Predicting and Changing Attitudes toward Same-Gender Parenting: Informational Influence, Parasocial Contact, and Religious Fundamentalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attitudes toward same-gender parenting are of timely relevance, given increasing recognition of LGBTQ+ rights around the world. Two studies examined the influence of 2 predictors of attitudes toward same-gender parenting. The first was informational influence, which was manipulated via a newspaper-style article dispelling misconceptions about gender identity of children reared by same-gender parents. The second was social influence via parasocial contact measured as prior exposure to a same-gender adoptive parents TV show. Religious fundamentalism (RF) was assessed as an individual difference moderator of informational or social influence. Outcome variables were beliefs about same-gender parenting, perceived problems with same-gender parenting, and social distance from same-gender adoptive parents. We studied these relationships in Canada (Study 1, where same-gender couples’ adoption is legal) and in Italy (Study 2, where same-gender couples’ adoption is not legal). RF moderated the results of informational and social influence in the Canadian context, such that those high in RF tended to be favorably influenced. In Italy, results of informational influence were typically observed among those low in RF, and social influence directly predicted favorable attitudes toward same-gender parenting. Informational and social influence can improve attitudes toward same-gender parenting, but RF and legal/cultural context are also important to consider.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".