In 2018, South Dakota elected its first woman governor, Republican Kristi Noem. Five years later, Noem opened the 2023 legislative session with the following words:
The South Dakota state constitution requires the governor to begin each legislative session by “[giving] the Legislature information concerning the affairs of the state and [recommending] the measures he considers necessary.” Notice I didn’t say “she.” The constitution doesn’t say that. We’re going to fix that. (South Dakota State News 2023)
Governor Noem’s proposal to remove gendered pronouns in the state constitution passed in the South Dakota Legislature with a large majority. It then was placed on the ballot as a constitutional amendment (i.e., Amendment E) for voters to decide in November 2024. The measure ultimately failed rather unceremoniously following a highly divisive primary season and an election that was oversaturated with ballot initiatives. Amendment E is particularly interesting given the high saliency of the ongoing conservative push to oppose any discussions of pronouns and gendered language. It is simultaneously understandable why a woman governor might push for removing male pronouns in the state constitution when it also was expected that many Republicans would be leery of any efforts to remove pronouns—efforts that, at face value, may appear as a liberal effort to implement a gender–nonbinary policy agenda.
South Dakota’s Amendment E is part of a changing political landscape in the United States that has become increasingly polarized and divisive, particularly over social questions related to gender, race, and sexuality, such as the question over gender pronouns. Most state constitutions use only male pronouns when referring to officeholders. As of 2024, only a few states (i.e., California, Hawaii, New York, and Vermont) used gender-neutral nouns (e.g., “the Governor”). However, in recent years, several initiatives have been proposed in other states. In Washington, an amendment was proposed in January 2024 but did not pass through the state legislature and was not put on the ballot. A similar proposal was put on the ballot in Utah in 2020. Supporters of the proposal focused on Utah’s history as the first state to grant women’s suffrage and the changes that the proposal would make; others described the proposal simply as “gender-neutral” without providing the context (Stonestreet Reference Stonestreetn.d.; Winslow Reference Winslow2020). The proposal passed with more than 57% votes in favor, which suggests that the endorsement explaining the specific changes in the proposal can affect voters’ perceptions, even in a heavily conservative state. Despite the result, the vote was divisive: the urban Salt Lake City area voted overwhelmingly in favor and the more rural parts of the state, most of which are dominated by the Republican Party, were against it. These cases demonstrate the tension between the desire for updating outdated male-only pronouns as the number of women elected officials have increased and the partisan-divided politics of pronouns. They set the stage for South Dakota with a woman in the most prominent political position—as governor, who is misgendered by the state constitution—while there is a high percentage of conservative voters.
In April 2024, several months before the vote, we conducted a survey experiment in South Dakota to explore whether providing more information about the constitutional amendment—the gender-neutral noun (e.g., “Governor”) replacing the male pronouns (e.g., “he”)—would affect registered voters’ support. Scholarly literature has documented how gender pronouns have become increasingly politicized and how partisan identity is an important lens through which citizens evaluate the issue (Williams Reference Williams2019). Yet, scholars have shown that people may adjust their preferences on public and political issues when more information is provided (Deryugina and Shurchkov Reference Deryugina and Shurchkov2016; Lee et al. Reference Lee, Park, Kim, Seo, Lee, You, Choi, Kwon, Shin, Lee, Jeong, Choe and Choi2024). This study assesses whether information provision can overcome the highly salient and polarized pronoun debate. The gender-neutral language issue in South Dakota, with a majority conservative population, is noteworthy for two reasons. On the one hand, at face value, it addresses a highly controversial and politicized topic: pronouns. On the other hand, the proposal came from the sitting Republican governor who sought to remove gendered pronouns (e.g., “he”) only so that she would not be misgendered.
Literature has documented how gender pronouns have become increasingly politicized and how partisan identity is an important lens through which citizens evaluate the issue.
The interplay between conservatives’ aversion for gender-neutral pronouns and their preference for gendered language is exemplified by how some prominent Republican women choose to identify in their official role. Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) famously prefers to be called just that, Congressman, despite the US Constitution referencing “Representatives” and not “Congressmen” (Wirls Reference Wirls2023). It is important to note that although Blackburn prefers the gender-marked job title, “Congressman”—which most would argue is a male-gendered noun—she does use the pronoun “she.” Blackburn has been using this terminology since her induction to the House of Representatives in 2003, and a few other women members also prefer this title—all of them Republicans. In 2008, when Blackburn and her staff were interviewed by Politico for a story on the Congressman’s preferred title choice, she noted, “It’s not something I see as a big deal.” Whereas we should expect that conservative voters would be opposed to gender-neutral pronouns (e.g., “they” or “ze/zir”), there may be reason to think that they could support removing male-only pronouns in favor of a simple gender-neutral noun (e.g., “Governor”). As such, the question is whether providing moderating and depoliticizing information can mitigate attitudes on a highly politicized issue and whether the information treatment will have different effects along partisan lines.
THE POLITICS OF PRONOUNS
There has been a surge in saliency and polarization regarding pronouns since the mid-2010s as the debate was enveloped by broader LGBTQ issues with the emergence of the conservative evangelical movement. However, the politics of pronouns has been understudied as both a public opinion question and a policy issue. It also has not been studied in the context of information provision, although related studies have shown how priming and framing can improve support for LGBTQ rights (Harrison and Michelson Reference Harrison and Michelson2017). Whereas LGBTQ activists have advocated for greater inclusion of nonbinary pronouns, opponents simultaneously use them as a point of contention and an opportunity to exclude users of nonbinary gender pronouns (e.g., the singular “they” and “ze”/“zir”). Linguistically, nonbinary pronouns allow for referencing a hypothetical stranger whose gender is unknown or a known person who is transgender or genderqueer identifying outside of the gender binary (Airton Reference Airton2024). Of course, the broader point regarding the pronoun debate is whether individuals are free to choose their own pronouns based on their self-identified gender—a point that many conservative evangelicals oppose in favor of a biological sex binary (Dieppe Reference Dieppe2021). Conservative rhetoric has focused on removing discussions related to gender and pronouns by suggesting, for example, that gender-inclusive pronouns (e.g., “they/ze/zir”) are confusing (Patev et al. Reference Patev, Dunn, Hood and Barber2019). However, at the same time, they tend to advocate for the use of binary-gendered pronouns with an assumption of alignment between sex and gender (e.g., “she/he”).
As part of a broader anti-LGBTQ agenda, Republican lawmakers have sought to advance legislation on pronouns, for example, by limiting teachers’ ability to ask students to define pronouns in the classroom (Pendharkar Reference Pendharkar2023). Republican voters also have sought to frame their views on identity politics as one of color and gender “blindness,” in which individual achievements rather than a person’s race or gender determine outcomes. Since the 2016 presidential election, out-group hostility has been a significant predictor of support for Donald Trump and an important strategy in his campaign rhetoric (Matos and Miller Reference Matos and Miller2023). However, this strategy and ideological framing initially were reserved for issues of race and immigration (Matos and Miller Reference Matos and Miller2023), and Trump’s initial statements on questions regarding LGBTQ issues were perceived as supportive (Williams Reference Williams2019). However, in 2017, after being elected as president, his administration rolled back measures that protected transgender individuals, including school-bathroom access and military service and subsequently housing discrimination and inmate housing (Williams Reference Williams2019). The culmination of these efforts was a series of policies that defined individuals based on (often-presumed) biological sex differences, a political appeal to social conservatives in the name of Republicans, and an extensive appointment of very conservative judges to federal benches (Williams Reference Williams2019).
Public opinion data from the Pew Research Center in 2018 revealed that Americans are divided about their comfort level using gender nonbinary pronouns, and these divisions are pronounced between the two parties (Geiger and Graf Reference Geiger and Graf2019). Among Republicans, 64% reported that they were either “somewhat” or “very” uncomfortable using a gender-neutral pronoun if asked to do so. For Democrats, the results were almost precisely reversed, with 66% indicating that they would be “somewhat” or “very” comfortable doing the same (Geiger and Graf Reference Geiger and Graf2019). The Pew Research Center also found that there is at least a modest gender gap, indicating that women tend to be more likely to acknowledge discrimination against transgender individuals and to recognize the importance of using preferred pronouns (Parker, Menasce Horowitz, and Brown Reference Parker, Horowitz and Brown2022). Overall, the issue of pronouns has been deeply politicized with clear differences in attitudes across partisan lines, and the debate appears to have fueled assumptions about gender and gendered language in general. There is a clear conservative platform denouncing any conversation on the topic. Our study assesses whether information provision that clarifies the change as one about removing gendered pronouns and replacing them with genderless language (e.g., genderless job-title markers) affects public opinion on the proposed amendment.
INFORMATION PROVISION AND POLITICAL PREFERENCE FORMATION
Providing people with additional information may have the ability to change their attitudes and preferences. Zaller (Reference Zaller1992) famously noted that voter preferences and public opinion are not set to a true preference; rather, voters are shaped by exposure to elite discourse on those issues. In other words, depending on how information is presented to voters, their opinion on an issue may change. “Framing effects” may occur when respondents are exposed to a new communication that affects their attitudes on an issue (Druckman Reference Druckman2001). The impact of party endorsements on public opinion formation is particularly salient in a heavily polarized climate (Druckman, Peterson, and Slothuus Reference Druckman, Peterson and Slothuus2013). A polarized environment also decreases the impact of substantive information, perhaps alarmingly associated with greater confidence in those with less substantively grounded opinions. Furthermore, the extant literature reveals a gender gap in political sophistication, including political knowledge. Lizotte and Sidman (Reference Lizotte and Sidman2009) noted that this gap is likely due to women’s propensity for risk aversion and an unwillingness to guess when they are uncertain. Consequently, women may be more prone to the effects of information provision. Research shows that when an issue is framed differently and/or when respondents are exposed to additional information, they also can change their attitudes, demonstrating an effect of knowledge on attitudes and the influence of messaging. Given that women tend to have a more positive attitude about pronouns and gender-related issues, this creates an interesting opportunity to examine whether we can still examine information-provision effects.
The effects of information provision and educational interventions, which seek to provide more specific or accurate information about issues, are well documented but must be continuously examined as new policy issues, policy spaces, and partisan alignments occur. Scholars have shown effects on low-salience, controversial, and low-/mis-information topics, such as medical issues including mental health (Corrigan et al. Reference Corrigan, Morris, Michaels, Rafacz and Rüsch2012), obesity (Kushner et al. Reference Kushner, Zeiss, Feinglass and Yelen2014), and self-harm (Patterson, Whittington, and Bogg Reference Patterson, Whittington and Bogg2007). Casarico, Schuetz, and Uebelmesser (Reference Casarico, Schuetz and Uebelmesser2024) found that respondents altered their perception of gender inequality when they received information about gender gaps in both earnings and pensions, whereas a single piece of information was insufficient to alter perceptions. Attitudes toward issues such as gender and pronouns illustrate the salience of political partisanship as a cognitive shortcut that people use to evaluate public issues. However, and notably, on the highly salient and highly polarizing issue of climate change, any such effect was found to be short term at best; even with greater information provision, respondents did not alter their policy or funding preferences (Deryugina and Shurchkov Reference Deryugina and Shurchkov2016, 12). This finding suggests that highly polarized and salient issues may be particularly challenging to overcome even with greater information provision—which is an opportunity to examine information provision for a highly salient, polarizing, and partisan issue.
Research also shows positive information-provision effects for social and so-called morality issues (Webb, Kavanagh, and Chonody Reference Webb, Kavanagh and Chonody2020). In a study of affirmative action, White, Charles, and Nelson (Reference White, Charles and Nelson2008) found that negative attitudes may be reduced when positive and semantic information is offered—that is, when more evidence-based textual information is provided. Furthermore, Philipp et al. (Reference Philipp, Büchau, Schober and Spiess2023) found positive effects for attitudes on family-leave policy. Research also shows attitudinal changes on morality issues (e.g., LGBTQ topics) following an educational intervention (Webb, Kavanagh, and Chonody Reference Webb, Kavanagh and Chonody2020). Similarly, Deese and Dawson (Reference Deese and Dawson2013) found attitudes toward LGBTQ students improved after respondents received a video training treatment. A meta-study of interventions found that educational treatments reduced sexual prejudice (Bartoş, Berger, and Hegarty Reference Bartoş, Berger and Hegarty2014), and Case and Stewart (Reference Case and Stewart2013) found that educational interventions mitigated attitudes and belief in myths but did not decrease discriminatory behavior toward transgender individuals.
The extant literature creates an important and promising foundation for studying the effect of information provision relative to pronouns and gendered language. However, it also creates opportunities for new research, which our study seeks to fill. First, it informs research on issues related to gender and sexuality politics by considering gender dimensions along two axes (i.e., as both the issue presented and the respondent’s gender) in an environment in which these issues have become highly polarizing. Our study does not address attitudes on gender-inclusive pronouns; however, it examines attitudes related to the removal of gendered pronouns (e.g., “he”) with the replacement of genderless nouns—is a topic that has been highly contested.
Second, our study expands research on information provision by tackling a policy topic that is highly salient and that, arguably, has been appropriated by a political party leading to a potentially skewed baseline. Studying whether information provision can be effective under these conditions is important in a polarized political environment. Although previous research also has studied the role of information provision, some of the findings are mixed, which suggests that more work is warranted. Third, unlike previous research on salient controversial topics (e.g., climate change), our study specifically addresses public attitudes toward a current ballot initiative allowing for greater external validity as opposed to a hypothetical issue or a general topic.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND SUPPORT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT E IN SOUTH DAKOTA
South Dakota was the first state to adopt the initiative and referendum process in 1898. Direct democracy allows citizens to have a hands-on role in legislative and constitutional decision making by enabling them to propose, approve, or reject legislation and constitutional amendments via ballot measures. The two main types of initiatives in South Dakota are statutory initiatives, which propose new laws or alter existing ones, and constitutional amendments, which have been in place since 1972 and allow citizens to make direct changes to the state constitution. Although it is a substantial opportunity for decision making, direct democracy also carries great voter responsibility and a higher knowledge barrier than partisan candidate ballot questions. As Burnett (Reference Burnett2019) noted, “The absence of…cues means making an informed decision in direct democracy requires the voter to learn something before voting.”
It is easy to understand the theoretical underpinnings of direct democracy regarding concerns about disparities between the legislature and the citizenry in the South Dakotan case. In South Dakota, there is substantial disparity between the partisan composition of the legislature (i.e., about 9:1 Republicans to Democrats) and voter registration, which is about 50% Republican, 25% Democrat, and 25% Independent. Indeed, the voters of the state have passed progressive policies that otherwise might not have passed, including increasing the minimum wage in 2014 and medical marijuana in 2020. However, constitutional amendments through direct democracy also create challenges, particularly regarding the complexity of issues put before voters and the influence of out-of-state interest groups. For example, consider the proliferation of Marsy’s Law for Victims’ Rights, which was initiated in California and passed in 12 states, including South Dakota in 2016 (Marsy’s Law for All n.d.). In recent years, there has been an increase in funding from external organizations that are interested in shaping policy in South Dakota, raising questions about the local control of direct democracy. South Dakota’s direct-democracy process is a complex and powerful tool that encourages public involvement in an overwhelmingly unbalanced, one-party state legislature while placing substantial burden on voters. Whereas amendments allow citizens to influence the foundational document of state governance, critics argue that complex policy decisions may be beyond the purview of a typical voter’s (or authors’) expertise, leading to unintended consequences.
Research on voter-education and direct-democracy efforts reveals that voters tend to be relatively uneducated on ballot measures despite them being introduced initially as a progressive measure to improve citizen engagement (Barth, Burnett, and Parry Reference Barth, Burnett and Parry2020; Smith and Tolbert Reference Smith and Tolbert2004). Indeed, some scholars indicate promise that states with direct-democracy measures have higher rates of voter turnout (Tolbert and Smith Reference Tolbert and Smith2005). Other research indicates that morality questions have modest positive effects for turnout (Biggers Reference Biggers2014) and voter knowledge (Burnett Reference Burnett2019). Burnett (Reference Burnett2019) also showed that voters are more aware of endorsements on morality issues and that increased campaign spending improves their knowledge of the endorsement, which ultimately may affect their vote. Nicholson (Reference Nicholson2011) suggested that endorsements and cues are particularly useful when issues are confusing. Wording also is especially important for low-information ballot issues, as pointed out by Shulman et al. (Reference Shulman, Sweitzer, Bullock, Coronel, Bond and Poulsen2022) that simpler initiatives may receive more support than those with more complex language.
Amendment E in South Dakota is an interesting case for examining knowledge effects. At face value, the issue may appear as a relatively simple “clean-up” item to remove outdated, unnecessarily gendered language. As a primarily administrative item proposed by the sitting governor, it received limited endorsement and campaign spending—particularly relative to the many other issues on the ballot, including an abortion amendment. As a low-salience and low-information issue, we expected that voters would be more likely to embed their underlying assumptive attitudes about pronouns, especially given the controversial and polarizing nature of the pronouns debate. As such, we expected that, barring additional information, conservative voters would be less likely to approve the proposal overall. However, we also expected that an educational intervention explaining that the proposal would remove unnecessarily gendered pronouns (rather than, e.g., adding gender-neutral pronouns) would depoliticize the issue and mitigate disapproval.
To test our expectations, we first evaluated whether there was an overall difference in support of the amendment along partisan lines. Second, we explored whether participants who received additional information about the proposed constitutional amendment were more supportive of it than those who did not receive additional information. Third, we investigated whether additional information about amendment support was particularly impactful among certain population groups.
…we explored whether participants who received additional information about the proposed constitutional amendment were more supportive of it than those who did not receive additional information.
DATA AND METHODS
The data for this study are from a larger survey fielded by the authors that measured attitudes toward various social, political, and health-related issues. The participants were registered voters in South Dakota. With a list of contact information obtained from the Office of the Secretary of State, we randomly selected 15,600 people to whom we mailed a letter inviting them to complete an online survey using the QuestionPro platform. The letter included a direct link and a QR code to access the survey with a unique six-digit code to unlock it. The survey was conducted April 18–29, 2024, without any follow-up reminders being sent during this period. Compensation was not provided to participants. The Institutional Review Board of South Dakota State University approved the study before data collection. All respondents consented to participate in the study (Hellwege, Viskupič, and Wiltse Reference Hellwege, Viskupič and Wiltse2025).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group answered the following question that measured their support for a constitutional amendment to use gender-neutral language in the South Dakota Constitution: “If the election were held today, how would you vote on a constitutional amendment to use gender-neutral language in the South Dakota Constitution?”
Participants in the other group answered the same question; the only difference was the inclusion of a brief clarification of the proposed change, as follows: “If the election were held today, how would you vote on a constitutional amendment to use gender-neutral language in the South Dakota Constitution (for example: changing the current wording of “he” to “the Governor”)?”
All participants answered questions related to age, gender, education, race, income, and partisan self-identification, as well as an attention-check question. We report the full text of all questions and variable transformations in the online appendix.
We conducted multiple difference-of-means tests using a t-test to compare the support for the constitutional amendment between the two experimental groups across the entire sample: men, women, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. We also estimated an ordered logistic regression using support for the constitutional amendment as the dependent variable and the variables described previously as independent variables. We used Stata 18 for data management and analysis (StataCorp LP Reference StataCorp2023). Predicted probabilities were calculated using Stata’s SPost13 post-estimation command. The participants who failed the attention check were not included in the analysis. All models were weighted based on the state’s age, gender, and political-party registration parameters using Stata’s ebalance package (Hainmueller and Xu Reference Hainmueller and Xu2013).Footnote 1
RESULTS
Overall, we received 727 responses. The average age of the participants was 58 years, 53% were male, 60% earned at least a four-year degree, 96% identified as white, and 93% passed the attention-check question. Regarding political partisanship, 29% of the participants were Democrats, 29% were Independents, and 42% were Republicans. These descriptive statistics are presented in table 1.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics
The results in table 2 show that the support for the constitutional amendment was higher among participants who received additional information about the proposed changes compared to those who did not. The difference was statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval level (p=0.003, two-tailed test).
Table 2 Effect of Information Provision on Support for Constitutional Amendment
Notes: 95% confidence intervals are in parentheses. ∗∗p<0.01 two-tailed test. N = 647.
Results of the subgroup analysis, presented in table 3, show that providing additional information about the amendment had a positive and statistically significant effect on support for the amendment among women (p = 0.016, two-tailed test), Independents (p = 0.049, two-tailed test), and Republicans (p = 0.002, two-tailed test). Providing additional information had no statistically significant impact on support for the amendment among men (p=0.075, two-tailed test) and Democrats (p = 0.089, two-tailed test)
Table 3 Effect of Information Provision on Support for Constitutional Amendment
Notes: 95% confidence intervals are in parentheses. ∗p<0.05, **p<0.01 two-tailed test.
The ordered logistic regression results, presented in table 4, show a statistically significant association between the provision of additional information about the proposed constitutional amendment and support for the amendment. The correlations with education and political partisanship also were statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval level, whereas associations with age, gender, income, and ethnicity were not statistically significant. McFadden’s R-squared value for the model was 0.2062. We conducted a robustness check and estimated the same model with indicators for Independents and Republicans (i.e., Democrat was the omitted category). The coefficients and statistical significance results, presented in online appendix table S1, were similar to the original model.
Table 4 Ordered Logistic Regression on Support for Constitutional Amendment
Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
The predicted probability of supporting the proposed amendment was 30% in the control group and 46% in the information-treatment group across the entire sample. For Democrats, the probability of supporting the amendment was 74% in the control group and 84% in the treatment group. For Independents, the probability of supporting the amendment was 37% in the control group and 53% in the treatment group. For Republicans, the probability of supporting the amendment was 11% in the control group and 19% in the treatment group. For women, the probability of supporting the amendment was 32% in the control group and 47% in the treatment group. For men, the probability of supporting the amendment was 29% in the control group and 44% in the treatment group.
DISCUSSION
This study evaluated whether information provision can affect individual-level attitudes toward changing the South Dakota Constitution from existing gendered pronouns (e.g., “he”) to gender-neutral language (e.g., “Governor”). The findings have implications for both political science and retail politics.
We found that additional information made respondents more supportive of Amendment E. We expect that, in part, this is because they received more information but also because the information sought to depoliticize the issue, particularly from a conservative standpoint. The results of subgroup analysis show a sharp and statistically significant difference in means between Republicans and Independents in the control and treatment groups. We also observed a distinct “ceiling effect” among Democrats because they were likely to support the amendment regardless of the additional information provided in the experimental group. We expected a ceiling effect because Democrats and women were somewhat more likely to be in favor of the amendment, given their expected favorable attitudes toward preferred pronoun usage. However, this does not mean that a partisan or gender gap can be discounted whereby Republicans and women may experience a greater substantive effect from information provision. For Republicans, this may be due to preconceived attitudes about the issue and potential backlash effects on a high-salience issue (Lau and Redlawsk Reference Lau and Redlawsk2006), whereas for women, this may be due to feeling more confident in their attitudes with greater information (Lizotte and Sidman Reference Lizotte and Sidman2009).
Our results also address why Amendment E failed in the November 2024 election; 57.4% of the electorate voted against the measure despite the experiment’s finding suggesting that the same electorate would be open to gender-neutral language given information provision. It is axiomatic that the conservative ideology of the state makes any gender-related policy question difficult to advance among the electorate. Considering the highly polarized and salient gender and pronoun debate in the conservative media environment, the eventual vote against the amendment to remove gender references is perhaps not surprising. However, other information-related factors were tied to an overly complex and stacked referenda election context in which interest groups typically would increase information accessibility (Nicholson Reference Nicholson2011). Although Kristi Noem, who was South Dakota’s first woman governor, proposed the change, neither she nor any other women officeholders nor any interest group mounted a public campaign for the measure. There was limited interest in the issue, in part due to an unusually high number of other ballot measures (i.e., seven in total) that entailed much higher salience, attention, and spending. Overall, Amendment E suffered in large part from a low-information environment. Had interest groups supplemented the limited information provided on the ballot or voter guide—in the way that our experimental group did with our respondents—the fate of Amendment E may have been different.
CONCLUSION
We conducted a survey experiment to evaluate whether adding a depoliticizing explanation affected South Dakotans’ support for a constitutional amendment to replace male pronouns with gender-neutral language. We found that the participants who received an explanation were more likely to support the proposal, and we observed increased support among women, Independents, and Republicans. Our study contributes to the literature by showing that in a highly politicized yet low-information environment, educational interventions may mitigate preconceived attitudes. Not only does this finding expand on issue areas for which information provision can be effective, it also shows an important distinction between previous research on the similar topic of climate change. This suggests that there may be a difference between providing more education versus providing clarification (i.e., that the issue is not necessarily the same as the individual’s misgivings). Further research is necessary to disaggregate these ideas. Given similar proposals in other states, those political leaders and civil-society members who support them would be well advised to carefully explain the proposed changes to the public. Those who oppose such changes likely will continue to label the proposals as introducing “gender-neutral” language.
…in a highly politicized yet low-information environment, educational interventions may mitigate preconceived attitudes.
Future research should more explicitly consider ways in which the information may further politicize or depoliticize the issue given expected a priori preferences, such as examining differences between a control group and two different types of information (e.g., gender-neutral language versus gender-neutral pronouns). Our findings suggest that further research should examine possible partisan and gender differences in information provision. We also must recognize the limitations of our data that provide opportunities for future research. Although our data were weighted appropriately for age, gender, and partisan registration, our sample was not representative of South Dakota’s American Indian electorate due to very low response rates within that community. We also encourage scholars to conduct more comprehensive surveys because the inclusion of additional control variables (e.g., religion and religiosity) could strengthen multivariate analysis.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096525101613.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Research documentation and data that support the findings of this study are available at the PS: Political Science & Politics Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DIM4OA.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there are no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.
Open access
