Threatened Restrictions: The Role of Symbolic and Realistic Threat in Anti-Transgender Legislation Support

Introduction: There has been a recent surge of anti-transgender legislation with growing support from American voters. Research in Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT) points to symbolic threat as a better predictor of anti-LGBT attitudes than realistic threat. However, support for anti-transgender legislation may be distinct from “LGBT attitudes”. Methods: Two studies evaluated the impact of both symbolic and realistic threats as predictors of support for restrictive legislation and prejudice. Study 1 (n = 246, collected in June of 2024) used a correlational design to establish the link between realistic threat, symbolic threat, perceived deception, and perceived confusion with prejudice and support for anti-transgender legislation. Study 2 (n = 367, collected in October of 2024) used a two-condition design (“gay people”, “transgender people”) to evaluate symbolic and realistic threats as mediators of prejudice and legislation support. Results: Study 1 demonstrated that both symbolic and realistic threats were associated with anti-transgender legislation and prejudice, and were better predictors than perceived deceptiveness or confusion. Study 2 found that while symbolic threat was a better mediator of prejudice, both symbolic and realistic threats independently mediated support for anti-transgender legislation. Conclusion and Policy Implications: Past research has established the adverse impacts of anti-transgender legislation (e.g., Dhanani & Totton, 2023; Lee et al., 2024). Our studies demonstrate that support for restrictive legislation is more complex than negative attitudes and highlight the need for pro-transgender advocacy to take a multifaceted approach to bias reduction.