Skip to main content

The Stained Glass Ceiling: Social Contact and Mitt Romney’s “Religion Problem”


Why did Mitt Romney face antagonism toward his Mormon religion in the 2008 election? Using experiments conducted in the real time of the campaign, we test voters’ reactions to information about Romney’s religious background. We find that voters were concerned specifically with Romney’s religious affiliation, not simply with the fact that he is religious. Furthermore, concern over Romney’s Mormonism dwarfed concerns about the religious backgrounds of Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee. We find evidence for a curvilinear hypothesis linking social contact with Mormons and reaction to information about Romney’s Mormonism. Voters who have no personal exposure to Mormons are most likely to be persuaded by both negative and positive information about the Mormon faith, while voters who have sustained personal contact with Mormons are the least likely to be persuaded either way. Voters with moderate contact, however, react strongly to negative information about the religion but are not persuaded by countervailing positive information.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. 1.

    Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the 2009 annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association and the American Political Science Association, as well as the 2009 conference, “The Change Election?,” held at the University of Notre Dame. We are grateful for the helpful comments of Jamie Druckman, Geoff Layman, Chris Karpowitz, and three anonymous reviewers. Our participation in the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project (CCAP) was supported by the Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy at the University of Notre Dame, the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, and by the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University.

  2. 2.

    More technically, membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here we use “Latter-day Saints,” “LDS,” and “Mormon” interchangeably.

  3. 3.

    Putnam and Campbell (2010), report that the mean feeling thermometer for Mormons within the American population is 48 degrees, lower than the ratings for Jews (59) and Catholics (58) but higher than the feeling thermometer score given to Muslims (44).

  4. 4.

    Interestingly, these figures are comparable to the percentage who said they would not vote for a Catholic in 1960 (29 %) and to the percentage who said they would not vote for a Mormon in 1968 (also 25 %) (Jones and Jeffrey 2007).

  5. 5.

    The resulting opinion of the group is likely to be positive simply because of the positive nature of family and friendship ties. However, the same logic would apply for individuals who had negative relationships with family and friends because such individuals are still likely to have made up their minds about the group.

  6. 6.

    For the technical details of the matching procedure employed by YouGov/Polimetrix, see Jackman and Vavreck (2010). For evidence regarding the representativeness of samples drawn using this method, see Vavreck and Rivers (2008). Note that the survey oversampled battleground states, such that voters in non-battleground and battleground states are represented in equal proportions. Sherkat (2007) presents evidence that fundamentalist Christians are under-represented in the General Social Survey which, if also true for the CCAP, could potentially present a problem for population estimates using these data. However, since one factor for fundamentalists’ non-response to the GSS is the perceived social distance between fundamentalists and the highly educated, female interviewers who conduct the study’s face-to-face interviews, it is not clear that the same would apply to a truly anonymous internet survey. Even more importantly, however, even if the CCAP does under-represent fundamentalist Christians, or any other group in the population, it does not affect the internal validity of our experiment.

  7. 7.

    Because of the concern that the timing of the experiment might affect how respondents reacted to information about Romney’s religion, we have also interacted the treatment variables with a variable measuring the data of interview. Results are unchanged (details available upon request).

  8. 8.

    Note that there is no middle category among the response options. Respondents had to indicate that they were more or less likely to vote for the candidate; they could not say that the information had no effect on their vote choice. This was done to ensure that respondents did not reflexively select “no effect” out of a desire to take the path of least resistance. We account for the absence of a middle category by only reporting comparisons between treatment conditions. If the absence of a middle category artificially pushes respondents in one direction or another, we would expect that bias to be the same regardless of the treatment, since the response options always remain the same. Accordingly, we can make comparisons across treatment conditions—the absence of a middle option does not compromise the internal validity of the experiment.

  9. 9.

    However, we have also run all of our models using a four-category dependent variable, with ordered logit as the estimator. The substantive results are unchanged (and available upon request).

  10. 10.

    With a cell size of 200 and the observed standard deviation of the dependent variable (roughly .5), a power test reveals that we can detect a difference of 0.15 85 % of the time, with an alpha level of .05 and assuming a two-tailed test. Note, however, that the questions about social contact were only asked of 2/3 of the respondents, thus reducing the cell sizes for those analyses. For those analyses, we can detect a difference of 0.19 85 % of the time. Smaller subsets mean still less power, although the size of the negative reaction to Romney’s Mormonism is large enough that we nonetheless find statistically significant effects.

  11. 11.

    The randomization check was performed by conducting a Chi-square test on the distribution of each demographic trait across the treatment conditions.

  12. 12.

    We coded evangelical Protestants using the respondent’s specific religious denomination consistent with Layman and Green (2005), Green (2007), and Steensland et al. (2000).

  13. 13.

    The eigenvalue for the factor score of frequency of religious attendance and the guidance provided by religion is 1.17.

  14. 14.

    Republican primary voters were identified with a question on the common content baseline survey (variable BCAP4) that asked registered voters to identify whether they would vote in their state’s Democratic or Republican primary/caucus. Political interest was also gauged using the baseline survey (variable BCAP813)—those who indicated that they are “very much interested” in politics. Knowledge of Romney’s religion was measured with an open-ended item specific to our study. We coded the open-ended responses liberally, counting the many variations of “Mormon,” “Morman” [sic], “LDS,” “Latter-day Saint,” “Church of LDS” and so on as correct. Details for our coding are available upon request. By this measure, roughly half of respondents were aware of Romney’s religion.

  15. 15.

    Confidence intervals are calculated using CLARIFY (Tomz et al. 2003).

  16. 16.

    Benson et al. (2011) present similar results to ours for social contact within the context of the presidential primary when political competition is highest between Mormons and evangelicals. However, precise comparisons are difficult because they measure social contact using frequency of contact by splitting the social contact into two groups, high and low. Our question better captures the depth of the social contact and allows us to identify a middle group. We do not have comparable data from a general election period to assess how changing political competition might affect our results.

  17. 17.

    With an upper bound of −0.18 and a lower bound of −0.38.

  18. 18.

    For the Separationist frame, upper bound = 0.10, lower bound = −0.29. For the Common Values frame, upper bound = −0.07, lower bound = −0.27.

  19. 19.

    Note that we are not suggesting that social contact is the sole explanation for the current warmth toward Catholics and Jews, only that it is an important part of the story and the one over which other groups have some control. Specifically, attitudes toward Jews are undoubtedly affected by sympathy in the wake of the Holocaust.


  1. Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice: 25th anniversary edition. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barker, D. C. (2005). Values, frames, and persuasion in presidential nomination campaigns. Political Behavior, 27, 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellah, R. N. (1967). Civil religion in America. Daedalus, 96, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benson, B. V., Merolla, J. L., & Geer, J. G. (2011). Two steps forward, one step back? Bias in the 2008 presidential election. Electoral Studies, 30, 607–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berinsky, A. J., & Mendelberg, T. (2005). The indirect effect of discredited stereotypes in judgments of Jewish leaders. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 845–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Braman, E., & Sinno, A. H. (2009). An experimental investigation of causal attributes for the political behavior of Muslim candidates: Can a Muslim represent you? Politics and Religion, 2, 247–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychologyi (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell, D. E. (Ed.). (2007). A matter of faith: Religion in the 2004 presidential election. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell, D. E., & Monson, J. Q. (2007). Dry kindling: A political profile of American Mormons. In J. Matthew Wilson (Ed.), From pews to polling places: Faith and politics in the American religious mosaic. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chafets, Z. (2007). The Huckabee factor. New York Times Magazine, December 27.

  11. Citrin, J., Green, D. P., & Sears, D. O. (1990). White reactions to black candidates: When does race matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feldman, N. (2008). What is it about Mormonism? New York Times Magazine, January 6.

  14. Finke, R., & Stark, R. (2005). The churching of America 1776–2005: Winners and losers in our religious economy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gallup. (2011). In U.S., 22% are hesitant to support a Mormon in 2012. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from

  16. Givens, T. (1997). The viper on the hearth: Mormons, myths, and the construction of heresy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Green, J. C. (2007). The faith factor: How religion influences American elections. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Green, J. C. (2010). Religious diversity and American politics: A view from the polls. In A. Wolfe & I. Katznelson (Eds.), Religion and democracy in the United States: Danger or opportunity?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Green, J. C., & Silk, M. (2009). No saints need apply. Religion in the News, 11(3), 4–7. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Herberg, W. (1955). Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An essay in American religious sociology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jackman, S., & Vavreck, L. (2010). Primary politics: Race, gender, and age in the 2008 democratic primary. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Policy, 20(2), 153–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones, J. M. (2007). Some Americans reluctant to vote for Mormon, 72-year-old presidential candidates: Strong support for black, women, Catholic candidates. Gallup News Service. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from

  24. Kalkan, O., Layman, G. C., & Uslaner, E. M. (2009). Bands of others? Attitudes toward Muslims in contemporary American society. Journal of Politics, 71, 847–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kane, J. G., Craig, S. C., & Wald, K. D. (2004). Religion and presidential politics in Florida: A list experiment. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2), 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kinder, D. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Layman, G. C., Kalkan, K. O., & Green, J. C. (n.d.) A Muslim president? Explaining misperceptions about Barack Obama’s faith in the 2008 presidential election. Unpublished manuscript.

  28. Layman, G. C., & Green, J. C. (2005). Wars and rumors of wars: The contexts of cultural conflict in American political behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 61–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Linker, D. (2006). The big test. The New Republic, December 23.

  30. McDermott, M. (n.d.). Is America ready for a Mormon president? Americans’ views of Mormons and the Romneys’ presidential runs. Unpublished manuscript.

  31. Monson, J. Q., & Riding, S. (2009). Social equality norms for race, gender, and religion in the American public during the 2008 presidential primaries. Paper presented at The Transformative Election of 2008 Conference, Ohio State University, October 1–4.

  32. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Penning, J. (2009). Americans’ views of Muslims and Mormons: A social identity theory approach. Politics and Religion, 2, 277–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2006). Many Americans uneasy with mix of religion and politics. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from

  37. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2007a). Politics and elections: How the public perceives Romney, Mormons. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from

  38. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2007b). Clinton and Giuliani seen as not highly religious; Romney’s religion raises concerns. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from

  39. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2011a). Republican candidates stir little enthusiasm. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from

  40. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2011b). Romney’s Mormon faith likely a factor in primaries, not in a general election. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from

  41. Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Romney, M. (2007). Faith in America. Speech delivered at the George Bush Presidential Library, College Station, TX, December 6.

  43. Sherkat, D. E. (2007). Religion and survey non-response bias: Toward explaining the moral voter gap between surveys and voting. Sociology of Religion, 68(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Spencer, J. (2007). Critics target Romney’s Mormonism. Spartanburg Herald-Journal, May 11.

  45. Steensland, B., Park, J. Z., Regnerus, M. D., Robinson, L. D., Bradford Wilcox, W., & Woodberry, R. D. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79, 291–318.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Streb, M. J., Burrell, B., Frederick, B., & Genovese, M. A. (2008). Social desirability effects and support for a female American president. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 76–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2003). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(1).

  50. Vavreck, L., & Rivers, D. (2008). The 2006 cooperative congressional election study. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 18(4), 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Weisberg, J. (2006). Romney’s religion. A Mormon president? No way. Slate, December 20. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to David E. Campbell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Campbell, D.E., Green, J.C. & Monson, J.Q. The Stained Glass Ceiling: Social Contact and Mitt Romney’s “Religion Problem”. Polit Behav 34, 277–299 (2012).

Download citation


  • Religion and politics
  • Voter behavior
  • Presidential elections
  • Tolerance
  • Social contact