scroll to top

EBSCO Auth Banner

Let's find your institution. Click here.

A multilevel analysis of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights support across 77 countries: The role of contact and country laws.

  • Academic Journal
  • Earle M; Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
    Hoffarth MR; Department of Psychology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut, USA.
    Prusaczyk E; Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
    MacInnis C; Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
    Hodson G; Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
  • The British journal of social psychology [Br J Soc Psychol] 2021 Jul; Vol. 60 (3), pp. 851-869. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Dec 28.
  • English
  • Although intergroup contact reduces prejudice generally, there are growing calls to examine contextual factors in conjunction with contact. Such an approach benefits from more sophisticated analytic approaches, such as multilevel modelling, that take both the individual (Level-1) and their environment (Level-2) into account. Using this approach, we go beyond attitudes to assess both individual and contextual predictors of support for gay/lesbian and transgender rights. Using a sample of participants across 77 countries, results revealed that personal gay/lesbian contact (Level-1) and living in a country with more gay/lesbian rights (Level-2) predicted greater support for gay/lesbian rights (n = 71,991). Likewise, transgender contact and living in a country with more transgender rights predicted more support for transgender rights (n = 70,056). Cross-level interactions are also presented and discussed. Overall, findings highlight the importance of both individual and contextual factors in predicting support for LGBT communities.
    (© 2020 The British Psychological Society.)
Additional Information
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 8105534 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2044-8309 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 01446665 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Br J Soc Psychol Subsets: MEDLINE
Publication: : Chichester : Wiley-Blackwell
Original Publication: Letchworth Herts : British Psychological Society
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119.
Aksoy, C. G., Carpenter, C. S., De Haas, R., & Tran, K. D. (2020). Do laws shape attitudes? Evidence from same-sex relationship recognition policies in Europe. European Economic Review, 124, 1-18.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bailey, J., Vasey, P., Diamond, L., Breedlove, S., Vilain, E., & Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17, 45-101.
Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., … Leyens, J.-P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843-856.
Brambilla, M., Ravenna, M., & Hewstone, M. (2012). Changing stereotype content through mental imagery: Imagining intergroup contact promotes stereotype change. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 305-315.
Brewer, P. (2014). Public opinion about gay rights and gay marriage. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(3), 279-282.
Christ, O., Schmid, K., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Stolle, D., Tausch, N., … Hewstone, M. (2014). Contexual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 3996-4000.
Cialdini, R. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105-109.
Cialdini, R., Reno, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.
Crandall, C., Miller, J., & White, M. (2018). Changing norms following the 2016 U.S. presidential election: The Trump effect on prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 186-192.
Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332-351.
Dixon, J. (2006). The ties that bind an those that don’t: Toward reconciling group threat and contact theories of prejudice. Social Forces, 84, 2179-2204.
Dixon, J., Durheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697-711.
Dixon, J., Durheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18, 867-872.
Economist Intelligence Unit (2017). Democracy index 2017: Free speech under attack. Retrieved from
Equaldex. (2019). [Map showing status of LGBT laws by country]. Equaldex. Retrieved from
Flores, A. R., & Barclay, S. (2016). Backlash, consensus, legitimacy, or polarization: The effect of same-sex marriage policy on mass attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 43-56.
Funder, D. C. (2008). Persons, situations, and person-situation interactions. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 568-580). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Górska, P., Bilewicz, M., & Winiewski, M. (2017). Invisible to the state. Institutional sexual stigma and collective action of LGB individuals in five East European countries. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 367-381.
Górska, P., van Zomeren, M., & Bilewicz, M. (2017). Intergroup contact as the missing link between LGB rights and sexual prejudice. Social Psychology, 48, 321-334.
Green, E. G. T., Visintin, E. P., Sarrasin, O., & Hewstone, M. (2020). When integration policies shape the impact of intergroup contact on threat perceptions: A multilevel study across 20 European countries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46, 631-648.
Hanley, J., Salamone, M., & Wright, M. (2012). Reviving the schoolmaster: Reevaluating public opinion in the wake of Roe v. Wade. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 408-421.
Harwood, J., Paolini, S., Joyce, N., Rubin, M., & Arroyo, A. (2011). Secondary transfer effects from imagined contact: Group similarity affects the generalization gradient. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 180-189.
Hässler, T., Ullrich, J., Bernardino, M., Shnabel, N., Laar, C. V., Valdenegro, D., … Ugarte, L. M. (2020). A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 380-386.
Hayward, L. E., Tropp, L. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 347-364.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). Some of my best friends: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals attitudes towards gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424.
Herek, G., & Glunt, E. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 30(3), 239-244.
Hodson, G. (2009). The puzzling person-situation schism in prejudice research. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 247-248.
Hodson, G. (2011). Do ideologically intolerant people benefit from intergroup contact? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 154-159.
Hodson, G., Costello, K., & MacInnis, C. C. (2013). Is intergroup contact beneficial among intolerant people? Exploring individual differences in the benefits of contact on attitudes. In G. Hodson & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 49-80). London, UK: Psychology Press.
Hodson, G., Dube, B., & Choma, B. L. (2015). Can (elaborated) imagined contact interventions reduce prejudice among those higher in intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG-DS)? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 123-131.
Hodson, G., Harry, H., & Mitchell, A. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 509-525.
Hodson, G., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.) (2013). Advances in intergroup contact. London, UK: Psychology Press.
Hoffarth, M., & Hodson, G. (2018). When intergroup contact is uncommon and bias is strong: The case of anti-transgender bias. Psychology & Sexuality, 9(3), 237-250.
Hoffarth, M. R., Hodson, G., & Molnar, D. S.(2018). When and why is religious attendance associated with anti-gay bias and gay rights opposition? A Justification-Suppression Model approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 526-563.
Hooghe, M., & Meeusen, C. (2013) Is same-sex marriage legislation related to attitudes toward homosexuality? Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10, 258-268.
Husnu, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 943-950.
International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). (2017). ILGA-RIWI global attitudes survey. ILGA World. Retrieved from
Keleher, A., & Smith, E. (2012). Growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1307-1326.
King, M., Winter, S., & Webster, B. (2009). Contact reduces transprejudice: A study on attitudes towards transgenderism and transgender civil rights in Hong Kong. International Journal of Sexual Health, 21(1), 17-34.
Kite, M. (2011). (Some) things are different now: An optimistic look at sexual prejudice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 517-522.
Kralik, J. (2017). ‘Bathroom bill’ legislative tracking. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from
Kreitzer, R. J., Hamilton, A. J., & Tolbert, C. J. (2014). Does policy adoption change opinions on minority rights? The effects of legalizing same-sex marriage. Political Research Quarterly, 67, 795-808.
Kuppens, T., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Gender equality probably does not affect performance at the Olympic games: A comment on Berdahl, Uhlmann, and Bai (2015). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 144-147.
Lewis, G. B. (2011). The friends and family plan: Contact with gays and support for gay rights. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 217-238.
MacInnis, C., & Hodson, G. (2015). The development of online cross-group relationships among university students: Benefits of earlier (vs. later) disclosure of stigmatized group membership. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 788-809.
MacInnis, C., & Hodson, G. (2019). Extending the benefits of intergroup contact beyond attitudes: When does intergroup contact predict greater collective action support? Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3, 11-22.
MacInnis, C., Page-Gould, E., & Hodson, G. (2017). Multilevel intergroup contact and antigay prejudice (explicit and implicit): Evidence of contextual contact benefits in a less visible group domain. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 243-251.
Mendos, L. R. (2019). State-sponsored homophobia 2019: Global legislation overview update. ILGA World. Retrieved from
Norman, J., Sharpe, A., Freedman, R., Auchmuty, R., Whittle, S., O-Hara, M., & Dunne, P.(2018, October 19). ‘Shifting sands’: Six legal views on the transgender debate. The Guardian. Retrieved from
Ofosu, E. K., Chambers, M. K., Chen, J. M., & Hehman, E. (2019). Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced implicit and explicit antigay bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 8846-8851.
Pagotto, L., Visintin, E. P., De Iorio, G., & Voci, A. (2012). Imagined intergroup contact promotes cooperation through outgroup trust. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 209-216.
Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Rubin, M., Husnu, S., Joyce, N., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Positive and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of negative contact in the present. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 548-562.
Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 187-199.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
Reimer, N. K., Becker, J. C., Benz, A., Christ, O., Dhont, K., Klocke, U., … Hewstone, M. (2017). Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 121-136.
Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony. Psychological Science, 20, 114-121.
Sarrasin, O., Green, E. G. T., Fasel, N., Christ, O., Staerklé, C., & Clémence, A. (2012). Opposition to antiracism laws across Swiss municipalities: A multilevel analysis. Political Psychology, 33, 659-681.
Selvanathan, H. P., Techakesari, P., Tropp, L. R., & Barlow, F. K. (2018). White for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 893-912.
Stathi, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2008). Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 943-957.
Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2011). Imagining intergroup contact enables member-to-group generalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(3), 275-284.
Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2017). The effect of a supreme court decision regarding gay marriage on social norms and personal attitudes. Psychological Science, 28, 1334-1344.
Turner, R., & Crisp, R. (2010). Imagining intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 129-142.
Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 427-441.
United Nations Development Programme (n.d.). Human development reports. Retrieved from
Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Crisp, R., & Capozza, D. (2015). Comparing direct and imagined intergroup contact among children: Effects on outgroup stereotypes and helping intentions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 49, 46-53.
Visintin, E. P., Green, E. G. T., Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., & Berent, J. (2020). Intergroup contact moderates the influence of social norms on prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23, 418-440.
West, K. (2020). Does contact matter? The relative importance of contact in predicting anti-gay prejudice in Jamaica. Journal of Homosexuality, 67, 468-488.
West, K., & Bruckmüller, S. (2013). Nice and easy does it: How perceptual fluency moderates the effectiveness of imagined contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 254-262.
West, K., Holmes, E., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Enhancing imagined contact to reduce prejudice against people with schizophrenia. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 407-428.
West, K., Husnu, S., & Lipps, G. (2015). Imagined contact works in high-prejudice contexts: Investigating imagined contact’s effects on anti-gay prejudice in Cyprus and Jamaica. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12(1), 60-69.
World Bank. (n.d). GDP per capita (current US$). Retrieved from
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73-90.
Zhang, W. (2014). Laws and social norms. In Game theory and society (1st ed., pp. 317-344). London: Routledge.
Keywords: contact; cross-national; gay; rights; transgender
Date Created: 20201229 Date Completed: 20211025 Latest Revision: 20211025