<i>Still</i> Instrumentally Inclusive

Do individuals in Western democracies shift their views on LGBT+ inclusion when exposed to opposition from Muslim out-groups? And is this “homonationalist” responsiveness stronger among anti-immigration individuals? Our article “Instrumentally inclusive […]” addressed these questions using representative data from Britain (Study 1) and crowd-sourced data from Spain (Study 2). We revisit Study 2 in response to concerns about post-stratification weighting a convenience sample and erroneously inconsistent use of robust standard errors. Varying population reference parameters, weight caps, variance estimators, subgroup definitions, and covariate adjustments, we find strong support for the original findings. Neither reasonable alternative weighting schemes nor corrected variance estimators substantively change the results. In fact, the originally published point estimates are equal to or smaller than the median across alternative specifications. Consistent with the Article, we find that treatment increases support for LGBT+ inclusion in Spain, without consistent identifiable variation by immigration attitudes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Political Science Review
Published
2026-07-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055426101828
Primary Topic
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Still Instrumentally Inclusive

Stuart J. Turnbull‐Dugarte, Alberto López Ortega
American Political Science Review
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
article

Still Instrumentally Inclusive

Stuart J. Turnbull‐Dugarte, Alberto López Ortega
article en

Abstract

Do individuals in Western democracies shift their views on LGBT+ inclusion when exposed to opposition from Muslim out-groups? And is this “homonationalist” responsiveness stronger among anti-immigration individuals? Our article “Instrumentally inclusive […]” addressed these questions using representative data from Britain (Study 1) and crowd-sourced data from Spain (Study 2). We revisit Study 2 in response to concerns about post-stratification weighting a convenience sample and erroneously inconsistent use of robust standard errors. Varying population reference parameters, weight caps, variance estimators, subgroup definitions, and covariate adjustments, we find strong support for the original findings. Neither reasonable alternative weighting schemes nor corrected variance estimators substantively change the results. In fact, the originally published point estimates are equal to or smaller than the median across alternative specifications. Consistent with the Article, we find that treatment increases support for LGBT+ inclusion in Spain, without consistent identifiable variation by immigration attitudes.

American Political Science Review
University of Southampton (GB), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.