Supplemental Materials - methods for measuring structural stigma at state, county, and city levels.
Creators: name: Lattanner, Micah
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology
subject: structural stigma

description: Lattanner, M.R., Ford, J., Bo, N., Tu, W., Pachankis, J.E, Dodge, B., &amp; Hatzenbuehler, M.L. (in press). A contextual approach to the psychological study of identity concealment: examining direct, interactive, and indirect effects of structural stigma on concealment motivation across proximal and distal levels. Psychological Science. Data used to create the objectively-measured structural stigma factor scores are all from publicly available data sources (see below). The individual-level data collected through NSASH and used in the current study are available upon request. However, only data on state- and county-level participant location can be provided, due to data use agreements with IPSOS. To protect the confidentiality of their panel participants, city-level location data is controlled by IPSOS and cannot be made publicly available. Description of State-Level Structural Indicators: As described in the main text, the state-level structural stigma factor score is a sum of eight indicators weighted by standardized factor scoring coefficients in factor analysis. In SOM-R Appendix 3, we describe these eight indicators as well as their data source. The first state-level indicator of structural stigma was an index of state laws and policies related to sexual orientation legislated as of 2017. We obtained the index from the Movement Advancement Project’s (MAP) State Sexual Orientation Equality Profiles (http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps) (Movement Advancement Project, 2018). MAP provides scores for both laws and polices related to sexual orientation and gender identity across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. We used the index score developed specifically for sexual orientation, given the study’s focus. MAP quantified a law and policy index score accounting for the presence of 33 total state laws and policies across six domains: [1] marriage recognition (e.g., medical decision-making authority for married same-sex couples); [2] relationship and parental recognition (e.g., state family leave laws covering same-sex couples); [3] non-discrimination (e.g., employment non-discrimination laws); [4] so-called religious exemption laws (e.g., targeted religious exemptions for state and local officials providing marriage licenses); [5] LGB youth (e.g., anti-bullying laws and policies covering LGB students); and [6] health and safety (e.g., hate crime laws covering LGB people). Each state’s index score represents the difference between the number of protective laws (i.e., twenty-four) and negative laws (i.e., nine). Fractions of a point were awarded and/or reduced for the presence of certain laws and when a state had enacted only a portion of law. The possible score a state could receive based upon MAP’s scoring criteria ranged from -3.25 to 19; the actual scores ranged from 0.25 (Alabama) to 17.25 (Washington, DC), with higher scores representing the presence of more protective and less discriminatory laws and policies. See Table S.2.1 below for the scoring framework used by MAP to compute state-level sexual orientation law and policy index scores. To see a detailed example of how a state was scored, go to the following link http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality_maps/profile_state/IN and select “view methodology / more information” to view the specific scoring criteria. The second state-level indicator of structural stigma was explicit attitudes held towards homosexuality and the legality of same-sex marriage, and was obtained from a Pew Research Center for the People &amp; the Press Poll, which randomly sampled 5,009 adults between June and July of 2017 (Flores, 2018). Participants were first asked to select which statement comes closer to their own views: [1] homosexuality should be accepted by society or [2] homosexuality should be discouraged by society. Second, participants were asked to report if they “strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose” allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. The estimates for attitudes toward LGB people are derived from a group-level item response theory model (G-IRT). The method is a multivariate extension of multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP) which allows for multiple indicators to operationalize attitudes. Data were available for all 50 states and Washington D.C. Scores ranged from 0.48 (Alabama) to 22.78 (Washington D.C.), with higher scores representing stronger positive explicit attitudes towards homosexuality and legality of same-sex marriage. The third state-level indicator of structural stigma was explicit policy-specific support towards laws and policies that impact the rights of LGB people and same-sex couples. Data were obtained from Lax and Phillips (2009), who aggregated results from 41 randomly sampled national public opinion polls, consisting of approximately 80,000 respondents, and conducted from 1999 through 2008 by various organizations (e.g., Gallup, Pew). The 41 polls measured support (yes / no) for eight laws and policies that impact the rights of LGB people and same-sex couples, including: [1] adoption rights for same-sex couples; [2] inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crime statues; [3] health insurance and other employee benefits for same-sex spouses; [4] laws protecting sexual minorities from discrimination in housing; [5] laws protecting sexual minorities from job discrimination; [6] legality of same-sex marriage; [7] legality of same-sex sexual relationships; and [8] legality of same-sex civil unions with accompanying rights equal to married couples. Lax and Phillips (2009) separately mean-aggregated, to the state level, the percentage of respondents who reported supporting each of the eight policies. The researchers then computed a mean percentage of support score, encompassing all eight policies, for each state. Data were available for all 50 states (not Washington D.C.). State-level mean percentage of support scores encompassing the eight sexual orientation-related policies that impact the rights of LGB people and same-sex couples ranged from 38% (Utah) to 68% (Massachusetts), with higher scores reflecting a larger percentage of respondents reporting support for sexual orientation-related policies. The fourth state-level structural stigma indicator was implicit attitudes held towards sexual minorities, which were obtained from Project Implicit, a publicly available website through which participants voluntarily completed the sexuality version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Project Implicit Demo Website Datasets, 2018). The sexuality version of the IAT measures strengths of associations between 2 concepts (i.e., gay people and heterosexual people) and 2 attributes (i.e., good and bad) by measuring response latencies during a computer-administered categorization task. Across multiple trials, one concept (i.e., gay or heterosexual) or one attribute (i.e., good or bad) is presented on the screen. Participants are asked to categorize the concept or attribute, by making one of two keystrokes (i.e., “e” or “i”) based on a set of rules assigned for each block of trials. During the first block of trials the rule requires that the concept of “gay people” and attribute “good words” are categorized with one key and the concept of “heterosexual people” and attribute of “bad words” are categorized with the other key. During a second block of trials, the rule requires that heterosexual people and good words are categorized with one key, and gay people and bad words are categorized with the other key. To score the task, the average response latency on the two blocks of trials is compared. A faster average response time during the first block compared to the second block reflects a stronger implicit preference for gay compared to heterosexual people. A faster average response time during the second block compared to the first block reflects a stronger implicit preference for heterosexuals compared to sexual minorities. A participant’s IAT score is the standardized difference in mean response time on the two blocks of trials described above. Individual IAT scores can range from -2 to +2, with a score of zero reflecting no implicit preference and higher scores reflecting a stronger implicit preference for heterosexual compared to gay people. Past research using the sexuality version of the IAT has demonstrated variation in implicit attitudes geographically, culturally, and ideologically (Nosek et al., 2007). More information on the sexuality version of the IAT can be obtained at the Project Implicit website: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/. Participants from all 50 states and Washington D.C. completed the IAT from 2012 through 2016. We mean-aggregated the individual IAT scores of 504,291 participants to the state level. The state-level average of the standardized difference in mean response time between blocks ranged from 0.11 (Washington D.C.) to 0.34 (Mississippi), with higher scores reflecting a stronger implicit preference for heterosexuals compared to sexual minorities. The fifth state-level structural stigma indicator was a weighted proportion of openly LGBTQ elected government officials and was obtained from the Victory Institute’s Out for America interactive map (The Victory Institute, 2018). Using a methodology developed by Koenen and colleagues (2006), we computed a weighted proportion of openly LGBTQ-elected government officials across seven levels of government within each state: Governor; US Congress; State legislature (e.g., state senate and state house of representatives); Other statewide elected offices (e.g., lieutenant governor, attorney general); Mayor; Local government (e.g., city or town council, district attorney); and Judicial positions. The observed proportions at each level for each state were divided by the highest value at that level for all states to give seven scores ranging from 0 to 2.25. Additionally, the seven scores for each state were weighted by the degree of political influence associated with that position as follows: Judicial positions (0.25); Local government (0.5); State legislature (0.75); Mayor (1.0); Other statewide elected position (1.25); US Congress (1.5); and Governor (1.75). Weighted scores for each of the seven components were added to give a total score for each state. Data were available to calculate scores for all 50 states and Washington D.C. and ranged from 0 (Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Dakota) to 3.25 (California), with higher scores representing a higher weighted proportion of openly LGBTQ elected government officials. The sixth state-level structural stigma indicator was the proportion of public high schools with Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs; Brener, Demissie, McManus, Shanklin, Queen, &amp; Kann, 2017). GSAs are student-run high school organizations that provide a safe and supportive environment for LGBTQ students and straight allies to discuss and address issues related to sexual orientation and gender expression including, but not limited to, discrimination within the school and community. Data on GSAs were obtained from the 2016 CDC School Health Profiles and were available for all states other than Colorado, Iowa, and Washington D.C. Proportions ranged from 9.30 (South Dakota) to 60.50 (Massachusetts), with higher scores reflecting a higher proportion of public high schools with GSAs. The seventh and eighth state-level structural stigma indicators were the estimated percentage of LGBT adults living in each state and the estimated density of same-sex couples living in each state, respectively. These data were obtained from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law (The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2018). State-level demographic information about LGBT people and same-sex couples are publicly available through an interactive map https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-stats/?topic=SS#density. The Williams Institute estimated the percentage of each state’s population who identify as LGBT adults and the state-level density of same-sex couples using data from the 2017 Gallup Daily Tracking Survey, a nationally representative sample of approximately 341,000 adults, in combination with data from the 2010 US Census and the US Census Bureau’s state-level preferred estimates for same-sex couples. Data were available for all 50 states and Washington D.C. Estimated percentages of the state-level adult population identifying as LGBT, as of 2018, ranged from 2.70% (North Dakota) to 9.80% (Washington D.C.). Estimated state-level density of same-sex couples, as of 2018, ranged from 2.27 per 1000 households (North Dakota) to 18.08 per 1000 households (Washington D.C.). In order to evaluate the factor structure of the eight state-level structural stigma indicators, we conducted a factor analysis using principal component analysis as the estimation method, oblimin rotation as the rotation method, and the squared multiple correlation (SMC) as the prior communality estimates. Before conducting the factor analysis, each of the state-level structural indicators, except for the implicit attitude scores, were reverse coded so that higher scores represented greater structural stigma across all eight indicators. Each indicator was then standardized prior to running the factor analysis. Data on the proportion of schools with gay-straight alliances were not available for Colorado, Iowa, and Washington D.C. and data on policy-specific attitudes towards LGBT people and same-sex couples were not available for Washington D.C. As a result, the state-level factor analysis was conducted using the complete cases with 48 states. We chose to include the maximum possible number of states in the factor analysis in order to increase the generalizability of the factor scores linked to the individual-level data set and to reduce potential selection bias that could occur if we only included states from which participants in the NSASH sample live. Description of County-Level Structural Stigma Indicators: As described in the main text, the county-level structural stigma factor score is a weighted sum of four standardized indicators. In SOM-R Appendix 6, we describe these indicators as well as their data source. The first county-level structural stigma indicator was a measure of explicit attitudes towards gay men, which were obtained from Project Implicit (Project Implicit Demo Website Datasets, 2018), described above in SOM-R Appendix 3. The single-item indicator asked participants to rate how warm or cold they feel towards gay men on a scale from 0 (coldest feelings) to 10 (warmest feelings). 545,699 participants from Project Implicit residing in 3,005 counties contributed to the county-level explicit attitudes towards gay men variable. County-level explicit attitudes towards gay men ranged from 0 to 10 after inverse coding and mean-aggregation. The higher aggregated score means colder feelings towards gay men. The second county-level structural stigma indicator was a measure of explicit attitudes towards lesbian women, which were also obtained from Project Implicit (Project Implicit Demo Website Datasets, 2018). The single-item indicator asked participants to rate how warm or cold they feel towards lesbian women on a scale from 0 (coldest feelings) to 10 (warmest feelings). 545,142 IAT participants residing in 3005 counties contributed to the county-level explicit attitudes towards lesbian women variable. County-level explicit attitudes towards lesbian women ranged from 0 to 10 after inverse coding and aggregation. The higher aggregated score means colder feelings towards lesbian women. The third county-level structural stigma indicator was implicit attitudes held towards sexual minorities, which were also obtained from Project Implicit (Project Implicit Demo Website Datasets, 2018). 504,291 participants residing in 2,994 counties contributed to the county-level implicit attitudes for sexual minorities, which ranged from -1.86 to 1.86. The mean-aggregated scores ranged from -0.84 to 1.35, with higher scores reflecting a stronger implicit preference for heterosexual compared to gay people. The fourth structural stigma indicator was an estimate of the density of same-sex couples in the county, obtained from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law (The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2018). The methodology for this variable is described in SOM-R Appendix 3. The estimated density of same-sex couples per 1000 households was available for 3,043 counties and ranged from 0 to 30.94. In order to evaluate the factor structure of the four county-level structural stigma indicators, we conducted a factor analysis using principal component analysis as the estimation method, oblimin rotation as the rotation method, and the squared multiple correlation (SMC) as the prior communality estimates. Full county-level data across the four county-level structural stigma indicators were available for 2990 counties. We chose to include the maximum possible number of counties in the factor analysis in order to increase the generalizability of the factor scores linked to the individual-level data set and to reduce potential selection bias that could occur if we only included counties in which the participants in the NSASH sample live. Before conducting the factor analysis, each of the county-level structural indicators, except for the implicit attitude scores, were reverse coded so that higher scores represented greater structural stigma across all four indicators. Each indicator was then standardized prior to running the factor analysis. SOM-R Table 7.1 shows that county-level stigma indicators were significantly associated with each other. Description of City-Level Structural Stigma Indicators As described in the main text, the city-level structural stigma factor score is a weighted sum of five indicators obtained from the Human Rights Campaign Municipality Equality Index (HRC-MEI). A description of each indicator by domain and accompanying scoring criteria are outlined below and within SOM-R Table 9.1 Italicized content reflects specific scoring provided by the HRC-MEI (Persad, 2018). The first city-level structural stigma indicator was the presence of city non-discrimination laws in areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations that include sexual orientation as a protected class status (i.e., Non-Discrimination Laws Domain) and only accounts for non-discrimination laws legislated at the city level. Fifteen potential points were based on the following criteria: presence of non-discrimination laws and policies inclusive of sexual orientation in employment (five points), housing (five points), and public accommodations (five points; Persad, 2018). Scores on the Non-Discrimination Domain indicator ranged from 0 to 15. The second city-level structural stigma indicator was equality in benefits and protections provided to LGBTQ persons employed by the city and their partners (i.e., City as Employer Domain). Twelve potential points were assigned based on the following criteria: [1] presence of non-discrimination policies in city employment (“Cities can adopt internal hiring policies that prohibit employment discrimination (including hiring, promotions, termination, and compensation) on the basis of sexual orientation (7 points). A state-level non-discrimination law or a local non-discrimination ordinance alone is not sufficient to earn these points—personnel policies must enumerate sexual orientation and gender identity in order for the city to receive credit”; Persad, 2018); [2] presence of city requirements for contractors to have non-discrimination policies (“Cities who take fair workplaces seriously also require city contractors to have inclusive non-discrimination policies. An equal opportunity ordinance, as these are sometimes known, requires city contractors to adopt non- discrimination policies that prohibit adverse employment actions on the basis of sexual orientation (3 points). Partial credit is awarded to cities that do not have an official policy or ordinance to this effect, but maintains a practice of including a qualifying city contractor non-discrimination clause in all city contracts”) (10); and [3] inclusivity of the workplace (“This section measures whether the city is a welcoming workplace for LGBTQ employees as measured by the following: the city actively recruits LGBTQ employees, or conducts LGBTQ-inclusive diversity training, or it has an LGBTQ employee affinity group (a total of 2 points are awarded if any of these exist”; Persad, 2018). The original HRC-MEI scoring criteria within the City as Employer domain also assigned points for provision of at least one health insurance plan that provides coverage for transgender healthcare needs. Because this policy is more directly relevant to gender identity as compared to sexual orientation, we did not incorporate these points into our City as Employer Domain indicator score. Scores on the City as Employer Domain indicator ranged from 0 to 12. The third city-level structural stigma indicator was availability of city services and programs for LGBTQ residents. Twelve potential points were assigned based on: [1] the presence of a Human Rights Commission (“A Human Rights Commission will be worth five standard points if its purpose is largely or entirely educational. These commissions may hold community discussions, screen movies, present panels, take public comment, advise the city on matters of diversity and inclusion, develop policies and strategies for making the city more inclusive, and undertake other similar types of endeavors. Where, in addition to the functions listed above, a Human Rights Commission has the authority to conciliate, issue a right to sue letter, or otherwise enforce non-discrimination protections, that commission will earn two additional points”; Persad, 2018); and [2] presence of an LGBTQ liaison to the mayor or city manager’s office (“Similarly, an LGBTQ liaison to the Mayor or City manager’s office (5 points) is responsible for looking at city policies and services through an LGBTQ lens and speaking up when a policy or service might exclude LGBTQ people. This position is also known to be a friendly ear to constituents who want to bring LGBTQ-related issues to the city government but are fearful they might be dismissed or misunderstood”; Persad, 2018). Scores on the City Services and Programs Domain indicator ranged from 0 to 12. The fourth city-level structural indicator was the quality of relationships between law enforcement and the LGBTQ community. Twenty-two potential points were assigned based upon: [1] presence of an LGBTQ police liaison (“… a police force can ensure safety for all by treating LGBTQ people with understanding and respect, remaining mindful of the LGBTQ community’s unique law enforcement concerns and engaging the community in a positive way. An LGBTQ police liaison (10 points) can serve as an important bridge between the community and law enforcement. The liaison is an advocate for fair and respectful enforcement of the law as well as an officer that the community can rely upon to appropriately respond to sensitive issues”; Persad, 2018); and [2] reporting of hate crimes to the FBI (“Respectful and fair enforcement includes responsible reporting of hate crimes, including for hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity, to the FBI (12 points). Such reporting demonstrates law enforcement’s attention to these crimes and ensures that the larger law enforcement community is able to accurately gauge the scope and responses to them”; Persad, 2018). Scores on the Law Enforcement Domain indicator ranged from 0 to 22. The fifth city-level structural stigma indicator was explicit commitment by city leadership to inclusive practices and to advocate for full equality. Eight potential points were assigned based on: [1] leaderships’ public statements on equality (“The first category rates city leadership (on a scale of zero to five points) on its public statements on matters of equality, particularly where the city leadership pushes for equality in the face of substantial adversity”; Persad, 2018); and [2] presence of pro-equality legislation (“The level of support for pro-equality legislation is also reflected in this section. The second category rates the persistence of the city leadership in pursuing legislation or policies that further equality (on a scale of zero to three points)”; Persad, 2018). Scores on the Relationship with the LGBTQ Community indicator ranged from: 0 to 8. In order to evaluate the factor structure of the five city-level structural stigma indicators, we conducted a factor analysis using principal component analysis as the estimation method, oblimin rotation as the rotation method, and the squared multiple correlation (SMC) as the prior communality estimates. Data from 489 cities were included in the factor analysis. We chose to include the maximum possible number of cities in the factor analysis in order to increase the generalizability of the factor scores linked to the individual-level data set and to reduce potential selection bias that could occur if we only included cities in which the participants in the NSASH sample live.