Navigator Research (GSG/GBAO)

Do you support or oppose adding sexual orientation and gender identity to federal nondiscrimination laws, meaning LGBTQ+ Americans would be protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and access to public accommodations?

Wording notes: explains the practical effect of the policy inside the question

tilts_affirming — the explanatory clause states only the benefit (protection from discrimination) and no countervailing consideration, which is the standard pattern that produces high Equality Act support figures

How much have you seen, read, or heard about some states in the U.S. passing or debating laws regarding transgender people?

Wording notes: neutral on the direction of the laws

neutral — standard awareness item with no directional cue

Below is a list of concerns some Americans might have as it relates to the LGBTQ+ community. Please indicate how concerned you are about each one.

Below is a list of concerns some Americans might have as it relates to the LGBTQ+ community. Please indicate how concerned you are about each one. - Gay and transgender youth are being bullied and targeted, sometimes leading to suicide

Wording notes: 'sometimes leading to suicide' raises the stakes inside the item | one-sided concern battery with no opposing concerns tested

tilts_affirming — this is explicit message testing - every item in the battery is a progressive-framed concern, and the suicide clause maximizes agreement

Below is a list of concerns some Americans might have as it relates to the LGBTQ+ community. Please indicate how concerned you are about each one.

Below is a list of concerns some Americans might have as it relates to the LGBTQ+ community. Please indicate how concerned you are about each one. - [Form A] Politicians are attacking gay and transgender youth to divide us, maintain their political power and control, and score political points - [Form B] Politicians are attacking gay and transgender youth to divide us, impose their extreme views on all of us, and score political points

Wording notes: split-sample message test of two attack framings | asserts that politicians are 'attacking' youth

loaded_terms — both forms embed a partisan characterization ('attacking', 'extreme views') and are designed to compare message strength, not to measure opinion neutrally

Please indicate whether or not you could support an elected official with the following position, as long as you agreed with the elected official on most other things:

Please indicate whether or not you could support an elected official with the following position, as long as you agreed with the elected official on most other things: Someone who supports banning health care for transgender people.

Wording notes: 'banning health care for transgender people' is unqualified as to age - reads as a total ban including adults

tilts_affirming — the position is stated in its broadest possible form (all transgender people, all health care) rather than the minors-only bans actually enacted, which makes it much easier to reject

Which side do you agree with more?

Which side do you agree with more? Statement 1: Those who say kids are being exposed to transgender ideas at too young an age, and we need to ban sex change hormones and gender reassignment surgery for kids. Statement 2: Those who say parents should have the right to seek out medically necessary health care for their children, without politicians and the government inserting themselves into those decisions. Statement 3: Those who say we should trust families and their doctors to make medically necessary health care decisions for themselves and their children, without politicians and the government inserting themselves into those decisions. Statement 4: Those who say we should set the record straight. In the rare instances where a young transgender person needs gender-affirming care to thrive, they undergo extensive counseling and together with their parents, always receive evidence-based care that has been approved by the American Medical Association.

Wording notes: message-testing design - one fixed restrictive statement tested against three alternative rebuttals | restrictive statement uses 'sex change hormones' and 'gender reassignment surgery' | rebuttals invoke parental rights, medical authority, and the AMA

loaded_terms — this is explicit message development, not opinion measurement: the restrictive side is held constant in dated language while three optimized progressive rebuttals are rotated against it

Below is a list of issues. Please indicate who you trust more to handle each one.

Below is a list of issues. Please indicate who you trust more to handle each one. - [Form A] Protecting the gay and transgender community - LGBTQ+ issues - [Form B] Protecting the rights and freedoms of the gay and transgender community

Wording notes: split-sample wording test of 'protecting' vs. 'protecting the rights and freedoms of'

neutral — standard two-party issue-trust item; the split tests wording sensitivity rather than pushing a direction