The impact of marriage equality campaigns on stress: Did a Swiss public vote get under the skin?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ+) individuals encounter persistent structural inequalities and discrimination that can lead to detrimental psychological and physiological health outcomes. Amid evolving legal landscapes, little attention has been directed toward understanding the physiological health effects of societal shifts on these communities. This study aims to explore the impact of a national marriage equality vote and associated debates on psychological and biological stress among LGBTIQ+ individuals and cisgender, heterosexual, endosex individuals (termed cis-heterosexual) in Switzerland. We gathered longitudinal survey and biological data collected in hair samples among LGBTIQ+ and cis-heterosexual individuals before, during, and after the 2021 national vote (survey data: N T1T2 = 954; N T2T3 = 880; biological data: N T1T2 = 393; N T2T3 = 354). Preregistered analyses reveal a notable increase in biological stress levels (i.e., cortisol and cortisone levels), but not perceived stress, among both LGBTIQ+ as well as cis-heterosexual individuals who were close to them during the campaign. Results further point out the negative impacts of the campaign against marriage equality (i.e., no-campaign) on LGBTIQ+ individuals’ biological stress levels as well as on those of their allies. These effects were, however, moderated by exposure to the campaign for marriage equality (i.e., yes-campaign), indicating the powerful buffering effects of the yes-campaign on the impact of discrimination on individuals’ health. However, these positive effects appear to come at a cost, potentially impacting the well-being of individuals engaged in advocating for the yes-campaign. This research underscores the lasting impact of political campaigns on individuals’ health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".