The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Antigay Sentiment Are Substantially Underestimated

References

• Ahmed A, Hammarstedt M (2010) Sexual orientation and earnings: A register data-based approach to identify homosexuals. J. Population Econom. 23(3):835–549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akerlof GA, Kranton RE (2000) Economics and identity. Quart. J. Econom. 115(3):715–753.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allegretto S, Arthur MM (2001) An empirical analysis of homosexual/heterosexual male earnings differentials: Unmarried and unequal? Indust. Labor Relations Rev. 54(3):631–646.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ayres I, Siegelman P (1995) Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. Amer. Econom. Rev. 85(3):304–321.Google Scholar
• Badgett MVL (2001) Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Berg N, Lien D (2006) Same-sex sexual behaviour: U.S. frequency estimates from survey data with simultaneous misreporting and non-response. Appl. Econom. 38(7):757–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2005) Implicit discrimination. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(2):94–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Betts P (2008) Developing survey questions on sexual identity: UK experiences of administering survey questions on sexual identity/orientation. Report, Census and Social Methodology Division, Office for National Statistics, London.Google Scholar
• Black D, Sanders S, Taylor L (2007) The economics of lesbian and gay families. J. Econom. Perspectives 21(2):53–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Black D, Gates G, Sanders S, Taylor L (2000) Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography 37(2):139–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Black D, Gates G, Sanders S, Taylor L (2002) Why do gay men live in San Francisco? J. Urban Econom. 51(1):54–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Black D, Makar H, Sanders S, Taylor L (2003) The earnings effects of sexual orientation. Indust. Labor Relations Rev. 56(3):449–469.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blair G, Imai K (2012) Statistical analysis of list experiments. Political Anal. 20(1):47–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blair G, Imai K, Lyall J (2014) Comparing and combining list and endorsement experiments: Evidence from Afghanistan. Amer. J. Political Sci. 58(4):1043–1063.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloom DE, Glied S (1992) Projecting the number of new AIDS cases in the United States. Internat. J. Forecasting 8(3):339–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter CS (2009) Sexual orientation and outcomes in college. Econom. Ed. Rev. 28(6):693–703.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandra A, Mosher WD, Copen C, Sionean C (2011) Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual identity in the United States: Data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. Natl. Health Stat. Reports, no. 36.Google Scholar
• Clain SH, Leppel K (2001) An investigation into sexual orientation discrimination as an explanation for wage differences. Appl. Econom. 33(1):37–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• CNN ORC Poll (2012) ORC International. Conducted May 29–31, 2012. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf.Google Scholar
• Coutts E, Jann B (2011) Sensitive questions in online surveys: Experimental results for the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT). Sociol. Methods Res. 40(1):169–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalton DR, Wimbush JC, Daily CM (1994) Using the unmatched count technique (UCT) to estimate base rates for sensitive behavior. Personnel Psych. 47(4):817–829.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Das A, Laumann EO (2010) How to get valid answers from survey questions: What we learned from asking about sexual behavior and the measurement of sexuality. Walford G, Tucker E, eds. The Sage Handbook of Measurement (Sage Publications, London), 9–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dasgupta N, Rivera LM (2006) From automatic antigay prejudice to behavior: The moderating role of conscious beliefs about gender and behavioral control. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 91(2):268–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards AL (1957) The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assessment and Research (Dryden Press, Oakbrook, IL).Google Scholar
• Ellison G, Gunstone B (2009) Sexual Orientation Explored: A Study of Identity, Attraction, Behaviour and Attitudes in 2009 (Equality and Human Rights Commission, Manchester, UK).Google Scholar
• Fay R, Turner C, Klassen A, Gagnon J (1989) Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science 243(4889):338–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fershtman C, Gneezy U (2001) Discrimination in a segmented society: An experimental approach. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):351–377.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisher RJ (1993) Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J. Consumer Res. 20(2):303–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gates GJ (2011) How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? Report, The Williams Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/09h684x2.Google Scholar
• Glover D, Pallais A, Pariente W (2015) Discrimination as a self-fulfilling prophecy: Evidence from French grocery stores. Working paper, Sciences Po, Paris.Google Scholar
• Glynn AN (2013) What can we learn with statistical truth serum?: Design and analysis of the list experiment. Public Opinion Quart. 77(S1):159–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann EL, Banaji MR (2009) Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 97(1):17–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herek GM, Glunt EK (1993) Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. J. Sex Res. 30(3):239–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holbrook AL, Krosnick JA (2010) Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quart. 74(1):37–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horton JJ, Rand DG, Zeckhauser RJ (2011) The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experiment. Econom. 14(3):399–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jamison JC, Karlan D, Raffler P (2013) Mixed-method evaluation of a passive mHealth sexual information texting service in Uganda. Inform. Tech. Internat. Development 9(3):1–28.Google Scholar
• Jepsen LK (2007) Comparing the earnings of cohabiting lesbians, cohabiting heterosexual women, and married women: Evidence from the 2000 Census. Indust. Relations 46(4):699–727.Google Scholar
• Jepsen L, Jepsen C (2002) An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography 39(3):435–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• John LK, Loewenstein G, Acquisti A, Vosgerau J (2016) When and why randomized response techniques (fail to) elicit the truth. HBS Working Paper 16-125, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Kinsey A, Pomeroy W, Martin C (1948) Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Indiana University Press, Bloomington).Google Scholar
• Klawitter M, Flatt V (1998) The effects of state and local antidiscrimination policies on earnings for gays and lesbians. J. Policy Anal. Management 17(4):658–686.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuran T (1995) Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• LaBrie JW, Earleywine M (2000) Sexual risk behaviors and alcohol: Higher base rates revealed using the unmatched-count technique. J. Sex Res. 37(4):321–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lax JR, Phillips JH, Stollwerk AF (2016) Are respondents lying about their support of same-sex marriage? Lessons from a list experiment. Public Opinion Quart. 80(2):510–533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lensvelt-Mulders G, Hox J, van der Heijden P (2005) How to improve the efficiency of randomised response designs. Quality and Quantity 39(5):253–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li F, Nagar V (2013) Diversity and performance. Management Sci. 59(3):529–544.Link, Google Scholar
• Lundberg S, Pollak RA (2007) The American family and family economics. J. Econom. Perspectives 21(2):3–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maccoby EE, Maccoby N (1954) The interview: A tool of social science. Lindzey G, ed. Handbook of Social Psychology: Theory and Method, Vol. 1 (Addison Wesley, Cambridge, MA), 449–487.Google Scholar
• Milkman KL, Akinola M, Chugh D (2012) Temporal distance and discrimination an audit study in academia. Psych. Sci. 23(7):710–717.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller JD (1984) A new survey technique for studying deviant behavior. Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Miller K (2001) Cognitive Testing of the NHANES Sexual Orientation Questions. Report for the Office of Research on Women’s Health, National Institutes of Health, New York.Google Scholar
• Oreffice S (2011) Sexual orientation and household decision making: Same-sex couples’ balance of power and labor supply choices. Labour Econom. 18(2):145–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis P (2010) Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5(5):411–419.Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center (2013) A survey of LGBT Americans. Report, June 13, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/.Google Scholar
• Powell R (2013) Social desirability bias in polling on same-sex marriage ballot measures. Amer. Politics Res. 41(6):1052–1070.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rand DG (2012) The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. J. Theoret. Biol. 299:172–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rayburn NR, Earleywine M, Davison GC (2003) An investigation of base rates of anti-gay hate crimes using the unmatched-count technique. J. Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma 6(2):137–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephens-Davidowitz S (2013) The cost of racial animus on a black presidential candidate: Using Google Search data to find what surveys miss. Working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Tourangeau R, Yan T (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys. Psych. Bull. 133(5):859–883.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsuchiya T, Hirai Y, Ono S (2007) A study of the properties of the item count technique. Public Opinion Quart. 71(2):253–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weichselbaumer D (2003) Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labour Econom. 10(6):629–642.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zimmerman RS, Langer LM (1995) Improving estimates of prevalence rates of sensitive behaviors: The randomized lists technique and consideration of self-reported honesty. J. Sex Res. 32(2):107–117.Crossref, Google Scholar