Gay Marriage Bans-Ballot Wording Effects

Marriage Protection Amendments 1
Political Value Judgments and Marriage Protection Amendments:
Information Effects in Direct Democracy Elections
Maridith A. Dunton Miles
maridithamiles@ufl.edu
University of Florida
David Lynn Painter
davpaint7@ufl.edu
University of Florida
Paper presented at the 2010 Meetings of the American Political Science Association Conference,
Washington, D.C.

Abstract
The purpose of this investigation is to explore information effects on voting intentions on a ballot
proposition banning same-sex marriage and to analyze voters' attitudes toward the social control
of this behavior. In the first experiment, the addition of four words to the ballot summary of a
marriage protection amendment was used to determine whether voting behavior on this highly
salient issue is susceptible to information effects. In the second experiment, subjects were
exposed to advertisements from the 2008 Marriage Protection Amendment 2 campaign in Florida
to determine if additional information effects could be measured. The results indicate that there
were significant differences in voting behavior between those provided the ballot proposition
with and without the inclusion of an explicit ban on civil unions. Additionally, there was a
significant change in attitudes toward the proposed ban on same-sex marriage among those
exposed to campaign messages in support of this constitutional amendment. Finally, it was found
that causal attributions of homosexuality, scores on a political value judgment index, and
campaign message exposure were the three most significant predictors of voting behavior on the
ballot proposition. These findings suggest that information effects have the potential to
powerfully impact voting behavior on ballot measures targeting civil rights.
Political value judgments and marriage protection amendments: Information effects in
direct democracy elections

While the gay rights movement traces its origins back four decades, the current legal and
political battle over same-sex marriage has arisen largely due to fears that judicial review of
statutory bans of same-sex marriage would result in their nullification. The 1993 Baehr case, for
instance, wherein Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled that state’s law against same-sex marriage
would be stricken as unconstitutional unless the state could show a compelling reason for the
ban, provoked marriage protection advocates into action. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
was subsequently passed by large bi-partisan majorities in both houses of Congress and signed
into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 (Wardle, 1996). This federal law holds
that: (1) no state need recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and (2) the federal
government defines marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman (DOMA Watch,
2009). Additionally, 41 states have also enacted statutory DOMAs, three of which were
approved prior to the federal statute (NCSL, 2009).
Not all state actions denying rights to homosexuals have withstood the scrutiny of the
judiciary, however, as the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its 1986 Bowers ruling upholding
Georgia’s anti-sodomy law and invalidated not only the Texas anti-sodomy law under
consideration, but also all such laws in the 2003 Lawrence case (Cornell, 2003). In that same
year, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in the Goodrich case that denying same-sex
couples the right to marry violated that state’s constitution because it did not accomplish a
legitimate government goal (Jehle, 2003). These cases along with the threat of further legal
action spurred efforts to amend state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage so that judicial
review and nullification of statutory bans such as DOMAs would not lead to the legalization of
same-sex unions in the various states.

In 2004, one year after the Lawrence and Goodrich cases, voters in 13 states passed
constitutional amendments to ban same sex marriage (Pew, 2009). Although three states had
approved such bans prior to 2003 (but after the Baehr case), voters in a total of 29 states have
now approved amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage between one man and
one woman. Additionally, Maine voters repealed a state law that would have given same sex
couples the right to marry in their state in November 2009 (Falcone, 2009). In fact, Arizona
became the only state wherein voters have defeated a constitutional amendment defining
marriage between a man and a woman in 2006, but subsequently passed one in 2008. This
barrage of recent voter activity restricting the rights of homosexuals is nothing new. As Gamble
(1997) stated over a decade ago, “Gay men and lesbians have seen their civil rights put to a
popular vote more often than any other group. Almost 60% of the civil rights initiatives have
involved gay rights issues” (p. 257).
At present, advocates for marriage equality are having more success in federal court than
in state ballot proposition contests. The most recent cause for optimism was provided by Vaughn
R.Walker, the federal appellate judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern California on
August 4, 2010. In his Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, Judge Walker struck-down
California’s constitutional amendment (Proposition 8) approved by voters in November 2008.
Failing to find a compelling state interest advanced by this constitutional amendment, Judge
Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated homosexual’s rights of due process and equal protection
under the law as guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (McKinley &
Schwartz, 2010).
While Perry v. Schwarzenegger works its inevitable way to the U.S. Supreme Court,
scholars interested in direct democracy elections have begun analyzing the influences on voting

behavior that led to voter approval of marriage protection amendments in nearly three-fifths of
the states (Lewis, 2010; Smith, 2009). In addition to demographic factors such as race, gender,
and education identified by these scholars, one of the logical starting points for such an analysis
begins with an investigation into the effects of the wording of the summary of the ballot
proposition as it is placed before the voters. Not only may the wording of a proposition affect
individual voting behavior, but it may even change the outcome of the election. In Arizona, the
first and only state to reject a ban on same-sex marriages in 2006, voters in 2008 approved a
more narrowly focused marriage protection amendment, demonstrating how a small change in
ballot wording can lead to dramatically different behaviors and results on election-day.
In addition to the title and summary of the proposition placed on the ballot, televised
political advertising is arguably another significant source of information voters may use in these
elections, especially in states that do not provide voter guides during campaigns. While
campaign advertising has been shown to have significant impacts on viewers’ knowledge levels
and voting intentions (see Kaid, 2004), research into the effects of interest group advertiements
in ballot proposition campaigns remains startlingly limited to one study (Stratmann, 2006).
As the number of ballot propositions continues to grow in this country, it is important to
explore how the information presented to voters during such elections may affect their vote
choice. It is the objective of this study to determine whether ballot wording and campaign
advertising may alter perceptions of such propositions. Can a few words really affect outcomes?
And can information provided through campaign advertising magnify these effects? This study
makes use of two separate experimental investigations to analyze systematically the information
effects observed in ballot proposition campaigns.
Experiment 1: Ballot Wording Effects

While the lack of an informed electorate in the United States has been documented for
many years, scholars continue to disagree about the extent to which the effects of this deficit are
hindering citizens from voting correctly or in accordance with their policy preferences. Some
claim citizens are capable of using heuristic shortcuts to make decisions as accurately as those
with encyclopedic political knowledge (Lupia, 1994 Lewkowicz, 2006). Others argue statistical
aggregation cancels-out the effects of misplaced votes by uniformed citizens in terms of election
outcomes (Converse, 1990; Miller, 1986; Page & Shapiro, 1992). While heuristic cues and
statistical aggregation may mitigate the effects of low information voters casting incorrect
ballots, it has also been shown that voters’ lack of information has significant effects on voting
behavior – even in high information races (Bartels, 1996).
Literature Review
When examining the efffects of information on voting behavior in direct democracy
elections, the ballot itself is one of the most important sources of information since it is available
to all voters at the time of voting. As apparent as this conclusion is, there has been remarkably
little research on the effects of ballot wording on voting behavior in regard to ballot propositions.
Indeed, the notion that ballot wording may impact voters’ information processing and decision
making is largely inferred from analyses of survey question wording indicating some items may
cue specific responses; force respondents to vocalize phantom opinions; or even mislead
respondents (Bishop, 2005; Noelle-Neuman, 1970; Payne, 1951). Although the effects of ballot
features on candidate races have been well-documented (Campbell et al, 1960; Hecock & Bain,
1956), the only research on the effects of ballot wording on voting behavior in direct democracy
elections was focused on confusing ballot titles (Gafke & Leothold, 1979). One of the benefits of
an experimental design is that it allows for manipulation of the wording of policy questions

(ballot measures) and subsequent meaurement of the effects of these alternate wordings on
participants’ responses (voting intentions) with many other variables held constant.
In addition to the laboratory, the elecorate in Arizona also provided a case study of the
effects of ballot wording on voting behavior with the defeat of a broadly restrictive state
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2006 and then their approval of a less
restrictive but similar measure in 2008. Specifically, the 2006 measure not only banned legal
recognition of same-sex marriages, but also banned civil unions as well as eligibility for spousal
benefits among couples of the same sex. After its defeat, another marriage protection amendment
was formulated that only banned legal recognition of same-sex marriages, qualified for the 2008
ballot, and was approved by voters. The National Conference of State Legislatures has also
affirmed the influence of a ballot proposition’s title and summary on voting behavior. They
concluded: "The ballot title and summary are arguably the most important part of an initiative in
terms of voter education. Most voters never read more than the title and summary of the text of
initiative proposals. Therefore, it is of critical importance that titles and summaries be concise,
accurate and impartial" (NCSL, 2002).
The purpose of this first study is to determine whether making a ban on civil unions
explicit in the wording of a marriage protection amendment would have an effect on voting
behavior and electoral outcomes. Put simply, does the addition of four words (such as civil
unions) that make this effect explicit have the potential to change voting intentions? Although
Florida’s Supreme Court reviewed Proposition 2 prior to its appearance on the 2008 ballot and
ruled that the ballot title, “Florida Marriage Protection Amendment 2,” and summary, "This
amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and
wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial

equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized,” were stated in clear and unambiguous language,
the present investigation presents an empirical test of this judgment. Based upon survey results
showing there was strong support for legal recognition of civil unions between partners of both
the opposite and the same sex which would be made illegal and unconstitutional under this
amendment, Florida’s Supreme Court ruling runs counter to the evidence (Pew, 2009).
Therefore, we pose:
Hypothesis One: Changes in ballot proposition wording will affect significant differences
in voting intentions.
Method
Participants & Design. A volunteer sample of 467 students over the age of 18 was
recruited from undergraduate classes fulfilling general education requirements in a large
southeastern research institution. A posttest-only experimental design with one experimental
condition was used. Respondents were randomly assigned to either the control group (the ballot
initiative title and summary as worded on the 2008 Florida ballot) or the experimental group (the
ballot initiative title with the addition of the words “such as civil unions” in the summary).
Dependent Variables. Voting intention on “Marriage Protection Amendment 2” to
Florida’s Constitution, was measured by asking participants to “Vote For,” “Vote Against,” or
state that they had “No Opinion” on the ballot proposition. The questionnaire also included a
standard battery of demographic questions as well as items asking about partisanship and
political ideology.
Stimuli. Participants in the control group were provided the exact wording of Florida’s
Marriage Protection Amendment 2 as it appeared on the ballot in 2008: “Inasmuch as marriage is
the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage

or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” Participants in the
experimental condition were provided with the same ballot proposition with the addition of the
four words such as civil unions: “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and
one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof
such as civil unions shall be valid or recognized.”
Procedure. Participants were directed to a Web site that randomly assigned them to either
the control group or the experimental condition. The experiment was conducted online utilizing
web-based survey software. First, participants read and agreed to an informed consent document
approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. Second, participants answered basic
demographic questions and then were presented with either the ballot proposition (control group)
or the ballot proposition with the addition of “such as civil unions” (experimental group). They
were then asked to vote either for or against the proposition or state that they had no opinion.
After voting, participants were asked to complete the posttest questionnaire. Upon completion of
the posttest, participants were thanked, debriefed, and directed to a separate website to enter
identifying information for receipt of extra credit.
Results
Before proceeding to the data analysis, a description of the respondents is in order. The
sample was 57% female, 43% male, and 98% heterosexual with a mean age of 20.3 years. Sixty-
eight percent of the sample identified as White, 14% was Hispanic, 12% were African American,
4% were Asian, and 2% were ethnically mixed. In terms of political party affiliation and
ideology, on a scale of 1 (far left) to 7 (far right), the mean score across the sample was 4.3 and
50% of respondents identified themselves as Democratic, 31% Republican, 17% Independent,
1% Libertarian, and 1% Green. Twenty-eight percent of participants were Catholic; 26% were

Traditional Protestants; 15% were Jewish; 19% were Agnostic or Atheists; 11% were
Evangelical Protestants; and 1% was Islamic. There were no significant differences on any
demographic, political ideology, or political party affiliation variable between conditions.
To determine whether the ballot wording manipulation affected voting behavior, we used
a simple vote choice item. Our first hypothesis predicted that the addition of the words “such as
civil unions” would have a behavioral effect. The results of a chi-square test reveal significant
differences between the control and treatment groups (X2
(2) = 10.85, p = .004). As shown in
Table 1, when the words “such as civil unions” were present (experimental condition), 64% of
participants voted against the amendment, while only 49% voted against the amendment in the
control condition. Additionally, the percentage of participants supporting the amendment
dropped from 33.6% to 20.9% with the addition of “such as civil unions.” This result provides
strong support for Hypothesis One.
In order to determine whether the effect of this ballot wording manipulation was
consistent across all participants or if it was driven by a meaningful political category of
participants, further analysis was conducted to evaluate differences in voting intentions between
conditions within participants’ political party affiliation also shown in Table 1. This analysis
revealed that the ballot wording effect was driven largely by participants affiliated with the
Democratic Party (X2
(2) = 7.80, p = .02) as there were no differences in voting intention between
conditions among Republicans (X2
(2) = 2.41, p = .299) or Independents (X2
(2) = .444, p = .80).
Experimement Two – Campaign Advertising Effects
In this series of studies we attempted to determine whether alterations in information
provided to participants could change outcomes in overall vote either for or against a highly

visible attempt to control behavior. As this was our intention, it was logical to first test the most
important source of information – the information that every voter who chooses to vote on the
proposition would be exposed to – the exact wording of the proposition title and summary. If a
small change in the wording of the proposed amendment summary had made no difference in the
outcome, one could reasonably conclude that the issue at stake was already fully developed,
understood, and that voters were set in their views of the issue. However, as was shown in
Experiment One, ballot wording did make a difference in vote choice. It is therefore reasonable
to conclude that citizens’ views of a ban on same-sex marriage may not be stable, may still be
evolving, and that the issues related to the ballot proposition may not be fully understood.
Voter uncertainty is the foundation upon which both advocates and critics of televised
political advertising base their claims. This uncertainty makes persuasion possible in campaigns,
especially through the use of televised political advertising. Campaign advertising serves the
important role of informing voters about their choices, albeit from a specific point of view.
While voters can rely on heuristics such as party identification in voting for candidates, this cue
is not available when making decisions about ballot propositions. To counter this information
deficit, over a billion dollars has been raised and spent by interest group campaigns during more
than 1,500 ballot proposition elections over the past ten years (BISC, 2008). The next study in
this investigation, therefore, tests information effects in ballot initiative elections achieved
through televised political advertising. In addition to voting intention, information processing
effects are also measured to determine how campaign messages may affect attitudes toward the
social control of behavior in the form of a marriage protection amendment
Television Advertising Effects

One important source of information about the issues at stake in ballot measure elections
is the television advertising sponsored by interest groups both in support of and in opposition to
the specific propositions appearing on the ballot (Bowler & Donovan, 2002). Although it has
only been relatively recently that scholars began to break from a limited effects view of media
influence, research into the effects of political advertising has been plentiful and evidence
abounds that paid political advertising has identifiable cognitive, affective, and behavioral effects
on viewers.
The results of multiple analyses have shown that exposure to televised political
advertising may increase voters’ knowledge levels about the issues and candidates’ policy
positions at stake in the election (Atkin & Heald, 1976; Martinelli & Chaffee, 1995; Hofstetter &
Strand, 1983). In particular, negative advertisements and those that make use of emotional
appeals have been linked with higher levels of recall (Basil, Schooler, & Reeves, 1991; Johnson-
Cartee & Copeland, 1989; Lang, 1991; Newhagen & Reeves, 1991).
There is also evidence that political advertising has behavioral effects – the most
important being vote intention. Multiple studies have shown that those exposed to political
messages tend to vote the way the message intends (Cundy, 1986; Kaid & Sanders, 1978;
Mulder, 1979). Both attitude change and voting intentions that follow the direction sponsored by
the advertisement seem to have the strongest effect among late deciders and those least attached
to political parties (Bowen, 1994).
When compared to the amount of research on the effects of televised political advertising
in candidate elections, research on the effects of television advertising in ballot measure contests
is relatively scant. Looking specifically at the effects of television advertising in ballot measure
contests in California from 2000 to 2004, Strattmann (2006) shows that advertising not only

increases viewers’ knowledge levels, but that it also has a significant impact on the vote.
Evidence from his analysis of survey and television demographic marketing data provides
compelling warrants for the theory that television advertising both in support of and in
opposition to specific ballot measures may have significant effects on voting behavior.
Therefore, we pose:
Hypothesis One: The attitudes of those exposed to a television advertisement sponsoring
a ballot proposition will change in the message-sponsored direction.
Hypothesis Two: The attitudes of those exposed to a television advertisement opposing a
ballot proposition will change in the message-sponsored direction.
Attribution Theory
In addition to the influence of television advertising, cognitive processes that impact
affect toward homosexuals as a group have also been identified as having a significant impact on
individual-level decision-making in regard to ballot measures that would ban same-sex marriage.
One of these cognitive processes involves an individual’s attribution of the cause of the behavior.
According to Heider (1944), people try to predict and control their environments by attributing
the cause of the behavior either to the person (internal/dispositional) or the environment
(external/situational). The appropriate response to the outcome or the behavior is determined by
whether an individual perceives it is caused by dispositional or situational factors.
When applied to homosexuality, research on perceptions of the cause of this behavior has
generally confirmed that “those who viewed homosexuality as a controllable state report more
negative attitudes toward homosexuals than those who viewed homosexuality as uncontrollable”
(Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2008, p. 294). Further, it has also been found that political ideology
and religious affiliation impact an individuals’ attribution of the causes of the stigmatized

behavior and situational outcomes. That is, political and religious leaders may provide citizens
with cues to reduce their uncertainty about political issues in a two-step flow of communication.
Specifically, political conservatives and those affiliated with conservative religious traditions are
exposed to elite cues that attribute the cause of homosexuality to a lifestyle choice or a
controllable dimension of behavior instead of an innate or genetic determinant of the behavior
(Layman & Carmines, 1997; Wood & Bartowski, 2004). Thus, political and religious
conservatives not only have a more negative affective orientation toward homosexuals as a
group, but they are also more likely to support ballot propositions that would ban same-sex
mariage (Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2008). When examining the processes by which citizens make
these types of value judgments, it is clear that some segments of society find justification for the
social control of behavior. Beyond attribution, other factors involved in making these political
value judgments have also been examined by scholars.
Social Control of Behavior
When examined broadly, many political campaigns are expressing value judgments,
advancing claims of what is right or wrong, better or worse, fair or unfair. While this line of
reasoning may be applied to the issues discussed in candidate campaigns, it frequently applies
even more appropriately to ballot proposition campaigns involving social issues. A
constitutional amendment to ban an activity or behavior, for instance, is essentially asking voters
to make a political value judgment – to decide whether or not an activity or behavior will be
tolerated by society. In his study of the social control of behavior, Gusfield (1967) concludes that
political pressure to define morality through legislation is greatest when the deviant is designated
the enemy and consensus about social norms is difficult to attain. Clearly, the criteria used to
make these judgments, as in all political decisions, leads to political differences among groups.

Rather than seeing political differences as preferences, Stoker (2001) suggests they
should be conceptualized as “disagreements about what is the best or right course of policy to
pursue” (p. 459). This conceptualization allows for theorizing about political opinions and the
justification of those opinions as value judgments. In her study of political value judgments,
Stoker (2001) finds that, while morality judgments and attitudes play a part, governmental
control (prohibition or regulation) of behavior is generally only deemed justifiable if there is also
some risk of harm to self, others, or society in the practice of the behavior. Other scholars,
(Dewey, 1949; Taylor, 1961; Rokeach, 1973) have also argued that political value judgments can
be studied scientifically in order to determine how citizens justify the social control of behavior
in terms of moral judgments, protecting the rights of individuals, safeguarding citizens from
harm, or preserving a way of life.
Mayhead (1993), in her examination of the campaigns for and against Oregon’s Ballot
Measure 9 which sought to ban gay marriage, noted that supporters of this proposition argued
that banning gay marriage was the only way to “protect your children and protect your
community” (p. 419). Using the word “protect” implies that there is something negative from
which one must be safeguarded. Indeed, arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage
debate use the word “protect” in terms of privacy and equal rights as well as the sanctity of
traditional marriage and family values. While such framing tactics have been explored by other
scholars (e.g., Gerber, 1999; Magleby, 1984), this investigation attempts to analyze the effects of
campaign messages on citizens’ attitudes and voting intentions on same-sex marriage bans.
Based on this line of reasoing, the following hypothesis is posed:

Hypothesis Three: Campaign message exposure, attitudes toward the social control
of behavior, and attribution of homosexuality will be significant predictors of voting
intention on Florida’s Marriage Protection Amendment.
Method
Participants & Design. A volunteer sample of 357 students was recruited from
undergraduate classes fulfilling general education requirements in a large southeastern research
institution. A pretest-posttest experimental design was incorporated into an online questionnaire
with two experimental conditions. All of the respondents answered the questionnaire and were
randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions – one of which contained television
advertisements in support of Amendment 2 and one of which contained television advertisements
in opposition to Amendment 2.
Dependent Variables. Attitudes toward the social control of behavior in the form of a ban
on same-sex marriage are operationalized using a nine item scale as described by Stoker (2001):
one question that measures subjects’ opinions about the role of government in regulating same-
sex marriage; two questions about moral judgments of same-sex marriage; four questions about
commitment to individual autonomy; and two questions about assessments of harm. Results of a
reliability test show that pretest responses to these nine questions had a Cronbach’s Alpha score
of .738 and posttest responses had a Cronbach’s Alpha score of .783. As Cronbach’s Alpha
scores over 0.7 have been deemed acceptable (Nunnally, 1978), these nine questions were used
to calculate a judgment index for each subject to measure attitudes toward the social control of
gay marriage. Scores ranged from 9 (low preference for the legalization of same-sex marriage) to
36 (high preference for the legalization of gay marriage). Questions about the morality, harm,
and government regulation of gambling and pornography were also included on the pretest

questionnaire to distract participants from the purpose of the study at the onset of the experiment.
These distraction items were not used in the analysis and did not appear on the posttest
questionnaire after participants had watched an advertisement from Florida’s Marriage
Protection Amendment 2 campaign.
Two items measured respondents’ attribution of homosexuality to either a controllable or
uncontrollable cause: (1) Sexual orientation can be changed, and (2) Homosexuals are born that
way. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with these two items on a five-item scale
from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. After recoding the second item, reliability
analsysis of the respondents’ answers revealed a Cronbach’s Alpha score of .804. Therefore,
these two items were combined to create an attribution scale from 2 (controllable) to 10 (not
controllable).
Voting intention on Amendment 2, “The Marriage Protection Amendment”, to Florida’s
Constitution, was measured by asking participants to vote “yes” or “no” on the ballot initiative.
The exact wording of the initiative used on the 2008 ballot was presented to the participants
before asking for a response. The questionnaire also included a standard battery of demographic
questions as well as items asking about partisanship and political ideology.
Stimuli. The two experimental groups were exposed to one of two message conditions
before being asked to vote on the ballot proposition. The stimuli used in the treatment groups
were the actual television advertisements sponsored by the groups both in support of and in
opposition to Florida’s Marriage Protection Amendment 2. The stimuli included: a 30-second
advertisement against Amendment 2 sponsored by Florida Red & Blue; a 30-second
advertisement against Amendment 2 sponsored by Equality Florida that highlights equality; a 30-
second advertisement in support of Amendment 2 sponsored by Florida4Marriage emphasizing

morality and family values; a 30-second advertisement in support of Amendment 2 sponsored by
Yes2Marriage that describes what the amendment accomplishes.
Procedure. The volunteer participants were directed to a Web site that randomly assigned
them to either the control group or one of the experimental conditions. The questionnaire and
experiment was conducted online utilizing web-based survey software. First, participants read
and agreed to an informed consent document approved by the university’s Institutional Review
Board. Next, participants were asked to fill out a pretest questionnaire. After completion of the
pretest questionnaire, participants were shown one of the advertisements described above
according to their treatment group assignment. Following the viewing of one of the
advertisement, participants were shown the ballot proposition and asked to vote for or against it.
After voting, participants were asked to complete the posttest questionnaire. Upon completion of
the posttest, participants were thanked, debriefed, and directed to a separate website to enter
identifying information for receipt of extra credit. Attitude change is measured by comparing the
differences in mean pretest and posttest scores within each condition.
Results
Before examining the specific hypotheses and the research question posed in this
analysis, some descriptive results drawn from the sample are in order. A total of 357 students
completed this project with 179 exposed to a campaign ad in support of Amendment 2 and 168
exposed to a campaign ad in opposition to Amendment 2. In terms of gender, race/ethnicity,
religion, partisan identification, and political ideology, there was a broad cross-section of
participation. Overall, 60% of the sample was female and 40% was male. Sixty percent of the
participants were non-Hispanic White; 17% were Hispanic; 12% were African-American; 7%
were Asian; and 4% were multi-racial. Thirty-five percent of participants were Catholic; 23%

were Traditional Protestants; 15% were Jewish; 18% were Agnostic or Atheists; 8% were
Evangelical Protestants; and 1% was Islamic. Forty-two percent of participants identified with
the Democratic Party; 33% identified with the Republican Party; 21% identified as Independents;
and 4% identified with the Libertarian Party. Political ideology was measured on a scale of 1
(liberal) to 5 (conservative) and the mean score across the sample was 2.78. There were no
significant differences on any of these variables between the conditions.
Hypothesis One predicted that the attitudes of those exposed to pro-Amendment 2
messages would move in the message-sponsored direction. As shown in Table 2, the results of a
paired-samples t-test (t = 1.94, df = 178, p < .05) confirm that there was a significant difference
between the mean pretest score (M = 27.01) and the mean posttest score (M = 26.64) on the
judgment index within this condition. Therefore, this hypothesis was supported.
Hypothesis Two predicted that the attitudes of those exposed to anti-Amendment 2
messages would move in the message-sponsored direction. As is also shown in Table 2, the
results of a paired-samples t-test (t = .269, df = 167, p = .39, n.s.) failed to confirm that the
difference between the mean pretest score (M = 26.63) was significantly different from the mean
posttest score (M = 26.54) on the judgment index. In fact, the marginal movement within this
condition was in the wrong direction. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported.
As presented in Figure 1, the results of a logistic regression analysis show that the nine
variables in our model accounted for a significant portion of the variance in the vote on
Amendment 2, R2
adj = 27.3%, F(9, 351) = 15.68, p < .001. The dependent variable in this model
was the vote in favor of the ballot measure which would ban same-sex marriage. A dummy
variable was created with those who voted “yes” on the Amendment coded as 1 and those who
voted “no” coded as 0. The most significant predictors of a vote in favor of this ban on same-sex

marriage were subjects’ scores on the attribution and social control of behavior indices. Those
with high scores on the attribution index were significantly more likely to vote “yes” on the
Amendment than those with low scores on the attribution index. Alternately, those with high
scores on the judgment index were significantly less likely than those with low scores on the
judgment index to vote in favor of the ballot measure. Additionally, those exposed to pro-
Amendment 2 campaign messages were significantly more likely to vote “yes” on the ballot
measure than were those who were exposed to anti-Amendment 2 campaign advertisements.
Dummy variables created for the remaining factors – affiliation with the Republican
Party; having a conservative political ideology; being a non-Hispanic White, Catholic, or
Evangelical Protestant, as well as the selection of family values as the most compelling argument
- were not significant predictors of the vote on Amendment 2 when controlling for the other
variables in this model.
Discussion
While a great deal of political science research on direct democracy measures focuses on
the impact of partisanship, ideology, and demographic characteristics on voting behavior,
developing models for analyzing the attitudes toward ballot measures proposing bans on same-
sex marriage and the influence of information in campaign messages may further scholarship in
this relatively new scholarly field. Specifically, finding significant change in voting behavior
with the addition of just four words in the Amendment 2 ballot summary; finding that citizens’
attitudes toward the social control of behavior changed significantly (in the predicted direction)
after exposure to pro-Amendment 2 messages; and finding that judgment index scores,
attribution index scores, and exposure to campaign messages in favor of Florida’s Marriage
Protection Amendment 2 were significant independent predictors of the vote on this ballot

measure are all important results in terms of developing models for analyzing public opinion on
proposed ballot measures that involve the social control of behavior. Although scholars have
warned against the generalization of research results to the larger population based on
experimental studies using college students as subjects (Sears, 1986), the results of a recent
meta-analysis show there are no significant differences between student and non-student samples
when investigating the effects of televised political advertising (Benoit, Leshner, &
Chattopadhyay, 2007) . We believe the results of these two experimental studies to be a strong
initial discussion of the information effects in attempts to ban same-sex marriage.
Perhaps one of the most interesting findings of this study of attitudes toward banning
same-sex marriage is the outcome of Experiment 1. While we found the addition of four words –
“such as civil unions” – to effect significant change in the vote on the proposed amendment, it
appears that this change lies only with those who described themselves as Democrat. Persuasive
techniques in political campaigning are built upon the idea of uncertainty. With this in mind, one
would expect to find the greatest information effects among those who are least partisan – not
strongly committed to a party or ideology – Independents. In this experiment however, both
Republicans and Independents were firm in their opinions and were not swayed by the change in
wording of the ballot initiative summary. It was only Democrats who were movable in this
instance, and in fact were they fifteen percent more likely to vote against the amendment with
the addition of “such as civil unions.” In an environment where just a few percentage points
could make the difference between the success or failure of an amendment such as this one, this
result is clearly significant and worth exploration. It appears that this issue is not very clearly
defined for Democrats, and that they are struggling to come to a firm, unmovable decision when
it comes to banning same-sex marriage. Perhaps what we are seeing here is the result of the

Democratic party’s mixed messages on the issue. While party elites in the Democratic party
state that the definition of marriage remains a union between one man and one woman, these
same political actors often promote the idea of civil unions and publicize their commitment to
gay rights. These mixed messages clearly have the potential to create uncertainty in the minds
of party followers, and this may also mean that this is the most important group to target as this
issue is continues to evolve.
The importance of examining the factors involved in the processing of information and
the formation of attitudes toward same-sex marriage among young citizens simply cannot be
overstated. The fact that public opinion on social issues evolves over time becomes evident when
examining the changes in attitudes toward other forms of behavior once deemed unacceptable.
As recently as 1994, for example, less than half of all Americans approved of interracial
marriage, but as of 2007 over 75% did so (Carroll, 2007). In the majority opinion of the
Lawrence case which struck-down Texas’ anti-sodomy statute, Justice Kennedy specifically
stated that government prohibitions of stigmatized behaviors are subject to change over time. He
wrote that “this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral
code. The Nation’s laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show
an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how
to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (Cornell, 2003, p.1).
These experiments provide new insight into examining public opinion and persuasion in
the social control of behavior. This background is interesting, not only for the future of social
control legislation, but for current campaigns as well. It seems clear, both from our experimental
results as well as actual vote outcomes in states across the United States, that the persuasive
efforts of those who seek to ban same-sex marriage are working. While groups against these

bans are often in the minority, and therefore often have less money, these experiments show that
there are publics on both sides of the issue that can be persuaded by new pieces of information.
We also show that attribution of the origin of homosexuality and attitudes toward the social
control of behavior still play a large part in determining how a person feels about banning same-
sex marriage. All of these findings suggest that although this issue is still evolving, real progress
has been made.
While we do see progress, advocates of same-sex marriage are still faced with challenges.
We believe one of the largest challenges will be to reframe the issue from one of “protection” to
one of “equality.” This frame continues to be the frame of choice among those who seek to ban
same sex marriage, and often spurs the drive to “protect” the public from some unknown harm.
On the other hand, same-sex marriage reframed as a matter of equality might spur feelings of
civil injustice and help to define this issue as the major civil rights issue of this generation. It is
interesting to note that Florida’s Amendment 2 – the ballot initiative being studied here – was
titled the “Marriage Protection Act.” Embedded in this title is an implication of harm and the
need to safeguard others from that harm, thus justifying the governmental control of behavior
sought by the amendment. Although same-sex marriage advocates continue to face challenges
such as this framing issue, we believe our studies reveal this to be an evolving issue and that
there continues to be room for persuasion as it becomes better defined.
Future research should examine more closely the partisan differences in the persuasion or
movement on the issue of banning same-sex marriage. It would be interesting to examine
whether this is true persuasion or if the issue just needs to be more clearly defined for voters by
party elites. Research should also examine other advertising strategies, looking closely at the
framing of the issue. Experiments taking place in states where a ban on same-sex marriage is not

on the ballot, and involving non-student participants would work reveal if these results are more
widely generalizable. Finally, it would be interesting to explore whether attitudes on the social
control of behavior are moveable.

References
Atkin, C., & Heald, G. (1976). Effects of political advertising. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40,
p. 216-228.
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (2008). Ballot integrity reform. Retrieved 31 July 2010 from:
http://www.ballot.org/pages/initiative_reform
Basil, M., Schooler, C., & Reeves, B. (1991). Positive and negative political advertising:
Effectiveness of ads and perceptions of candidates. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and
Political Advertising, Volume 1 (p. 245-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bowen, L. (1994). Time of voting decision and use of political advertising: The Slade Gorton-
Brock Adams senatorial campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 71(3), p. 665-675.
Bowler. S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Do voters have a cue? Television advertisements as a source
of information in citizen-initiated referendum campaigns. European Journal of Political
Research, 41, 777-793.
Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Cundy, D. T. (1986). Political commercials and candidate image: The effects can be substantial.
In L. L Kaid, D. Nimmo, & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), New Perspectives on Political
Advertising (p. 210-234). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1949). The field of value. In R. Lepley (Ed.), Value: A cooperative inquiry (pp. 68-
93). New York: Columbia University Press.

Falcone, M. (2009, November 4). Maine vote repeals same-sex marriage law. Politico.com
Retrieved November 16, 2009, from:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29119.html
Gamble, B.S. (1997). Putting civil rights to a popular vote. American Journal of Political
Science, 41(1), 245-269.
Gusfield, J. R. (1967). Moral Passage: The symbolic process in public designations of deviance.
Social Problems, 15(2), p. 175-188.
Haider-Markel, D.P., & Joslyn, M.R. (2008). Beliefs about the origins of homosexuality and
support for gay rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 291-310.
Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358-
374.
Hofstetter, C. R., & Strand, P. J. (1983). Mass media and political issue perceptions. Journal of
Broadcasting, 27, p. 345-358.
Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. (1989). Southern voters’ reactions to negative political
ads in 1986 election. Journalism Quarterly, 66, p. 888-893, 986.
Kaid, L. L. (2004). Political advertising. In L.L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political
communication research (pp. 155-202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kaid, L. L. (1976). Measures of political advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 16(5),
p. 49-53.
Kaid, L. L., & Sanders, K. R. (1978). Political television commercials: An experimental study of
the type and length. Communication Research, 5, p. 57-70.
Lang, A. (1991). Emotion, formal features, and memory for televised political advertisements.

In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and Political Advertising, Volume 1 (p. 221-243).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Layman, G.C. & Carmines, E.G. (1997).
Cultural conflict in American politics: Religious traditionalism, postmaterialism, and
U.S. political behavior. Journal of Politics, 59(3), 751-777.
Lewis, G.B. (2010). The sources of rising support for same-sex marriage. Paper presented at the
2010 Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
Lewkowicz, M. (2006). The effectiveness of elite cues as heuristics in proposition elections.
American Politics Research, 34, pp. 51-68.
Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California
insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88 (1), 1994.
Magleby, D.B. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Martinelli, K. A., & Chaffee, S. H. (1995). Measuring new voter learning via three channels of
political information. Journalism and Mass Communications Quarterly, 72, p. 18-32.
Mayhead, M. (1993). It will happen: Causal argumentation in Oregon’s ballot measure 9
controversy. Conference Proceedings -- National Communication Association/American
Forensic Association (Alta Conference on Argumentation), 419-422.
McKinley, J. & Schwartz, J. (2010, August 4). Court rejects same-sex marriage ban in
California. Retrieved August 5, 2010, from:
www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html
Morales, L. (2009, May 29). Knowing someone gay/lesbian affecs views of gay issues. USA
Today/Gallup Poll. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118931/Knowing-Someone-Gay-Lesbian-Affects-Views-
Gay-Issues.aspx
Mulder, R. (1979). The effects of televised political ads in the 1975 Chicago mayoral election.
Journalism Quarterly, 56, p. 336-340.
NCSL (2002). Preparation of ballot title and summary. Retrieved 31 July 2010. from:
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16586
Newhagen, J. E., & Reeves, B. (1991). Emotion and memory responses for negative political
advertising: A study of television commercials used in the 1988 presidential election. In
F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and Political Advertising, Volume 1 (p. 197-220). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1978). Psychometric theory, second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
http://people-press.org/report/204/gay-marriage-a-voting-issue-but-mostly-for-opponents
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2009). State policies on same-sex marriage. Retrieved
October 11, 2009, from: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=421
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. San
Francisco: Foresman.
Sears, D.O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data
base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(3), 515-530.
Smith, D.A. (2009). Jilted at the altar: Contingent public opinion on statewide same-sex marriage
ballot measures. Paper presented at the 2009 Meetings of the American Political Science
Association, Toronto.

Steinhauser, P. (2009). CNN poll: Generations disagree on same-sex marriage. Retrieved
September 29, 2009, from:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html
Stoker, L. (2001). Political Value Judgments. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics:
Perspectives from political psychology (p. 433-468). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Strattmann, T. (2006). Is spending more potent for or against a proposition? Evidence from
ballot measures. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 788-801.
Taylor, P. W. (1961). Normative discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wood, P.B., & Barkowski, J.P. (2004). Attribution style and public policy attitudes toward gay
rights. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 58-74.

Appendix
Table 1
Voting Intention on Amendment 2 by Condition and Political Party Affiliation*
Control Group Experimental Group
(N = 284) (N = 172)
Vote For Amendment 2
Total 34% 21%
Democrats 23 9
Republicans 59 50
Independents 19 13
No Opinion
Total 17 15
Democrats 13 12
Republicans 19 17
Independents 21 23
Vote Against Amendment 2
Total 49 64
Democrats 64 79
Republicans 21 33
Independents 60 64
*Percentages rounded to nearest integer to facilitate illustration

Table 2
Mean Judgment Index Scores by Treatment Condition
Condition Pretest Posttest t df p
Pro-Message* 27.01 26.64 1.94 178 .03
Anti-Message 26.63 26.54 .269 167 .39
*Significantly different pretest and posttest judgment index scores in bold.
Figure 1
Vote Intention Predictors Logistic Regression Results (N = 357)*
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t pB SE Beta
Judgment Index** -.024 .006 -.262 -4.252 .000
Attribution Index** .043 .012 .203 3.683 .000
Pro-Message Exposure** .151 .045 .154 3.358 .001
Conservative .048 .027 .115 1.787 .075
Republican .064 .064 .061 .997 .320
Catholic .022 .051 .021 .430 .668
Family Values .034 .061 .028 .550 .583
White .014 .048 .014 .300 .765
Evangelical .023 .086 .013 .271 .787
*Dependent variable is vote for Amendment 2.

Gay Marriage Bans-Ballot Wording Effects

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Gay Marriage Bans-Ballot Wording Effects

Similar to Gay Marriage Bans-Ballot Wording Effects (20)

More from David Lynn Painter

More from David Lynn Painter (19)

Gay Marriage Bans-Ballot Wording Effects