Advertisement

Helping to Break the Glass Ceiling? Fathers, First Daughters, and Presidential Vote Choice in 2016

  • Jill S. GreenleeEmail author
  • Tatishe M. Nteta
  • Jesse H. Rhodes
  • Elizabeth A. Sharrow
Original Paper

Abstract

Throughout her 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton crafted messages intended to appeal to fathers of daughters and to highlight the implications of her historic nomination for American girls and women. Clinton reminded voters that her election could mean that “fathers will be able to say to their daughters, you, too, can grow up to be president” (Frizell, Time, http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/, 2015). But did these appeals succeed in mobilizing fathers of daughters to support Clinton? Using original cross sectional and experimental survey data from the 2016 CCES, we ask two questions. First, were men who fathered daughters (a life event which we operationalize, for important methodological and theoretical reasons detailed herein, as men who fathered a daughter as their first child) more likely to support, and vote for, Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election than were those who fathered sons as their first child? Second, were Clinton’s direct appeals to fathers of daughters effective in increasing her electoral support? We find that fathers who have daughters as their first child are more likely to prefer and vote for Clinton, and are more likely to support a fictional female congressional candidate using a “Clintonesque” appeal that emphasizes expanding opportunities for “our daughters.” These results suggest that entry into fatherhood with a daughter (as opposed to with a son) is a formative experience for men that has consequences for their political choices in later life. Our conclusions inform the growing literature on the implications of fathering daughters on men’s political behavior.

Keywords

Fatherhood Gender Voting behavior Hillary Clinton 2016 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all those who offered feedback on previous versions of this manuscript, especially Laura Stoker, Melissa Deckman, Sarah Kahn, the Working Group on American Politics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the University of Massachusetts Center for Research on Families, Hande Inanc, and the anonymous reviewers. This work was supported by a Faculty Research Grant from the University of Massachusetts–Amherst [to T.N.] and the Norman Fund at Brandeis University [to J.G.]. The 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study was supported by the National Science Foundation [Grant #1559125 to Stephen Ansolabehere], and the authors thank the co-PIs, Stephen Ansolabehere, Brian Schaffner, and Samantha Luks, for their support of this research.

Supplementary material

11109_2018_9514_MOESM1_ESM.docx (210 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 209 kb)

References

  1. Alwin, D., Cohen, R., & Newcomb, T. (1991). Political attitudes over the life span: The Bennington women after fifty years. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S., & Schaffner, B. (2014). Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis, 22(3), 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arceneaux, K., & Nickerson, D. W. (2009). Modeling certainty with clustered data: A comparison of methods. Political Analysis, 17(2), 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aronson, P. (2003). Feminists or ‘Postfeminists’? Young women’s attitudes toward feminism and gender relations. Gender & Society, 17(6), 903–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barreto, M. A. (2007). ¡Sı Se Puede! Latino candidates and the mobilization of Latino voters. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blake, A. (2016). “How America decided, at the last moment, to elect Donald Trump.” The Washington Post. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/how-america-decided-at-the-very-last-moment-to-elect-donald-trump/?noredirect=on.
  7. Bock, J., Byrd-Craven, J., & Burkley, M. (2017). The role of sexism in voting in the 2016 presidential election. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 189–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolzendahl, C. I., & Myers, D. J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social Forces, 83(2), 759–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., De Boef, S., & Lin, T.-m. (2004). The dynamics of the partisan gender gap. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bracic, A., Israel-Trummel, M., & Shortle, A. F. (2018). Is sexism for White people? Gender stereotypes, race, and the 2016 presidential election. Political Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9446-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks, D. (2013). He runs, she runs: Why gender stereotypes do not harm women candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Burden, B., Ono, Y., & Yamada, M. (2017). Reassessing public support for a female president. The Journal of Politics, 79(3), 1073–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cassese, E., & Barnes, T. (2018). Reconciling sexism and women’s support for republican candidates: A look at gender, class, and whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 presidential races. Political Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9468-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cassese, E., & Holman, M. R. (2018). Playing the woman CARD: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. presidential race. Political Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Center for American Women in Politics (CAWP). (2018). “2018 Summary of Women Candidates.” CAWP Election Watch. Retrieved August 17, 2018 from http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/2018-women-candidates-us-congress-and-statewide-elected-executive.
  16. Conley, D., & Rauscher, E. (2013). The effect of daughters on partisanship and social attitudes toward women. Sociological Forum, 28(4), 700–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cramer, K. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cronqvist, H., & Frank, Yu. (2017). Shaped by their daughters: Executives, female socialization, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 126(3), 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dahl, M., Dezső, C., & Ross, D. (2012). Fatherhood and managerial style: How a male CEO’s children affect the wages of his employees. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(4), 669–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dahl, G., & Moretti, E. (2008). The demand for sons. Review of Economic Studies, 75(4), 1085–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, S., & Greenstein, T. (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deave, T., & Johnson, D. (2008). The transition to parenthood: What does it mean for fathers? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63(6), 626–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dickerson, J. (2016). “Hillary Clinton’s fight for the dad vote.” CBS News. Retrieved July 10, 2017 from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-fight-for-the-dad-vote/.
  24. Dinas, E. (2013). Opening ‘openness to change’: Political events and the increased sensitivity of young adults. Political Research Quarterly, 66(4), 868–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dittmar, K. (2017). Finding gender in election 2016: Lessons from presidential gender watch. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  26. Dolan, K. (2010). The impact of gender stereotyped evaluations on support for women candidates. Political Behavior, 32(1), 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dolan, K. (2014). When does gender matter?: Women candidates and gender stereotypes in American elections. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dunning, T., & Harrison, L. (2010). Cross-cutting cleavages and ethnic voting: An experimental study of cousinage in Mali. The American Political Science Review, 104(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eifert, B., Miguel, E., & Posner, D. (2010). Political competition and ethnic identification in Africa citation terms of use. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 494–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ekins, E. (2017). “The five types of Trump voters: Who they are and what they believe.” A Research Report from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. Retrieved July 2, 2018 from https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters.
  31. Elder, L., & Greene, S. (2012). The politics of parenthood. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  32. Elder, G., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The Emergence and development of life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Federico, C., & Zavala, A. G. D. (2018). Collective narcissism and the 2016 U.S. presidential vote. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Frizell, S. (2015). “Read the Full Text of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Launch Speech.” Time. Retrieveed August 10, 2017 http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/.
  35. Gerber, A., Gimpel, J., Green, D., & Shaw, D. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised Campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary jutifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Glynn, A., & Sen, M. (2015). Identifying judicial empathy: Does Having daughters cause judges to rule for women’s issues? American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goldstein, K., & Ridout, T. (2004). Measuring the effects of televised political advertising in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Green, D., & Vavreck, L. (2008). Analysis of cluster-randomized experiments: A comparison of alternative estimation approaches. Political Analysis, 16(2), 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Greenlee, J. (2014). The political consequences of motherhood. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gurin, P. (1985). Women’s gender consciousness. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(2), 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Childhood socialization and political attitudes: Evidence from a natural experiment. The Journal of Politics, 75(4), 1023–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Herrnson, P., Celeste Lay, J., & Stokes, A. K. (2003). Women running ‘as women’: Candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter-targeting strategies. Journal of Politics, 65(1), 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Junn, J. (2017). The trump majority: White womanhood and the making of female voters in the U.S. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(2), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kaufmann, K. (2002). Culture wars, secular realignment, and the gender gap in party identification. Political Behavior, 24(3), 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kinder, D., & Sanders, L. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Klar, S., Madonia, H., & Schneider, M. C. (2014). The influence of threatening parental primes on mothers’ versus fathers’ policy preferences. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 2(4), 607–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Knezevic, A. (2008). “Overlapping confidence intervals and statistical significance.” StatNews: Cornell University Statistical Consulting Unit 73(1):.Google Scholar
  51. Knoester, C., & Eggebeen, D. J. (2006). The effects of the transition to parenthood and subsequent children on men’s well-being and social participation. Journal of Family Issues, 27(11), 1532–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Krasno, J., & Green, D. (2008). Do televised presidential ads increase voter turnout? Evidence from a natural experiment. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ladd, J. M. (2010). Power of elite opinion leadership the neglected toward the news media: To produce antipathy evidence from a survey experiment. Political Behavior, 32(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lajevardi, N., & Oskooii, Kassra A. R. (2018). Old-fashioned racism, contemporary Islamophobia, and the isolation of Muslim Americans in the age of Trump. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 3(1), 112–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lau, R., & Rovner, I. B. (2009). Negative campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Luttig, M. D., Federico, C. M., & Lavine, H. (2017). Supporters and opponents of Donald Trump respond differently to racial cues: An experimental analysis. Research & Politics, 4(4), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Macwilliams, M. C. (2016). Who decides when the party doesn’t? Authoritarian voters and the rise of Donald Trump. PS: Political Science and Politics, 49(4), 716–721.Google Scholar
  58. Manne, K. (2017). Down girl: The logic of misogyny. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Manza, J., & Crowley, N. (2017). Working class hero? Interrogating the social bases of the rise of Donald Trump. The Forum, 15(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Markus, G. (1988). The impact of personal and national economic conditions on the presidential vote: A pooled cross-sectional analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McCall, L., & Orloff, A. S. (2017). The multidimensional politics of inequality: Taking stock of identity politics in the U.S. presidential election of 2016. British Journal of Sociology, 68, S34–S56.Google Scholar
  62. Medenica, V. E. (2018). Millennials and race in the 2016 election. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 3(1), 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. New York Times. (2015). “Full Transcript: Democratic Presidential Debate.” New York Times. Retrieved July 6, 2017 from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/democratic-debate-transcript.html.
  64. New York Times Editorial Board. (2016). “The Sleaziness of Donald Trump.” New York Times. Retrieved June 28, 2018 from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/opinion/the-sleaziness-of-donald-trump.html.
  65. Nteta, T., & Greenlee, J. (2013). A change is gonna come: Generational membership and white racial attitudes in the 21st century. Political Psychology, 34(6), 877–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Oswald, A., & Powdthavee, N. (2010). Daughters and left-wing voting. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Payton, M., Greenstone, M., & Schenker, N. (2003). Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: What do they mean in terms of statistical significance? Journal of Insect Science, 3(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 Case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Phillips, C. (2018). Wanting, and weighting: White women and descriptive representation in the 2016 presidential election. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 3(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Plutzer, E., & Zipp, J. (1996). Identity politics, partisanship, and voting for women candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 30–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Prokos, A., Baird, C., & Keene, J. (2010). Attitudes about affirmative action for women: The role of children in shaping parents’ interests. Sex Roles, 62(5–6), 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ramakrishnan, K. (2016). “Trump got more votes from people of color than Romney did. Here’s the data.” Monkey Cage Blog, The Washington Post. Retrieved July 19, 2017 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.8b625e45812a.
  74. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002a). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002b). Political parties and the recruitment of women to state legislatures. The Journal of Politics, 64(3), 791–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sanbonmatsu, K., & Dolan, K. (2009). Do gender stereotypes transcend party? Political Research Quarterly, 62(3), 485–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schaffner, B., MacWilliams, M., & Nteta, T. (2018). Understanding White polarization in the 2016 vote for president: The sobering role of racism and sexism. Political Science Quarterly, 133(1), 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sears, D. (1981). Life stage effects upon attitude change, especially among the elderly. In S. B. Kiesler, J. N. Morgan, & V. K. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Aging: Social change (pp. 183–204). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  79. Sears, D., & Funk, C. (1999). Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults’ political predispositions. The Journal of Politics, 61(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sears, D., Lau, R., Tyler, T., & Allen, H. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 670–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sears, D., & Levy, S. (2003). Childhood and adult political development. In D. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 60–109). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Sears, D., & Valentino, N. (1997). Politics matters: Political events as catalysts for preadult socialization. American Political Science Association, 91(1), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Setzler, M., & Yanus, Y. (2018). Why did women vote for Donald Trump? PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 523–527.Google Scholar
  84. Shafer, E. F., & Malhotra, N. (2011). The effect of a child’s sex on support for traditional gender roles. Social Forces, 90(1), 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sharrow, E., Rhodes, J., Nteta, T., & Greenlee, J. (2018). The first-daughter effect: The impact of fathering first daughters on men’s preferences on gender-equality issues. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(3), 493–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sides, J., Tesler, M., & Vavreck, L. (2018). Identity crisis: The 2016 presidential campaign and the battle for the meaning of America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Smith, E., & Fox, R. (2001). The electoral fortunes of women candidates for congress. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Strolovitch, D. Z., Wong, J. S., & Proctor, A. (2017). A possessive investment in white heteropatriarchy? The 2016 election and the politics of race, gender, and sexuality. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(2), 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tesler, M. (2016a). “A key reason young people don’t support Hillary Clinton? They don’t have daughters.” Monkey Cage Blog, The Washington Post. Retrieved July 10, 2017 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/11/a-key-reason-young-people-dont-support-hillary-clinton-they-dont-have-daughters/?utm_term=.69017896f20f.
  90. Tesler, M. (2016b). “Parents of Daughters Support Hillary Clinton More than Parents of Sons.” Monkey Cage Blog, The Washington Post. Retrieved July 6, 2017 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/05/parents-of-daughters-support-hillary-clinton-more-than-parents-of-sons/?utm_term=.1060e2895c02.
  91. Tesler, M., & Sears, D. (2010). “The paradox of gender traditionalists’ support for Hillary Clinton.” In Obama’s Race: The 2008 election and the dream of a post-racial America (pp. 115–26). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  92. Towler, C. C., & Parker, C. S. (2018). Between anger and engagement: Donald Trump and Black America. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 3(1), 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Traister, R. (2016). “Trump’s one public service was exposing the misogyny of the GOP.” New York Magazine. Retrieved June 30, 2018 from https://www.thecut.com/2016/10/trumps-one-service-was-exposing-the-misogyny-of-the-gop.html.
  94. Umberson, D., Pudrovska, T., & Reczek, C. (2010). Parenthood, Childlessness, and Well-Being: A Life Course Perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 612–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Valentino, N., Wayne, C., & Oceno, M. (2018). “Mobilizing sexism: The interaction of emotion and gender attitudes in the 2016 US presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Warner, R. (1991). Does the sex of your children matter? Support for feminism among women and men in the United States and Canada. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53(4), 1051–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Warner, R., & Steel, B. (1999). Child rearing as a mechanism for social change: The relationship of child gender to parents’ committment to gender equity. Gender & Society, 13(4), 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Washington, E. (2008). Female socialization: How daughters affect their legislator fathers’ voting on women’s issues. American Economic Review, 98(1), 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. West, L. (2016). “Donald and Billy on the Bus.” New York Times. Retrieved June 30, 2018 from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/donald-and-billy-on-the-bus.html.
  100. Wolbrecht, C. (2000). The politics of women’s rights: Parties, positions, and change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jill S. Greenlee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tatishe M. Nteta
    • 2
  • Jesse H. Rhodes
    • 2
  • Elizabeth A. Sharrow
    • 2
  1. 1.Brandeis UniversityWalthamUSA
  2. 2.University of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations