<%BANNER%>

Framing, Persuasion, and Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101123_AAAACN INGEST_TIME 2010-11-23T13:11:05Z PACKAGE UFE0011642_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 77337 DFID F20101123_AABJNQ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH ghoshal_r_Page_10.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
7e6da9dddb4d84fcc69f1927012882ee
SHA-1
acd225b9cb83cf3ccdf89de79fc9179e2221b246
6602 F20101123_AABJIT ghoshal_r_Page_13thm.jpg
5637a2eb6dcf0557c66643f9588a9d7b
1fc8aa2990b9d3d68c3200334dc88438d13ef1e2
650 F20101123_AABJSO ghoshal_r_Page_04.txt
b9210d5e00fbb7486dd7e7c9c5ad2dd1
03a7f3f26b3dfb0ecdde006387e2c3f088b86480
85022 F20101123_AABJNR ghoshal_r_Page_13.jpg
4c8145c7fd81ffead1b9a7c73f197fd9
7d57c6c2ff43a195e2b3e7688baa524c81189871
5898 F20101123_AABJIU ghoshal_r_Page_50thm.jpg
9f2e76bbac4bffb78427805097529631
e4360b920cb7a4e3bd1785bf3aa86e2b6b2350f0
83510 F20101123_AABJNS ghoshal_r_Page_14.jpg
3df80ebcb22b66ef57a616907d1c5610
c4d4365c2a5ff003ee85accb9217ed7c45d671e1
1823 F20101123_AABJIV ghoshal_r_Page_18.txt
c2aad4715fbf40a83b17e39e092e33f7
d26d0b899e17de1fe9347e409ea53c7a214ac70f
1670 F20101123_AABJSP ghoshal_r_Page_05.txt
726de4456faf4d6410acfbd70383b256
d3559cefbe4ed482b641e4213b9068054d243c38
76456 F20101123_AABJNT ghoshal_r_Page_16.jpg
de43fda11c8172899a81dcf02fab1b36
d79b2c0a21ea9918ce2436f153fc220e3d6446f2
2945 F20101123_AABJIW ghoshal_r_Page_04thm.jpg
b08fa8ba1cc87505ea4af242d0fbdd50
3ee00807ebad36d456cbf2fccd0f04e3ac4243c5
579 F20101123_AABJSQ ghoshal_r_Page_08.txt
848e92ca590fabba52c7f9f226587ce0
20c0c249d207bf079bdbdebfaad2d62c54ce6ff0
62279 F20101123_AABJNU ghoshal_r_Page_17.jpg
391b808e472df6f07842622028e4ba3a
947505f0d76ca842ba4fb83a07f9c2b8712bf170
52552 F20101123_AABJIX ghoshal_r_Page_50.pro
3273e136916b499665ec20a875dc6ffa
414cb9e1029f79b1a570a2db5cd894f9304d0dc5
1942 F20101123_AABJSR ghoshal_r_Page_12.txt
652aaf5481a293f5bbbeec62727e5809
b7fee7639525dab4376fda92b993b91994c3fffa
63617 F20101123_AABJNV ghoshal_r_Page_18.jpg
7a5e0df04cf14a79f344294f9f226d69
560326b3692b97bc1b7c025b76fcea2721283b5f
108649 F20101123_AABJIY ghoshal_r_Page_36.jp2
e14cea396fcf142cdab2a06e031b9850
1cdd87c8fb420b6635028cfd8b562fd67c28467b
2638 F20101123_AABJSS ghoshal_r_Page_13.txt
7e5cefbd2728922ac1ebb5b8b6a93a0f
09fc336e84765026e9e91a0252f477cd35ae5f2c
64243 F20101123_AABJNW ghoshal_r_Page_21.jpg
11a8f5e529aa83e3fc4a25ef7d5f4285
a3fa74fa669b29d0cd5cf413edfad37fe4517323
25271604 F20101123_AABJIZ ghoshal_r_Page_05.tif
ba98551397b10abbe93ae98e1fcf71bb
d08d5f042b5ea064edf21273b8f495af20fbd049
2177 F20101123_AABJST ghoshal_r_Page_15.txt
5726cec663fe70f4d8bd065ea457398d
2869c7f6121ce9c369a0ab5d47f22c5c291875eb
76171 F20101123_AABJNX ghoshal_r_Page_26.jpg
354584f0fb25496c16f48b65df21a8fa
e520b4831e577ed74cb113abf8df632339762494
1700 F20101123_AABJSU ghoshal_r_Page_17.txt
bbc857db6850e93205a6d6f01c3cbe85
a63473adc77ae3098c6e3b2c6f40401c48da0e72
27799 F20101123_AABJNY ghoshal_r_Page_28.jpg
82cbb53c108d3fd286f027a51e30c8e7
089b22d9bdf769cab7d584f2fed710b7ef7e7627
2288 F20101123_AABJSV ghoshal_r_Page_19.txt
80da37863b0e01f11116bf6c14003436
c15dd1be3739420fb7798741dfd744c6154ac01b
1053954 F20101123_AABJLA ghoshal_r_Page_37.tif
908f5097c2e7cfd1b5d428fd6e728ed0
d025866109dfee29eb0cae9c28b791f0c4bd6951
72442 F20101123_AABJNZ ghoshal_r_Page_32.jpg
4c269a45e52b8198206ee3353cf6a22a
d9134bac802ef9df5579bac33c517a327f78e0a6
2957 F20101123_AABJSW ghoshal_r_Page_20.txt
b9ffa76cc22633cd41dbe6594f6ba3d1
685484bad3bc7014b7b9afee058638d52ddc0f84
2106 F20101123_AABJLB ghoshal_r_Page_16.txt
4730d37b7566c16439cb5a9d6bd48e31
fb2673515e23ea034d5a34cd64eeb5ab0392f203
1839 F20101123_AABJSX ghoshal_r_Page_21.txt
950976451cc11e20ab7702954e167c56
68b8af17f1f8e5b0f45fbcf58a513c0875d32443
24210 F20101123_AABJLC ghoshal_r_Page_26.QC.jpg
8f4f2477918b1a7db7f6f0fa63dc5c40
27d779d7b0d13740389508d3b786affef3a8da91
F20101123_AABJQA ghoshal_r_Page_11.tif
fa126a7a4e2f1d7d59c339470d37b703
b3d04488b084445f0710ab92e0099a1acf461c8e
707 F20101123_AABJSY ghoshal_r_Page_22.txt
f0ac93d0e0aacd17ccd45b496471b2ef
b23f9a3579607021b94afdaa6736a95d2fefa502
F20101123_AABJLD ghoshal_r_Page_14.tif
24acab667bfc6db01db44d20cd35d987
6fae6b535de8cd487a8c1c04652ace99dd348e8a
F20101123_AABJQB ghoshal_r_Page_15.tif
ea627dfe592efc2f8dc5d0a71b60d131
06a36237674a1a4133047531ca481b0a74cf8cda
2015 F20101123_AABJSZ ghoshal_r_Page_23.txt
32b5dc4435783ca823ef6c0f4b588fd5
460b836d1911ff9fd89394e02d568df65b794c56
47588 F20101123_AABJLE ghoshal_r_Page_12.pro
9ef68cd9999750e8fef99e079e598ae2
d21ecf9ea0caa8efbdd3b6e7a75d2f6bbbd1796e
F20101123_AABJQC ghoshal_r_Page_17.tif
fcd40f29d666affa1823e5fccab9c9cd
b3218418e5d2aaacc85522928619e8d9b108dd8a
2076 F20101123_AABJLF ghoshal_r_Page_26.txt
364a9f90c3322b68ddb8345a8530265a
e8aaffdb4cc7743667940eae6a15960b889a54d3
F20101123_AABJQD ghoshal_r_Page_21.tif
36d0047598234cb77f3cd3aeae61aaff
ce064810b6c70c6bf63b2d0256d6b9019546e251
1123 F20101123_AABJLG ghoshal_r_Page_11.txt
13ba57b34a28c0b92ddb59356c7f1cdd
b9174c8309f1944bdadbc8aba639ba28fdeb77b8
26314 F20101123_AABJVA ghoshal_r_Page_30.QC.jpg
506e438fe03659564bc5c2c5f148a5f1
2023377d76fe2c4b1a4fa011c35dbc00b013a99a
F20101123_AABJQE ghoshal_r_Page_22.tif
accad9b1cd6ce32f4bb1b63cd1f55985
40873110f74ed8d0b717910b5ea4fa3e25e9edad
6727 F20101123_AABJLH ghoshal_r_Page_01.QC.jpg
d2cb930ed3ff7031a39de3e597044af2
4ac6e158deea27c25f50e95096edde4b643923c8
7052 F20101123_AABJVB ghoshal_r_Page_30thm.jpg
616cb329003689954486a313063d701f
c6cd8aa31d7a8c1bf6b4b794e657f98b8d5f9dac
F20101123_AABJQF ghoshal_r_Page_23.tif
78f117212de66fba3b8bb643c6f9e32d
4c37bf247104c76664428e089f48dd23fe875c46
17368 F20101123_AABJVC ghoshal_r_Page_31.QC.jpg
6424956363fcd304398b7285dd8f41db
f57728932fc55aef31c026e15e39e39cd2f8845f
F20101123_AABJQG ghoshal_r_Page_24.tif
3f446d69db093274e35ebd6b11e25663
bc1b1c6921dee705339403c0ef02add42cd4f7db
F20101123_AABJLI ghoshal_r_Page_49.tif
9b69bd976e76eb0df0f9a9f3b0abfd67
cb086b04bd1795f7756ebebb9dbc36fdd3003cb4
4976 F20101123_AABJVD ghoshal_r_Page_31thm.jpg
e03934c984dbdfad6e0082281a1d222f
c5ce2db21f76dc6ff18ef35e615a7a7a2cd7f109
F20101123_AABJQH ghoshal_r_Page_27.tif
9c8412c5597699186c439d3a08dd5056
6e30d5272b582e61204d6abb320f0abb6d249f25
115928 F20101123_AABJLJ ghoshal_r_Page_16.jp2
4825101b08160b817f1bd77fd4306af1
c9360fbac1db7de81d748f1fbb4227c1a98ba4c1
6305 F20101123_AABJVE ghoshal_r_Page_33thm.jpg
cf2bc866a37560d8d196b3a3039afc46
563bfbe45587ebac29aedc07d75072ed805f43fe
F20101123_AABJQI ghoshal_r_Page_28.tif
a5cb85933b8a8763046ae6233289e649
0e1b05a6dbe64179dc755a5f21d47c2ee1a0ab63
52839 F20101123_AABJLK ghoshal_r_Page_26.pro
517aa145352ee9c688f08fa7bc1939fd
64b634102c95a8b4deb29bb4b2efb798309aa89c
24156 F20101123_AABJVF ghoshal_r_Page_34.QC.jpg
91dcc83109ee5c673d056964ec3c2af8
d98259382d7710f1a7aec68ab57b9db7718c8fe1
F20101123_AABJQJ ghoshal_r_Page_29.tif
dc19218246a2f04dc48f417ef7781e21
ced747dd3d2ba6f337a2e04fd147739a8549a0e0
84469 F20101123_AABJLL ghoshal_r_Page_24.jpg
feb24fc0798d404fe29daf03c4be51c1
a05cba99864ae53a35255f6379a7cb19b96075ab
20476 F20101123_AABJVG ghoshal_r_Page_36.QC.jpg
3b18928115cfca55a9b9593d07632461
d15f3de28b789d0aa2afd651cab4e2caa8c75f0f
F20101123_AABJQK ghoshal_r_Page_30.tif
70e2e1123e65d8e89a90fab34c86a555
cf55946567ca52c71c0c2d6d3b1daa39310192d9
F20101123_AABJLM ghoshal_r_Page_32.tif
ef19f5e63b96628b9925b7814867d1a5
2940f75ab0f5788780c9795530a29d41078ed807
5982 F20101123_AABJVH ghoshal_r_Page_36thm.jpg
6f5d9be64739b054c42547998b7beaee
bf044e01ef458c350c3a954bd84e34078d0dd882
F20101123_AABJQL ghoshal_r_Page_33.tif
6d2b2e1611cfa0f7bb40e686773ed283
4234e77f97e0e5af595cd2d08e122349ce83617f
51389 F20101123_AABJLN ghoshal_r_Page_42.pro
9ea2a4212a6d21fe9e539d4787eb26ab
15c7d818d40fb9d8828ecbadd2a842f123e56587
5800 F20101123_AABJVI ghoshal_r_Page_38thm.jpg
1d789f3403592ae3edc3e24aa1831b22
bf00445fd514726e256a4fd6a2adb98130b8ba6d
F20101123_AABJQM ghoshal_r_Page_34.tif
3050d1c60c5045407256a63d01a94b92
b3c270a94f878712a114d075b54c1b21abc28235
57427 F20101123_AABJLO ghoshal_r_Page_49.pro
071797f50c7223d567c0514319acb5b1
dc8c8790a6b745438a27265f5feafc712a103302
12945 F20101123_AABJVJ ghoshal_r_Page_40.QC.jpg
cbb9399371c7bddad7b4d6fd05d63899
3de963ad171400d5ea2c985d55327c1f8d69dcc4
73337 F20101123_AABJLP ghoshal_r_Page_49.jpg
3c83c65294fb8dbf669d20d1d63b9e44
4506d1e6c7cb35b15c71ccfdcc7e37c582ff1c06
3911 F20101123_AABJVK ghoshal_r_Page_40thm.jpg
f2e70d4415478242dbe10f1e5f62aee3
19173a2e0f0891f4be6628efc40d734276998559
F20101123_AABJQN ghoshal_r_Page_35.tif
0e2beb5c9d3649cb859054c66816bb4c
e4beaa2969af1f781408ae817f6c893cf24839cc
5494 F20101123_AABJLQ ghoshal_r_Page_02.jp2
7a0bd34db987c036f5ba341ff4ec2451
3e201d3ae3a3987bb363aee40a9e4e0479aecf8c
20685 F20101123_AABJVL ghoshal_r_Page_41.QC.jpg
60984e27da7bbe6e321621f12f60abbe
362ec95e8d24098ec24ebc3549616c745e83fd2e
F20101123_AABJQO ghoshal_r_Page_38.tif
0419b2836602a11fd9f5a62eac7a1bab
90fe9473ea1a10b13cec9cc3f1b6cfa51186f561
22632 F20101123_AABJLR ghoshal_r_Page_39.QC.jpg
44b99d29a7220f1d3b305ceb1039831b
8543c87108184a2abccba2214a9cd8a7773cd9f7
5841 F20101123_AABJVM ghoshal_r_Page_41thm.jpg
272363a2d4b9e86e40928b865d80f957
59ae650d2de3945e73ed3774f91655240c31047c
F20101123_AABJQP ghoshal_r_Page_40.tif
f2bd270b09ece6cd19211c5bbd9f1a5a
517abac55f81944a2a4f9c94cb20efcae7001b42
1051971 F20101123_AABJLS ghoshal_r_Page_23.jp2
061bd88f5d876b378791b7a9b887b591
5011f64c55cf8b36115f17a287d12a50c9421aa5
23893 F20101123_AABJVN ghoshal_r_Page_42.QC.jpg
dd02c685d79fc89944c31c7927641b20
a340179d56124f4f5b512fbd5421f7c658f3e815
F20101123_AABJQQ ghoshal_r_Page_41.tif
64685221ee1e05de227ba02375fd69d1
5a9f5ceddd068bbfeba6e31e701000b53dd837a1
6026 F20101123_AABJLT ghoshal_r_Page_32thm.jpg
7b12f6c88f466c86146fab340c3a4daf
80f32eca3018a989c5afc5bd4130945b8ac4511d
6587 F20101123_AABJVO ghoshal_r_Page_42thm.jpg
dc69eba3d2f55d03a5800a47788bdbf6
448efc2cdae12fe89d480f6df1d133bb7e16e1d8
F20101123_AABJQR ghoshal_r_Page_43.tif
f98389c248701353e9ac4979af2e8eb6
5a532eda55b294e5ef2bcd4bcbc7618c855e5c7f
1353 F20101123_AABJLU ghoshal_r_Page_40.txt
fbb0fb6005fc1572635cff501d6bdaa7
380f68fb2d5b76c96af3211b004175054be9a56f
23679 F20101123_AABJVP ghoshal_r_Page_43.QC.jpg
4cd194eaa39fe7ce0c480a88ee409c8d
a13a023a56ba9b8c08393dc19a8ab76a2ed57d90
F20101123_AABJQS ghoshal_r_Page_45.tif
ef95d8128ba9f6634aa9572e04c27357
9dd89ef1a5e2519822b93bc943d199ba831d8616
757 F20101123_AABJLV ghoshal_r_Page_06.txt
22267562d85e478dd23ca7b9bf3dd446
5a8585eaef814711a02afc7dc7c770094eb2a2d8
6499 F20101123_AABJVQ ghoshal_r_Page_43thm.jpg
beb665a9dfa77dfd52f71ac1a2c415d6
c5c10efa7d9ff6e33c5edcf11235763c2dfe61ac
F20101123_AABJQT ghoshal_r_Page_46.tif
a5abc179895b0b81632ff3d3641cddfd
3dfe26462c5c5fd8489dfd29e221604d4baa00cb
72899 F20101123_AABJLW ghoshal_r_Page_25.jpg
7ce49366bf9cfc1c35b4053adb84cf88
b06751d268aa90fc902b24ca44f420cda68fb766
22647 F20101123_AABJVR ghoshal_r_Page_44.QC.jpg
e509a2f60998b699b09f477d6578addd
d98ede8865e7f5e39c51337abd60ea1bd98fa101
F20101123_AABJQU ghoshal_r_Page_47.tif
0c4bc79dbf5e37e61ba799572aa01ce9
fa34d26e4803f4d0799fbf24300006f986f5ba56
6592 F20101123_AABJLX ghoshal_r_Page_14thm.jpg
84765a45da42682c408e2b191092b4dc
fc6ec96ca464633317c20e43c0d4b94569ab9bf1
F20101123_AABJQV ghoshal_r_Page_50.tif
95efb69164dfd879a526f81ac0169e7e
c9c8a01cc81e7e64786e5d197613a93d1992d791
81247 F20101123_AABJJA ghoshal_r_Page_45.jpg
b8bdb392eec16e71f70ccd284772fc06
ab5fa1f9d08f19c0db0899342607e35bbaefa423
105954 F20101123_AABJLY ghoshal_r_Page_44.jp2
ebabc3b74e939ebec4940faab313cd3f
41afb58241b89db49b99d48c0a9747709032306a
6330 F20101123_AABJVS ghoshal_r_Page_44thm.jpg
d13abe026e37a68793846408a2bf056b
fcbc29a705c907d859d934e85cad4973c6d3e85d
F20101123_AABJQW ghoshal_r_Page_51.tif
34e3d63d88c1ab9fcacaa1afc397c54d
51cd73113527535b5cf3d0a021cf499a217e38cb
22784 F20101123_AABJJB ghoshal_r_Page_27.QC.jpg
8f52e4b3bdbc13861656f2fe79593cfb
83a98abd9527269d16e8e46c4ba225886c9e2869
29862 F20101123_AABJLZ ghoshal_r_Page_22.jpg
c7ed80341a8f0c741cacbee4933da221
ab14d5fe6f11c4595ade8932420e043796527c15
24597 F20101123_AABJVT ghoshal_r_Page_45.QC.jpg
99b7481cf460ef558d7f0c0cbc7d1331
63797796a0c3a004dc93d244ce455b58a53d9695
F20101123_AABJQX ghoshal_r_Page_52.tif
ac187b497dce5b0b95c280b30c6deb19
0dc833be873fadee21104e5c43bebd9791493914
2779 F20101123_AABJJC ghoshal_r_Page_46.txt
5bd13749faec2a9241c56597b9bcca00
d7282589913ca33309f78505fabb377d430cb50f
6669 F20101123_AABJVU ghoshal_r_Page_45thm.jpg
7ea171f31a2a30122f3a6a99424d8c97
85456e4c9e52b02523e1bbdda54677dd062f729f
F20101123_AABJQY ghoshal_r_Page_53.tif
5ceedd3e79601003e14903c20b7a1d8b
e3f0d81792c6842f39f273f9df74af442e9deb7a
F20101123_AABJJD ghoshal_r_Page_12.tif
549d6655ee20ddde6dfe5223987b0dfa
03f7f29bd5b454914f81a1e832039e9dcd1b9fa7
25925 F20101123_AABJVV ghoshal_r_Page_46.QC.jpg
d7363d16abcf9f5e95232e0f773e105a
d9dca28c06e9249ea7184ceda0e7480fb90e4f83
72704 F20101123_AABJOA ghoshal_r_Page_35.jpg
59f3eafd865dd5d923e348088f3eb329
fbe59af4697c1bba0bebe7e0ac461298aab3b3b0
19897 F20101123_AABJJE ghoshal_r_Page_07.QC.jpg
0ce22eaf165cb4fd90045c61a7a0be48
8c6984ab6b8734dd77716cc04c0ce7c154d44ab0
6885 F20101123_AABJVW ghoshal_r_Page_46thm.jpg
4669a6ea112b5a9cf30b715e977bec94
a037ccf318422d7e032d15b39d0a1f93ffbb25ed
73976 F20101123_AABJOB ghoshal_r_Page_37.jpg
f0190ebf3b3eff564f1865403094a740
acc6bb4d5ea2b91da0e72b64408f94bd2fe39506
F20101123_AABJQZ ghoshal_r_Page_54.tif
9e8c161bc331d6216edfed99c4394667
0715c34c753d0d45ca699c18a19da3aeac04f77f
1051972 F20101123_AABJJF ghoshal_r_Page_50.jp2
78087a908666d177b5d30728e6cc73e2
9dce29d3218e3321b57952c9dffbcf99242cb6fe
23881 F20101123_AABJVX ghoshal_r_Page_47.QC.jpg
e9802bf9628292bc0ca539e371ae8cd4
defc5639ad914941c222abcb3ff75010dd428669
42731 F20101123_AABJOC ghoshal_r_Page_40.jpg
b3a0af4ce3686be37cf27bb02ae09ae9
14df4543e81c53361cade4b0afc8e8c78a4f4973
2054 F20101123_AABJTA ghoshal_r_Page_25.txt
19e838a6ce507aaafdfdb081ba899876
8d76386065b966f9f216dd6a6a5eb4b5c5765b78
6496 F20101123_AABJVY ghoshal_r_Page_47thm.jpg
3106707f3b9b4a02192863fc90f08842
f3a1913ad4798ce406ad5096e9373b57730a5160
72263 F20101123_AABJOD ghoshal_r_Page_42.jpg
022179d733f377355ed2995e0a618f84
a3ce882743cbea94276d7c9f241ded2c0731f5b8
22911 F20101123_AABJJG ghoshal_r_Page_53.QC.jpg
eb504c049ed6360b10f15fba9f8cc4fd
c7e1a95f40f8eabd59f473840718730cd4e57c93
832 F20101123_AABJTB ghoshal_r_Page_28.txt
2eaf139453fe6037272cc9e5b258c3ac
83313376b1b0b457ffb7ba3eb21e7bff3c20f7b5
24519 F20101123_AABJVZ ghoshal_r_Page_48.QC.jpg
befd0a49f7fdb6ddf67b7420573e7232
e3554f7c9ea98f1dfff9e8f73b393987197cbb61
70103 F20101123_AABJOE ghoshal_r_Page_44.jpg
d1fb3fa27e6081d00a5c94d692d5f65e
0f869d0925931b2c8146e3eb6ce507ed32c617b0
7339 F20101123_AABJJH ghoshal_r_Page_01.pro
734d68b339a2d59c66370429af344b34
9e7df43441d31001e11daa00ea2cf48ff9adbbf0
1888 F20101123_AABJTC ghoshal_r_Page_29.txt
271230398d62bae847b2e71f30dbd40e
130e42595c69fe9996bed54706063b14b45b2340
87658 F20101123_AABJOF ghoshal_r_Page_46.jpg
6306102f30a9c960dbe85a548c6b8e56
e804a5563143069a7c30d1d38e7d2c0f1e58b858
F20101123_AABJJI ghoshal_r_Page_25.tif
4a4bbe9cdc4064a63b16fb87be8042c3
e467887eb4d1dfe18a80d94e3bbc52a616826218
2955 F20101123_AABJTD ghoshal_r_Page_30.txt
3c7c7b4c44ca5c8b9a8d7b8f95c0a9a0
f18a8874cf4963e11581a33c2adcda07493225a3
81908 F20101123_AABJOG ghoshal_r_Page_48.jpg
54078850a16789753bb546becac4161f
b80ada003a2da78c3b65a78b13d884ec8f0b218d
F20101123_AABJJJ ghoshal_r_Page_42.tif
0f1cf7a4d9d9f1462c47675794fa1268
253d7732a6889bdaf7908463820efd86d39733a6
2166 F20101123_AABJTE ghoshal_r_Page_32.txt
aca1f6b97c8964cd06d335416c20ff0c
7ebcf287f9ff4b794855565146688281acdc74d4
81135 F20101123_AABJOH ghoshal_r_Page_50.jpg
433f9f1cf862b7bf4f3055d0e542e9e4
e2f5c2048858d8dcda06e75c2a4832c68696000a
2063 F20101123_AABJJK ghoshal_r_Page_37.txt
5e7244eb1213c413429e503000cf22a8
287472c797dd0e31c99de2a31241df9574122a96
3207 F20101123_AABJTF ghoshal_r_Page_33.txt
250586dbc5bd420467e7d6220469418c
82ce1dfbcf5bbeacd563a4c3c75d6b8c60fb4d34
80472 F20101123_AABJOI ghoshal_r_Page_51.jpg
f3c358cce3fe7e54030a27b4db3c740a
72b5e1bf93600bca7a05f61533eed0f8990e37ed
8227 F20101123_AABJJL ghoshal_r_Page_03.jp2
d823134144897e9ae6c15a71180d3f44
8c52e08a1730a8452d67ace6a35b14af2955bb91
F20101123_AABJTG ghoshal_r_Page_34.txt
c2190799224ebed89b5b100c8817ead5
6db30874fa450321898a627d42f096149e0d7caf
97094 F20101123_AABJOJ ghoshal_r_Page_52.jpg
c230a30b61ab6ebe564e9b6723e57876
5bc79bf8a492ac0501ed88a9f1e8345711d9d449
2348 F20101123_AABJTH ghoshal_r_Page_36.txt
5a4fadfed50efe682821a822f452e9e9
43e05e2bcc712526acb4952fe289983a00d72576
19605 F20101123_AABJOK ghoshal_r_Page_54.jpg
d10c5ff05161310a5fd6f519c4147a96
650d61fbdf892da66e8566f7a7c80be8de12405d
5602 F20101123_AABJJM ghoshal_r_Page_07thm.jpg
216abc58ed00a85ed5b8a54a311babe4
abcf970e92a354c474c33632fc5ee95e0b7abbea
2785 F20101123_AABJTI ghoshal_r_Page_38.txt
5c5e6722607a46794ae10f2df23b6661
106575f51197da54972e04211662275b5b8e2c07
77503 F20101123_AABJJN ghoshal_r_Page_23.jpg
1930763b5b782fa86daaa70c9d3d8ffb
71bbf38ff7ca242236ff222aa8b28483886b1ed3
1909 F20101123_AABJTJ ghoshal_r_Page_39.txt
a67b814d60a3fc78aba843e66d971956
472711f5210a85393439b9b31eb8f77ba366febd
24470 F20101123_AABJOL ghoshal_r_Page_55.jpg
02d02194ca85df4f97c4e0c0ec7953b7
8793b2f101d9d03693baf6156b001121467c859f
65176 F20101123_AABJJO ghoshal_r_Page_09.jpg
506d65ceece51ca78f6031f408f61d30
95c3f97cb582ab158868d1670ed65e281721959e
1783 F20101123_AABJTK ghoshal_r_Page_41.txt
bef91817d58515e1ded20bd55d7e1f7b
a53c6db991ee2ae0327c0272e3bbf422fbde0bc5
36960 F20101123_AABJOM ghoshal_r_Page_04.jp2
81e83892368693ade2cca45b2bcb75fe
697b757acabb5908dda1e19a4ac57e0aa9018d84
24116 F20101123_AABJJP ghoshal_r_Page_13.QC.jpg
613dccdba47a50bb1c096b050f264dff
a3e49f4546187e2a0e5a11f8b13959f820ca64e5
2149 F20101123_AABJTL ghoshal_r_Page_43.txt
4c0a2a9941f4ec812714d20eebfab42e
4a403c737a129cb8242037b1d623c32aee0dce24
923739 F20101123_AABJON ghoshal_r_Page_05.jp2
cccadd1be44fcdf461bcf4d23f554872
a7da574d934ed193442c605351d2a62836ad1b30
F20101123_AABJJQ ghoshal_r_Page_19.tif
b478a85ec5b3e7d4eaf625febf86eb21
cebda5d1004596f2ecc4b7d8afa659d8674de26f
2511 F20101123_AABJTM ghoshal_r_Page_45.txt
92bb43f0f2ab74adee7d7a9f1e349358
e2812a8ec13b7d6c8975fae8a50003dd4379012f
644916 F20101123_AABJOO ghoshal_r_Page_06.jp2
0c085a58c09c504c6557b3296e8d784f
e47dc55d413bc2c809fa3659e1292031ac4f7618
1947 F20101123_AABJJR ghoshal_r_Page_44.txt
caf789bf1daea011d88e7237963dd202
53a908927de541a5038d571a0693506e685ccf41
2050 F20101123_AABJTN ghoshal_r_Page_47.txt
b0258c16a75dc06a90e2ea9ece510bae
00b24a2c830dc8b7b463de34e7aef4e208dc7a94
894561 F20101123_AABJOP ghoshal_r_Page_07.jp2
ac645a54ce977d5cf3b8ef60c8071e93
d5279c18da8f904d0d09f3d0b581d01e9e8c3fa8
11766 F20101123_AABJJS ghoshal_r_Page_05.QC.jpg
2cbb612585f8a13f2df29ff1df6a0a0f
bdee7504eac7d7d163bedbbdcb95c535f4ad4e61
2120 F20101123_AABJTO ghoshal_r_Page_50.txt
d8144458dfed19911930cd2898e8d6e9
0e7a988f13b665fedeca3148080ade80b5cd9fd1
98459 F20101123_AABJOQ ghoshal_r_Page_09.jp2
dede8bad66d1e92c61cc69633d7b53a7
41d7911d468e9d7e20954d586877a602a19a2df0
61749 F20101123_AABJJT ghoshal_r_Page_40.jp2
8c104e1e03142a4d227951a92fecc4dd
16c0acccd28148865d37d6aed79275017ec18318
2133 F20101123_AABJTP ghoshal_r_Page_51.txt
c372d6701e063d15bce543a612b72ee5
0a10aacf70b5f331756e6975af06391ad41f1033
118466 F20101123_AABJOR ghoshal_r_Page_10.jp2
99e6a3ee732d45093bc87c4510c7f959
3dcf02b1b9a6cc0f12c11ee00b9bfaa786ccc3a7
2010 F20101123_AABJJU ghoshal_r_Page_54thm.jpg
7e527803400834fa92bb9d1172361a0b
49a0aeadb2fdb2949af44436f771c486daaf4ecc
98223 F20101123_AABJOS ghoshal_r_Page_12.jp2
c076cbaed6e1a26d11b986f6505402c2
f20ef7a0ab4a7e1cca65e35f237491abf7d44999
15159 F20101123_AABJJV ghoshal_r_Page_04.pro
95236e384680620bdcdb8852a49988a5
5bf7762bdd5882b10c61357ad535cb6d6fc248af
F20101123_AABJTQ ghoshal_r_Page_52.txt
9582154425d5c062e2390e5fee201cfe
3d4e9db2a64cb3cb954b51f11bdf7492fc446736
133152 F20101123_AABJOT ghoshal_r_Page_13.jp2
e2eff29d048ab73006d710ad066c7342
e7ab3c3042df8e8d7cc114e9227b91e5dfd09ddf
479642 F20101123_AABJJW ghoshal_r.pdf
c520ad5ee4012de76cc98e24735fdfab
4f05979598eb515f0b913cf4e7e59ce114899eb3
2094 F20101123_AABJTR ghoshal_r_Page_53.txt
71ad325b0322f9f118ca5ce02bb33a89
0f0a6454f70052c14afea9ee9f9c5828e3b8f9ca
127886 F20101123_AABJOU ghoshal_r_Page_14.jp2
87840836375563ebd8b3cbd57bb26975
3841473b25ae08aa7cc4dceb534d6b4c5b59c89f
51935 F20101123_AABJJX ghoshal_r_Page_31.jpg
e22c62eb05d91970f8c50e9414288205
eafff4abda4fc5d5e5b7c77de5241bfa8cb97586
365 F20101123_AABJTS ghoshal_r_Page_54.txt
128723b47654eab6c6e95ca324889370
37040f4cdc247cd01c97cf6ad14540a9b83d8db5
93403 F20101123_AABJOV ghoshal_r_Page_17.jp2
a4c8a198d18f5236ba6a31222c3c62df
f1d609a0f5ad3feb0fb5963faeebe82b3e62f1b9
135877 F20101123_AABJJY ghoshal_r_Page_46.jp2
b396ecd82e14737ee5f89c132d4b0446
b3359d36ff35f5783b994feb0d5f127fc6999bd9
519 F20101123_AABJTT ghoshal_r_Page_55.txt
d08984dba9cdb299b9cd53157ee8f72f
a2b38c5cf37a78df196929b60f4a32e970020284
97402 F20101123_AABJOW ghoshal_r_Page_18.jp2
91335534706a5ec73eb9e0e0dd49bea2
8913e38c8ab93b9594d8e8cc9c9e5f1d52818e74
413 F20101123_AABJJZ ghoshal_r_Page_01.txt
5b2e0bc4b5d30fcc740b24f02f760f46
65d02a9b9788d9c3d98d0897d446dba3bdbe5620
2271 F20101123_AABJTU ghoshal_r_Page_01thm.jpg
b9e0c66ad2c58f8c5147181d1f65bf57
d14dfea1bf9b10ba130fedd4f6053b359db19c80
134724 F20101123_AABJOX ghoshal_r_Page_20.jp2
54688164feb825597c49cd2f6eba1e8c
e003a42410e5b0d4a48d49c8aedf7cf5384f692a
1380 F20101123_AABJMA ghoshal_r_Page_31.txt
f15eae4df7e228e69e20bb30dfdf8401
c0c96961c9d602e66b937743ee23d21eb0c1fc83
98544 F20101123_AABJOY ghoshal_r_Page_21.jp2
8f59d7aa59e4176d71d799c54d97bff9
433baaedce36f4a5460b936a43e58451b23acd9e
3239 F20101123_AABJTV ghoshal_r_Page_02.QC.jpg
cdc468b4b8051a1d151a9ef4d1e48c9e
8f419da18cb65568bc1748d31a0a8a2c2cc0b917
2021 F20101123_AABJMB ghoshal_r_Page_42.txt
baefcc69738f554b088e905678f31f5e
8bbcfb49a684a3f2f5f369e38718fdc5b36c94c1
40876 F20101123_AABJOZ ghoshal_r_Page_22.jp2
e8b102ae31b3c433ec37f46d5302c3c3
34998a5d2cefd859f237bcad71fe8692554eb3e8
1371 F20101123_AABJTW ghoshal_r_Page_02thm.jpg
cc1043069be243d66011f313e2d0a6a0
6a95835437ba30e1292938d584af220c107cfb2c
5724 F20101123_AABJMC ghoshal_r_Page_17thm.jpg
a78025a70fa1d7a61d60996ed08612a7
73a39fc2cc6e61d2110ff2feeb51165e3aa926e5
3530 F20101123_AABJTX ghoshal_r_Page_03.QC.jpg
a6860d8f1240c3602eb2bd38c820e73c
de0eafef18f775e157dadaec3919b69b968dacc5
6821 F20101123_AABJMD ghoshal_r_Page_26thm.jpg
2415647ad99f70caeec5994c0827a228
06f79cb5d2093939be022be154d7914c90f5c3c5
F20101123_AABJRA ghoshal_r_Page_55.tif
004fe5d64b502efc775f7f23137e242c
3373db3a2df71b078fdaf21555f9812bd22dc372
1471 F20101123_AABJTY ghoshal_r_Page_03thm.jpg
ef1ef3f9562980eb6fca4db47f048c38
cb238b667b18040bbf123b2e5cd64c2e6f2be0e0
F20101123_AABJME ghoshal_r_Page_44.tif
c80591794cf304e6d9cc312ceccded1d
973f1c8b91a6d369faaea095bdb38eba8c9009f1
1070 F20101123_AABJRB ghoshal_r_Page_02.pro
3f60cfabaae74f16cf52e96350ebac46
f6e1bfbaa042baeceea871b6b704bcdefa13e890
3108 F20101123_AABJTZ ghoshal_r_Page_05thm.jpg
e8f5523e40f4c1c6024ec34038209af9
d30f6cfec0b995d3ecbfa5c49429065210aff4ac
90102 F20101123_AABJMF ghoshal_r_Page_30.jpg
00cd02e80e1c249d5767dffffe3e25e1
d35836a2835d7c25da1cf0fa433fa8a0eb4313f0
2392 F20101123_AABJRC ghoshal_r_Page_03.pro
fcd0947c8d61c768365ddb353c81d3ff
49f7c301bcdf366f09135dfe07641176f00176fe
77081 F20101123_AABJMG ghoshal_r_Page_15.jpg
074bac48c9935654d1cbdfbca2644455
2fc67694ef8609a9028f1470d294e4e904f9b160
6508 F20101123_AABJWA ghoshal_r_Page_48thm.jpg
634988b1855c639d3b39cca82d8153cd
d7395d0b15e735d5b46aa46bf990044ab2085231
38424 F20101123_AABJRD ghoshal_r_Page_05.pro
250d677b5459659ffb336de4cbdf1b21
4ce8fb96ace765ffa208331620dc3e802e9e16dd
19813 F20101123_AABJMH ghoshal_r_Page_38.QC.jpg
c0726abe77784a28622c0634edf2c103
367eff1ba47d97de5e65a21d7db5d73e9cdad586
22337 F20101123_AABJWB ghoshal_r_Page_49.QC.jpg
c13df2cda612e65d4282277841674e40
f9617344684ff0759116097367923c1e1c966c53
16915 F20101123_AABJRE ghoshal_r_Page_06.pro
7e4adf7a866070d800cd5a7d3232c40c
a0dcf80e13c781df774aca363a2950e7a2c6aa06
66364 F20101123_AABJMI ghoshal_r_Page_29.jpg
2b30fde4dcf92b7580e0b2944ec23940
33f10c330e5257396a8eb695303dbcd013596683
6291 F20101123_AABJWC ghoshal_r_Page_49thm.jpg
0d740766c7151bc466ce98146dd84c23
c9144405ca81525b4ec8b9f6a17e77c9831a85d3
38074 F20101123_AABJRF ghoshal_r_Page_07.pro
db927620504870c97c4e3ae4e1107bfc
415694083ea610ed758f366af86f0d3a8ec8b1ec
21850 F20101123_AABJWD ghoshal_r_Page_50.QC.jpg
380b05b3b49db6d6f6316996d1b79264
9c7f62fd826d874000f40988294bd18c66cb1d97
73858 F20101123_AABJHL ghoshal_r_Page_34.jpg
6a4680408941431fd2e50394070760a5
b46143762633a287810c305b055f79ec14ca4975
14520 F20101123_AABJRG ghoshal_r_Page_08.pro
8692755648f39f25e4bd4366b1795dcf
2f55038fd846d543948004d2b8c69b5e013aaba5
24352 F20101123_AABJWE ghoshal_r_Page_51.QC.jpg
81b3c5bfde81729bd65a0f7c154b49cb
a3e1572cc45d2614b252d5ebe4942b60c840fe80
7307 F20101123_AABJHM ghoshal_r_Page_52thm.jpg
25f6933115e7b7a6f3b21a88730ed831
e8feaf4a4e4c23aa74e4faa100813cd64f590841
46059 F20101123_AABJRH ghoshal_r_Page_09.pro
7e87aac8c6d4d514a8b2933253de24c5
b36f41a069b782626094c640c2d929798b14a464
3439 F20101123_AABJMJ ghoshal_r_Page_11thm.jpg
2d6cae4c792bb1ff4bb7617c38e7cdbc
d9a158eb47a776784e615983e34df9f4307e738a
6603 F20101123_AABJWF ghoshal_r_Page_51thm.jpg
f08ec63c35208f1e06bdb6add4c75dd3
185adaf014ecb0ec801c8473b38513856429f912
6309 F20101123_AABJHN ghoshal_r_Page_39thm.jpg
131010c09edffe07ad76685d2f5f2c39
3cc1fa3096d3bb67d864959ad0930e243f945d2b
55157 F20101123_AABJRI ghoshal_r_Page_10.pro
be36e31ce5e8f7a5ae5f8922c3d60f0f
60dbb839417357bd820a9fa2eb8f32ee23982aea
113043 F20101123_AABJMK ghoshal_r_Page_43.jp2
e499310070e1f484708698484d19cf31
ee3ede57f681a535c5dabade15fa1aa2ced89f91
6609 F20101123_AABJWG ghoshal_r_Page_53thm.jpg
4c5bd385217ff2fa2f1657c2ed2bf0d2
a4523b27818cb41240342abf7d158b694957e605
2117 F20101123_AABJHO ghoshal_r_Page_24.txt
fd1a153486f731b3d697982daeed17df
9c6d6e804080d65877dcc4f389b2b36108d826ef
67968 F20101123_AABJRJ ghoshal_r_Page_13.pro
db0597522389780c050aae4362c988f4
4371ab9e6c1f66de61d851258e92c61a3f40ebed
6820 F20101123_AABJML ghoshal_r_Page_15thm.jpg
736d297360e906d9464a3af7d8535711
e9de3fa79ff8f108eceecaf84b624c174a4bf48d
5792 F20101123_AABJWH ghoshal_r_Page_54.QC.jpg
b61dd9dbc5d2f57c010da05a41f59a76
27852f73139fd83c0af7f4cefc03b41e5b7a93e2
69090 F20101123_AABJHP ghoshal_r_Page_39.jpg
cb29bd27ba3015024e55029d43127e0d
70cc45a11794a1bea86ac8cc7081923c6f277673
55666 F20101123_AABJRK ghoshal_r_Page_15.pro
a9889bf135e89ae415dd56e3009f9594
65026a9423356660cc9b4510e13e034cd5bea0d4
F20101123_AABJMM ghoshal_r_Page_26.tif
96f695beec89535fa0b73b43fc089d7d
a805278cc0981268c8428a2cc6b999f8424561c9
7607 F20101123_AABJWI ghoshal_r_Page_55.QC.jpg
5893b8145d4ee0a4c263fae9f81bbd5f
ee33cc69730863fe00b509309459f95fd2400bda
F20101123_AABJHQ ghoshal_r_Page_13.tif
b46ca2c98159f0a1be947503510f0823
1871750836c8338de2c5af134ef863720d055981
53734 F20101123_AABJRL ghoshal_r_Page_16.pro
7c3810e08ce3a98496a20d9863a0d6e7
c47185e369b51d3c880ea14cf88ed8365783dd01
F20101123_AABJMN ghoshal_r_Page_36.tif
534cad5ab7a6e5e1e807dd6718ba726f
ba9cf414f2c4d7627b834f171374b2b209b50ff8
2498 F20101123_AABJWJ ghoshal_r_Page_55thm.jpg
75d976e38d623fe41a64963e4da8c299
afe88eecd2e4128545231c8b5552ef818e0a61ea
6712 F20101123_AABJHR ghoshal_r_Page_37thm.jpg
f6377f919a0896449451b87b60df0045
75e933fe9f2e1d88b8e1810bd420caf337667428
44076 F20101123_AABJRM ghoshal_r_Page_18.pro
d38a3657976026fdd9222361691ba5df
1520f7392e107c6f064551ca023ca734aad2d326
109420 F20101123_AABJMO ghoshal_r_Page_35.jp2
5d7810f1b12c54e45101890d4e5d3b82
489e4c7f1f9d55b1778af16269978ee17b50b13e
66036 F20101123_AABJWK UFE0011642_00001.mets FULL
b607162db0478c2576165306211b11ac
fb1b8e5e6ba653799bfea0b265b2bdbc530ed4b0
11879 F20101123_AABJHS ghoshal_r_Page_55.pro
287a5162f795c1309fcfbfb55cc87d2d
50feb0537c34345a1cfc094a838a77a08f00b7ca
45842 F20101123_AABJRN ghoshal_r_Page_21.pro
cc92abd23f0677cbf8fca0b6606989d7
f8ca0680ac247c92515fee04838abbf15ae457bd
43503 F20101123_AABJMP ghoshal_r_Page_11.jpg
147ee33eb0a6c2d662e39eff023c5e18
98382d4e4a1a9923cf0c3b2fe1de605ec2475e61
6649 F20101123_AABJHT ghoshal_r_Page_19thm.jpg
4e0011060baa04a72c375b63b7adbd11
7b58bdaea247feab82e2e3584dd09079b84514ee
21055 F20101123_AABJMQ ghoshal_r_Page_21.QC.jpg
37b1337de4254ad94f67116f1ecb1b60
d9cf35411d192813efac54e293c7e54bfb8096ca
23686 F20101123_AABJHU ghoshal_r_Page_33.QC.jpg
250c475e5d2580e1c377ed44d918aa07
ff6a087e8d5683058d37493aaca763dcc8a6483c
17785 F20101123_AABJRO ghoshal_r_Page_22.pro
353f040eab8954806c71f5ebde3853c6
778dbcd3add6468322d99a9733a13338477f53bc
100420 F20101123_AABJMR ghoshal_r_Page_29.jp2
17fa309ed7335525c507d89e72e0575a
c012f4b8018a5e72a5ff6ee9feccf7401d166970
3107 F20101123_AABJHV ghoshal_r_Page_22thm.jpg
3402a227ffe5bea055cd995051b93554
8fb3ddb8ed53b8f3d9aeade68e9b2e81cfbd03fb
49680 F20101123_AABJRP ghoshal_r_Page_23.pro
408d5fee218ffadfacf62fb780f4be37
eb7e13f5333075b6d541185a1fb7ee4cb5508245
1051870 F20101123_AABJMS ghoshal_r_Page_53.jp2
624de2fe05118a3c9746bd47cee953fe
faeddec810079d3ba3bde9f934cf75bcea2e2e35
21577 F20101123_AABJHW ghoshal_r_Page_32.QC.jpg
45a6a76e31dc214ab7cd41cc0a302f0c
30074c1ab7ce439b399e41715305b09100c12c2c
54123 F20101123_AABJRQ ghoshal_r_Page_24.pro
4fac62c94e9e97b74de0890de5c90447
329f7638164779cb6062ab512fb13b8bdf8677cb
73029 F20101123_AABJMT ghoshal_r_Page_47.jpg
e4904ce1dbcb874f2bab28178713951a
057fb6992ea7072a7bb91ae4b20b054d018d30fb
23814 F20101123_AABJHX ghoshal_r_Page_35.QC.jpg
10fce77ed20b45fa2a64afba73fa038f
f42cb7d158351913664140f0f0758b9d80766a77
52275 F20101123_AABJRR ghoshal_r_Page_25.pro
60539bb3a3892c1e4c27a0dc17325fd5
4aac2d5901fb81e6a4ceb4196391732713cf3047
23220 F20101123_AABJMU ghoshal_r_Page_20.QC.jpg
1fe5056ec6b70598054042ca0d603e03
fe8697c1a972b11e0672cd0aaeb03034b1f82383
74567 F20101123_AABJHY ghoshal_r_Page_43.jpg
e8dc302335eb8d89663470a97e57b4b4
bd02301d6ee8c3c766873a07a8a8ca69ab098c3a
50115 F20101123_AABJRS ghoshal_r_Page_27.pro
48c15def8b1c5e7d4f3d59a2c837cdd6
d57b0ae9df625ff81b81c9968a4557b32df6ecad
98 F20101123_AABJMV ghoshal_r_Page_02.txt
8013f1a8ed160d75e2d65e61d2b230a1
b76adcdd7017a696d0fce8537f58edd132ca51cf
52648 F20101123_AABJHZ ghoshal_r_Page_51.pro
a7ca0567fcf2983f426c0f4f3704bafb
e9b2a823331c2e44973993aea626ffc1dd34c5c3
19967 F20101123_AABJRT ghoshal_r_Page_28.pro
2122b7275cc9d307efd777b28e5deb67
899ca821bd99382885c1df48b02d97a3e4289f52
117233 F20101123_AABJMW ghoshal_r_Page_19.jp2
9da4c87c20fdb79a1f5e837076590540
38e84bbbf71fe79bcf10fc71fb335a6b1ea4ba78
77258 F20101123_AABJRU ghoshal_r_Page_30.pro
8161a9648b28766c0b90be823d395ddc
5e7bf17240f4c999f5dd613cc60b0eba9d983df3
2173 F20101123_AABJMX ghoshal_r_Page_10.txt
66080328ec6e6d83eba5e6a9d707efa5
f53ebf38e06401a3d3fdfe39f10188c70a49007b
34468 F20101123_AABJRV ghoshal_r_Page_31.pro
9f61d12114f1c5d04e28a7b14f0e357a
52f1c301a1fe2cbe738de41fabf7dc7e51a4688e
46199 F20101123_AABJKA ghoshal_r_Page_29.pro
132f7cec6635d23c9cb6d0715d3d6317
ee0cf1ff31bc6aa5124855709e04015b322e1726
117479 F20101123_AABJMY ghoshal_r_Page_15.jp2
6dc8229c7e6be1992efb1bbb2d0b8183
13a16651057a37082e9922cf6660d1e3f0c13b1d
47889 F20101123_AABJRW ghoshal_r_Page_32.pro
d1ba21c9ba33e75c9f7cc22303007c82
b1ccec8b76af52adffa0e2f1abf8b498afc4fed8
42755 F20101123_AABJKB ghoshal_r_Page_17.pro
9596c2a48b4ea48b2c7795cfe81786f9
68ab2819144ff04b1a96284a971b7885c933c89b
6675 F20101123_AABJMZ ghoshal_r_Page_16thm.jpg
9f00c49c30a5ee828e4c87eaf2fb4b1a
6ccd0df54568b976e6d4c78f9a918510e0120d55
80719 F20101123_AABJRX ghoshal_r_Page_33.pro
06be9e5f007a0b3d3719cd20bfa9247a
1fe5c2485e9a971a0ff852402c37333f54186192
1665 F20101123_AABJKC ghoshal_r_Page_07.txt
34581948a037a86b9d364960b0952017
b0d666592dc31485c2d69d96cd18a3a17f49f9eb
F20101123_AABJPA ghoshal_r_Page_24.jp2
2a878a9c2ba2dc457aa4dd443f64b558
1a73f148dc314e988069144d2268aeb5a673f23b
52817 F20101123_AABJRY ghoshal_r_Page_34.pro
52ccf5330d7fa96e6ef29033c2a5fb04
58f16db64e1a106307665be574c76250e037cfd4
24126 F20101123_AABJKD ghoshal_r_Page_37.QC.jpg
cd8cad869c21df574d8d3c3e9d4b248d
5c4496742c7904fbeb396b513f1debae232f87f9
113115 F20101123_AABJPB ghoshal_r_Page_26.jp2
0d19f4ea82d99a8d3cce1abd366cab65
0ee263ad7e3b574f88ba88586d29496300f12c45
52609 F20101123_AABJRZ ghoshal_r_Page_37.pro
80bf6bb3b151d3cdd353482f64abc6ef
e9aa5be1934016f7c7da2573d2f8e77893e92416
110950 F20101123_AABJKE ghoshal_r_Page_25.jp2
ad8561bbd76ca549f2790ed16246c6d8
91eb55c29d5834c8f18a1a7a9c6ad128eaa1096d
99053 F20101123_AABJPC ghoshal_r_Page_27.jp2
838889e8cc201f48a541f2fc85b55f6e
6ad166f2ff487504bca032ec7cfcc283fbad245d
75691 F20101123_AABJKF ghoshal_r_Page_19.jpg
b8ec9d54f6afb57ed97ab7621067d851
f454735eae9f99da142081a5096bafe97c2e67a1
37675 F20101123_AABJPD ghoshal_r_Page_28.jp2
a46ae4c27b7f2ce7d0056222c4056e5e
2b2d9b63cebfe30244f2575c7d01f02e9c8ae7da
2204 F20101123_AABJKG ghoshal_r_Page_27.txt
22b0d5270207c0efc2295ca82e18ed7e
faccc6009e5d7fc2c427adfd167f8d4fab428e00
2850 F20101123_AABJUA ghoshal_r_Page_06thm.jpg
4da6f956a140fc9a77bbd9df54484caf
be50ae3eb4c4b276728a75aa16f70db477780e17
141118 F20101123_AABJPE ghoshal_r_Page_30.jp2
92b6195a01a4ef63bd7cabeec59e1018
5c11699e44011f66683853624fbdc8859cd168b5
8886 F20101123_AABJUB ghoshal_r_Page_08.QC.jpg
a57da8d3ebe3470cc65bbe2db989e958
84bbcc16ec3a309f942609acdc0a4c4a1829713e
2475 F20101123_AABJKH ghoshal_r_Page_48.txt
4e2cf2505381761d938167b7939f0a5a
1ca02143ea9a9a6d231d46e57a9b16daeda7326a
2793 F20101123_AABJUC ghoshal_r_Page_08thm.jpg
4bca30cb9faa4f73ee07257b6dab00d9
eb851bd516028f9a6d5849a911df1c37afcf4b2f
77538 F20101123_AABJPF ghoshal_r_Page_31.jp2
b2f1a15bf659e8810007093b46cb7b1b
da90321b8de96702711202b06b510af4b60cc4e8
6286 F20101123_AABJKI ghoshal_r_Page_20thm.jpg
1231d5e3d0f3579c5a50800346f78f40
833f1de9dd44199c600665dc96c2ae0630a3e927
20899 F20101123_AABJUD ghoshal_r_Page_09.QC.jpg
0c694b383491697430705c980578ac6b
7c4eb4360bd509865440e78649a3957cfbee4da5
961861 F20101123_AABJPG ghoshal_r_Page_32.jp2
2468b1cc8065fabd10da5dbcf5d8152b
cf5cec0b60be04564cac4d99abacb2134d1a569d
6594 F20101123_AABJKJ ghoshal_r_Page_34thm.jpg
6a1400a727976650c2848b77cfcf47ad
dfe37f85c9c9dd09ce998111bcfde3d9da8810b5
5846 F20101123_AABJUE ghoshal_r_Page_09thm.jpg
1731b1c3746ba470032bf6f69a962214
ee0c3bbaa73a4c8b6b58cf74b4f5e4129683064b
113601 F20101123_AABJPH ghoshal_r_Page_37.jp2
dfda05cbbdd1f2e6a0cc49222a336fc8
5902e57e1e9cf1dff552de8cab4edf1f4d591f62
9550 F20101123_AABJKK ghoshal_r_Page_04.QC.jpg
0ce85999b8cc79e18b574f2e7dab9429
6126027132db16f5440304a4dc818961eba9b786
6807 F20101123_AABJUF ghoshal_r_Page_10thm.jpg
6097625248a4f0d7ff04da9f90d98808
20315a28c543fff3aa760903014ad7131f9b74ab
96646 F20101123_AABJPI ghoshal_r_Page_38.jp2
4268b2fef29d2ec8d858c61696fe6179
a1839d74b7536dda546160efe8cb318867f2e602
26468 F20101123_AABJKL ghoshal_r_Page_08.jpg
366a98361bb6b5f0c7ecd204b657c73a
578699b4441244877322db23d6247326b1d0a335
12016 F20101123_AABJUG ghoshal_r_Page_11.QC.jpg
9559d637252365ab7f2d1b764ea7f2e3
c4347875bc4e9aa263b03de888aad086b5f078b3
104394 F20101123_AABJPJ ghoshal_r_Page_39.jp2
4a8281636e145bec92fdce0c9f862a0e
c5bb2960beedfcc66568da76898eb0d5807eb9f3
76331 F20101123_AABJKM ghoshal_r_Page_20.pro
42a1add88ecec2207aa9ea443d11dd76
8aaf63a0ad4cff8c6d3340d03c2a0437954cc8df
5688 F20101123_AABJUH ghoshal_r_Page_12thm.jpg
3196ccd56c73989ad83ea496ea308e6c
a74182117abe1aa80783e5e6cb8ffd98cee555a1
94711 F20101123_AABJPK ghoshal_r_Page_41.jp2
faaaa7cb8ac2c846c635360d2a043525
96ca19f20dad4f4928cffe87e7e19eda51b22b4d
1887 F20101123_AABJKN ghoshal_r_Page_09.txt
a846152c95d088cea3809cdda6d21721
70e06d153d0aebea4da214a571c790314f794d02
25103 F20101123_AABJUI ghoshal_r_Page_14.QC.jpg
355d98cfab7c01af0dea6a00c226098f
e6deb0fd081a280d3d36200769f0d4bf3029cd7a
124871 F20101123_AABJPL ghoshal_r_Page_45.jp2
886fb926879a7879c36d4dffa443382f
4cc680ec8d28c86ccd199690a6f98683d4519dcc
62223 F20101123_AABJKO ghoshal_r_Page_41.jpg
953a71b1a6592bfcfd48e66b1a3835f8
ba5b63cef1931ee76147af443efa842a080dda57
24819 F20101123_AABJUJ ghoshal_r_Page_15.QC.jpg
3a9f4cf07038d84739ec5fa01ce50bbe
e2e9a34ec32bfa61dd90421979becbf3b8d1a9f2
51684 F20101123_AABJKP ghoshal_r_Page_35.pro
7dabc3b66b91226df12b55c10de152e7
6117966f611b97d79c63fc99b7278548769b7e20
24481 F20101123_AABJUK ghoshal_r_Page_16.QC.jpg
0c6f08e11375b939ba9fb9123affab0c
f12014de7afc0d62ece8b90bf5f5185f8fdaac65
111827 F20101123_AABJPM ghoshal_r_Page_47.jp2
2b9480d0706322e1536eb245fa4fa405
5ecc4a403e56675eed9f5e6c0402c9fc6f78ebf9
60826 F20101123_AABJKQ ghoshal_r_Page_14.pro
55a0e40d3a1dfb53095ab04402dd1df4
9893522f84fd0e47b65cc9c3be3a75f1e4b5388d
20392 F20101123_AABJUL ghoshal_r_Page_17.QC.jpg
80a160cd3924183ffd9fb829b5a30866
5a25c1114402f7c78869c2cef7df78130db972fd
125838 F20101123_AABJPN ghoshal_r_Page_48.jp2
964ac111077a25fe4819a62012b68e6c
fb9b8e919ca1be18f88af7a891903b7337de2911
7241 F20101123_AABJKR ghoshal_r_Page_24thm.jpg
02189e0be008d307711c116ff516ece1
1f54b12ce88dcb32b70e31ae7f6ee9f07bd7d93f
20543 F20101123_AABJUM ghoshal_r_Page_18.QC.jpg
1a8b28fa682d640e2d081f845c6b6fa2
c1dac1c3a1a7e11f8dde5912cde1b087a9174bc6
112223 F20101123_AABJPO ghoshal_r_Page_49.jp2
5c4a984309273462dd32924a31211215
769b11ee58f1348b9cae226abbcdac44d142cd6f
27414 F20101123_AABJKS ghoshal_r_Page_11.pro
c0384c4ac315fb0727157f766b9f8641
5404ddd675bcebcca32ad4e1b0b13818c94beb60
5900 F20101123_AABJUN ghoshal_r_Page_18thm.jpg
25fd2d4ad6e514cce045fb2d2f8aee1a
521b13fd73932d5bb9b5600448608f81ab377397
1051956 F20101123_AABJPP ghoshal_r_Page_51.jp2
f95104e0d859a49abb299c8a8bc7d1dc
1342d32763cd39f1904b6da390a10725fe349287
F20101123_AABJKT ghoshal_r_Page_16.tif
38b051b474d54c44668010a7551dd204
db922cc28636da183e2268213d6adf18c777b735
23793 F20101123_AABJUO ghoshal_r_Page_19.QC.jpg
2d78ae9929f1baa01aa70978782ebb13
d296710b9f21acab72ec2f5c75784ce734046483
1051973 F20101123_AABJPQ ghoshal_r_Page_52.jp2
48ff25fef273df9d972fa642f37b83d5
4d0deceb033ec20631b2267f7cc9d9d1cb9ec4d5
2431 F20101123_AABJKU ghoshal_r_Page_14.txt
f34db664dad5d3b81e389bd04d8e0431
4d3ada8386e8a2f374e8c76327e1cd1e31e45acb
5973 F20101123_AABJUP ghoshal_r_Page_21thm.jpg
08874c42524e7c4c3822d1c37b84dcca
ca15816e441558f77c6c7f0d21f8e0005d444daf
21041 F20101123_AABJPR ghoshal_r_Page_54.jp2
81dec7d1ea83241f04416520edba220b
632baa0b93e353771094b0b939d6e948ff976a4f
F20101123_AABJKV ghoshal_r_Page_31.tif
9d2055dacd1a5a7b7b144e8fdf58c2d1
ca2f6d557e71b9d21951c9b0413eac21dd2cd6f5
9803 F20101123_AABJUQ ghoshal_r_Page_22.QC.jpg
264909e7bcbd481374ecdd7d3d82d87b
45c14d093b274ba9f423786936f29633592a908d
29471 F20101123_AABJPS ghoshal_r_Page_55.jp2
97d3cf4fac1259e59bbb7944930ced40
d86f7283e9c400f3c6ea9aba3f184b3096295f55
F20101123_AABJKW ghoshal_r_Page_48.tif
5a4777f0ed05f8f46a73ea5136e939be
bb3a28fa63ec4b2e960760c25654b9fa91771b3f
F20101123_AABJPT ghoshal_r_Page_02.tif
698ae5431642073ecea7a54fa2106475
089019f435ed3fa07e6e261b5ec1d58555386ea3
2642 F20101123_AABJKX ghoshal_r_Page_28thm.jpg
f9695bf166252af4060e6f159f17d6d3
659b5c4b4ef7185437e38735eae79ec9b6c9c347
22777 F20101123_AABJUR ghoshal_r_Page_23.QC.jpg
16d8de78c3e978ab946b9e7fcf970edf
f275a45d014b16844df0ff75be1fbfb41834c3dc
F20101123_AABJPU ghoshal_r_Page_04.tif
a6f9cc4c4c4a02b290f062dfe0a9ff8e
3ee067c86c8f06fb44e8655d012c7595c0520596
F20101123_AABJKY ghoshal_r_Page_39.tif
f787fcb82de01e0043d47e064ed6fc22
e589720dc003c1bc03d639870fcda66c45db635c
6367 F20101123_AABJUS ghoshal_r_Page_23thm.jpg
0939d5a5a079ffccbf2860f11dd3a65d
3b1ed9527f023324444ab03568f139fad017ded1
F20101123_AABJPV ghoshal_r_Page_06.tif
65326e8c5e3483d1daba2c0515328b81
7cc901af3511f415ef89e5d4c62720d6be4ae5e8
26119 F20101123_AABJIA ghoshal_r_Page_52.QC.jpg
d3bd35775ab165dcfc3cf7eef58a91f4
61bc298de255ff66904b553f84b2b6ff0b1508a0
34790 F20101123_AABJKZ ghoshal_r_Page_08.jp2
31354141d9b31675adbf35b06932c51f
432f913301608aaefc150a39d39f8128b5ea722b
26212 F20101123_AABJUT ghoshal_r_Page_24.QC.jpg
f13a4dcf4053e34784461a1e6ea3696f
ba96aafa990a7138f40463e111c3ebc8f5b7f1e1
F20101123_AABJPW ghoshal_r_Page_07.tif
7964876bd12bb42f4b589e9be9c4bfc2
8ffc7fa24158378988b2b60cf296ff4ba92c4905
20464 F20101123_AABJIB ghoshal_r_Page_12.QC.jpg
dd6c9474453e40d98bb3a6f25fa64fd7
5199725c29ebf18df744f167cbc525286d4b8eeb
23371 F20101123_AABJUU ghoshal_r_Page_25.QC.jpg
ba617a146dbe3c42296f38ee5fa0275d
c92e7e039c09e3053913102f1c95dd823f07287f
F20101123_AABJPX ghoshal_r_Page_08.tif
c7c82b707356a86a44a65374e0be3e6b
90024ccd0b125bd56ca35f1db0dd6a3000cfeed5
9321 F20101123_AABJIC ghoshal_r_Page_06.QC.jpg
fc64850a1e9089f4f06065e4cb52d534
b9be0e8649767b5416acba5c2d3e957faab73cc1
6488 F20101123_AABJUV ghoshal_r_Page_25thm.jpg
f210fd0e38dbd4d903809c983119913a
c82369a134f6794923c5234f8bcad4930c4d73a7
F20101123_AABJNA ghoshal_r_Page_03.tif
2dd8b51becaa2500d4d3edecfaa004e4
83209893be63850699d037ee5456be5c801ef240
F20101123_AABJPY ghoshal_r_Page_09.tif
f12318bfcf68d87c792160ee93a676fe
27cd4b724a7313a5b48b2c5cb712a50c900b726a
137052 F20101123_AABJID ghoshal_r_Page_33.jp2
eb1246303ec37241463eb3c21397ecc2
8f8543bea3c7c238cacc91b12e25a168b05c25fc
6095 F20101123_AABJUW ghoshal_r_Page_27thm.jpg
435eb36d25fe6c9673816736d31e0b5c
7feea31fef0e59928ef9e413a63222110101817f
81897 F20101123_AABJNB ghoshal_r_Page_53.jpg
c47072c40d06273de0695724c9327ce7
8555b4055860370dc9989a582d79d3867b52e357
F20101123_AABJPZ ghoshal_r_Page_10.tif
40adb0fe08e361ba681ef5b8087b2264
f68f517856d5208b59d208ed82f17e298cd2705a
57407 F20101123_AABJIE ghoshal_r_Page_36.pro
4038c69c3732af4d80cec53b8c6d26c1
a910028aaeab9c471aae5027b91cb147bde9720a
8646 F20101123_AABJUX ghoshal_r_Page_28.QC.jpg
3aef085b7bc367e7cefb5acd34e874c3
cdcb00dbd32f0e158caa5bdad7ff0eb0cd074c22
2219 F20101123_AABJNC ghoshal_r_Page_49.txt
921a9926d81884992660a81029fc83a9
fa6e89068b765e0b1bb09ac917652699bddd5879
59494 F20101123_AABJSA ghoshal_r_Page_38.pro
bc943e1606e20c4ffd0b04409f5fda40
66e6d76549436e005124497e10136dfd34301673
21500 F20101123_AABJUY ghoshal_r_Page_29.QC.jpg
6144aa6ec1b13d54c8c1f8d7be25210e
5b592114c45a8ae9011b3cad3aa11e3b3247bc62
2027 F20101123_AABJND ghoshal_r_Page_35.txt
4420de8609a8f96a294e1443b8ccdd6b
5a20fe2ed3b1f194d0220a6c30d3be118d0b7472
68730 F20101123_AABJIF ghoshal_r_Page_36.jpg
5590fe00154468757d48a9c6a398d6a4
6b0e423fc16943f6aee747c998e51d95b562542a
6131 F20101123_AABJUZ ghoshal_r_Page_29thm.jpg
b6adbfa444801e88b84b22adc8db4710
f4804612fcc02aadacc4808a24dcc583949a9c28
6428 F20101123_AABJNE ghoshal_r_Page_35thm.jpg
59454bb377ed74db845b10e20db2a27f
30a098de5bca22c35f0b70def228773ad8279877
86233 F20101123_AABJIG ghoshal_r_Page_33.jpg
cd22b110af1a6e3759612d7651e09f25
9c78c5e95b4982907e29d27bb2148176f9f7df9a
48518 F20101123_AABJSB ghoshal_r_Page_39.pro
96c70aaa66f2f0d97666efc9110a5e87
0f20b2b8de91b5a65e579ff534ad01c369a02aef
70560 F20101123_AABJNF ghoshal_r_Page_27.jpg
b36832c95839486f611183c648c1b12a
114809a3273b063034d09e3cc5e1eac8cb0afc53
22477 F20101123_AABJIH ghoshal_r_Page_01.jp2
073d0081bc7f1c457d57c03b84fee18f
5a19d8ed425ab1bfef9e0818196586ac631688a1
31011 F20101123_AABJSC ghoshal_r_Page_40.pro
8c20b7bc5046f7cb871ecf6b929baa12
e1888d9f8881c84f8765b83fd2556c1919a654b7
85261 F20101123_AABJNG UFE0011642_00001.xml
567884182036152af5a70d3fd4acd36f
eab6ea32180131117582758df11c1f61895698f1
64101 F20101123_AABJII ghoshal_r_Page_38.jpg
54eac945499c8351e7a67c8f6bdbb137
4d3ca974ee91b2cd427f0ae39c81b6d83a706a8c
43455 F20101123_AABJSD ghoshal_r_Page_41.pro
746e6fc843a05da3fd87cd5138fdf9cc
a2cf4e22bb5001d4ca206832cd4815dc9244962f
58739 F20101123_AABJIJ ghoshal_r_Page_19.pro
2c2ae2578fd16796ca5ac896afa70014
857dcb9db5e7eecd8292e6d92cc32dd5e3907159
55085 F20101123_AABJSE ghoshal_r_Page_43.pro
dba8b20651c9588e026ad85bb24942fc
36a7815bd7d1c30cf9f9cccc23d38988d3d67e08
24550 F20101123_AABJIK ghoshal_r_Page_10.QC.jpg
c6367c0fca48e3c145461bbdb6e2381f
3324031ef32719d07bc26c2fefc6f13a93d7da7b
49346 F20101123_AABJSF ghoshal_r_Page_44.pro
125c098bb8ff77419a3b43ee7ba2785c
69d05be7cbd5ebbd41d0d8ca273435a16643fbb0
21204 F20101123_AABJNJ ghoshal_r_Page_01.jpg
2635e2fe1f76478cea7e01984ba8a878
1c6f3b129d867f0f1cc80208d70a65e3a51373b2
F20101123_AABJIL ghoshal_r_Page_18.tif
115e3a0eeb3b895961ab629b26c03a6d
658333c23a0c777a7f7edd4edee4b4e62c6ddac3
65092 F20101123_AABJSG ghoshal_r_Page_45.pro
458703bfda70e6f11185fdee158a72ab
2a5bbc02919f956a7787a1dfe5d6dd6289848e55
F20101123_AABJIM ghoshal_r_Page_01.tif
2bb541e8476f82505757feab255b9cb0
7abe27c6f540a41e9021031a79272edffa4c53a4
70793 F20101123_AABJSH ghoshal_r_Page_46.pro
b3cf78c09256507856c07ba36e99ffa5
fb6e8e5e2d2cc9f9c8e586a5246ad5ebca23e4e1
10062 F20101123_AABJNK ghoshal_r_Page_02.jpg
9b00dfdee655a9866a4a631ee17707d8
b9317c524ceb879ae4b78331de89492907210fca
F20101123_AABJIN ghoshal_r_Page_20.tif
db232d8d236a848c12d2ecec234e8e6e
2c82f2d0db8139eb1e1be0edb9db013acad2b941
52115 F20101123_AABJSI ghoshal_r_Page_47.pro
188506cd0425535a6443a1a42904ca9f
52e00e112f50cc6645a82198fe69d0b0a4e210ef
11898 F20101123_AABJNL ghoshal_r_Page_03.jpg
cca87311c412335f96bbad2e343eff6d
814449f5cb9218d1a185eb18345385a78acb2671
111430 F20101123_AABJIO ghoshal_r_Page_34.jp2
b35a01780f60acb0aff36807f8a004a0
475c3cdf136ecdc1eb1b409f1147f7aa90162d78
62325 F20101123_AABJSJ ghoshal_r_Page_48.pro
770b927ecfead3961ef4064322aca0f6
45b57dbe5d076e0a6c55b8bdf9be22dbbd263310
29231 F20101123_AABJNM ghoshal_r_Page_04.jpg
b32be24aafe7bd0f13123052ea2ded93
a290725022ec3d0126f89eb0ee71d6589432c29f
84121 F20101123_AABJIP ghoshal_r_Page_20.jpg
1ceab2e5abb3d78d63503b9a0a22e5ca
2b9aaeb4a63c41796cec4fd0d52324de21976b50
56436 F20101123_AABJSK ghoshal_r_Page_52.pro
d667c94149043240543db5c2c1380e54
ddd7423c272d99a77f2d14bff973b7b280d45050
39871 F20101123_AABJNN ghoshal_r_Page_05.jpg
23bcb25ca27ea8048455d4272b613c84
1bcde05f9812ac1fa76cc7f85d4b628819c7b09e
64194 F20101123_AABJIQ ghoshal_r_Page_12.jpg
3d6736bc19ff1b1afbf7fac6839a1472
dd2d993dd079c92f3a73122a03f67ad5bc95c9e7
50417 F20101123_AABJSL ghoshal_r_Page_53.pro
c66cc7998dd64fa37b5029445ffca70f
a2bbe3d3c990159551e7c48eae776774cdf2d1cb
28878 F20101123_AABJNO ghoshal_r_Page_06.jpg
b6e4764886c45374aafb38b0570414f5
bd6e939f2a274407e92c3be691345081cf63d01b
112416 F20101123_AABJIR ghoshal_r_Page_42.jp2
a9acd9a857f069c7f8360e322ad9397b
0412c9eb0a82e796117b534263de76a2ec5333ec
7894 F20101123_AABJSM ghoshal_r_Page_54.pro
2894bf71650b1a05bdd9f9a7304af616
9f6092449bca57f23bb858148a9575e9d34dc3cc
65467 F20101123_AABJNP ghoshal_r_Page_07.jpg
fa99fa03351831e6d804e680de04cd9a
728c6f8063394010af19527b44473e8b690e6fb4
59500 F20101123_AABJIS ghoshal_r_Page_11.jp2
b382af8320a9d15f7d110c9487410f6f
90af756ee743ef9b3f5fa8da18521b923a3e99a8
146 F20101123_AABJSN ghoshal_r_Page_03.txt
294794574ac58a912180cf687575608a
f2fcf854fdb86ed8ef8bbf44be237bef7427baf5



PAGE 1

FRAMING, PERSUASION, AND ATTIT UDES TOWARD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE By RAJ GHOSHAL A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Raj Ghoshal

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to the graduate students of the University of Florida.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my committee, Dr. Kendal Broad and Dr. Chuck Peek, for their support and guidance in this project. Dr. John Henretta provided much assistance as well. Numerous other sociology graduate students and faculty allowed me to conduct my experiment in their classes, including Clay Hipke, Alex Goldman, Dr. Leonard Beeghley, Dr. Monika Ardelt, Dana Berkowitz, Dan Dexheimer, John Foster, Ray Hinojosa, and Victor Romano. Robin Dungey helped ensure that I need not be homeless while conducting my research. Finally, thanks are due to Danielle Doughman. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................4 3 HYPOTHESES...........................................................................................................10 4 METHODS AND SAMPLE.......................................................................................15 5 ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................21 6 RESULTS...................................................................................................................24 7 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................33 APPENDIX: THE SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT...........................................................42 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................43 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................47 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Background Characteristics of the Sample..............................................................19 2 Means for Dependent Variables for Different Argument Groups............................24 3 Predictors of Attitudes toward Rights and Responsibilities of Marriage.................25 4 Predictors of Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriages............................................28 5 Compare the Argument You Received to Other Pro-SSM Arguments...................29 6 Predictors of Self-Reported Effects of the Study on Subject...................................32 vi

PAGE 7

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts FRAMING, PERSUASION, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE By Raj Ghoshal August 2005 Chair: Kendal Broad Cochair: Chuck Peek Major Department: Sociology This thesis considers what kinds of arguments can affect heterosexuals attitudes regarding same-sex marriage rights, examining one primarily narrative-based argument alongside several more abstract, cognitive-rational arguments. Students in 12 different sociology classes were given one of six different survey packets. The first section asked about background characteristics and opinions. The second section, which was the only section that varied among respondents, was one of six different arguments concerning same-sex marriages (or, for the control group, an argument about global warming). The arguments offered concerning same-sex marriages were all pro arguments based on publicly available material found on the Human Rights Campaigns website ( www.hrc.org ), but they differed greatly in the types of appeals they made. The final section of the survey asked about opinions on same-sex marriages, in a variety of ways. Regression models revealed that those subjects who received a story about a lesbian couple and how they and their children would benefit from same-sex marriage rights (the vii

PAGE 8

most narrative and personalized of all the appeals) became more supportive of same-sex marriage rights than other subjects. The results support the idea that narrative appeals are more likely to alter attitudes toward same-sex marriages than cognitive appeals, and provide some support for the idea that inducing people to think of same-sex marriage in terms of rights and benefits yields significantly more positive attitudes. The findings may also be evidence of the persuasiveness of appeals that include discussions of benefits to children. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND Over the course of the last 35 years, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights movement has sought to eliminate discrimination against, and advance the rights of, gay and lesbian Americans. During the 1990s, public discussion of whether LGBTs should have the right to marry people of the same sex emerged, with Hawaii and Vermont serving as political flashpoints due to the unusually liberal policies they adopted. 1996 saw the full nationalization of the issue in the Defense of Marriage Act. In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex partners should be allowed to marry, and several municipalities across the country followed suit. In the context of a particularly close Presidential election campaign, this thrust the issue of same-sex marriage very prominently into the American political scene. Numerous state-level referenda restricting or banning recognition of same-sex relationships appeared on 2004 election ballots across the country, and the sitting President pledged to push for a Constitutional Amendment against same-sex marriage. Over the course of the last year and a half, proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage have sought to make their cases and persuade people of their positions in various ways. 1 A great deal of research has suggested that how an issue is framed or positioned in an evaluative context can induce people to think in very different ways about it (Goffman 1974, Gamson 1992, Brewer 2002, Lakoff 2004). According to Snow 1 LGBTs are certainly not all in favor of making same-sex marriage rights a primary issue in the movements agenda. For a good discussion of internal debates on this topic, see Goldstein (2003). 1

PAGE 10

2 and Benford (1992), a frame is an interpretive schemata that simplifies and condenses the world out there by selectively punctuating and encoding objects, situations, events, experiences, and sequences of action within ones present or past environment (137). Thus, cultural conservatives have attempted to influence public opinion by framing same-sex marriage as an issue involving radical change in historical definitions of marriage, the legitimization of homosexuality, redefinition of family and traditional gender roles, and the recruitment of children into a homosexual lifestyle. Proponents of allowing such marriages have referenced equality, discrimination, changing definitions of marriage, and the costs of being denied marriage rights, among other things. A few cultural conservatives have even endorsed same-sex marriage on the grounds that it may promote monogamy and stable relationships among LGBTs. However, it seems clear that the dominant frames that opponents of same-sex marriage have relied upon involve traditional morality, while proponents primary frames generally involve discrimination and equality. But until now, there has been no systematic study of the persuasiveness of the different kinds of arguments deployed in this debate or of the success of different ways of framing the issue. This paper examines several different arguments that have been used by proponents of same-sex marriage rights, and asks whether some arguments are more (or less) successful than others at winning support for same-sex marriage. In a study of a successful referendum campaign to roll back LGBT civil rights protections in Maine, Weithoff (1998) argued for the importance of studying persuasion on LGBT rights issues: GLBTs need to appeal to a wider audience than their immediately identifiable constituents. While arguments to mobilize supporters are certainly important, the GLBT community also needs to create argument schema that are attractive to individuals not directly related to the gay civil rights movement (Pochna & Vegh,

PAGE 11

3 1998). Because the majority of citizens are not seriously committed to either a conservative or progressive perspective, their mental schemas on this issue are likely to be somewhat permeable. Consequently, these people can readily embrace new information and arguments when they are presented in a logically compelling way (Kelly, 1955). Effective counter-arguments and competing narratives could potentially change these voters perspectives (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996) and, consequently, their proclivity to vote for pro-GLBT rights initiatives (or oppose anti-GLBT rights initiatives) in future elections. (Weithoff 1998: 77-8) This paper considers whether a narrative approach is more successful than abstract, logical approaches, and further, whether different kinds of rational abstract frames have different levels of success. While the subject area of the study is specific (that is, same-sex marriage), its findings may be more broadly applicable to other issues involving framing, persuasion, and social-political opinions.

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This paper draws on two broad literatures: that concerning opinions about gays and lesbians and homosexuality, and that concerning framing, persuasion, and opinion formation. A great deal is known about American public opinion on gays and lesbians and homosexuality. The General Social Survey (GSS) has consistently asked a question that reads: What about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex--do you think it is always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at all? Further, it has regularly asked whether homosexuals 1 should be able to make a speech in town or teach in a college, and whether a book in favor of homosexuality should be removed from the public library. Loftus (2001) relies on 25 years of data from the GSS to analyze trends in opinion. In analyzing the trends shown in the GSS data from 1973 through 1998, Loftus relied upon answers to the three civil liberties questions as the dependent variable in one set of her regressions, and on answers to the first question discussed (acceptability of homosexuality) as the dependent variable in her other set of regressions. On the whole, Americans are much more supportive of the three civil liberties for LGBTs than they are willing to say homosexuality is not wrong. Loftus summarizes her findings concerning attitude trends as showing that 1 The term homosexual(s) is considered negative by some for its historical association with the view of same-sex attraction as a disorder. However, it is used at times in this paper when discussing opinion and attitude survey questions that use the term homosexuals, because expressed attitudes toward homosexuals may be different than those toward gays and lesbians (or other terms). 4

PAGE 13

5 Americans attitudes toward the morality of homosexuality became slightly more liberal from 1973 to 1976, became increasingly conservative through 1990, and have become more liberal since 1990. Over the same 25-year period, willingness to restrict the civil liberties of homosexuals declined slightly, the only departure being a brief increase in negative attitudes in the late 1980s. (Loftus 2001: 778) Yang (1997) finds a similar positive trend over time, though he points out that as of the mid-1990s Americans remained, shockingly, roughly evenly divided over outlawing homosexuality. 2 Attitudes toward the acceptability of homosexuality are correlated with a number of other factors. For example, Bowman and OKeefe (2004) present a breakdown of attitudes by various subgroups showing that (for example) in a Gallup 2003 survey, females, whites, young people, the highly educated, those who rarely or never attend church, East Coast and West Coast residents, Democrats and Independents, liberals, and the well-off were far more supportive of allowing homosexuality to be legal than males, blacks, older people, those with little education, frequent churchgoers, Midwesterners and Southerners, Republicans, conservatives, and those with low family incomes. Herek (1988; 2002a; 2002b) and Herek and Capitano (1999) have found that women are more tolerant than men, and that gay males are more despised than lesbians. Altemeyer (2001) examined attitudes among psychology students and their parents at one university and found that the trend of greater acceptance of homosexuality was most likely due in large 2 Yangs data on this Gallup survey question ends in 1994, but Bowman and OKeefe (2004) followed it through 2004. The question is worded as follows: Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal? Support for allowing homosexual relations between consenting adults to be legal, as measured by the Gallup poll, was higher in the years following Yangs analysis, peaking at 60 percent in early 2003. It fell in the aftermath of the Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down sodomy laws, and as of early 2004, more respondents [49%] were opposed to having same-sex relations be legal than were supportive [46%] (Bowman and OKeefe 2004). However, survey questions worded slightly differently have found less intolerance on this issue, suggesting that some respondents may misinterpret the question as asking whether same-sex relationships should have legal standing.

PAGE 14

6 part to increased contact with people whom the subjects knew to be gay. Other research using college students as subjects has suggested that variables such as female sex, liberal sex-role attitudes, lower religiosity as measured both by beliefs and attendance . and having positive contact with gay, lesbian, and/or bisexual persons (Hinrichs and Rosenberg 2004) and the personality variable openness to experience (Cullen, Wright, and Alessandri 2002) are important predictors of attitudes toward LGBTs. But how do these attitudes change with exposure to new stimuli? Social psychologists have devoted considerable attention to persuasion. As Fournier, Martin, and Nadeau (2002) note, various social psychologists have examined the roles played by subject characteristics, source characteristics, message characteristics, and social context in the outcome of attempts at persuasion (2). With regard to message characteristics in political and social persuasion, one of the most well-known academic findings is that narrative-format appeals and appeals that elicit emotion tend to be more successful that abstract rational appeals (see, for example, Hovland, Janis and Kelley 1953; Cobb and Kuklinksi 1997; Brader 2005), although abstract appeals do have some effect. According to Perloff (2003), Social psychologists argue that people are frequently more influenced by concrete, emotionally interesting information than by dry, statistical data that are dear to the hearts of scientists and policy planners (Nisbett et al., 1976, p.132). Vivid case histories personalized stories or narrative evidence exert particularly strong effect on attitudes (Taylor & Thompson, 1982). . According to this view, vivid case histories evoke stronger mental images than abstractly presented arguments, are easier to access from memory, and are therefore more likely to influence attitudes when the individual is trying to decide whether to accept message recommendations (Rook, 1987). Narratives are lets face it more interesting than statistical evidence (Green & Brock, 2000). As stories, they engage the imagination and are intuitively appealing to humans, as we are all essentially storytellers and avid story recipients (Kopfman et al., 1998, p. 281). (182-183)

PAGE 15

7 The distinction between narrative and abstract arguments is clearer than a related dichotomy in social psychological research on persuasion: emotional or affect-based arguments versus rational arguments. One critique of the emotional/rational dichotomy is that there has never been a widely accepted operational definition of what constitutes an emotional or rational argument; most of the definitions have been ad-hoc common-sense definitions (Hovland, Janis, and Kelley 1953, Edwards 1990). In practice, narrative-format arguments often are personalized and therefore are good at eliciting emotions, while abstract argument involve complex cognition and are perhaps more rational. But there has been relatively little consideration given to different types of arguments within the emotional-narrative and cognitive-rational spheres. That is, are some types of abstract rational argumentssay, those based on moral justifications rather than utilitarian justifications, or those that invoke the idea of equality, or those that use legal reasoningmore effective than others? Some scholarly attention has been devoted to the persuasive effects of arousing fear (Pratkanis and Aronson 1992, Perloff 2003) and arousing sympathy, but there has been little direct comparison of these two techniques. Kahnemann and Tverskys prospect theory (1979, 1984), suggesting that people tend to be risk-averse, may play a role in how people evaluate policy argumentsthat is, policies that are framed as changes from the status quo are more likely to be negatively evaluated. While Cobb and Kuklinski (1997) found that con arguments were more successful than pro arguments regarding passing NAFTA and passing a national health insurance policy, they also found that simple arguments on policy issues are not necessarily more successful than complex arguments. 3 3 Cobb and Kuklinksi note that their working definition of easy versus hard arguments is not entirely clear, but suggest that easy arguments tend to be short, likely to invoke emotion, relatively concrete, and do not

PAGE 16

8 Studies by Edwards (1990) and Edwards and von Hippel (1995) suggested that those attitudes that are primarily rooted in affect are most likely to be changed by emotional appeals, whereas those attitudes that are more cognitively rooted can be changed either by cognitive by affect-based appeals. Stangor et al. (1991) found that attitudes toward stigmatized minority groups, including gays and lesbians, were better predicted by emotional responses to the groups than by cognitive evaluations of the groups. These two findings together suggest that appeals to emotions may be more successful in changing negative attitudes about gays and lesbians. However, Brounk (1996), in a particularly relevant study to this paper, investigated whether affect-based (narrative and personalized) or cognition-based (abstract) appeals were more likely to alter subjects attitudes toward homosexuals. Contrary to his hypothesis, he found that both cognition-based and affect-based appeals increased student subjects favorability toward LGBTs to the same degree. Regardless of whether an issue is cast in a narrative or in an abstract logical format, a burgeoning literature on framing suggests that attitudes on political and social issues can be influenced greatly by what people see an issue as being really about. According to Nelson and Kinder (1996), frames are constructions of the issue: they spell out the essence of the problem and suggest how it should be thought about (1057). Perhaps the best-known example of the power of framing is Nelson, Clawson and Oxleys (1997) experimental study of news coverage of controversy over whether a municipality should allow a KKK rally: those subjects who watched a news story depicting the conflict as being about civil liberties were markedly more tolerant of it than those subjects who require much cognitive effort to comprehend, while hard arguments tend to be longer, more abstract, do not immediately invoke emotion, and demand more complex cognition.

PAGE 17

9 watched a story discussing the issues of public order that might arise during the rally. It is easy to see how this might be relevant to attitudes on same-sex marriage policy. Whether one believes that the controversy is really about the integrity of the Constitution, or legal rights, or cultural acceptance, or church-state separation issues, could certainly affect how one feels toward it. As of yet, there is no study that investigates framing and persuasion in the building of favorability toward particular policies that address the interests of a disliked minority group. That is, some previous work has investigated whether affect-based arguments are particularly effective at changing attitudes toward a group (with mixed and contradictory findings), but not whether narrative arguments are especially good at building support for policies that might benefit that group. Other work (e.g. Cobb and Kuklinksi 1997) has tested hard versus easy appeals and their effects on policy preferences but not with regard to appeals and policies that deal with the interests of a stigmatized minority group. In particular, the fact that many straight Americans appear to have very negative beliefs about homosexuality at the same time that they endorse civil liberties and antidiscrimination protection for LGBTs suggests that same-sex marriage may be an especially interesting issue to investigate. Is same-sex marriage seen as a civil liberties issue, or a lifestyle endorsement issue? Does this vary depending on how the issue is framed? And how do these factors affect the ways that people form opinions about it?

PAGE 18

CHAPTER 3 HYPOTHESES This paper tests three primary hypotheses and four secondary hypotheses through an experiment. The first hypothesis tests a basic assumption outlined in social psychology, communications, and political psychology research (e.g. Cobb and Kuklinksi 1997, Gilbert 1991, McGuire and Papageorgis 1962, Perloff 2003): that many people tend to be persuaded, at least to some degree and at least temporarily, by arguments they read or hear about an issue if those arguments are not contradicted by counter-arguments. Even those subjects who seem likely to oppose a particular argument (for example, subjects who oppose same-sex marriage) may be moved by it somewhat if they have not been immunized against persuasion in advance by learning about their opponents argument and potential rebuttals to it (McGuire and Papageorgis 1962; Anderson and McGuire 1965; Billeaudeaux et al 2005). Therefore, the first hypothesis is: H1: Those subjects who read any argument in favor of same-sex marriage will be more supportive of same-sex marriage than those subjects in the control group, who read an argument on an unrelated topic. The second hypothesis draws on a rich tradition of research suggesting that appeals that take at least a partly narrative form, that are personalized rather than abstract, and that are structured to easily elicit emotion are more effective than abstract arguments that rely more on cognitive-rational processes (Brader 2005, Perloff 2003): H2: Those subjects who read an argument in favor of same-sex marriage rights based around a story about a same-sex couple and their children will be more supportive 10

PAGE 19

11 of allowing same-sex marriages than those subjects in the control group and those subjects who read primarily cognitive-rational arguments in favor of allowing same-sex marriages. The third hypothesis derives from national survey data indicating that Americans are more favorable toward extending the specific protections involved in marriage to LGBTs than they are toward same-sex marriage, perhaps because they are concerned that same-sex marriages are a cultural endorsement of homosexuality. If this is true, it seems likely that framing same-sex marriage as an issue involving specific rights and benefits will be particularly successful in building support for it. Thus, H3 is: H3: Those subjects who read an argument listing some of the specific rights and benefits that go with marriage will be more favorable toward allowing same-sex marriages than those subjects in the control group and those subjects who read other arguments in favor of allowing same-sex marriages. 5 The first two hypotheses will be tested with reference to four different dependent variables, while the third will be tested with reference to three of the four dependent variables. These dependent variables are described in the next section. The four secondary hypotheses concern interaction effects. Specifically, they concern the possibility that some types of arguments might produce very different changes in attitudes depending on who reads the argument. For example, the argument that same-sex marriage would undermine traditional gender roles would probably play 5 Some subjects received an argument that civil marriage should not be governed by religious definitions of marriage because of separation of church and state and because civil marriage is distinct from religious marriage. However, these subjects are not grouped in with those who received the list of rights in this hypothesis because these subjects argument contained no discussion of the rights and benefits of marriage, increasing the chance that these subjects thought of same-sex marriage as at least a government endorsement of homosexuality rather than as a policy to extend particular rights to same-sex couples.

PAGE 20

12 quite differently with a traditionalist than a radical. Therefore, the first interactive hypothesis is: H4: African-Americans will respond differently than other subjects to the argument about marriage having changed historically over time using an analogy comparing gay rights to black civil rights and same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. The direction of this difference is not specified. This is because it seems equally plausible that the civil rights analogy will either (a) be particularly persuasive to blacks because it hits close to home (i.e., if the comparison succeeds) or (b) be particularly unpersuasive to blacks if they feel that the problems faced by gays are not as serious as those faced by blacks. 6 The second interactive hypothesis concerns gender. Gilligan (1993) argues that womens moral reasoning processes are different than those of men. That is, women, at least in modern Western cultures, think more relationally and are more attuned to 6 According to Lewis (2003), the widely held belief that blacks are more anti-gay than whites is borne out by the analysis of 31 different surveys over a 30-year span, but with a twist: Despite their greater disapproval of homosexuality, blacks opinions on sodomy laws, gay civil liberties, and employment discrimination are quite similar to whites opinions, and African Americans are more likely to support laws prohibiting antigay discrimination (Lewis 2003: 59). This finding appears to provide powerful support for the idea that attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality are conceptually distinct from attitudes toward civil rights and civil liberties for homosexuals. While blacks greater support for antidiscrimination laws for gays is likely rooted in their historical experience of oppression, it is interesting to note that at least some prominent black leaders have spoken out strongly against gay rights movements comparison of the gay rights struggle to the black civil rights struggle and against the comparison of the same-sex marriage issue to interracial marriage. For example, Jesse Jackson has criticized this comparison, and the prominent Atlanta black minister Eddie Long has gained an enormous following in large part by criticizing the idea of same-sex marriage. Some commentators have suggested that President Bushs focus on same-sex marriage leading up to the 2004 election was in part motivated by his hope that the issue could pull socially conservative blacks away from blacks traditional strong loyalty to the Democratic Party (Bolce, De Maio, & Muzzio 1993; McKissack 2004). While Bushs bid to attract blacks was at best marginally successful (he drew 11% of black voters in 2004 versus 9% in 2000) (McKissack 2004), it remains unclear how racial attitudes will interact with further efforts to advance the rights of LGBT Americans.

PAGE 21

13 personalized appeals, whereas men are more attuned to and persuaded by rational or abstract arguments. This hypothesis is H5: The story will have a disproportionately positive effect on women as compared to men. The third interactive hypothesis concerns the interaction of religious intensity with the argument that religious definitions of marriage should not govern what is considered marriage for civil purposes: H6: Those subjects who are more strongly religious will react differently to the argument that, due to the separation of church and state, religious definitions should not govern civil marriage, than those subjects who are less religious. As in the first interaction, the direction of this interaction is not specified. At first this may seem surprising: surely we would expect that the highly religious would find the argument for church and state separation less appealing than less religious people! However, it is also possible that the highly religious subjects will display a greater attitude change in favor of same-sex marriage rights than less religious subjects if (a) they are opposed to same-sex marriages at the outset and (b) they are persuaded by the idea (contained in the argument) that same-sex marriage advocates are merely trying to alter the civil definition of marriage, not the religious definition. The final hypothesis tested is: H7: Those subjects with a gay or lesbian close friend or relative will respond differently to the story than those subjects who do not have a gay close friend or relative. Again, this hypothesis does not specify a direction, and again this may seem surprising. It seems intuitive that those subjects with gay close friends or relatives would

PAGE 22

14 respond more favorably to the story, since the story personalizes the issue and these subjects could easily mentally substitute in their relative or friend for a character in the story. However, it might also be the case that an argument that personalizes the issue does no good for those people to whom it has already been personalized. In other words, those subjects with a gay close friend or relative might already have performed the mental operations that the story is intended to generate, and the story might therefore have no additional effect on them or at least could have less of an effect on them than on subjects without a gay close friend or relative.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER 4 METHODS AND SAMPLE To test the effects of various arguments about same-sex marriages on respondents, I designed a three-part survey instrument. The first part of the survey included about 25 questions including items concerning basic demographic variables (age, race, parents income, etc.), general measures of attitudes toward homosexuality and homosexuals, questions about the respondents sexual orientation and sexual experience, and measures of other variables that might be expected to have significance in predicting attitude about same-sex marriage (political ideology, type of area in which the respondent grew up, etc.). The second part of the survey instrument was a one-page long argument in favor of same-sex marriages. However, there were different versions of this second part. I drew a variety of arguments from the website of the nations most prominent pro-LGBT rights group, The Human Rights Campaign ( www.hrc.org ), modified them slightly (primarily so that each argument was roughly 2/3 of a single-spaced page to one page in length), and randomly inserted one of them into each survey packet so that each respondent received only one of the arguments as a stimulus. I pulled five different arguments off of the HRC website to create my argument groups. I added in a control group that received an argument about global warming rather than same-sex marriage. 7 7 Four of the five arguments in favor of same-sex marriages were pulled from the Human Rights Campaigns booklet Answers to Questions about Marriage Equality found at http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=63&ContentID=17353 The fifth argument, the story, was pulled from HRCs materials at http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/hrc_adcenter/jo_teresa.html This argument is reproduced in the 15

PAGE 24

16 Of the five arguments in favor of same sex marriage rights that were selected, each argued from a different angle. One, STORY, was a story about a lesbian couple and their kids, and the risks posed to the kids by the fact that their parents could not marry. This appeal was mostly personalized and narrative (though it also contained a component stating that the story was an example of why same-sex marriage rights would be desirable), whereas the other arguments were more purely rational and abstract, and less personalized. NOTRELIG was an argument stating that civil marriage and religious marriage are distinct and that (due to the separation of church and state) religious definitions of marriage should not control what constitutes civil marriage. This argument also stated that allowing same-sex marriages would in no way require any church or religion to perform these kinds of marriages. Another argument, RIGHTS, was a list of rights that same-sex partners are denied as long as they cannot marry, followed by the argument that same-sex marriages should be allowed. The fourth argument, CONST, was an argument stating that the US Constitution has never been amended to discriminate against a particular group, and that it would be inappropriate to use it to discriminate. The final argument, MARCHANG, was about how marriage as it now is has not been around forever, in every society. This argument discussed the facts that marriage for love is a recent innovation and that interracial marriage was forbidden in many parts of the US until relatively recently. The control group, CONTROL, received an argument rebutting the climate skeptics and stating that global warming is real. In every case (except for the control group), the arguments did not merely present information, but also explicitly argued in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. appendix. The global warming argument for the control group was pulled from Greenpeaces website: http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/industry/reports/sceptics.html

PAGE 25

17 The final part of the survey consisted on measures of opinion toward same-sex marriage and civil unions, as well as a few questions asking about the effects of the experiment and some questions asking respondents about the effectiveness of different arguments. There were several open-ended questions in this section, but the majority of questions were Likert scale-style questions with assigned values ranging from 1 through 3 or 1 through 5. (The items used in this paper as dependent variables are described further below.) The three parts were combined into a single packet that was given to respondents. Surveys were obtained from a total of 523 respondents from 12 different Sociology classes (none of them taught by this author), including 2 classes at a nearby Community College and 2 upper-division classes. Of the 523 surveys obtained, results from thirteen students could not be used because the students who had filled them out were under age 18. Two students filled out the beginning questions about age and major, but nothing else, rendering their surveys useless for the study. Respondents from the 2 upper-division courses were excluded. This is because including these classes would have meant including students who had higher levels of exposure to Sociology, and might react in different ways to the survey than introductory-level students. Respondents who indicated their sexual orientation was either gay/homosexual or bisexual were also excluded. Only 7 students, or about 1% of the remaining part of the sample, chose one of these options, and these 7 students were clearly (in this sample) more supportive of same-sex marriage rights than the heterosexual students. 8 The remaining sample consisted of 438 subjects. 8 The 1% figure is surprisingly low, perhaps due in part to the fact that this question appeared on the first page of the survey, making LGBT students reluctant to answer honestly for fear of having their answer

PAGE 26

18 In 6 cases this author came to the participating class and administered the survey; on 2 occasions a colleague other than the class instructor was hired to do so; and 4 times the instructor of the class administered the study. The response rate was low for the initial two classes, most likely due to the fact that the survey was presented to students as a voluntary exercise at the end of class. However, when the timing of survey was moved to the beginning of classes rather than the end, response rates skyrocketed to about 90% of the students who were present. The sample used was a convenience sample, not a random probability sample, and the views of the subjects cannot be generalized to the population as a whole. The most obvious problems with doing so include the following: First, the fact that young people have relatively liberal attitudes on LGBT rights issues has been extensively documented by numerous sources (e.g. Loftus 2001; Bowman and OKeefe 2004), and young people may also differ from a full-age-range sample in other ways. Second, all respondents are currently enrolled in an educational institution, and the majority of respondents are enrolled in an educational institution that is considered by many to be the states best public university. The sample likely has higher educational aspirations, a higher level of academic attainment, and a higher socioeconomic class background that the population as a whole. Third, the sample consisted entirely of students who had chosen to take a class in Sociology. The clearest effect of this on sample composition is that there were roughly twice as many women as men sampled, as Sociology classes at this university tend to be composed mostly of women. Women are generally more positive toward LGBTs than men. All of the characteristics identified in this paragraph might reasonably be predicted seen by other students. According to Black et al (2000), about 2.5% of Americans self-identify as gay or lesbian.

PAGE 27

19 to result in finding more liberal attitudes toward same-sex marriage and homosexuality in the sample than in the U.S. population. Table 1. Background characteristics of the Sample (Maximum N = 438) Mean or Percent St. dev. % Female 67.9% N/A % Nonwhite 34.5% N/A Mean age 19.1 years 1.8 Mean religious strength 5.5 (1 to 10 scale) 2.6 Mean social liberalism 6.1 (1 to 10 scale) 2.3 Mean for homosexuality wrong 9 3.0 (1 to 5 scale) 1.8 % with gay close friend or relative 56.9% N/A % Democrat 57.5% N/A % Republican 40.0% N/A However, the fact that the sample is unrepresentative of the U.S. population should not cause us too much concern, for several reasons. First, and most importantly, while it is not a valid source of data about opinions of the population, it is useful as a source of data about persuasion and opinion change. (This use is subject to some caveats, discussed in the conclusions section.) Second, though this paper does not do so, it is possible to assign weights to the sample to correct for some of the ways in which it is not representative. This could not correct for the age or education skews of the sample, but could easily be used to correct other problems that may be present in terms of representativeness. Third, the sample is an excellent source of data about the opinions of well-educated young people in a politically centrist state. This is important because it 9 Mean for homosexuality is wrong refers to the mean of 2 questions asking Which of the following best summarizes your attitude toward a man having sex with another man/woman having sex with another woman? Answer choices, based on the GSS options for a similar question, ranged from It is always wrong (1) to It is not wrong at all (5).

PAGE 28

20 provides a guide to the opinions of those people who will likely occupy high-status and high-influence roles in society, and thus have greater influence than would be expected merely from their numbers alone, several decades from now. 10 10 The usefulness of the sample is perhaps enhanced by the fact that the distribution of political party identification in the sample nearly exactly mirrors the distribution of 2004 Presidential votes in the county in which the university is located. The sample, like the county, was about 60% Democrat and 40% Republican; this similarity may indicate that the classes sampled are less liberally biased and unrepresentative of students at the university than some might assume.

PAGE 29

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS To analyze the data, four dependent variables were created based on the questions asked in part 3 of the survey packet. The first dependent variable combined scores from 4 closely related questions. The 4 questions asked subjects to support, oppose, or indicate that they were neutral on the following proposals: extending Social Security benefits to same-sex partners, extending health insurance benefits to same-sex partners, extending inheritance rights to same-sex couples, and extending child support responsibilities to same sex partners. A scale, ranging in value from 4 to 12, was created based on these questions, with 12 indicating support for all 4 policies. (Cronbachs alpha for the scale was a quite high value of .90, indicating that the 4 variables are indeed related in subjects responses patterns. The value would have been improved by removing the child support question, but only very slightly, to .92.) This scale served as a measure of subjects support for the rights and responsibilities that go with marriage regardless of how they might react to the words marriage or civil unions. The second dependent variable created was a scale based on 5 questions. These questions were: 1. Would you support or oppose a federal Constitutional Amendment that would define marriages as something that can only take place between a man and a woman, and would make same-sex marriages illegal? 2. Which of the following comes closest to your position on same-sex marriages/civil unions? [Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry; same sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry; same-sex couples should get no legal recognition.] 3. Do you strongly favor, 21

PAGE 30

22 favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally? 4. Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples? 5. If your home state drafted a law defining marriages as a union that can only occur between a man and a woman, and made same-sex marriages illegal, would you support or oppose this law? 11 All of these questions offered answer choices that could be scored from either 1 to 3 or from 1 to 5. The scoring was adjusted so that the questions with 3 answer choices were instead arrayed from 1 to 5. A scale was then created, ranging from 5 to 25, with 25 indicating the greatest support for same-sex marriages. This variable served as a measure of support for same-sex marriages when described as such, as distinct from the specific policy items that might be included under such terms. That is, while the first dependent variable measures support for granting same-sex couples the tangible rights of marriage, this one measures support for the idea of same-sex marriages. (Question 4, which was intentionally worded identically to a question appearing in some national surveys, was probably originally intended to be a question measuring support for civil unions. However, it was included in this scale because it uses the phrase married couples and likely was interpreted accordingly. 11 Two other questions intended to measure attitudes on this topic were included in the survey, but not in this scale. The first asked, Do you think defining marriage as a union only between a man and a woman is an important enough issue to be worth changing the Constitution for, or isn't it that kind of issue? This question was asked because it has been included in national surveys, but the pattern of responses suggested that a huge number of respondents misunderstood the question perhaps because it is a leading question. Another question asked, Do you think that allowing two people of the same sex to legally marry will change our society for the better, will it have no effect, or will it change our society for the worse? Subjects were substantially more negative on this question than on the other indicators of attitudes about same-sex marriage rights, with the mean slightly on the negative side (2.09 on a 1 through 3 scale, with 3 meaning worse). More than 20% of subjects selected dont know or did not answer this question, and inclusion of this variable in the scale would have meant eliminating those 20% from the analysis. Separate logistic regressions for the effects on society variable alone revealed that the story did not have any discernable effects on beliefs about the effect of same sex marriages on society. This finding will be discussed in more detail below.

PAGE 31

23 Regressions tested, but not shown here, for a scale that omitted this question showed results very similar to the 5-item scale.) Cronbachs alpha was again very high, .96. The two remaining dependent variables directly asked for subjects evaluations of the experiment and its effects. The third dependent variable, COMPARE, asked subjects to compare the quality of the argument they read in the study to other arguments they had read or heard in favor of same-sex marriages, regardless of their own position on the topic. This was scored on a 1-to-5 scale (with an extra answer choice reading the argument that I read was not about same-sex marriages to screen out the control group). The final dependent variable, EFFECTS, asked subject to rate on a 1-to-5 scale the effect that participating in the study had on them. Answer choices ranged from It made me much more supportive of same sex marriages to It made me much less supportive of same-sex marriages. Some subjects did not answer every question. For continuous independent variables, the mean was substituted in for any missing values, and a dummy was created to flag those cases where substitution had occurred. For the dependent variables, means were not substituted in. Instead, cases with missing values were ignored in the analysis.

PAGE 32

CHAPTER 6 RESULTS The means for each different variable, broken up by argument group, are presented in Table 2 (below). This table shows that the variance in means between argument groups is very slight when control variables are not accounted for. Table 2: Means for Dependent Variables for Different Argument Groups (Maximum Total N = 399) Attitude on Rights Attitude on Marriage Argument quality Effects on you Effects on Society* CONTROL 10.17 17.42 3.33 3.04 1.89 MARCHANG 10.13 17.10 3.29 3.10 2.02 NOTRELIG 10.21 17.39 3.63 3.09 1.81 CONST 10.39 18.68 3.70 3.14 2.02 RIGHTS 9.83 16.95 3.61 3.10 1.81 STORY 10.60 17.54 3.81 3.23 1.93 Overall Mean 10.23 17.52 3.60 3.12 1.91 Scale Range 4 to 12 5 to 25 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 3 I reversed the original direction of this variables scoring for consistency with the other scales. For every dependent variable presented here, higher scores indicate greater support, greater positive effects, or higher quality ratings. Table 3, below, presents several different models for the first dependent variable, the subjects attitude toward granting same-sex partners some of the legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. The first regression, Model 1, predicts the subjects attitude based on some theoretically salient independent variables. The second regression predicts attitudes based on the argument groups alone. Model 3 combines the first two models predictors, and Model 4 goes a step further by adding in race as a predictor. The final model, Model 5, tests the 4 interaction terms as well as all the other predictors from prior models. 24

PAGE 33

25 Table 3: Predictors of Attitudes toward Rights and Responsibilities of Marriage (n = 399) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Intercept 8.66*** 10.17*** 8.52*** 8.44*** 8.36*** FEMALE .68/.12*** .66/.12*** .64/.12*** .62/.11*** SOCLIB .24/.20*** .24/.21*** .25/.21*** .25/.22*** ANYGAY -.11/-.02 -.14/-.02 -.11/-.02 -.18/-.04 HOWRELIG -.08/-.08* -.07/-.08* -.07/-.07 -.05/-.05 GAYWRONG .52/.33*** .53/.34*** .53/.34*** .54/.34*** CHOICE -.41/-.19*** -.43/-.20*** -.42/-.20*** -.42/-.20*** INCOME -.04/-.01 -.07/-.02 -.08/-.03 -.07/-.02 MARCHANG -.04/.00 .08/.01 .15/.02 -.01/.00 CONST .03/.00 .21/.03 .26/.04 .25/.03 NRELIG .21/.03 .08/.01 .06/.01 .24/.03 RIGHTS -.34/-.05 -.04/.00 .02/.00 .02/.00 STORY .43/.06 .84/.13** .86/.13*** .54/.08 Hispanic .27/.03 .28/.03 AfricanAmerican -.37/-.05 -.55/-.07 Asian .68/.07* .72/.07 Native American -1.68/-.11*** -1.66/-.11*** Other -2.04/-.06 -1.99/-.06 STORY x F .17/.02 RELIGxNRELIG -.04/-.03 RACExMCHANG 1.54/.07* ANYGAYxSTORY .35/.04 R-squared/Adjusted .42/.40 .01/.00 .43/.42 .46/.43 .46/.43 Values reported are unstandardized/standardized coefficients. p < or =.10, **p < or =.05, ***p < or =.01. Note 1: This dependent variable ranges in value from 3 to 12. The variable is a scale based on respondents indication that they support, are indifferent to, or are opposed to the extension of each of the following to same-sex couples: Social Security benefits, inheritance rights, health insurance benefits, and child support responsibilities. The mean score was about 10.2, indicating a very high level of support for these 4 things. Note 2: FEMALE = Respondents sex; SOCLIB = Social liberalism on 1 to 10 scale; ANYGAY = does subject have any gay relatives or close friends; HOWRELIG = how religious from 1 to 10; GAYWRONG = level of disagreement with the statement that 2 people of the same sex having sex is wrong (scale from 1 through 5); CHOICE = belief that homosexuality is chosen or biological (1 to 5 scale); INCOME = parents income category (1 to 5 scale) ; MARCHANG = Arg. that marriage has changed historically incorporating a civil rights analogy; CONST = Arg. that Constitution has never been Amended to discriminate; NRELIG = Arg. that religious definitions should not govern civil marriage; RIGHTS = list of rights same sex couples would get only with marriage; STORY = story about a same sex couple and their kids and why they might want marriage rights; STORY x F = interaction of sex with the story; RELIG x NRELIG = interaction of religious strength with the argument that religious shouldnt govern civil marriages; RACExMCHANG = interaction of race with civil rights analogy argument; ANYGAYxSTORY = interaction of the story with knowing a gay person well. All dummy variables (female, the arguments, the race terms, and the interaction terms) are coded such that the listed designation (e.g. female) is assigned the value 1.

PAGE 34

26 Model 1 reveals that a handful of predictors can explain a moderate amount of the variance in scores. The R-squared is .42. It is notable that in this model and all others, the dummy variable designating whether the subject has a gay relative or close friend is an insignificant predictor of his or her attitude on the topic (p = .60). Significant predictors include female sex (p<.01), social liberalism (p <.01), religious strength (p = .07), belief that homosexuality is wrong (p < .01), and belief that homosexuality is chosen (p < .01). The strong predictors of attitudes on this topic are not surprising; however, there is a fair amount of unexplained variance in the model. An R-squared of about .4 would not be considered problematic for most social science models; however, it seems a bit unusual here given that we might expect attitude toward the acceptability of homosexuality, belief in the extent to which being gay is a choice, religious strength, gender, the subjects close contact with a gay person, and SES to nearly-perfectly predict attitude toward extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. This finding will be discussed further below. Model 2 reveals that the received arguments alone cannot explain expressed attitudes on this topic. The R-squared for this model is virtually indistinguishable from zero. However, adding in the original controls in Model 3, we see that the argument that took the form of a story is a significant predictor of expressed attitudes (p=.01). The standardized coefficient for this variable is .12, indicating that whether or not the subject received the story has an effect on expressed attitude of about the same size as gender. All the other arguments appear as insignificant, indicating that they are indistinguishable from the control group in their effects. Model 4, which adds in dummy variables for race, reveals that Native Americans are significantly more negative in their attitudes on

PAGE 35

27 this dependent variable than other racial groups (p<.01) while Asian Americans status is a borderline significant predictor of greater favorability (p = .10). (The small number of Native American in the sample, however, means this finding should be treated with skepticism.) The story retains its significance (p =.01). Finally, Model 5 tests for interaction effects. The only significant interaction was that of African American status with the argument that used an interracial marriage analogy (marginally significant with p =.09). The second dependent variable was a scale measuring general favorability toward extending marriage to same-sex couples. Table 4, below, presents 5 models testing the predictors of this outcome. The models here are very similar to those for the first dependent variable. Notably, there is a much lower level of unexplained variance than for the first dependent variable, and the R-squareds for the four models that include control variables are very high. In the first model, the significant predictors are identical to those for the first dependent variables Model 1. Sex (p < .01), social liberalism (p <.01), religious strength (p =.02), belief that homosexuality is wrong ( p<.01), and belief that homosexuality is chosen (p < .01) are all significant predictors. Once again, close personal acquaintance with a gay person and parents income level are insignificant in their effects. Model 2, testing the arguments alone, shows no significant effects, but in Models 3 and 4, the argument that featured a story yields borderline significant effects (p=.07, p=.06), though these effects are smaller than those of most of the control variables. No other arguments yield significant effects. Model 4, testing the effects of race, yields somewhat different results than Model 4 for the first dependent variable. In this model, Asians are slightly more positive toward same-sex marriages than whites. No

PAGE 36

28 significant effects appear for African Americas, Native Americans, Hispanics, or subjects of other races. None of the interaction terms tested are significant. Table 4: Predictors of Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriages (n = 375) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Intercept 10.68*** 17.43*** 10.51*** 10.34*** 9.90*** FEMALE 1.25/.09*** 1.14/.08*** 1.10/.08*** 1.00/.07** SOCLIB .69/.24*** .68/.23*** .68/.23*** .70/.24*** ANYGAY .48/.04 .47/.03 .51/.04 .78/.04 HOWRELIG -.21/-.08** -.20/-.08** -.20/-.08** -.15/-.06 GAYWRONG 1.96/.49*** 1.99/.50*** 1.95/.49*** 1.95/.49*** CHOICE -.95/-.18*** -.95/-.18*** -.95/-.18*** -.92/-.18*** INCOME -.18/-.02 -.23/-.03 -.19/-.03 -.21/-.03 MARCHANG -.33/-.02 -.11/-.01 -.01/.00 -.13/-.01 CONST -..03/.00 -.08/.00 .01/.00 .03/.00 NRELIG 1.25/.07 .88/.05 .97/.05 2.33/.13 RIGHTS -.48/-.02 .21/.01 .39/.02 .39/.02 STORY .12/.01 1.17/.07* 1.21/.07** 1.97/.12* Hispanic 1.09/.05 1.04/.05* AfricanAmerican -.90/-.05 -1.16/-.06** Asian 1.46/.06* 1.30/.05 Native American -1.04/-.03 -1.15/-.03 Other -3.44/-.03 -3.34/-.02 STORY x F .38/.02 RELIGxNRELIG -.24/-.09 RACExMCHANG 1.43/.03 ANYGAYxSTORY -1.62/-.08 R-squared/Adjusted .68/.67 .01/-.01 .69/.68 .70/.68 .70/.68 Values reported are unstandardized/standardized coefficients. p < or =.10, ** p < or =.05, ***p < or =.01. The third dependent variable asked subjects to compare the quality of the argument that they read to other arguments in favor of same-sex marriages that they might have heard or read outside of the study. Table 5, below, presents the results for these models. 1 1 The dummy variables for the argument groups are tested against the reference group consisting of those subjects who received the global warming argument and selected a rating for their argument even though they were instructed not to do so. The mean rating for students who received the warming argument and rated their argument anyway was 3.33, indicating a slight positivity bias. The question this variable was based on was asked of only about 60% of respondents.

PAGE 37

29 None of the models are strong predictors of subject-rated argument quality, and the R-squared for all models are strikingly low. In Model 1, gender is the only marginally significant control predictor (p = .10) of how good an argument was perceived to be. Model 2s test of the arguments by themselves reveals the story as borderline significant (p=.06) and relatively large in its effect: on a 1 through 5 scale with little variance and clustering around the mean, receiving the story was associated with nearly a .5 point increase in argument quality rating. In Model 3 the story appears as the only borderline significant predictor of quality ratings (p=.06), though in Model 4 its significance drops (p=.10) and Asian-American status appears as a marginally significant predictor (p=.09) of less favorable argument quality evaluation. Model 5 reveals no significant interactions. Overall, the models reveal that none of the variables tested were very strong predictors of argument quality rating. However, whether or not the subject received the story had a more significant effect on argument quality rating than any background variables that might be expected to bias subjects ratings. The final dependent variable was the self-reported effect of participating in the experiment. While most subjects reported that the experiment did not affect them, about 15% of subjects who answered this question indicated that it did affect their attitudes on the topic. A very small number of subjects (8 out of 394, or just over 2% of those who answered this question) appeared to backlash against the study, in that they stated that they became more negative toward same-sex marriage rights. Many more subjects reported that they became slightly (41 of 394, or 10.5%) or considerably (9 of 394, or 2.4%) more favorable toward same-sex marriages. While a plurality of those subjects reporting positive effects were subjects who received the story, there were some subjects

PAGE 38

30 in every group, including the control group, who reported greater favorability due to participation. 7.4% of the control group subjects reported becoming more favorable toward same-sex marriages; between 10% and 14% of each of the four rational argument subject pools reported the same, and 20.2% of the subjects who received the story became more favorable toward same-sex marriages. Table 5: Compare the Argument You Received to Other Pro-SSM Arguments (n=247) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Intercept 3.15*** 3.33*** 2.98*** 3.15*** 3.15*** FEMALE .20/.11* .15/.08 .14/.08 .20/.11 SOCLIB .03/.08 .03/.08 .05/.12 .04/.12 ANYGAY -.06/-.04 -.06/-.04 -.06/-.03 -.12/-.08 HOWRELIG .00/-.01 .00/-.01 -.01/-.03 -.01/-.04 GAYWRONG .02/.04 .02/.04 .00/.01 .01/.02 CHOICE .02/.02 .01/.01 .01/.02 .01/.01 INCOME .03/.03 .01/.01 -.01/-.02 -.01/-.01 MARCHANG -.04/-.02 -.01/-.01 -.09/-.04 -.15/-.07 CONST .30/.14 .31/.15 .24/.11 .22/.10 NRELIG .36/.17 .34/.16 .27/.12 .11/.05 RIGHTS .28/.13 .28/.13 .19/.09 .19/.09 STORY .48/.24* .50/.25* .44/.22* .49/.24 Hispanic -.24/-.08 -.23/-.08 AfricanAmerican -.12/-.05 -.19/-.08 Asian -.36/-.11* -.33/-.10 Native American .00/.00 .02/.00 Other .58/.06 .62/.07 STORY x F -.22/-.10 RELIGxNRELIG .03/.08 RACExMCHANG .64/.10 ANYGAYxSTORY .20/.08 R-squared/Adjusted .02/-.01 .04/.03 .07/.02 .08/.02 .10/.01 Values reported are unstandardized/standardized coefficients. p < or =.10, ** p < or =.05, ***p < or =.01. Models for the self-reported effects of the study appear in Table 6 (below). Model 1 resembles the first model for each of the previously discussed dependent variables, with female sex and religious intensity appearing as the significant control variables (p = .02

PAGE 39

31 for each), but with a weak R-squared value of .06. However, in Model 2, the story has a significant effect (p=.02), even in the absence of any control variables, while other arguments are indistinguishable from the control group. Model 3 tells much the same story, with the story again appearing as significant (p=.02), and belief that homosexuality is wrong showing up as marginally significant (p=.09). The standardized coefficient for the story, .14, is larger than that of any other variable, indicating that the single most important factor in subjects evaluation of the experiments effects on them was whether or not they received the story. It is noteworthy that the effects of this variable are stronger than any of the control variables that might tend to bias subjects evaluations of the studys effects on them. For example, whether or not a subject received the story was almost twice as influential as gender in predicting self-reported effects of the study. Model 4, adding in race variables, reveals that belief in the immorality of homosexuality becomes clearly significant (p=.03) and the story becomes more significant (p=.01), while subjects designating themselves as Native American and other have significantly less positive evaluations of the experiments effects than others (p=.02 and p<.01, respectively). Finally, Model 5 shows that the interaction terms for African American times the MARCHANG argument and for having an LGBT close friend or relative times the story are at least borderline significant (p=.03 and p=.07). At least in terms of self-reported effects, being African American increased receptivity to the argument that used a racism/civil rights analogy (relative to other arguments), while having a close LGBT contact increased receptivity to the story (relative to other arguments).

PAGE 40

32 Table 6: Predictors of Self-Reported Effects of the Study on Subject (N=394) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Intercept 2.90*** 3.04*** 2.83*** 2.77*** 2.77*** FEMALE .12/.12** .11/.11** .11/.11** .13/.12** SOCLIB .01/.07 .01/.07 .09/.04 .01/.04 ANYGAY -.02/-.02 -.02/-.02 -.02/-.02 -.07/-.07 HOWRELIG -.03/-.14** -.03/-.14** -.02/-.13** -.02/-.13** GAYWRONG .03/.10 .03/.12* .04/.15** .05/.16** CHOICE .02/.06 .02/.06 .03/.07 .03/.07 INCOME .01/.02 .01/.01 .01/.02 .02/.03 MARCHANG .05/.04 .07/.05 .09/.07 .05/.04 CONST .05/.04 .04/.03 .07/.06 .07/.05 NRELIG .06/.07 .09/.07 .10/.08 .00/.00 RIGHTS .10/.05 .08/.06 .09/.07 .09/.07 STORY .19/.15** .18/.15** .20/.16*** .11/.08 Hispanic .06/.04 .07/.04 AfricanAmerican .08/.06 .05/.03 Asian .12/.06 .14/.07 Native American -.33/-.11** -.31/-.11** Other -1.03/-.15*** -1.00/-.14*** STORY x F -.06/-.04 RELIGxNRELIG .02/.08 RACExMCHANG .46/.11** ANYGAYxSTORY .23/.15* R-squared/Adjusted .06/.05 .01/.00 .08/.05 .12/.09 .14/.10 Values reported are unstandardized/standardized coefficients. p < or =.10, ** p < or =.05, ***p < or =.01.

PAGE 41

CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The sample displayed a very high level of support for same sex marriage rights. For the first dependent variable, the mean score on a scale ranging from 3 to 12 was 10.2, indicating that subjects were very supportive of extending 3 rights and one responsibility of marriage to same-sex partners. For the second dependent variable, which ranged from 5 to 25, the mean score was 17.5, indicating a fairly high level of support for same sex marriage and civil union rights though not nearly as high as the level of support indicated for the first dependent variable. This finding clarifies why there is a good deal of unexplained variance for the first dependent variable but not the second. Even those students who were relatively conservative often supported the 3 rights and one responsibility that comprised the first dependent variable, whereas they were much less likely to support marriage. This result suggests that subjects drew a distinction between (a) the specific rights and responsibilities that go along with marriage and (b) marriage. Although there are numerous rights that go along with marriage but not with state-level civil unions (such as the right to visit a partner in the hospital outside ones home state), subjects did not appear attuned to this fact. Therefore, many subjects were willing to extend the rights that go with marriage to same sex couples, but not willing to endorse same-sex marriage. This finding is consistent with Loftus (2001) and Yangs (1997) findings of multidimensional attitudes, and suggests that some subjects may oppose same-sex 33

PAGE 42

34 marriage because the phrase connotes to them some endorsement of homosexuality, yet support the legal aspects of marriage because they oppose discrimination. It is interesting that the sample clearly supported same-sex marriage rights and leaned toward support for same-sex marriages at the same time that it showed a slightly negative attitude toward the effects same-sex marriages would have on society (in the effects on society question). The subjects who were opposed to same-sex marriages were extremely likely to say such marriages would have a negative effect on society, while the supporters of same-sex marriages were divided between believing such marriages would improve society and would have no effect on it. For example, of the 77 subjects who indicated the least support for same-sex marriages on the 5-question scale (those whose score on the 25-point scale was between 5 and 10), 67 subjects indicated allowing same-sex marriages would make society worse, 9 chose dont know or did not answer, and 1 indicated no effect. Of the 80 most supportive subjects (all of whom scored 25 out of 25), 51 chose make society better, 23 chose no effect, and 6 chose dont know or did not answer. It appears that even many supporters of same-sex marriages see their benefits as accruing primarily or even exclusively to the parties directly involved rather than to society at large. Many of the predictors that have been shown to be significant in predicting attitudes toward the moral acceptability of homosexuality were shown to be significant in predicting attitudes toward same-sex marriage rights. Gender, social liberalism, religious strength, belief that homosexuality is wrong, and belief that homosexuality is chosen were significant in their effects. Other variables were shown to be insignificant. None of the interactions tested were consistently significant across the dependent variables; this

PAGE 43

35 may be due to the lack of interaction or to confounding interactive effects that, when aggregated, canceled themselves out. The interaction of African-American status with the argument using an analogy to interracial marriage was borderline significant (p=.09) in predicting disproportionately strong support for the rights of marriage and significant (p=.03) in predicting disproportionately positive self-reported effects of the study. A close relationship with an LGBT person was borderline significant (p=.07) in predicting disproportionately positive self-reported effects of the study for those subjects who received the story. The other interactions (of gender with the story and of religious strength with the argument about religion) were not significant in any models. Thus, there are mixed results for H4 and H7, while H5 and H6 are rejected. Further, models tested but not shown in this paper revealed that including a dummy variable for community college status did not add to the predictive power of the models. 1 There was also no apparent independent effect of parents income level on attitudes. Finally, and surprisingly, having a gay close friend or relative did not have any effect on subjects attitudes. This finding is contradictory to much previous research on the effects of contact with a gay or lesbian person on attitudes toward LGBTs. It may be that even those subjects with a close LGBT friend have not thought about the actual benefits of marriage rights to that friend. The story tested was not just a story; the fact that it had clear policy implications may have catalyzed thinking about the benefits of marriage rights in a way that simply having a LGBT friend does not. 1 Despite the fact that community college students were dramatically more conservative in their attitudes than university students, this appears to be accounted for by the social liberalism variable. That is, community college students are less favorable toward same-sex marriages because they are less socially liberal in general than university students.

PAGE 44

36 The most interesting finding of the study is that the argument consisting of a story had significant effects on some dependent variables, while other, more purely rational arguments, did not. Thus, H1 (that each of the arguments would have an effect) is rejected, H2 (that the story would be the most effective) is largely confirmed, and H3 (that the list of rights would have the greatest effect) is rejected. This supports prior research suggesting that emotional appeals are more likely to succeed, even when they concern policy issues, than rational appeals. Of course, the distinction between these two types of appeals is not as clean as it might appear at first, and no argument is purely rational or emotional. However, this finding adds to our understanding of persuasion by suggesting that affective appeals can do more than just humanize disliked groups; affective appeals outperform more cognitive kinds of appeals in building support for policies that benefit stigmatized groups. It is particularly interesting that in this sample, having an LGBT close friend or relative was not significantly associated with attitudes toward same-sex marriage, but a personalized story about a lesbian couple was. This may be because unless the relative or close friend was particularly interested in getting married, the topic of same-sex marriage may never have come up in conversation, and because marriage is not an immediately salient topic to many college students. Further, it is interesting that the story was clearly effective in building support for extending same-sex couples the rights of marriage, but only borderline significant in building support for same-sex marriage. This may be due to the fact that the story dealt with reasons that the rights of marriage were important, but did not address the significance of the term marriage.

PAGE 45

37 What can we make of the fact that subjects were markedly more supportive of extending several of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples than of same-sex marriage at the same time that the subjects who read the argument describing the rights that go along with marriage did not display higher levels of support for same-sex marriage than other subjects? This finding, which initially appears counterintuitive and troubling, is in fact quite revealing. The word marriage itself apparently carries a cultural meaning that is quite difficult to challenge using rational-abstract appeals. 2 It is noteworthy that the argument listing the rights of marriage and the argument that civil marriage is different than religious marriage both failed to elicit greater favorability toward same-sex marriages. 3 Accepting same-sex marriage may be difficult for some heterosexuals otherwise supportive of LGBT rights because even when they read about the pragmatic aspects of it (or about the fact that civil marriage is distinct from religious marriage), they still see legal same-sex marriage as an endorsement of homosexuality. Thus, framing same-sex marriage as a rights issue is not enough if one uses the culturally laden term marriage. Rather, it appears necessary to rely on a partly narrative appeal to overcome the traditionalism surrounding the word marriage. It is likely that this study underestimates the gap in persuasiveness between primarily abstract and primarily narrative arguments. The sample consists primarily of 2 For this reason, columnist Leonard Pitts (2005) has recently argued that supporters of same-sex marriage should simply use the phrase civil unions. This ignores the fact that civil unions are state-level policies while marriage confers both state and federal level benefits; however, it is in theory possible to redefine civil unions such that they encompass federal-level legislation. While supporters of such a strategy likely find it pragmatic, it is susceptible to charges that it accepts second-class cultural status for LGBTs. 3 It may be that those who received the rights argument worried that same-sex marriages still conveyed cultural or religious endorsement of homosexuality, while those who received the NOTRELIG argument did not realize that same-sex marriages have specific pragmatic benefits. Perhaps combining these two appeals would be more effective.

PAGE 46

38 people who have unusually strong educational credentials. These subjects likely have, on the whole, a far greater familiarity with reading complicated materials that lack direct emotional punch than the population at large, and should therefore be more susceptible to abstract-rational kinds of persuasion. The fact that the appeal with the greatest emotional punch was more successful than other appeals even in this sample suggests that it might be dramatically more effective in the population at large. Sears (1986) classic article discussing the pitfalls of experimental research using college students as subjects warns that college students generally possess unusual cognitive skills, and maintains that Customary procedures in laboratory studies should produce a strongly cognitive set. . A college student in a testlike situation [such as in experimental research] knows not to respond with simple evaluative preferences; rather, what is called for is paying close attention, dispassionate judgment, a search for the right answer, critical thinking, and close attention. . Social psychologys use of relatively well-educated subjects, selected for their superior cognitive skills, along with research sites, procedures, and tasks that promote dispassionate, academic information-processing, should help produce empirical evidence that portrays humans as dominated by cognitive processes, rather than by strong evaluative predispositions. (Sears 1986: 524) This pattern did not appear in this study. The failure of primarily abstract appeals, and the success of a primarily narrative appeal, in a subject pool that is heavily cognitively-oriented, indicates that narrative appeals may be even more effective in the general public. It also suggests that the story might more clearly affect support for marriage (and not just for the rights of marriage) in the population as a whole than in this subject pool. 4 4 It might be argued that some control group participants claim of becoming more favorable toward same-sex marriages and some control group participants rating the argument they received are two pieces of evidence supporting Sears warning that college student subjects behave how they think they are supposed to behave. However, the evidence that this happened in this study is scant. It seems much more likely that reading questions about same-sex marriage caused students to think about it even if they did not read an argument about it. Further, even if the critique is true, the comparison of different argument groups to the control group reduces the significance of this critique to virtually nil.

PAGE 47

39 On a related note, it may well be important that the story contained three children as characters, and discussed the way that the lesbian couples children were harmed by the fact that the couple was not allowed to marry. Several open-ended questions asked subjects for the best argument they had heard in favor of and the best argument they had heard against same-sex marriages. Many subjects, whether or not they had received the story as their argument, brought up kids in their answers, suggesting that children occupy an especially important place in discussions of same-sex marriages. Best (1990) has suggested that children are particularly sympathetic characters in narratives of any kind, and that atrocity tales involving children are an excellent means of generating concern and action. The story may have been successful at raising concern about what would happen to the children in a world without same-sex marriage rights, in a way similar to the way that atrocity tales generate concern. The implication that part of the success of the story was due to the fact that it successfully invoked concern for children is noteworthy for several reasons. First, Craig et al. (2005), in a study of heterosexual Floridians ambivalence on LGBT rights issues, found that attitudes clustered together around two different sets of considerations: one set of considerations considers LGBT adult roles, and the other concerns interactions with children. In Craig et als study, Floridians were substantially more supportive of allowing LGBTs to serve in the military, have privacy in their own homes, have protections against employment discrimination, and have family health insurance rights than they were of allowing LGBTs to teach school, marry, adopt children, and join groups like the Boy Scouts. Further, in the open-ended section, many subjects referenced the supposed effects of same-sex marriages on children usually as a reason same-sex

PAGE 48

40 marriages should not occur. These two findings together indicate that the proverbial cultural deck is likely stacked against using children as part of an argument in favor of same-sex marriage rights. Even though the story therefore called to mind a frame (effects on children) that might have been expected to negatively impact attitudes toward same-sex marriages, it appears that the direction of the storys argument (that same-sex marriage rights would benefit children) was more important than the fact that its frame has generally been used to argue against same-sex marriage rights. While this is consistent with Brewer (2002)s finding in an experimental study of LGBT rights frames that the same frame (in his study, an equality frame or a morality frame) can be used to support policies that go in opposite directions, it is inconsistent with his finding that his subjects exposure to the frames encouraged participants to use value language not only in ways suggested by the frames but also in ways that challenged the frames (303). Brewer writes that Although exposure to a value frame may encourage some citizens to use value language in a way that is connected with the frames interpretation of the relationship between the issue and the value, it may encourage other citizens to use value language in a way that challenges this interpretation. Gamsons (1992) focus group research suggests that citizens can draw upon popular wisdom, counter-frames that criticize dominant media frames, and their own reasoning skills when they encounter frames contained within media coverage. If this is so, then citizens who encounter value frames may borrow the value words in those frames to make their own points about an issue. (305) It is striking that exposure to the children frame generally did not lead respondents to oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that it would be bad for children. 5 5 This finding is especially noteworthy given that conservative subjects could have taken the logically coherent position that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry and should not be allowed to adopt, thus overcoming the argument that allowing same-sex couples to adopt but not marry is bad for their children. It may be that hearing effects on children invoked to support same-sex marriage was new and

PAGE 49

41 These findings suggest three promising routes for future work on this topic. First, do abstract arguments on this topic that discuss children have a greater level of success than other kinds of abstract arguments? It may be the case that children are so privileged in this discourse that their presence in arguments is enough to overcome the disadvantages that cognitive-rational arguments generally face. Secondly, what types of narrative appeals are the most persuasive? Would the story have succeeded if it did not have children, who are probably highly sympathetic characters, in it? What if the story had been about a gay male couple, rather than two women? Following this line of investigation might be useful not merely for understanding persuasion on same-sex marriage, but also for developing a more finely honed understanding of how exactly narrative appeals appear to be more persuasive and successful than more abstract appeals. Finally, in an experiment similar to Brewers (2002), how would subjects respond to proand antisame-sex marriage frames that deployed children as projected beneficiaries or victims of same-sex marriages? Such an investigation would likely offer useful insights into whether and how using frames in unexpected, novel ways can overcome the tendency of some frames to be associated with particular directions. novel and subjects were persuaded by this position in part because they had never thought about counter-arguments against it, as a great deal of evidence suggests that when it comes to resisting persuasion, forewarned is forearmed (e.g. McGuire and Papageorgis 1962; Anderson and McGuire 1965, Billeaudeaux et al 2005). The finding that the children frame did not provoke a backlash should not be interpreted to mean that no subjects who received this argument wrote about negative effects of same-sex marriages on children in the open-ended section. Rather, it means simply that the frame induced greater favorability toward same-sex marriages; this favorability apparently outweighed any tendency of the frame to evoke fear of GLBT parents corrupting their children.

PAGE 50

APPENDIX THE SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT Please read the following text of a story in support of allowing same-sex marriages (from www.hrc.org ). When you are done reading, continue on to Part 3. A story of two same-sex partners Jo and Teresa live in Maryland. Theyve been in a loving, committed relationship for 19 years and have three children Jake, 12; Matthew, 9; and Bena, 2. Between skinned knees, soccer practices and never enough time in the day, they face all the same joys and frustrations as other parents but without the same protections. Because the government wont give them legal protections, Jo and Teresas children don't qualify for full Social Security survivors benefits if one of them dies, even after a lifetime of paying taxes. And if one of the kids gets sick, in some states they could even be denied the right to visit them in the hospital because they arent family. And Jo and Teresa aren't eligible for COBRA health coverage for each other, or for family medical leave to care for a sick loved one. If Teresa, who is not legally considered the childrens parent, should pass away, whatever she leaves to the children will be taxed more than it would be if she were married to Jo. And if Teresa and Jo split up, Teresa will have no legal obligation to pay child support to the childrenregardless of how much money she makes. Why talk about this now? Because extreme politicians want to amend the U.S. Constitution to deny any legal protections for gay partners and their families. Meanwhile, gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships arent eligible for government-issued civil marriage licenses and the legal protections they provide. Although no government should ever tell religious institutions who they can marry, the government should not discriminate in providing civil marriage licenses to any devoted couple. Jo and Teresa deserve the same protections other families have and the ability to raise their children without discrimination. 42

PAGE 51

LIST OF REFERENCES Anderson, L. R. and McGuire, W. J. 1965. Prior Reassurance of Group Consensus as a Factor in Producing Resistance to Persuasion. Sociometry 28: 44-56. Altmeyer, B. 2001. Changes in Attitudes toward Homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality 42 (2): 63-75. Billeaudeaux, A., Domke, D., Hutcheson, J., and Garland, P. 2005. The Bush Administration, Inoculation Strategies, and the Selling of a War. http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/SubmittedDocuments/archivedpapers/Fall2003/pdf_files/InnoculationPaper.pdf last accessed May 2005. Bolce, L., De Maio, G., and Muzzio, D. The 1992 Republican Tent: No Blacks Walked In. Political Science Quarterly 108 (2): 255-270. Bowman, K., and OKeefe, B. 2004. Attitudes about Homosexuality and Gay Marriage. American Enterprise Institute: Studies in Public Opinion. www.aei.org last accessed April 2005. Brader, T. 2005. Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions. American Political Science Review 49: 388-405. Brewer, P. 2002. Framing, Value Words, and Citizens Explanations of their Issue Opinions. Political Communication 19: 303-316. Brounk, T. 1996. Changing Negative Attitudes toward Gay and Lesbian People: the Impact of Cognition versus Affect. Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State UniversityColumbus. Cobb, M., and Kuklinksi, J. 1997. Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion. American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 88-121. Craig, S., Martinez, M., Kane, J., and Gainous, J. 2005. "Core Values, Value Conflict, and Citizens' Ambivalence about Gay Rights." Political Research Quarterly 55: 517. Cullen, J., Wright, L., and Alessandri, M. 2002. The Personality Openness Variable as It Relates to Homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality 42 (4): 119-134). Edwards, K. 1990. The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Attitude Formation and Change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 202-216 43

PAGE 52

44 Edwards, K., and W. von Hippel. 1995. Hearts and Minds: The Priority of Affective versus Cognitive Factors in Person Perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 996-1011. Fournier, P., Martin, P., and Nadeau, R. 2002. Who Can be Talked Out of Their Positions and How? Persuasion and High-Stakes Political Choices. Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Associations 2002 meetings. Available online at http://www.fas.umontreal.ca/POL/Martinp/FMN_CPSA02.pdf last accessed April 2005. Gamson, W. 1992. Talking Politics. Boston: Cambridge University Press. Gilbert, D. 1991. How Mental Systems Believe. American Psychologist 46: 106-119. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Gilligan, C. 1993. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge: Harvard University. Goldstein, R. 2003. The Radical Case for Gay Marriage: Why Progressives Must Join This Fight. Village Voice, September 3-9, 2003. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0336,goldstein,46732,1.html last accessed February 2005. Greenpeace. 2005. Countering the Skeptics. http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/industry/reports/sceptics.html last accessed May 2005. Herek, G. 1988. Heterosexuals Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men: Correlates and Gender Differences. Journal of Sex Research 25 (4): 451-477. Herek, G. 2000. The Psychology of Sexual Prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9: 19-22. Herek, G. 2002a. Gender Gaps in Public Opinion about Lesbians and Gay Men. Public Opinion Quarterly 66 (1): 40-66. Herek, G. 2002b. Heterosexuals Attitudes toward Bisexual men and Women in the United States. Journal of Sex Research 39 (4): 264-274. Herek, G., and Capitano, J. 1999. Sex Differences in How Heterosexuals think about Lesbians and Gay Men: Evidence from Survey Context Effects. Journal of Sex Research 36 (4): 348-360. Hovland, C., Janis, I., and Kelley, H. 1953. Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

PAGE 53

45 Kahnemann, D., and Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrics 47: 263-291. Kahnemann, D., and Tversky, A. 1984. Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist 39: 341-350. Lakoff, G. 2004. Dont Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the DebateThe Essential Guide for Progressives New York: Chelsea Green. Lewis, G. 2003. Black-White Differences in Attitudes toward Homosexuality and Gay Rights. Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (1): 59-78. Loftus, J. 2001. Americas Liberalization in Attitudes toward Homosexuality, 1973 to 1998. American Sociological Review 66 (5): 762-782. McGuire, W. J. and Papageorgis, D. 1962. Effectiveness of Forewarning in Developing Resistance to Persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 24-34. McKissack, F. 2004. Bush, Blacks and Values. Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. December 5. Nelson, T., Clawson, R., and Oxley, Z. 1997. Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance. American Political Science Review 91: 567-583. Nelson, T., and Kinder, D. 1996. "Issue Framing and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion." Journal of Politics 58: 1055-1078. Perloff, R. 2003. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communications and Attitudes in the 21 st Century. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Pitts, L. 2005. Stop Calling It Gay Marriage. Detroit Free-Press, June 10. www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts10e_20050610.htm last accessed June 2005. Pratkanis, A., and Aronson, E. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion. New York: Henry Holt. Snow, D., and Benford, R. 1992. Master Frames and Cycles of Protest. Pages 133-155 in A.D. Morris and C.M. Mueller, Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. Stangor, C ., Sullivan, A., & Ford, T. 1991. Affective and Cognitive Determinants of Prejudice. Social Cognition 9: 359-380.

PAGE 54

46 Weithoff, C. 2002. Naming, Blaming, and Claiming in Public Disputes: The 1998 Maine Referendum on Civil Rights Protection for Gay Men and Lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality 44: 61-82. Yang, A. 1997. Trends: Attitudes toward Homosexuality. The Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (3): 477-507.

PAGE 55

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Raj Ghoshal is the most important rising academic of the 21 st Century. He completed a B.A. in political science in May 2001 at the New College, where his senior thesis examined threat construction and mass media depictions of Osama bin Laden. His M.A. thesis in sociology from the University of Florida (2005) examines persuasion in relation to attitudes about same-sex marriages. In his free time he enjoys chicken soda. 47


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011642/00001

Material Information

Title: Framing, Persuasion, and Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011642:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011642/00001

Material Information

Title: Framing, Persuasion, and Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011642:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












FRAMING, PERSUASION, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE


By

RAJ GHOSHAL


















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005





























Copyright 2005

by

Raj Ghoshal

































This document is dedicated to the graduate students of the University of Florida.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my committee, Dr. Kendal Broad and Dr. Chuck Peek, for their support and

guidance in this project. Dr. John Henretta provided much assistance as well. Numerous

other sociology graduate students and faculty allowed me to conduct my experiment in

their classes, including Clay Hipke, Alex Goldman, Dr. Leonard Beeghley, Dr. Monika

Ardelt, Dana Berkowitz, Dan Dexheimer, John Foster, Ray Hinojosa, and Victor

Romano. Robin Dungey helped ensure that I need not be homeless while conducting my

research. Finally, thanks are due to Danielle Doughman.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page


A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ......... ................................................................................... iv

L IST O F T A B L E S ................................................................... .............. vi

ABSTRACT .............. ..................... .......... .............. vii

CHAPTER

1 BACKGROUND .................. .................. ................... .......... .................

2 LITER A TU R E R EV IEW ............................................................... ...................... 4

3 HYPOTHESES ....................................................... ............. ....... ...... 10

4 M E TH O D S A N D SA M PLE ........................................ ..........................................15

5 A N A L Y SIS ........................................................ 2 1

6 R E S U L T S .............................................................................2 4

7 DISCU SSION AND CON CLU SION S ............................................. ....................33

APPENDIX: THE SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT .................................. ...............42

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .......................................................................... ....................43

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ...................................................................... ..................47















v
















LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1 Background Characteristics of the Sample ................................... ............... 19

2 Means for Dependent Variables for Different Argument Groups............................24

3 Predictors of Attitudes toward Rights and Responsibilities of Marriage ...............25

4 Predictors of Attitudes toward "Same-Sex Marriages".................. .........................28

5 Compare the Argument You Received to Other Pro-SSM Arguments ...................29

6 Predictors of Self-Reported Effects of the Study on Subject...............................32















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

FRAMING, PERSUASION, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

By

Raj Ghoshal

August 2005

Chair: Kendal Broad
Cochair: Chuck Peek
Major Department: Sociology

This thesis considers what kinds of arguments can affect heterosexuals' attitudes

regarding same-sex marriage rights, examining one primarily narrative-based argument

alongside several more abstract, cognitive-rational arguments. Students in 12 different

sociology classes were given one of six different survey packets. The first section asked

about background characteristics and opinions. The second section, which was the only

section that varied among respondents, was one of six different arguments concerning

same-sex marriages (or, for the control group, an argument about global warming). The

arguments offered concerning same-sex marriages were all "pro" arguments based on

publicly available material found on the Human Rights Campaign's website

(www.hrc.org), but they differed greatly in the types of appeals they made. The final

section of the survey asked about opinions on same-sex marriages, in a variety of ways.

Regression models revealed that those subjects who received a story about a lesbian

couple and how they and their children would benefit from same-sex marriage rights (the









most narrative and personalized of all the appeals) became more supportive of same-sex

marriage rights than other subjects. The results support the idea that narrative appeals are

more likely to alter attitudes toward same-sex marriages than cognitive appeals, and

provide some support for the idea that inducing people to think of same-sex marriage in

terms of rights and benefits yields significantly more positive attitudes. The findings may

also be evidence of the persuasiveness of appeals that include discussions of benefits to

children.














CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND

Over the course of the last 35 years, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

(LGBT) rights movement has sought to eliminate discrimination against, and advance the

rights of, gay and lesbian Americans. During the 1990s, public discussion of whether

LGBTs should have the right to marry people of the same sex emerged, with Hawaii and

Vermont serving as political flashpoints due to the unusually liberal policies they

adopted. 1996 saw the full nationalization of the issue in the "Defense of Marriage Act."

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex partners should be allowed

to marry, and several municipalities across the country followed suit. In the context of a

particularly close Presidential election campaign, this thrust the issue of same-sex

marriage very prominently into the American political scene. Numerous state-level

referenda restricting or banning recognition of same-sex relationships appeared on 2004

election ballots across the country, and the sitting President pledged to push for a

Constitutional Amendment against same-sex marriage.

Over the course of the last year and a half, proponents and opponents of same-sex

marriage have sought to make their cases and persuade people of their positions in

various ways.1 A great deal of research has suggested that how an issue is "framed" or

positioned in an evaluative context can induce people to think in very different ways

about it (Goffman 1974, Gamson 1992, Brewer 2002, Lakoff 2004). According to Snow


1 LGBTs are certainly not all in favor of making same-sex marriage rights a primary issue in the
movement's agenda. For a good discussion of internal debates on this topic, see Goldstein (2003).









and Benford (1992), a frame is "an interpretive schemata that simplifies and condenses

the 'world out there' by selectively punctuating and encoding objects, situations, events,

experiences, and sequences of action within one's present or past environment" (137).

Thus, cultural conservatives have attempted to influence public opinion by framing same-

sex marriage as an issue involving radical change in historical definitions of marriage, the

legitimization of homosexuality, redefinition of "family" and traditional gender roles, and

the recruitment of children into a "homosexual lifestyle." Proponents of allowing such

marriages have referenced equality, discrimination, changing definitions of marriage, and

the costs of being denied marriage rights, among other things. A few cultural

conservatives have even endorsed same-sex marriage on the grounds that it may promote

monogamy and "stable relationships" among LGBTs. However, it seems clear that the

dominant frames that opponents of same-sex marriage have relied upon involve

traditional morality, while proponents' primary frames generally involve discrimination

and equality. But until now, there has been no systematic study of the persuasiveness of

the different kinds of arguments deployed in this debate or of the success of different

ways of framing the issue.

This paper examines several different arguments that have been used by proponents

of same-sex marriage rights, and asks whether some arguments are more (or less)

successful than others at winning support for same-sex marriage. In a study of a

successful referendum campaign to roll back LGBT civil rights protections in Maine,

Weithoff (1998) argued for the importance of studying persuasion on LGBT rights issues:

GLBTs need to appeal to a wider audience than their immediately identifiable
constituents. While arguments to mobilize supporters are certainly important, the
GLBT community also needs to create argument schema that are attractive to
individuals not directly related to the gay civil rights movement (Pochna & Vegh,









1998). Because the majority of citizens are not seriously committed to either a
conservative or progressive perspective, their mental schemas on this issue are
likely to be somewhat permeable. Consequently, these people can readily embrace
new information and arguments when they are presented in a logically compelling
way (Kelly, 1955). Effective counter-arguments and competing narratives could
potentially change these voters' perspectives (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996) and,
consequently, their proclivity to vote for pro-GLBT rights initiatives (or oppose
anti-GLBT rights initiatives) in future elections. (Weithoff 1998: 77-8)

This paper considers whether a narrative approach is more successful than abstract,

logical approaches, and further, whether different kinds of "rational" abstract frames have

different levels of success. While the subject area of the study is specific (that is, same-

sex marriage), its findings may be more broadly applicable to other issues involving


framing, persuasion, and social-political opinions.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This paper draws on two broad literatures: that concerning opinions about gays and

lesbians and homosexuality, and that concerning framing, persuasion, and opinion

formation.

A great deal is known about American public opinion on gays and lesbians and

homosexuality. The General Social Survey (GSS) has consistently asked a question that

reads: "What about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex--do you think it

is always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at all?"

Further, it has regularly asked whether homosexuals1 should be able to make a speech in

town or teach in a college, and whether a book in favor of homosexuality should be

removed from the public library. Loftus (2001) relies on 25 years of data from the GSS

to analyze trends in opinion. In analyzing the trends shown in the GSS data from 1973

through 1998, Loftus relied upon answers to the three civil liberties questions as the

dependent variable in one set of her regressions, and on answers to the first question

discussed (acceptability of homosexuality) as the dependent variable in her other set of

regressions. On the whole, Americans are much more supportive of the three civil

liberties for LGBTs than they are willing to say homosexuality is "not wrong." Loftus

summarizes her findings concerning attitude trends as showing that


1 The term lionmosc \tu.I IIs" is considered negative by some for its historical association with the view of
same-sex attraction as a disorder. However, it is used at times in this paper when discussing opinion and
attitude survey questions that use the term "homosexuals," because expressed attitudes toward
liomoilc\ uiks" may be different than those toward "gays and lesbians" (or other terms).









Americans' attitudes toward the morality of homosexuality became slightly more
liberal from 1973 to 1976, became increasingly conservative through 1990, and
have become more liberal since 1990. Over the same 25-year period, willingness
to restrict the civil liberties of homosexuals declined slightly, the only departure
being a brief increase in negative attitudes in the late 1980s. (Loftus 2001: 778)

Yang (1997) finds a similar positive trend over time, though he points out that as of the

mid-1990s Americans remained, shockingly, roughly evenly divided over outlawing

homosexuality.2

Attitudes toward the acceptability of homosexuality are correlated with a number of

other factors. For example, Bowman and O'Keefe (2004) present a breakdown of

attitudes by various subgroups showing that (for example) in a Gallup 2003 survey,

females, whites, young people, the highly educated, those who rarely or never attend

church, East Coast and West Coast residents, Democrats and Independents, liberals, and

the well-off were far more supportive of allowing homosexuality to be legal than males,

blacks, older people, those with little education, frequent churchgoers, Midwesterners and

Southerners, Republicans, conservatives, and those with low family incomes. Herek

(1988; 2002a; 2002b) and Herek and Capitano (1999) have found that women are more

tolerant than men, and that gay males are more despised than lesbians. Altemeyer (2001)

examined attitudes among psychology students and their parents at one university and

found that the trend of greater acceptance of homosexuality was most likely due in large



2 Yang's data on this Gallup survey question ends in 1994, but Bowman and O'Keefe (2i" "14 followed it
through 2004. The question is worded as follows: "Do you think homosexual relations between consenting
adults should or should not be legal?" Support for allowing homosexual relations between consenting
adults to be legal, as measured by the Gallup poll, was higher in the years following Yang's analysis,
peaking at 60 percent in early 2003. It fell in the aftermath of the Lawrence v. Texas decision striking
down sodomy laws, and as of early 2004, more respondents [49%] were opposed to having same-sex
relations be legal than were supportive [46%] (Bowman and O'Keefe 2004). However, survey questions
worded slightly differently have found less intolerance on this issue, suggesting that some respondents may
misinterpret the question as asking whether same-sex relationships should have legal standing.









part to increased contact with people whom the subjects knew to be gay. Other research

using college students as subjects has suggested that variables such as "female sex, liberal

sex-role attitudes, lower religiosity as measured both by beliefs and attendance .. and

having positive contact with gay, lesbian, and/or bisexual persons" (Hinrichs and

Rosenberg 2004) and the personality variable "openness to experience" (Cullen, Wright,

and Alessandri 2002) are important predictors of attitudes toward LGBTs.

But how do these attitudes change with exposure to new stimuli? Social

psychologists have devoted considerable attention to persuasion. As Foumier, Martin,

and Nadeau (2002) note, various social psychologists have examined the roles played by

subject characteristics, source characteristics, message characteristics, and social context

in the outcome of attempts at persuasion (2). With regard to message characteristics in

political and social persuasion, one of the most well-known academic findings is that

narrative-format appeals and appeals that elicit emotion tend to be more successful that

abstract rational appeals (see, for example, Hovland, Janis and Kelley 1953; Cobb and

Kuklinksi 1997; Brader 2005), although abstract appeals do have some effect. According

to Perloff (2003),

Social psychologists argue that people are frequently more influenced by concrete,
emotionally interesting information than by "dry, statistical data that are dear to the
hearts of scientists and policy planners" (Nisbett et al., 1976, p. 132). Vivid case
histories personalized stories or narrative evidence exert particularly strong
effect on attitudes (Taylor & Thompson, 1982). According to this view, vivid
case histories evoke stronger mental images than abstractly presented arguments,
are easier to access from memory, and are therefore more likely to influence
attitudes when the individual is trying to decide whether to accept message
recommendations (Rook, 1987). Narratives are let's face it more interesting
than statistical evidence (Green & Brock, 2000). As stories, they engage the
imagination and are "intuitively appealing to humans, as we are all essentially
storytellers and avid story recipients" (Kopfman et al., 1998, p. 281). (182-183)









The distinction between narrative and abstract arguments is clearer than a related

dichotomy in social psychological research on persuasion: "emotional" or "affect-based"

arguments versus "rational" arguments. One critique of the emotional/rational dichotomy

is that there has never been a widely accepted operational definition of what constitutes

an "emotional" or "rational" argument; most of the definitions have been ad-hoc

common-sense definitions (Hovland, Janis, and Kelley 1953, Edwards 1990). In practice,

narrative-format arguments often are personalized and therefore are good at eliciting

emotions, while abstract argument involve complex cognition and are perhaps more

"rational." But there has been relatively little consideration given to different types of

arguments within the "emotional-narrative" and "cognitive-rational" spheres. That is, are

some types of abstract rational arguments-say, those based on moral justifications rather

than utilitarian justifications, or those that invoke the idea of equality, or those that use

legal reasoning-more effective than others? Some scholarly attention has been devoted

to the persuasive effects of arousing fear (Pratkanis and Aronson 1992, Perloff 2003) and

arousing sympathy, but there has been little direct comparison of these two techniques.

Kahnemann and Tversky's prospect theory (1979, 1984), suggesting that people tend to

be risk-averse, may play a role in how people evaluate policy arguments-that is, policies

that are framed as changes from the status quo are more likely to be negatively evaluated.

While Cobb and Kuklinski (1997) found that "con" arguments were more successful than

"pro" arguments regarding passing NAFTA and passing a national health insurance

policy, they also found that simple arguments on policy issues are not necessarily more

successful than complex arguments.3


3 Cobb and Kuklinksi note that their working definition of easy versus hard arguments is not entirely clear,
but suggest that "easy" arguments tend to be short, likely to invoke emotion, relatively concrete, and do not









Studies by Edwards (1990) and Edwards and von Hippel (1995) suggested that

those attitudes that are primarily rooted in affect are most likely to be changed by

"emotional" appeals, whereas those attitudes that are more cognitively rooted can be

changed either by cognitive by affect-based appeals. Stangor et al. (1991) found that

attitudes toward stigmatized minority groups, including gays and lesbians, were better

predicted by emotional responses to the groups than by cognitive evaluations of the

groups. These two findings together suggest that appeals to emotions may be more

successful in changing negative attitudes about gays and lesbians. However, Brounk

(1996), in a particularly relevant study to this paper, investigated whether "affect-based"

(narrative and personalized) or "cognition-based" (abstract) appeals were more likely to

alter subjects' attitudes toward homosexuals. Contrary to his hypothesis, he found that

both cognition-based and affect-based appeals increased student subjects' favorability

toward LGBTs to the same degree.

Regardless of whether an issue is cast in a narrative or in an abstract logical format,

a burgeoning literature on "framing" suggests that attitudes on political and social issues

can be influenced greatly by what people see an issue as being "really about." According

to Nelson and Kinder (1996), "frames are constructions of the issue: they spell out the

essence of the problem" and "suggest how it should be thought about" (1057). Perhaps

the best-known example of the power of framing is Nelson, Clawson and Oxley's (1997)

experimental study of news coverage of controversy over whether a municipality should

allow a KKK rally: those subjects who watched a news story depicting the conflict as

being about civil liberties were markedly more tolerant of it than those subjects who

require much cognitive effort to comprehend, while "hard" arguments tend to be longer, more abstract, do
not immediately invoke emotion, and demand more complex cognition.









watched a story discussing the issues of public order that might arise during the rally. It

is easy to see how this might be relevant to attitudes on same-sex marriage policy.

Whether one believes that the controversy is "really about" the integrity of the

Constitution, or legal rights, or cultural acceptance, or church-state separation issues,

could certainly affect how one feels toward it.

As of yet, there is no study that investigates framing and persuasion in the building

of favorability toward particular policies that address the interests of a disliked minority

group. That is, some previous work has investigated whether affect-based arguments are

particularly effective at changing attitudes toward a group (with mixed and contradictory

findings), but not whether narrative arguments are especially good at building support for

policies that might benefit that group. Other work (e.g. Cobb and Kuklinksi 1997) has

tested "hard" versus "easy" appeals and their effects on policy preferences but not with

regard to appeals and policies that deal with the interests of a stigmatized minority group.

In particular, the fact that many straight Americans appear to have very negative beliefs

about homosexuality at the same time that they endorse civil liberties and

antidiscrimination protection for LGBTs suggests that same-sex marriage may be an

especially interesting issue to investigate. Is same-sex marriage seen as a civil liberties

issue, or a "lifestyle endorsement" issue? Does this vary depending on how the issue is

framed? And how do these factors affect the ways that people form opinions about it?














CHAPTER 3
HYPOTHESES

This paper tests three primary hypotheses and four secondary hypotheses through

an experiment. The first hypothesis tests a basic assumption outlined in social

psychology, communications, and political psychology research (e.g. Cobb and Kuklinksi

1997, Gilbert 1991, McGuire and Papageorgis 1962, Perloff 2003): that many people

tend to be persuaded, at least to some degree and at least temporarily, by arguments they

read or hear about an issue if those arguments are not contradicted by counter-arguments.

Even those subjects who seem likely to oppose a particular argument (for example,

subjects who oppose same-sex marriage) may be moved by it somewhat if they have not

been "immunized" against persuasion in advance by learning about their opponents'

argument and potential rebuttals to it (McGuire and Papageorgis 1962; Anderson and

McGuire 1965; Billeaudeaux et al 2005). Therefore, the first hypothesis is:

HI: Those subjects who read any argument in favor of same-sex marriage will be

more supportive of same-sex marriage than those subjects in the control group, who read

an argument on an unrelated topic.

The second hypothesis draws on a rich tradition of research suggesting that appeals

that take at least a partly narrative form, that are personalized rather than abstract, and

that are structured to easily elicit emotion are more effective than abstract arguments that

rely more on cognitive-rational processes (Brader 2005, Perloff 2003):

H2: Those subjects who read an argument in favor of same-sex marriage rights

based around a story about a same-sex couple and their children will be more supportive









of allowing same-sex marriages than those subjects in the control group and those

subjects who read primarily cognitive-rational arguments in favor of allowing same-sex

marriages.

The third hypothesis derives from national survey data indicating that Americans

are more favorable toward extending the specific protections involved in marriage to

LGBTs than they are toward "same-sex marriage," perhaps because they are concerned

that same-sex marriages are a cultural endorsement of homosexuality. If this is true, it

seems likely that framing same-sex marriage as an issue involving specific rights and

benefits will be particularly successful in building support for it. Thus, H3 is:

H3: Those subjects who read an argument listing some of the specific rights and

benefits that go with "marriage" will be more favorable toward allowing same-sex

marriages than those subjects in the control group and those subjects who read other

arguments in favor of allowing same-sex marriages.

The first two hypotheses will be tested with reference to four different dependent

variables, while the third will be tested with reference to three of the four dependent

variables. These dependent variables are described in the next section.

The four secondary hypotheses concern interaction effects. Specifically, they

concern the possibility that some types of arguments might produce very different

changes in attitudes depending on who reads the argument. For example, the argument

that "same-sex marriage would undermine traditional gender roles" would probably play


5 Some subjects received an argument that civil marriage should not be governed by religious definitions of
marriage because of separation of church and state and because civil marriage is distinct from religious
marriage. However, these subjects are not grouped in with those who received the list of rights in this
hypothesis because these subjects' argument contained no discussion of the rights and benefits of marriage,
increasing the chance that these subjects thought of "same-sex marriage" as at least a government
endorsement of homosexuality rather than as a policy to extend particular rights to same-sex couples.










quite differently with a traditionalist than a radical. Therefore, the first interactive

hypothesis is:

H4: African-Americans will respond differently than other subjects to the argument

about marriage having changed historically over time using an analogy comparing gay

rights to black civil rights and same-sex marriage to interracial marriage.

The direction of this difference is not specified. This is because it seems equally

plausible that the civil rights analogy will either (a) be particularly persuasive to blacks

because it hits close to home (i.e., if the comparison succeeds) or (b) be particularly

unpersuasive to blacks if they feel that the problems faced by gays are not as serious as

those faced by blacks.6

The second interactive hypothesis concerns gender. Gilligan (1993) argues that

women's moral reasoning processes are different than those of men. That is, women, at

least in modem Western cultures, think more relationally and are more attuned to




6 According to Lewis (2003), the widely held belief that blacks are more "anti-gay" than whites is
borne out by the analysis of 31 different surveys over a 30-year span, but with a twist: "Despite their
greater disapproval of homosexuality, blacks' opinions on sodomy laws, gay civil liberties, and
employment discrimination are quite similar to whites' opinions, and African Americans are more likely to
support laws prohibiting antigay discrimination" (Lewis 2003: 59). This finding appears to provide
powerful support for the idea that attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality are conceptually
distinct from attitudes toward civil rights and civil liberties for homosexuals. While blacks' greater support
for antidiscrimination laws for gays is likely rooted in their historical experience of oppression, it is
interesting to note that at least some prominent black leaders have spoken out strongly against gay rights
movements' comparison of the gay rights struggle to the black civil rights struggle and against the
comparison of the same-sex marriage issue to interracial marriage. For example, Jesse Jackson has
criticized this comparison, and the prominent Atlanta black minister Eddie Long has gained an enormous
following in large part by criticizing the idea of same-sex marriage. Some commentators have suggested
that President Bush's focus on same-sex marriage leading up to the 2004 election was in part motivated by
his hope that the issue could pull socially conservative blacks away from blacks' traditional strong loyalty
to the Democratic Party (Bolce, De Maio, & Muzzio 1993; McKissack 2004). While Bush's bid to attract
blacks was at best marginally successful (he drew 11% of black voters in 2004 versus 9% in 2000)
(McKissack 2004), it remains unclear how racial attitudes will interact with further efforts to advance the
rights of LGBT Americans.









personalized appeals, whereas men are more attuned to and persuaded by "rational" or

abstract arguments. This hypothesis is

H5: The story will have a disproportionately positive effect on women as compared

to men.

The third interactive hypothesis concerns the interaction of religious intensity with

the argument that religious definitions of marriage should not govern what is considered

marriage for civil purposes:

H6: Those subjects who are more strongly religious will react differently to the

argument that, due to the separation of church and state, religious definitions should not

govern civil marriage, than those subjects who are less religious.

As in the first interaction, the direction of this interaction is not specified. At first

this may seem surprising: surely we would expect that the highly religious would find the

argument for church and state separation less appealing than less religious people!

However, it is also possible that the highly religious subjects will display a greater

attitude change in favor of same-sex marriage rights than less religious subjects if (a) they

are opposed to same-sex marriages at the outset and (b) they are persuaded by the idea

(contained in the argument) that same-sex marriage advocates are merely trying to alter

the civil definition of marriage, not the religious definition.

The final hypothesis tested is:

H7: Those subjects with a gay or lesbian close friend or relative will respond

differently to the story than those subjects who do not have a gay close friend or relative.

Again, this hypothesis does not specify a direction, and again this may seem

surprising. It seems intuitive that those subjects with gay close friends or relatives would









respond more favorably to the story, since the story personalizes the issue and these

subjects could easily mentally "substitute in" their relative or friend for a character in the

story. However, it might also be the case that an argument that personalizes the issue

does no good for those people to whom it has already been personalized. In other words,

those subjects with a gay close friend or relative might already have performed the

mental operations that the story is intended to generate, and the story might therefore

have no additional effect on them or at least could have less of an effect on them than

on subjects without a gay close friend or relative.















CHAPTER 4
METHODS AND SAMPLE

To test the effects of various arguments about same-sex marriages on respondents, I

designed a three-part survey instrument. The first part of the survey included about 25

questions including items concerning basic demographic variables (age, race, parents'

income, etc.), general measures of attitudes toward homosexuality and homosexuals,

questions about the respondents' sexual orientation and sexual experience, and measures

of other variables that might be expected to have significance in predicting attitude about

same-sex marriage (political ideology, type of area in which the respondent grew up,

etc.).

The second part of the survey instrument was a one-page long argument in favor of

same-sex marriages. However, there were different versions of this second part. I drew a

variety of arguments from the website of the nation's most prominent pro-LGBT rights

group, The Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org), modified them slightly (primarily

so that each argument was roughly 2/3 of a single-spaced page to one page in length), and

randomly inserted one of them into each survey packet so that each respondent received

only one of the arguments as a stimulus. I pulled five different arguments off of the HRC

website to create my "argument groups." I added in a control group that received an

argument about global warming rather than same-sex marriage.


7 Four of the five arguments in favor of same-sex marriages were pulled from the Human Rights
Campaign's booklet "Answers to Questions about Marriage Equality" found at
Ihp \ \ \ .hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TP
LID=63&ContentID=17353. The fifth argument, the story, was pulled from HRC's materials at
hup \ \ \\ .hrc.org/millionformarriage/hrc_adcenter/jo_teresa.html. This argument is reproduced in the









Of the five arguments in favor of same sex marriage rights that were selected, each

argued from a different angle. One, STORY, was a story about a lesbian couple and their

kids, and the risks posed to the kids by the fact that their parents could not marry. This

appeal was mostly personalized and narrative (though it also contained a component

stating that the story was an example of why same-sex marriage rights would be

desirable), whereas the other arguments were more purely rational and abstract, and less

personalized. NOTRELIG was an argument stating that civil marriage and religious

marriage are distinct and that (due to the separation of church and state) religious

definitions of marriage should not control what constitutes civil marriage. This argument

also stated that allowing same-sex marriages would in no way require any church or

religion to perform these kinds of marriages. Another argument, RIGHTS, was a list of

rights that same-sex partners are denied as long as they cannot marry, followed by the

argument that same-sex marriages should be allowed. The fourth argument, CONST,

was an argument stating that the US Constitution has never been amended to discriminate

against a particular group, and that it would be inappropriate to use it to discriminate.

The final argument, MARCHANG, was about how marriage as it now is has not been

"around forever, in every society." This argument discussed the facts that marriage for

love is a recent innovation and that interracial marriage was forbidden in many parts of

the US until relatively recently. The control group, CONTROL, received an argument

rebutting the "climate skeptics" and stating that global warming is real. In every case

(except for the control group), the arguments did not merely present information, but also

explicitly argued in favor of allowing same-sex marriage.

appendix. The global warming argument for the control group was pulled from Greenpeace's website:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/industry/reports/sceptics.html.









The final part of the survey consisted on measures of opinion toward same-sex

marriage and civil unions, as well as a few questions asking about the effects of the

experiment and some questions asking respondents about the effectiveness of different

arguments. There were several open-ended questions in this section, but the majority of

questions were Likert scale-style questions with assigned values ranging from 1 through

3 or 1 through 5. (The items used in this paper as dependent variables are described

further below.)

The three parts were combined into a single packet that was given to respondents.

Surveys were obtained from a total of 523 respondents from 12 different Sociology

classes (none of them taught by this author), including 2 classes at a nearby Community

College and 2 upper-division classes. Of the 523 surveys obtained, results from thirteen

students could not be used because the students who had filled them out were under age

18. Two students filled out the beginning questions about age and major, but nothing

else, rendering their surveys useless for the study. Respondents from the 2 upper-

division courses were excluded. This is because including these classes would have

meant including students who had higher levels of exposure to Sociology, and might

react in different ways to the survey than introductory-level students. Respondents who

indicated their sexual orientation was either "gay/homosexual" or "bisexual" were also

excluded. Only 7 students, or about 1% of the remaining part of the sample, chose one of

these options, and these 7 students were clearly (in this sample) more supportive of same-

sex marriage rights than the heterosexual students.8 The remaining sample consisted of

438 subjects.


8 The 1% figure is surprisingly low, perhaps due in part to the fact that this question appeared on the first
page of the survey, making LGBT students reluctant to answer honestly for fear of having their answer









In 6 cases this author came to the participating class and administered the survey;

on 2 occasions a colleague other than the class instructor was hired to do so; and 4 times

the instructor of the class administered the study. The response rate was low for the

initial two classes, most likely due to the fact that the survey was presented to students as

a voluntary exercise at the end of class. However, when the timing of survey was moved

to the beginning of classes rather than the end, response rates skyrocketed to about 90%

of the students who were present.

The sample used was a convenience sample, not a random probability sample, and

the views of the subjects cannot be generalized to the population as a whole. The most

obvious problems with doing so include the following: First, the fact that young people

have relatively liberal attitudes on LGBT rights issues has been extensively documented

by numerous sources (e.g. Loftus 2001; Bowman and O'Keefe 2004), and young people

may also differ from a full-age-range sample in other ways. Second, all respondents are

currently enrolled in an educational institution, and the majority of respondents are

enrolled in an educational institution that is considered by many to be the state's best

public university. The sample likely has higher educational aspirations, a higher level of

academic attainment, and a higher socioeconomic class background that the population as

a whole. Third, the sample consisted entirely of students who had chosen to take a class

in Sociology. The clearest effect of this on sample composition is that there were roughly

twice as many women as men sampled, as Sociology classes at this university tend to be

composed mostly of women. Women are generally more positive toward LGBTs than

men. All of the characteristics identified in this paragraph might reasonably be predicted

seen by other students. According to Black et al (2000), about 2.5% of Americans self-identify as gay or
lesbian.









to result in finding more liberal attitudes toward same-sex marriage and homosexuality in

the sample than in the U.S. population.

Table 1. Background characteristics of the Sample (Maximum N = 438)
Mean or Percent St. dev.
% Female 67.9% N/A
% Nonwhite 34.5% N/A
Mean age 19.1 years 1.8
Mean religious strength 5.5 (1 to 10 scale) 2.6
Mean social liberalism 6.1 (1 to 10 scale) 2.3
Mean for "homosexuality wrong"9 3.0 (1 to 5 scale) 1.8
% with gay close friend or relative 56.9% N/A
% Democrat 57.5% N/A
% Republican 40.0% N/A


However, the fact that the sample is unrepresentative of the U.S. population should

not cause us too much concern, for several reasons. First, and most importantly, while it

is not a valid source of data about opinions of the population, it is useful as a source of

data about persuasion and opinion change. (This use is subject to some caveats,

discussed in the conclusions section.) Second, though this paper does not do so, it is

possible to assign weights to the sample to correct for some of the ways in which it is not

representative. This could not correct for the age or education skews of the sample, but

could easily be used to correct other problems that may be present in terms of

representativeness. Third, the sample is an excellent source of data about the opinions of

well-educated young people in a politically centrist state. This is important because it


9 "Mean for 'homosexuality is wrong'" refers to the mean of 2 questions asking "Which of the following
best summarizes your attitude toward a man having sex with another man/woman having sex with another
woman?" Answer choices, based on the GSS options for a similar question, ranged from "It is always
wrong" (1) to "It is not wrong at all" (5).










provides a guide to the opinions of those people who will likely occupy high-status and

high-influence roles in society, and thus have greater influence than would be expected

merely from their numbers alone, several decades from now.10











































'1 The usefulness of the sample is perhaps enhanced by the fact that the distribution of political party
identification in the sample nearly exactly mirrors the distribution of 2004 Presidential votes in the county
in which the university is located. The sample, like the county, was about 60% Democrat and 40%
Republican; this similarity may indicate that the classes sampled are less "liberally biased" and
unrepresentative of students at the university than some might assume.














CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS

To analyze the data, four dependent variables were created based on the questions

asked in part 3 of the survey packet. The first dependent variable combined scores from

4 closely related questions. The 4 questions asked subjects to support, oppose, or

indicate that they were neutral on the following proposals: extending Social Security

benefits to same-sex partners, extending health insurance benefits to same-sex partners,

extending inheritance rights to same-sex couples, and extending child support

responsibilities to same sex partners. A scale, ranging in value from 4 to 12, was created

based on these questions, with 12 indicating support for all 4 policies. (Cronbach's alpha

for the scale was a quite high value of .90, indicating that the 4 variables are indeed

related in subjects' responses patterns. The value would have been improved by

removing the child support question, but only very slightly, to .92.) This scale served as

a measure of subjects' support for the rights and responsibilities that go with marriage -

regardless of how they might react to the words "marriage" or "civil unions."

The second dependent variable created was a scale based on 5 questions. These

questions were: 1. Would you support or oppose a federal Constitutional Amendment that

would define marriages as something that can only take place between a man and a

woman, and would make same-sex marriages illegal? 2. Which of the following comes

closest to your position on same-sex marriages/civil unions? [Same-sex couples should

be allowed to legally marry; same sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions but

not marry; same-sex couples should get no legal recognition.] 3. Do you strongly favor,










favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally? 4. Do you

strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to

enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights

as married couples? 5. If your home state drafted a law defining marriages as a union

that can only occur between a man and a woman, and made same-sex marriages illegal,

would you support or oppose this law?11 All of these questions offered answer choices

that could be scored from either 1 to 3 or from 1 to 5. The scoring was adjusted so that

the questions with 3 answer choices were instead arrayed from 1 to 5. A scale was then

created, ranging from 5 to 25, with 25 indicating the greatest support for same-sex

marriages. This variable served as a measure of support for same-sex marriages when

described as such, as distinct from the specific policy items that might be included under

such terms. That is, while the first dependent variable measures support for granting

same-sex couples the tangible rights of marriage, this one measures support for the idea

of "same-sex marriages." (Question 4, which was intentionally worded identically to a

question appearing in some national surveys, was probably originally intended to be a

question measuring support for civil unions. However, it was included in this scale

because it uses the phrase "married couples" and likely was interpreted accordingly.

1 Two other questions intended to measure attitudes on this topic were included in the survey, but not in
this scale. The first asked, "Do you think defining marriage as a union only between a man and a woman is
an important enough issue to be worth changing the Constitution for, or isn't it that kind of issue?" This
question was asked because it has been included in national surveys, but the pattern of responses suggested
that a huge number of respondents misunderstood the question perhaps because it is a leading question.
Another question asked, "Do you think that allowing two people of the same sex to legally mary will
change our society for the better, will it have no effect, or will it change our society for the worse?"
Subjects were substantially more negative on this question than on the other indicators of attitudes about
same-sex marriage rights, with the mean slightly on the negative side (2.09 on a 1 through 3 scale, with 3
meaning "worse"). More than 20% of subjects selected "don't know" or did not answer this question, and
inclusion of this variable in the scale would have meant eliminating those 20% from the analysis. Separate
logistic regressions for the "effects on society" variable alone revealed that the story did not have any
discernable effects on beliefs about the effect of same sex marriages on society. This finding will be
discussed in more detail below.









Regressions tested, but not shown here, for a scale that omitted this question showed

results very similar to the 5-item scale.) Cronbach's alpha was again very high, .96.

The two remaining dependent variables directly asked for subjects' evaluations of

the experiment and its effects. The third dependent variable, COMPARE, asked subjects

to compare the quality of the argument they read in the study to "other arguments" they

had "read or heard in favor of same-sex marriages," regardless of their own position on

the topic. This was scored on a 1-to-5 scale (with an extra answer choice reading "the

argument that I read was not about same-sex marriages" to screen out the control group).

The final dependent variable, EFFECTS, asked subject to rate on a 1-to-5 scale the effect

that participating in the study had on them. Answer choices ranged from "It made me

much more supportive of same sex marriages" to "It made me much less supportive of

same-sex marriages."

Some subjects did not answer every question. For continuous independent

variables, the mean was substituted in for any missing values, and a dummy was created

to flag those cases where substitution had occurred. For the dependent variables, means

were not substituted in. Instead, cases with missing values were ignored in the analysis.















CHAPTER 6
RESULTS

The means for each different variable, broken up by argument group, are presented

in Table 2 (below). This table shows that the variance in means between argument

groups is very slight when control variables are not accounted for.

Table 2: Means for Dependent Variables for Different Argument Groups (Maximum
Total N = 399)
Attitude on Attitude on Argument Effects on Effects on
Rights "Marriage" quality you Society*
CONTROL 10.17 17.42 3.33 3.04 1.89
MARCHANG 10.13 17.10 3.29 3.10 2.02
NOTRELIG 10.21 17.39 3.63 3.09 1.81
CONST 10.39 18.68 3.70 3.14 2.02
RIGHTS 9.83 16.95 3.61 3.10 1.81
STORY 10.60 17.54 3.81 3.23 1.93
Overall Mean 10.23 17.52 3.60 3.12 1.91
Scale Range 4 to 12 5 to 25 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 3

* I reversed the original direction of this variable's scoring for consistency with the other scales. For every
dependent variable presented here, higher scores indicate greater support, greater positive effects, or higher
quality ratings.

Table 3, below, presents several different models for the first dependent variable,

the subject's attitude toward granting same-sex partners some of the legal rights and

responsibilities that come with marriage. The first regression, Model 1, predicts the

subject's attitude based on some theoretically salient independent variables. The second

regression predicts attitudes based on the argument groups alone. Model 3 combines the

first two models' predictors, and Model 4 goes a step further by adding in race as a

predictor. The final model, Model 5, tests the 4 interaction terms as well as all the other

predictors from prior models.










Table 3: Predictors of Attitudes toward Rights and Responsibilities of Marriage (n = 399)


Intercept
FEMALE
SOCLIB
ANYGAY
HOWRELIG
GAYWRONG
CHOICE
INCOME

MARCHANG
CONST
NRELIG
RIGHTS
STORY


Hispanic
African-American
Asian
Native American
Other

STORY x F
RELIGxNRELIG
RACExMCHANG
ANYGAYxSTORY

R-squared/Adiusted


Model 1
8.66***
.68/.12***
.24/.20***
-.11/-.02
-.08/-.08*
.52/.33***
-.41/-.19***
-.04/-.01


Model 2 Model 3
10.17*** 8.52***
.66/.12***
.24/.21***
-.14/-.02
-.07/-.08*
.53/.34***
-.43/-.20***
-.07/-.02


-.04/.00
.03/.00
.21/.03
-.34/-.05
.43/.06


.42/.40


.08/.01
.21/.03
.08/.01
-.04/.00
.84/.13**


.01/.00 .43/.42


Values reported are unstandardized/standardized coefficients.
* p < or =.10, **p< or =.05, ***p< or =.01.

Note 1: This dependent variable ranges in value from 3 to 12. The variable is a scale based on respondents'
indication that they "support," are "indifferent" to, or are "opposed" to the extension of each of the
following to same-sex couples: Social Security benefits, inheritance rights, health insurance benefits, and
child support responsibilities. The mean score was about 10.2, indicating a very high level of support for
these 4 things.

Note 2: FEMALE = Respondent's sex; SOCLIB = Social liberalism on 1 to 10 scale; ANYGAY = does
subject have any gay relatives or close friends; HOWRELIG = how religious from 1 to 10; GAYWRONG
= level of disagreement with the statement that 2 people of the same sex having sex is wrong (scale from 1
through 5); CHOICE = belief that homosexuality is chosen or biological (1 to 5 scale); INCOME = parents'
income category (1 to 5 scale) ; MARCHANG = Arg. that marriage has changed historically incorporating
a civil rights analogy; CONST = Arg. that Constitution has never been Amended to discriminate; NRELIG
= Arg. that religious definitions should not govern civil marriage; RIGHTS = list of rights same sex couples
would get only with marriage; STORY = story about a same sex couple and their kids and why they might
want marriage rights; STORY x F = interaction of sex with the story; RELIG x NRELIG = interaction of
religious strength with the argument that religious shouldn't govern civil marriages; RACExMCHANG =
interaction of race with civil rights analogy argument; ANYGAYxSTORY = interaction of the story with
knowing a gay person well. All dummy variables (female, the arguments, the race terms, and the
interaction terms) are coded such that the listed designation (e.g. female) is assigned the value 1.


Model 4
8.44***
.64/.12***
.25/.21***
-.11/-.02
-.07/-.07
.53/.34***
-.42/-.20***
-.08/-.03

.15/.02
.26/.04
.06/.01
.02/.00
.86/.13***

.27/.03
-.37/-.05
.68/.07*
-1.68/-.11***
-2.04/-.06


Model 5
8.36***
.62/.11***
.25/.22***
-.18/-.04
-.05/-.05
.54/.34***
-.42/-.20***
-.07/-.02


-.01/.00
.25/.03
.24/.03
.02/.00
.54/.08


.28/.03
-.55/-.07
.72/.07
-1.66/-.11***
-1.99/-.06


.17/.02
-.04/-.03
1.54/.07*
.35/.04


.46/.43


.46/.43









Model 1 reveals that a handful of predictors can explain a moderate amount of the

variance in scores. The R-squared is .42. It is notable that in this model and all others,

the dummy variable designating whether the subject has a gay relative or close friend is

an insignificant predictor of his or her attitude on the topic (p = .60). Significant

predictors include female sex (p<.01), social liberalism (p <.01), religious strength (p =

.07), belief that homosexuality is wrong (p < .01), and belief that homosexuality is

chosen (p < .01). The strong predictors of attitudes on this topic are not surprising;

however, there is a fair amount of unexplained variance in the model. An R-squared of

about .4 would not be considered problematic for most social science models; however, it

seems a bit unusual here given that we might expect attitude toward the acceptability of

homosexuality, belief in the extent to which being gay is a choice, religious strength,

gender, the subject's close contact with a gay person, and SES to nearly-perfectly predict

attitude toward extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples.

This finding will be discussed further below.

Model 2 reveals that the received arguments alone cannot explain expressed

attitudes on this topic. The R-squared for this model is virtually indistinguishable from

zero. However, adding in the original controls in Model 3, we see that the argument that

took the form of a story is a significant predictor of expressed attitudes (p=.01). The

standardized coefficient for this variable is .12, indicating that whether or not the subject

received the story has an effect on expressed attitude of about the same size as gender.

All the other arguments appear as insignificant, indicating that they are indistinguishable

from the control group in their effects. Model 4, which adds in dummy variables for

race, reveals that Native Americans are significantly more negative in their attitudes on









this dependent variable than other racial groups (p<.01) while Asian Americans status is a

borderline significant predictor of greater favorability (p = .10). (The small number of

Native American in the sample, however, means this finding should be treated with

skepticism.) The story retains its significance (p =.01). Finally, Model 5 tests for

interaction effects. The only significant interaction was that of African American status

with the argument that used an interracial marriage analogy (marginally significant with p

=.09).

The second dependent variable was a scale measuring general favorability toward

extending "marriage" to same-sex couples. Table 4, below, presents 5 models testing the

predictors of this outcome. The models here are very similar to those for the first

dependent variable. Notably, there is a much lower level of unexplained variance than

for the first dependent variable, and the R-squareds for the four models that include

control variables are very high. In the first model, the significant predictors are identical

to those for the first dependent variable's Model 1. Sex (p < .01), social liberalism (p

<.01), religious strength (p =.02), belief that homosexuality is wrong ( p<.01), and belief

that homosexuality is chosen (p < .01) are all significant predictors. Once again, close

personal acquaintance with a gay person and parents' income level are insignificant in

their effects. Model 2, testing the arguments alone, shows no significant effects, but in

Models 3 and 4, the argument that featured a story yields borderline significant effects

(p=.07, p=.06), though these effects are smaller than those of most of the control

variables. No other arguments yield significant effects. Model 4, testing the effects of

race, yields somewhat different results than Model 4 for the first dependent variable. In

this model, Asians are slightly more positive toward same-sex marriages than whites. No










significant effects appear for African Americas, Native Americans, Hispanics, or subjects

of other races. None of the interaction terms tested are significant.

Table 4: Predictors of Attitudes toward "Same-Sex Marriages" (n = 375)


Intercept
FEMALE
SOCLIB
ANYGAY
HOWRELIG
GAYWRONG
CHOICE
INCOME

MARCHANG
CONST
NRELIG
RIGHTS
STORY


Hispanic
African-American
Asian
Native American
Other

STORY x F
RELIGxNRELIG
RACExMCHANG
ANYGAYxSTORY

R-squared/Adjusted


Model 1
10.68***
1.25/.09***
.69/.24***
.48/.04
-.21/-.08**
1.96/.49***
-.95/-.18***
-.18/-.02


Model 2 Model 3
17.43*** 10.51***
1.14/.08***
.68/.23***
.47/.03
-.20/-.08**
1.99/.50***
-.95/-.18***
-.23/-.03


-.33/-.02
-..03/.00
1.25/.07
-.48/-.02
.12/.01


-.11/-.01
-.08/.00
.88/.05
.21/.01
1.17/.07*


Model 4
10.34***
1.10/.08***
.68/.23***
.51/.04
-.20/-.08**
1.95/.49***
-.95/-.18***
-.19/-.03

-.01/.00
.01/.00
.97/.05
.39/.02
1.21/.07**


1.09/.05
-.90/-.05
1.46/.06*
-1.04/-.03
-3.44/-.03


.68/.67


.01/-.01 .69/.68


.70/.68


Model 5
9.90***
1.00/.07**
.70/.24***
.78/.04
-.15/-.06
1.95/.49***
-.92/-.18***
-.21/-.03

-.13/-.01
.03/.00
2.33/.13
.39/.02
1.97/.12*

1.04/.05*
-1.16/-.06**
1.30/.05
-1.15/-.03
-3.34/-.02

.38/.02
-.24/-.09
1.43/.03
-1.62/-.08


.70/.68


Values reported are unstandardized/standardized coefficients.
* p < or =.10, ** p < or =.05, ***p < or =.01.

The third dependent variable asked subjects to compare the quality of the argument

that they read to other arguments in favor of same-sex marriages that they might have

heard or read outside of the study. Table 5, below, presents the results for these models.1



1 The dummy variables for the argument groups are tested against the reference group consisting of those
subjects who received the global warming argument and selected a rating for their argument even though
they were instructed not to do so. The mean rating for students who received the warming argument and
rated their argument anyway was 3.33, indicating a slight positivity bias. The question this variable was
based on was asked of only about 60% of respondents.









None of the models are strong predictors of subject-rated argument quality, and the R-

squared for all models are strikingly low. In Model 1, gender is the only marginally

significant control predictor (p = .10) of "how good" an argument was perceived to be.

Model 2's test of the arguments by themselves reveals the story as borderline significant

(p=.06) and relatively large in its effect: on a 1 through 5 scale with little variance and

clustering around the mean, receiving the story was associated with nearly a .5 point

increase in argument quality rating. In Model 3 the story appears as the only borderline

significant predictor of quality ratings (p=.06), though in Model 4 its significance drops

(p=. 10) and Asian-American status appears as a marginally significant predictor (p=.09)

of less favorable argument quality evaluation. Model 5 reveals no significant

interactions. Overall, the models reveal that none of the variables tested were very strong

predictors of argument quality rating. However, whether or not the subject received the

story had a more significant effect on argument quality rating than any background

variables that might be expected to bias subjects' ratings.

The final dependent variable was the self-reported effect of participating in the

experiment. While most subjects reported that the experiment did not affect them, about

15% of subjects who answered this question indicated that it did affect their attitudes on

the topic. A very small number of subjects (8 out of 394, or just over 2% of those who

answered this question) appeared to "backlash" against the study, in that they stated that

they became more negative toward same-sex marriage rights. Many more subjects

reported that they became slightly (41 of 394, or 10.5%) or considerably (9 of 394, or

2.4%) more favorable toward same-sex marriages. While a plurality of those subjects

reporting positive effects were subjects who received the story, there were some subjects










in every group, including the control group, who reported greater favorability due to

participation. 7.4% of the control group subjects reported becoming more favorable

toward same-sex marriages; between 10% and 14% of each of the four "rational"

argument subject pools reported the same, and 20.2% of the subjects who received the

story became more favorable toward same-sex marriages.

Table 5: Compare the Argument You Received to Other Pro-SSM Arguments (n=247)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Intercept 3.15*** 3.33*** 2.98*** 3.15*** 3.15***
FEMALE .20/.11* .15/.08 .14/.08 .20/.11
SOCLIB .03/.08 .03/.08 .05/.12 .04/.12
ANYGAY -.06/-.04 -.06/-.04 -.06/-.03 -.12/-.08
HOWRELIG .00/-.01 .00/-.01 -.01/-.03 -.01/-.04
GAYWRONG .02/.04 .02/.04 .00/.01 .01/.02
CHOICE .02/.02 .01/.01 .01/.02 .01/.01
INCOME .03/.03 .01/.01 -.01/-.02 -.01/-.01

MARCHANG -.04/-.02 -.01/-.01 -.09/-.04 -.15/-.07
CONST .30/.14 .31/.15 .24/.11 .22/.10
NRELIG .36/.17 .34/.16 .27/.12 .11/.05
RIGHTS .28/.13 .28/.13 .19/.09 .19/.09
STORY .48/.24* .50/.25* .44/.22* .49/.24

Hispanic -.24/-.08 -.23/-.08
African-American -.12/-.05 -.19/-.08
Asian -.36/-.11* -.33/-.10
Native American .00/.00 .02/.00
Other .58/.06 .62/.07

STORY x F -.22/-.10
RELIGxNRELIG .03/.08
RACExMCHANG .64/.10
ANYGAYxSTORY .20/.08

R-squared/Adjusted .02/-.01 .04/.03 .07/.02 .08/.02 .10/.01

Values reported are unstandardized/standardized coefficients.
* p < or =.10, ** p < or =.05, **p < or =.01.

Models for the self-reported effects of the study appear in Table 6 (below). Model

1 resembles the first model for each of the previously discussed dependent variables, with

female sex and religious intensity appearing as the significant control variables (p = .02









for each), but with a weak R-squared value of .06. However, in Model 2, the story has a

significant effect (p=.02), even in the absence of any control variables, while other

arguments are indistinguishable from the control group. Model 3 tells much the same

story, with the story again appearing as significant (p=.02), and belief that homosexuality

is wrong showing up as marginally significant (p=.09). The standardized coefficient for

the story, .14, is larger than that of any other variable, indicating that the single most

important factor in subjects' evaluation of the experiment's effects on them was whether

or not they received the story. It is noteworthy that the effects of this variable are

stronger than any of the control variables that might tend to "bias" subjects' evaluations

of the study's effects on them. For example, whether or not a subject received the story

was almost twice as influential as gender in predicting self-reported effects of the study.

Model 4, adding in race variables, reveals that belief in the immorality of homosexuality

becomes clearly significant (p=.03) and the story becomes more significant (p=.01),

while subjects designating themselves as Native American and "other" have significantly

less positive evaluations of the experiment's effects than others (p=.02 and p<.01,

respectively). Finally, Model 5 shows that the interaction terms for African American

times the MARCHANG argument and for having an LGBT close friend or relative times

the story are at least borderline significant (p=.03 and p=.07). At least in terms of self-

reported effects, being African American increased receptivity to the argument that used

a racism/civil rights analogy (relative to other arguments), while having a close LGBT

contact increased receptivity to the story (relative to other arguments).










Table 6: Predictors of Self-Reported Effects of the Study on Subject (N=394)


Intercept
FEMALE
SOCLIB
ANYGAY
HOWRELIG
GAYWRONG
CHOICE
INCOME

MARCHANG
CONST
NRELIG
RIGHTS
STORY


Hispanic
African-American
Asian
Native American
Other

STORY x F
RELIGxNRELIG
RACExMCHANG
ANYGAYxSTORY

R-squared/Adjusted


Model 1
2.90***
.12/.12**
.01/.07
-.02/-.02
-.03/-.14**
.03/.10
.02/.06
.01/.02


Model 2 Model 3
3.04*** 2.83***
.11/.11**
.01/.07
-.02/-.02
-.03/-.14**
.03/.12*
.02/.06
.01/.01


.05/.04
.05/.04
.06/.07
.10/.05
.19/.15**


.06/.05


.07/.05
.04/.03
.09/.07
.08/.06
.18/.15**


.01/.00 .08/.05


Values reported are unstandardized/standardized coefficients.
* p < or =.10, ** p < or =.05, ***p < or =.01.


Model 4
2.77***
.11/.11**
.09/.04
-.02/-.02
-.02/-.13**
.04/.15**
.03/.07
.01/.02

.09/.07
.07/.06
.10/.08
.09/.07
.20/.16***

.06/.04
.08/.06
.12/.06
-.33/-.11**
-1.03/-.15***


Model 5
2.77***
.13/.12**
.01/.04
-.07/-.07
-.02/-.13**
.05/.16**
.03/.07
.02/.03

.05/.04
.07/.05
.00/.00
.09/.07
.11/.08

.07/.04
.05/.03
.14/.07
-.31/-.11**
-1.00/-.14***


-.06/-.04
.02/.08
.46/.11**
.23/.15*


.12/.09


.14/.10














CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The sample displayed a very high level of support for same sex marriage rights.

For the first dependent variable, the mean score on a scale ranging from 3 to 12 was 10.2,

indicating that subjects were very supportive of extending 3 rights and one responsibility

of marriage to same-sex partners. For the second dependent variable, which ranged from

5 to 25, the mean score was 17.5, indicating a fairly high level of support for same sex

marriage and civil union rights though not nearly as high as the level of support

indicated for the first dependent variable. This finding clarifies why there is a good deal

of unexplained variance for the first dependent variable but not the second. Even those

students who were relatively conservative often supported the 3 rights and one

responsibility that comprised the first dependent variable, whereas they were much less

likely to support "marriage."

This result suggests that subjects drew a distinction between (a) the specific rights

and responsibilities that go along with marriage and (b) "marriage." Although there are

numerous rights that go along with marriage but not with state-level civil unions (such as

the right to visit a partner in the hospital outside one's home state), subjects did not

appear attuned to this fact. Therefore, many subjects were willing to extend the rights

that go with marriage to same sex couples, but not willing to endorse "same-sex

marriage." This finding is consistent with Loftus' (2001) and Yang's (1997) findings of

multidimensional attitudes, and suggests that some subjects may oppose "same-sex









marriage" because the phrase connotes to them some endorsement of homosexuality, yet

support the legal aspects of marriage because they oppose discrimination.

It is interesting that the sample clearly supported same-sex marriage rights and

leaned toward support for "same-sex marriages" at the same time that it showed a slightly

negative attitude toward the effects same-sex marriages would have on society (in the

"effects on society" question). The subjects who were opposed to same-sex marriages

were extremely likely to say such marriages would have a negative effect on society,

while the supporters of same-sex marriages were divided between believing such

marriages would improve society and would have no effect on it. For example, of the 77

subjects who indicated the least support for same-sex marriages on the 5-question scale

(those whose score on the 25-point scale was between 5 and 10), 67 subjects indicated

allowing same-sex marriages would make society worse, 9 chose "don't know" or did not

answer, and 1 indicated "no effect." Of the 80 most supportive subjects (all of whom

scored 25 out of 25), 51 chose "make society better," 23 chose "no effect," and 6 chose

"don't know" or did not answer. It appears that even many supporters of same-sex

marriages see their benefits as accruing primarily or even exclusively to the parties

directly involved rather than to society at large.

Many of the predictors that have been shown to be significant in predicting

attitudes toward the moral acceptability of homosexuality were shown to be significant in

predicting attitudes toward same-sex marriage rights. Gender, social liberalism, religious

strength, belief that homosexuality is wrong, and belief that homosexuality is chosen

were significant in their effects. Other variables were shown to be insignificant. None of

the interactions tested were consistently significant across the dependent variables; this









may be due to the lack of interaction or to confounding interactive effects that, when

aggregated, canceled themselves out. The interaction of African-American status with

the argument using an analogy to interracial marriage was borderline significant (p=.09)

in predicting disproportionately strong support for the rights of marriage and significant

(p=.03) in predicting disproportionately positive self-reported effects of the study. A

close relationship with an LGBT person was borderline significant (p=.07) in predicting

disproportionately positive self-reported effects of the study for those subjects who

received the story. The other interactions (of gender with the story and of religious

strength with the argument about religion) were not significant in any models. Thus,

there are mixed results for H4 and H7, while H5 and H6 are rejected. Further, models

tested but not shown in this paper revealed that including a dummy variable for

community college status did not add to the predictive power of the models.1 There was

also no apparent independent effect of parents' income level on attitudes. Finally, and

surprisingly, having a gay close friend or relative did not have any effect on subjects'

attitudes. This finding is contradictory to much previous research on the effects of

contact with a gay or lesbian person on attitudes toward LGBTs. It may be that even

those subjects with a close LGBT friend have not thought about the actual benefits of

marriage rights to that friend. The story tested was not "just" a story; the fact that it had

clear policy implications may have catalyzed thinking about the benefits of marriage

rights in a way that simply having a LGBT friend does not.




1 Despite the fact that community college students were dramatically more conservative in their attitudes
than university students, this appears to be accounted for by the social liberalism variable. That is,
community college students are less favorable toward same-sex marriages because they are less socially
liberal in general than university students.









The most interesting finding of the study is that the argument consisting of a story

had significant effects on some dependent variables, while other, more purely "rational"

arguments, did not. Thus, H1 (that each of the arguments would have an effect) is

rejected, H2 (that the story would be the most effective) is largely confirmed, and H3

(that the list of rights would have the greatest effect) is rejected. This supports prior

research suggesting that emotional appeals are more likely to succeed, even when they

concern policy issues, than rational appeals. Of course, the distinction between these two

types of appeals is not as clean as it might appear at first, and no argument is purely

"rational" or "emotional." However, this finding adds to our understanding of persuasion

by suggesting that affective appeals can do more than just humanize disliked groups;

affective appeals outperform more cognitive kinds of appeals in building support for

policies that benefit stigmatized groups. It is particularly interesting that in this sample,

having an LGBT close friend or relative was not significantly associated with attitudes

toward same-sex marriage, but a personalized story about a lesbian couple was. This

may be because unless the "relative or close friend" was particularly interested in getting

married, the topic of same-sex marriage may never have come up in conversation, and

because marriage is not an immediately salient topic to many college students. Further, it

is interesting that the story was clearly effective in building support for extending same-

sex couples the rights of marriage, but only borderline significant in building support for

"same-sex marriage." This may be due to the fact that the story dealt with reasons that

the rights of marriage were important, but did not address the significance of the term

"marriage."









What can we make of the fact that subjects were markedly more supportive of

extending several of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples than of "same-sex

marriage" at the same time that the subjects who read the argument describing the rights

that go along with marriage did not display higher levels of support for same-sex

marriage than other subjects? This finding, which initially appears counterintuitive and

troubling, is in fact quite revealing. The word "marriage" itself apparently carries a

cultural meaning that is quite difficult to challenge using rational-abstract appeals.2 It is

noteworthy that the argument listing the rights of marriage and the argument that civil

marriage is different than religious marriage both failed to elicit greater favorability

toward same-sex marriages.3 Accepting "same-sex marriage" may be difficult for some

heterosexuals otherwise supportive of LGBT rights because even when they read about

the pragmatic aspects of it (or about the fact that civil marriage is distinct from religious

marriage), they still see legal same-sex marriage as an endorsement of homosexuality.

Thus, framing same-sex marriage as a "rights issue" is not enough if one uses the

culturally laden term "marriage." Rather, it appears necessary to rely on a partly

narrative appeal to overcome the traditionalism surrounding the word "marriage."

It is likely that this study underestimates the gap in persuasiveness between

primarily abstract and primarily narrative arguments. The sample consists primarily of



2 For this reason, columnist Leonard Pitts (2005) has recently argued that supporters of same-sex marriage
should simply use the phrase "civil unions." This ignores the fact that civil unions are state-level policies
while marriage confers both state and federal level benefits; however, it is in theory possible to redefine
"civil unions" such that they encompass federal-level legislation. While supporters of such a strategy likely
find it pragmatic, it is susceptible to charges that it accepts second-class cultural status for LGBTs.

3 It may be that those who received the "rights" argument worried that same-sex marriages still conveyed
cultural or religious endorsement of homosexuality, while those who received the "NOTRELIG" argument
did not realize that same-sex marriages have specific pragmatic benefits. Perhaps combining these two
appeals would be more effective.









people who have unusually strong educational credentials. These subjects likely have, on

the whole, a far greater familiarity with reading complicated materials that lack direct

emotional punch than the population at large, and should therefore be more susceptible to

abstract-rational kinds of persuasion. The fact that the appeal with the greatest emotional

punch was more successful than other appeals even in this sample suggests that it might

be dramatically more effective in the population at large. Sears' (1986) classic article

discussing the pitfalls of experimental research using college students as subjects warns

that college students generally possess "unusual cognitive skills," and maintains that

Customary procedures in laboratory studies should produce a strongly cognitive
set. ... A college student in a testlike situation [such as in experimental research]
knows not to respond with simple evaluative preferences; rather, what is called for
is paying close attention, dispassionate judgment, a search for the "right" answer,
critical thinking, and close attention. Social psychology's use of relatively well-
educated subjects, selected for their superior cognitive skills, along with research
sites, procedures, and tasks that promote dispassionate, academic information-
processing, should help produce empirical evidence that portrays humans as
dominated by cognitive processes, rather than by strong evaluative predispositions.
(Sears 1986: 524)

This pattern did not appear in this study. The failure of primarily abstract appeals, and

the success of a primarily narrative appeal, in a subject pool that is heavily cognitively-

oriented, indicates that narrative appeals may be even more effective in the general

public. It also suggests that the story might more clearly affect support for "marriage"

(and not just for the rights of marriage) in the population as a whole than in this subject

pool.4


4 It might be argued that some control group participants' claim of becoming more favorable toward same-
sex marriages and some control group participants' rating the argument they received are two pieces of
evidence supporting Sears' warning that college student subjects behave how they think they are supposed
to behave. However, the evidence that this happened in this study is scant. It seems much more likely that
reading questions about same-sex marriage caused students to think about it even if they did not read an
argument about it. Further, even if the critique is true, the comparison of different argument groups to the
control group reduces the significance of this critique to virtually nil.









On a related note, it may well be important that the story contained three children

as characters, and discussed the way that the lesbian couple's children were harmed by

the fact that the couple was not allowed to marry. Several open-ended questions asked

subjects for the "best argument they had heard in favor of' and the "best argument they

had heard against" same-sex marriages. Many subjects, whether or not they had received

the story as their argument, brought up kids in their answers, suggesting that children

occupy an especially important place in discussions of same-sex marriages. Best (1990)

has suggested that children are particularly sympathetic characters in narratives of any

kind, and that "atrocity tales" involving children are an excellent means of generating

concern and action. The story may have been successful at raising concern about what

would happen to the children in a world without same-sex marriage rights, in a way

similar to the way that atrocity tales generate concern.

The implication that part of the success of the story was due to the fact that it

successfully invoked concern for children is noteworthy for several reasons. First, Craig

et al. (2005), in a study of heterosexual Floridians' ambivalence on LGBT rights issues,

found that attitudes clustered together around two different sets of considerations: one set

of considerations considers LGBT adult roles, and the other concerns interactions with

children. In Craig et al's study, Floridians were substantially more supportive of

allowing LGBTs to serve in the military, have privacy in their own homes, have

protections against employment discrimination, and have family health insurance rights

than they were of allowing LGBTs to teach school, marry, adopt children, and join

groups like the Boy Scouts. Further, in the open-ended section, many subjects referenced

the supposed effects of same-sex marriages on children usually as a reason same-sex









marriages should not occur. These two findings together indicate that the proverbial

cultural deck is likely stacked against using children as part of an argument in favor of

same-sex marriage rights. Even though the story therefore called to mind a frame (effects

on children) that might have been expected to negatively impact attitudes toward same-

sex marriages, it appears that the direction of the story's argument (that same-sex

marriage rights would benefit children) was more important than the fact that its frame

has generally been used to argue against same-sex marriage rights. While this is

consistent with Brewer (2002)'s finding in an experimental study of LGBT rights frames

that the same frame (in his study, an "equality" frame or a "morality" frame) can be used

to support policies that go in opposite directions, it is inconsistent with his finding that his

subjects' "exposure to the frames encouraged participants to use value language not only

in ways suggested by the frames but also in ways that challenged the frames" (303).

Brewer writes that

Although exposure to a value frame may encourage some citizens to use value
language in a way that is connected with the frame's interpretation of the
relationship between the issue and the value, it may encourage other citizens to use
value language in a way that challenges this interpretation. Gamson's (1992) focus
group research suggests that citizens can draw upon popular wisdom, "counter-
frames" that criticize dominant media frames, and their own reasoning skills when
they encounter frames contained within media coverage. If this is so, then citizens
who encounter value frames may borrow the "value words" in those frames to
make their own points about an issue. (305)

It is striking that exposure to the "children" frame generally did not lead

respondents to oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that it would be bad for

children.5



5 This finding is especially noteworthy given that conservative subjects could have taken the logically
coherent position that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry and should not be allowed to
adopt, thus overcoming the argument that allowing same-sex couples to adopt but not marry is bad for their
children. It may be that hearing effects on children invoked to support same-sex marriage was new and









These findings suggest three promising routes for future work on this topic. First,

do abstract arguments on this topic that discuss children have a greater level of success

than other kinds of abstract arguments? It may be the case that children are so privileged

in this discourse that their presence in arguments is enough to overcome the

disadvantages that cognitive-rational arguments generally face. Secondly, what types of

narrative appeals are the most persuasive? Would the story have succeeded if it did not

have children, who are probably highly sympathetic characters, in it? What if the story

had been about a gay male couple, rather than two women? Following this line of

investigation might be useful not merely for understanding persuasion on same-sex

marriage, but also for developing a more finely honed understanding of how exactly

narrative appeals appear to be more persuasive and successful than more abstract appeals.

Finally, in an experiment similar to Brewer's (2002), how would subjects respond to pro-

and anti- same-sex marriage frames that deployed children as projected beneficiaries or

victims of same-sex marriages? Such an investigation would likely offer useful insights

into whether and how using frames in unexpected, novel ways can overcome the

tendency of some frames to be associated with particular "directions."









novel and subjects were persuaded by this position in part because they had never thought about counter-
arguments against it, as a great deal of evidence suggests that when it comes to resisting persuasion,
forewarned is forearmed (e.g. McGuire and Papageorgis 1962; Anderson and McGuire 1965, Billeaudeaux
et al 2005). The finding that the children frame did not provoke a backlash should not be interpreted to
mean that no subjects who received this argument wrote about negative effects of same-sex marriages on
children in the open-ended section. Rather, it means simply that the frame induced greater favorability
toward same-sex marriages; this favorability apparently outweighed any tendency of the frame to evoke
fear of GLBT parents "corrupting" their children.














APPENDIX
THE SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT

Please read the following text of a story in support of allowing same-sex marriages (from
www.hrc.org). When you are done reading, continue on to Part 3.

A story of two same-sex partners

Jo and Teresa live in Maryland. They've been in a loving, committed relationship for 19
years and have three children Jake, 12; Matthew, 9; and Bena, 2. Between skinned
knees, soccer practices and never enough time in the day, they face all the same joys and
frustrations as other parents but without the same protections.

Because the government won't give them legal protections, Jo and Teresa's children don't
qualify for full Social Security survivors' benefits if one of them dies, even after a
lifetime of paying taxes. And if one of the kids gets sick, in some states they could even
be denied the right to visit them in the hospital because they aren't "family." And Jo and
Teresa aren't eligible for COBRA health coverage for each other, or for family medical
leave to care for a sick loved one. If Teresa, who is not legally considered the children's
parent, should pass away, whatever she leaves to the children will be taxed more than it
would be if she were married to Jo. And if Teresa and Jo split up, Teresa will have no
legal obligation to pay child support to the children-regardless of how much money she
makes.

Why talk about this now? Because extreme politicians want to amend the U.S.
Constitution to deny any legal protections for gay partners and their families. Meanwhile,
gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships aren't eligible for
government-issued civil marriage licenses and the legal protections they provide.
Although no government should ever tell religious institutions who they can marry, the
government should not discriminate in providing civil marriage licenses to any devoted
couple.

Jo and Teresa deserve the same protections other families have and the ability to raise
their children without discrimination.















LIST OF REFERENCES


Anderson, L. R. and McGuire, W. J. 1965. "Prior Reassurance of Group Consensus as a
Factor in Producing Resistance to Persuasion." Sociometry 28: 44-56.

Altmeyer, B. 2001. "Changes in Attitudes toward Homosexuals." Journal of
Homosexuality 42 (2): 63-75.

Billeaudeaux, A., Domke, D., Hutcheson, J., and Garland, P. 2005. "The Bush
Administration, Inoculation Strategies, and the Selling of a 'War.'"
http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/SubmittedDocuments/archivedpapers/Fall20
03/pdf files/InnoculationPaper.pdf, last accessed May 2005.

Bolce, L., De Maio, G., and Muzzio, D. "The 1992 Republican 'Tent': No Blacks
Walked In." Political Science Quarterly 108 (2): 255-270.

Bowman, K., and O'Keefe, B. 2004. "Attitudes about Homosexuality and Gay
Marriage." American Enterprise Institute: Studies in Public Opinion.
www.aei.org, last accessed April 2005.

Brader, T. 2005. "Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and
Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions." American Political Science Review
49: 388-405.

Brewer, P. 2002. "Framing, Value Words, and Citizens' Explanations of their Issue
Opinions." Political Communication 19: 303-316.

Brounk, T. 1996. Changing Negative Attitudes toward Gay and Lesbian People: the
Impact of Cognition versus Affect. Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State University- Columbus.

Cobb, M., and Kuklinksi, J. 1997. "Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political
Persuasion." American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 88-121.

Craig, S., Martinez, M., Kane, J., and Gainous, J. 2005. "Core Values, Value Conflict,
and Citizens' Ambivalence about Gay Rights." Political Research Quarterly 55: 5-
17.

Cullen, J., Wright, L., and Alessandri, M. 2002. "The Personality Openness Variable as
It Relates to Homophobia." Journal ofHomosexuality 42 (4): 119-134).

Edwards, K. 1990. "The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Attitude Formation and
Change." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 202-216









Edwards, K., and W. von Hippel. 1995. "Hearts and Minds: The Priority of Affective
versus Cognitive Factors in Person Perception." Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 21: 996-1011.

Foumier, P., Martin, P., and Nadeau, R. 2002. "Who Can be Talked Out of Their
Positions and How? Persuasion and High-Stakes Political Choices." Paper
presented at the Canadian Political Science Associations 2002 meetings. Available
online at http://www.fas.umontreal.ca/POL/Martinp/FMNCPSAO2.pdf, last
accessed April 2005.

Gamson, W. 1992. Talking Politics. Boston: Cambridge University Press.

Gilbert, D. 1991. "How Mental Systems Believe." American Psychologist 46: 106-119.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization ofExperience.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Gilligan, C. 1993. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's
Development. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Goldstein, R. 2003. "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage: Why Progressives Must Join
This Fight." Village Voice, September 3-9, 2003.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0336,goldstein,46732,1.html, last accessed
February 2005.

Greenpeace. 2005. "Countering the Skeptics."
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/industry/reports/sceptics.html, last accessed
May 2005.

Herek, G. 1988. "Heterosexuals' Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men: Correlates
and Gender Differences." Journal of Sex Research 25 (4): 451-477.

Herek, G. 2000. "The Psychology of Sexual Prejudice. Current Directions in
Psychological Science 9: 19-22.

Herek, G. 2002a. "Gender Gaps in Public Opinion about Lesbians and Gay Men."
Public Opinion Quarterly 66 (1): 40-66.

Herek, G. 2002b. "Heterosexuals' Attitudes toward Bisexual men and Women in the
United States." Journal of Sex Research 39 (4): 264-274.

Herek, G., and Capitano, J. 1999. "Sex Differences in How Heterosexuals think about
Lesbians and Gay Men: Evidence from Survey Context Effects. Journal of Sex
Research 36 (4): 348-360.

Hovland, C., Janis, I., and Kelley, H. 1953. Communication and Persuasion:
Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.






45


Kahnemann, D., and Tversky, A. 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision
Under Risk." Econometrics 47: 263-291.

Kahnemann, D., and Tversky, A. 1984. "Choices, Values, and Frames." American
Psychologist 39: 341-350.

Lakoff, G. 2004. Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the
Debate The Essential Guide for Progressives. New York: Chelsea Green.

Lewis, G. 2003. "Black-White Differences in Attitudes toward Homosexuality and Gay
Rights." Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (1): 59-78.

Loftus, J. 2001. "America's Liberalization in Attitudes toward Homosexuality, 1973 to
1998." American Sociological Review 66 (5): 762-782.

McGuire, W. J. and Papageorgis, D. 1962. "Effectiveness of Forewarning in Developing
Resistance to Persuasion." Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 24-34.

McKissack, F. 2004. "Bush, Blacks and Values." Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette.
December 5.

Nelson, T., Clawson, R., and Oxley, Z. 1997. "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties
Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance." American Political Science Review 91: 567-
583.

Nelson, T., and Kinder, D. 1996. "Issue Framing and Group-Centrism in American
Public Opinion." Journal ofPolitics 58: 1055-1078.

Perloff, R. 2003. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communications and Attitudes in the
21t Century. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Pitts, L. 2005. "Stop Calling It Gay Marriage." Detroit Free-Press, June 10.
www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pittsl0e_20050610.htm, last accessed June
2005.

Pratkanis, A., and Aronson, E. Age ofPropaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of
Persuasion. New York: Henry Holt.

Snow, D., and Benford, R. 1992. "Master Frames and Cycles of Protest." Pages 133-
155 in A.D. Morris and C.M. Mueller, Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New
Haven: Yale University Press.

Stangor, C ., Sullivan, A., & Ford, T. 1991. "Affective and Cognitive Determinants of
Prejudice." Social Cognition 9: 359-380.






46


Weithoff, C. 2002. "Naming, Blaming, and Claiming in Public Disputes: The 1998
Maine Referendum on Civil Rights Protection for Gay Men and Lesbians."
Journal ofHomosexuality 44: 61-82.

Yang, A. 1997. "Trends: Attitudes toward Homosexuality." The Public Opinion
Quarterly 61 (3): 477-507.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Raj Ghoshal is the most important rising academic of the 21st Century. He

completed a B.A. in political science in May 2001 at the New College, where his senior

thesis examined "threat construction" and mass media depictions of Osama bin Laden.

His M.A. thesis in sociology from the University of Florida (2005) examines persuasion

in relation to attitudes about same-sex marriages. In his free time he enjoys chicken soda.