Abstract
Traditional models of policy formation emphasize how political attitudes and actions affect policy outcomes. However, the converse may occur–policies are often a signal to constituents about the priorities and positions of both political actors and the government more broadly. I use the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County to find broadbased improvements in attitudes toward LGBT people. Additionally, I find that my effect is almost entirely driven by men. These findings support a legitimization model of attitude effects. However, the distinct effects by gender suggest that gendered determinants of attitudes toward LGBT people may differ significantly.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
