Emphasizing similarities or differences: Framing effects in LGBTQ movement mobilization
Abstract
Marginalized groups face major challenges in mobilizing the public, including how to frame their own identities. Should groups emphasize how similar they are to the dominant majority? Or can they focus on what makes them different without losing support? And do these frames affect internal communities and outsider allies in different ways? These questions have been particularly fraught for the LGBTQ movement, which has oscillated between presenting themselves as “just like” straight people and stressing the distinctiveness of LGBTQ identities. In this paper, I test the effectiveness of these identity frames with a unique survey experiment. Separate samples of LGBT and straight cisgender respondents were shown appeals from a (fictitious) LGBTQ interest group. The appeal emphasized either LGBTQ similarities with, or differences from, straight identities. Contrary to pre-registered expectations, how the group framed their identity had no effect on interest in joining the group’s action, views of its politics, or beliefs about its effectiveness. This was true for LGBT and straight cisgender respondents alike. Although claims about the importance of identity framing are commonplace in the literature, this suggests that the choice between emphasizing similarities or differences may have fewer consequences for contemporary LGBTQ groups.
