanship
ambivalence (0 = “not sure”, 1 = identifies with party/independent)
moderation (folded 7pt PID scale)
Candidate support
ambivalence (0 = “not sure” of approval of Trump, 1 = gives approval)
Note: The rationale for using folded Trump approval (versus Trump support) is as follows. For each of these three outcomes — ideology, partisanship, and candidate support — we argue cross-pressures are going to be associated with (a) ambivalence and (b) moderation. Coding ambivalence is straightforward: we are looking whether one was “unsure” or not. However, when coding moderation we need a measure of strength. Looking at vote choice does not allow this. However, looking at Trump approval allows us to fold the outcome scale to get a measure of strength to test if cross pressures are associated with weaker support
Models
attendance/born-again ID are removed from the models (per David)
Note: Outcome variables are coded so that higher numbers = taking a position/ stronger position / more participation. Therefore, if cross-pressures result in ambivalence/moderation/less participation, our interaction terms will produce negative coefficients.
# Figure plot1 <-plot_summs(i1, i2, i3, coefs =c('christ:lgbLGB', 'tradCatholic:lgbLGB', 'tradEvangelical:lgbLGB', 'tradMainline:lgbLGB', 'evan_relig:lgbLGB'),model.names =c('Interacted with Chrisitan','Interacted with Denomination','Interacted with Traditionalism')) +scale_y_discrete(labels =c('Traditionalism*LGBT','Mainline*LGBT','Evangelical*LGBT','Catholic*LGBT','Christian*LGBT')) +theme_bw() +theme(panel.grid =element_blank()) +labs(y='', title ='Ideology Strength')+xlim(-0.5, 0.05)plot2 <-plot_summs(p1, p2, p3, coefs =c('christ:lgbLGB', 'tradCatholic:lgbLGB', 'tradEvangelical:lgbLGB', 'tradMainline:lgbLGB', 'evan_relig:lgbLGB'),model.names =c('Interacted with Chrisitan','Interacted with Denomination','Interacted with Traditionalism')) +scale_y_discrete(labels =c('Traditionalism*LGBT','Mainline*LGBT','Evangelical*LGBT','Catholic*LGBT','Christian*LGBT')) +theme_bw() +theme(panel.grid =element_blank()) +labs(y='', title ='Partisanship Strength')+xlim(-0.5, 0.05)plot3 <-plot_summs(u1, u2, u3, coefs =c('christ:lgbLGB', 'tradCatholic:lgbLGB', 'tradEvangelical:lgbLGB', 'tradMainline:lgbLGB', 'evan_relig:lgbLGB'),model.names =c('Interacted with Chrisitan','Interacted with Denomination','Interacted with Traditionalism')) +scale_y_discrete(labels =c('Traditionalism*LGBT','Mainline*LGBT','Evangelical*LGBT','Catholic*LGBT','Christian*LGBT')) +theme_bw() +theme(panel.grid =element_blank()) +labs(y='', title ='Trump Approval Strength') +xlim(-0.5, 0.05)plot1 + plot2 + plot3 +plot_layout(guides ='collect', ncol =1)
SUMMARY: Broadly supportive of expectations.
Participation hypotheses
Show the code
# Voting v1 <-lm(voted ~ christ*lgb + inc01 + male + age01 + white + educ01 + south, clgbt, weights = commonweight)v2 <-lm(voted ~ trad*lgb + inc01 + male + age01 + white + educ01 + south, clgbt, weights = commonweight)v3 <-lm(voted ~ evan_relig*lgb + inc01 + male + age01 + white + educ01 + south, clgbt, weights = commonweight)# Other participationpp1 <-lm(pp20 ~ christ*lgb + inc01 + male + age01 + white + educ01 + south, clgbt, weights = commonweight)pp2 <-lm(pp20 ~ trad*lgb + inc01 + male + age01 + white + educ01 + south, clgbt, weights = commonweight)pp3 <-lm(pp20 ~ evan_relig*lgb + inc01 + male + age01 + white + educ01 + south, clgbt, weights = commonweight)# tablestargazer(v1, v2, v3, pp1, pp2, pp3, type ='html',dep.var.labels =c('Voted','Alternative Participation'),font.size ='footnotesize')
Dependent variable:
Voted
Alternative Participation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
christ
0.027***
-0.021***
(0.005)
(0.002)
tradCatholic
-0.020***
-0.030***
(0.006)
(0.003)
tradEvangelical
0.063***
-0.017***
(0.006)
(0.003)
tradMainline
0.037***
-0.015***
(0.006)
(0.003)
evan_relig
0.053***
-0.006*
(0.007)
(0.003)
lgbLGB
0.083***
0.082***
0.106***
0.074***
0.074***
0.087***
(0.009)
(0.009)
(0.009)
(0.005)
(0.005)
(0.005)
inc01
0.199***
0.209***
0.199***
0.131***
0.133***
0.129***
(0.009)
(0.009)
(0.010)
(0.005)
(0.005)
(0.005)
male
-0.005
-0.005
-0.007
0.016***
0.016***
0.016***
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
age01
0.658***
0.654***
0.650***
0.087***
0.085***
0.079***
(0.009)
(0.009)
(0.009)
(0.005)
(0.005)
(0.005)
white
0.099***
0.093***
0.096***
0.038***
0.037***
0.038***
(0.004)
(0.005)
(0.005)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
educ01
0.318***
0.316***
0.312***
0.160***
0.159***
0.160***
(0.007)
(0.007)
(0.008)
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.004)
south
-0.019***
-0.027***
-0.026***
-0.008***
-0.009***
-0.010***
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
christ:lgbLGB
-0.045***
-0.018**
(0.014)
(0.007)
tradCatholic:lgbLGB
-0.040**
-0.026**
(0.020)
(0.011)
tradEvangelical:lgbLGB
-0.049**
-0.034***
(0.023)
(0.012)
tradMainline:lgbLGB
-0.032
0.004
(0.022)
(0.011)
evan_relig:lgbLGB
-0.154***
-0.067***
(0.026)
(0.013)
Constant
0.028***
0.034***
0.042***
-0.044***
-0.042***
-0.050***
(0.007)
(0.007)
(0.007)
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.004)
Observations
47,430
47,430
45,750
40,528
40,528
39,366
R2
0.191
0.194
0.181
0.129
0.130
0.125
Adjusted R2
0.191
0.194
0.181
0.129
0.130
0.125
Residual Std. Error
0.438 (df = 47420)
0.437 (df = 47416)
0.436 (df = 45740)
0.197 (df = 40518)
0.197 (df = 40514)
0.199 (df = 39356)
F Statistic
1,242.214*** (df = 9; 47420)
877.160*** (df = 13; 47416)
1,124.474*** (df = 9; 45740)
667.920*** (df = 9; 40518)
465.666*** (df = 13; 40514)
625.918*** (df = 9; 39356)
Note:
p<0.1; p<0.05; p<0.01
Show the code
# Figureplot1 <-plot_summs(v1, v2, v3, coefs =c('christ:lgbLGB', 'tradCatholic:lgbLGB', 'tradEvangelical:lgbLGB', 'tradMainline:lgbLGB', 'evan_relig:lgbLGB'),model.names =c('Interacted with Chrisitan','Interacted with Denomination','Interacted with Traditionalism')) +scale_y_discrete(labels =c('Traditionalism*LGBT','Mainline*LGBT','Evangelical*LGBT','Catholic*LGBT','Christian*LGBT')) +theme_bw() +theme(panel.grid =element_blank()) +labs(y='', title ='Voted in 2020') plot2 <-plot_summs(pp1, pp2, pp3, coefs =c('christ:lgbLGB', 'tradCatholic:lgbLGB', 'tradEvangelical:lgbLGB', 'tradMainline:lgbLGB', 'evan_relig:lgbLGB'),model.names =c('Interacted with Chrisitan','Interacted with Denomination','Interacted with Traditionalism')) +scale_y_discrete(labels =c('Traditionalism*LGBT','Mainline*LGBT','Evangelical*LGBT','Catholic*LGBT','Christian*LGBT')) +theme_bw() +theme(panel.grid =element_blank()) +labs(y='', title ='Alternative Acts of Participation') plot1 + plot2 +plot_layout(guides ='collect', ncol =1)
SUMMARY: BROADLY CONSISTENT WITH EXPECTATIONS
Conclusion
Consistent with literature on cross-pressures, LGBT Christians are more ambivalent and moderate in their political ideology, partisanship, and candidate support, as well as less politically engaged. These effects are concentrated among LGBT evangelicals and traditionalists.
Bonus: frequent attending mainliners becoming more liberal/Democratic/active?
To examine this I swapped out the folded libcon and pid scales with the regular scales.