Scholars have long suggested that familial life can affect political behavior and, more recently, have found that fathering daughters leads men to adopt more liberal positions on gender equality policies. However, few have focused on the impact of fathering a daughter on congressional behavior, particularly in an era of heightened partisan polarization. Using an original data set of familial information, we examine whether fathering a daughter influences male legislators’ (a) roll call and cosponsorship support for women’s issues in the 110th to 114th Congresses and (b) cosponsorship of bills introduced by female legislators in the 110th Congress. We find that once party affiliation is taken into account, having a daughter neither predicts support for women’s issues nor cosponsorship of bills sponsored by women. Our findings suggest there are limits to the direct effects of parenting daughters on men’s political behavior, and that scholars should remain attentive to institutional and partisan contexts.
BinderS. A. (1997). Minority rights, majority rule: Partisanship and the development of Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BrownN.GershonS. A. (2016). Intersectional presentations: An exploratory study of minority Congresswomen’s websites’ biographies. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 13, 85-108.
5.
BurkettT. (1997). Cosponsorship in the United States senate: A network analysis of senate communication and leadership, 1973–1990 (Doctoral dissertation). Sociology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
6.
CarrollS. (2002). Representing women: Congresswomen’s perceptions of their representational roles. In RosenthalC. S. (Ed.), Women transforming Congress (pp. 50-68). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
ClarkJ. H.CaroV. (2013). Multimember districts and the substantive representation of women: An analysis of legislative cosponsorship networks. Politics & Gender, 9, 1-30.
9.
CoxG.McCubbinsM. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
CoxG.McCubbinsM. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CraigA.CranmerS. J.DesmaraisB. A.ClarkC. J.MoscardelliV. G. (2015). The role of race, ethnicity, and gender in the congressional cosponsorship network. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.06141
12.
CronqvistH.YuF. (2017). Shaped by their daughters: Executives, female socialization, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 126, 543-562.
13.
DahlG.MorettiE. (2008). The demand for sons. Review of Economic Studies, 75, 1085-1120.
14.
DahlM.DezsőC.RossD. (2012). Fatherhood and managerial style: How a male CEO’s children affect the wages of his employees. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, 669-693.
15.
DinasE. (2013). Opening “openness to change”: Political events and the increased sensitivity of young adults. Political Research Quarterly, 66, 868-882.
16.
DittmarK.SanbonmatsuK.CarrollS. (2018). A seat at the table: Congresswomen’s perspectives on why their presence matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
DodsonD. L. (2006). The impact of women in Congress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
DolanK.FordL. (1998). Are all women state legislators alike? In ThomasS.WilcoxC. (Eds.), Women and elective office: Past, present, and future (pp. 73-86). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
ElderL. (2008). Whither republican women: The growing partisan gap among women in Congress. The Forum, 6(1), 1-21.
20.
ElderL.GreeneS. (2012). The politics of parenthood: Causes and consequences of the politicization and polarization of the American family. Albany: State University of New York Press.
21.
FowlerJ. H. (2006a). Connecting the Congress: A study of cosponsorship networks. Political Analysis, 14, 456-487.
22.
FowlerJ. H. (2006b). Legislative cosponsorship networks in the U.S. House and Senate. Social Networks, 28, 454-465.
23.
FrederickB. (2010). Gender and patterns of roll call voting in the U.S. senate. Congress & the Presidency, 37, 103-124.
24.
GerberA.SchicklerE. (Eds.). (2017). Governing in a polarized age: Elections, parties, and political representation in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25.
GerrityJ. C.OsbornT.MendezJ. M. (2007). Women and representation: A different View of the district?Politics & Gender, 3, 179-200.
26.
GlassJ.BengtsonV.DunhamC. C. (1986). Attitude similarity in three-generation families: Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influence?American Sociological Review, 51, 685-698.
27.
GlynnA.SenM. (2015). Identifying judicial empathy: Does having daughters cause judges to rule for women’s issues?American Journal of Political Science, 59, 37-54.
28.
GoodreauS.KittsJ.MorrisM. (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography, 46, 103-125.
29.
GreenD.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
GreenleeJ., (2014). The Political Consequences of Motherhood. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
31.
GreenleeJ.NtetaT.RhodesJ.SharrowE. (2018). Helping to break the glass ceiling? Fathers, first daughters, and presidential vote choice in 2016. Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9514-0
32.
GrimmerJ. (2013). Representational style in Congress: What legislators say and why it matters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
GrossJ. (2014). Testing what matters (if you must test at all): A context-driven approach to substantive and statistical significance. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 775-788.
34.
HartmanE.HidalgoF. D. (2018). An equivalence approach to balance and placebo tests. American Journal of Political Science, 64, 1000-1013.
35.
HawkesworthM. (2003). Congressional enactments of race–gender: Toward a theory of raced–gendered institutions. American Political Science Review, 97, 529-550.
36.
HellwegeJ.BryantL. (2017, April6-9). Mother and father know best: Parenthood and policymaking. Prepared for presentation at Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, IL.
37.
JacobsonG. C. (2013). Partisan polarization in American politics: A background paper. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43, 688-708.
38.
KesslerD.KrehbielK. (1996). Dynamics of cosponsorship. American Political Science Review, 90, 555-566.
39.
KingG. (1989). Variance specification in event count models: From restrictive assumptions to a generalized estimator. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 762-784.
40.
KogerG. (2003). Position taking and cosponsorship in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28, 225-246.
41.
LakensD. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 8, 355-362.
42.
LaRajaR.SchaffnerB. (2015). Campaign finance and political polarization: When purists prevail. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.HorowitzJ. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 83-110.
44.
MayhewD. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
MintaM. D.BrownN. E. (2014). Intersecting interests: Gender, race, and congressional attention to women’s issues. Du Bois Review, 11, 253-272.
47.
MollicaK.GrayB.TrevinoL. (2003). Racial homophily and its persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Organization Science, 14, 123-136.
48.
OswaldA. J.PowdthaveeN. (2010). Daughters and left-wing voting. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 213-227.
49.
PearsonK. (2015). Party discipline in the House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
50.
PearsonK.DanceyL. (2011a). Elevating women’s voices in Congress: Speech participation in the House of Representatives. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 910-923.
51.
PearsonK.DanceyL. (2011b). Speaking for the underrepresented in the House of Representatives: Voicing women’s interests in a partisan era. Politics & Gender, 7, 493-519.
52.
PellegriniP.GrantJ. T. (1999). Policy coalitions in the U.S. Congress: A spatial duration modeling approach. Geographical Analysis, 31(1), 45-66.
53.
RaineyC. (2014). Arguing for a negligible effect. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 1083-1091.
54.
ReingoldB. (2000). Representing women: Sex, gender, and legislative behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
RippereP. S. (2016). Polarization reconsidered: Bipartisan cooperation through bill cosponsorship. Polity, 48, 243-278.
57.
RoccaM. S.SanchezG. R. (2008). The effect of race and ethnicity on bill sponsorship and cosponsorship in Congress. American Politics Research, 36, 130-152.
58.
RohdeD. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform house. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
59.
RuefM.AldrichH. E.CarterN. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68, 195-222.
60.
SchaffnerB. (2011). Party polarization. In EdwardsG. C.LeeF.SchicklerE. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the American Congress (pp. 527-549). New York, NY: Oxford Handbooks Online.
61.
SharrowE.RhodesJ.NtetaT.GreenleeJ. (2018). The first daughter effect: The impact of fathering first daughters on men’s preferences on gender equality issues. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 493-523.
62.
ShoganC. (2001). Speaking out: An analysis of democratic and republican woman-invoked rhetoric of the 105th Congress. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 23(1), 129-146.
63.
SkvoretzJ.FaustK. (2002). Relations, species, and network structure. Journal of Social Structure, 3(3), 139-145.
64.
SwersM. (2002). The difference women make: The policy impact of women in Congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
65.
SwersM. (2005). Connecting descriptive and substantive representation: An analysis of sex differences in cosponsorship activity. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30, 407-433.
66.
SwersM. (2013). Women in the club: Gender and policy making in the senate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
67.
SwersM. (2016). Pursuing women’s interests in partisan times: Explaining gender differences in legislative activity on health, education, and women’s health issues. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 37, 249-273.
68.
TheriaultS. (2008). Party polarization in Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
69.
TheriaultS.HickeyP.BlassA. (2011). Roll-call votes. In EdwardsG. C.LeeF.SchicklerE. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the American Congress (pp. 576-597). New York, NY: Oxford Handbooks Online.
70.
WalshK. C. (2002). Enlarging representation: Women bringing marginalized perspectives to floor debate in the House of Representatives. In RosenthalC. S. (Ed.), Women transforming Congress (pp. 370-396). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
71.
WarnerR. (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, 1051-1056.
72.
WarnerR.SteelB. (1999). Child rearing as a mechanism for social change: The relationship of child gender to parents’ commitment to gender equity. Gender & Society, 13, 503-517.
73.
WashingtonE. (2008). Female socialization: How daughters affect their legislator fathers’ voting on women’s issues. American Economic Review, 98, 311-332.
74.
WawroG. (2001). Legislative entrepreneurship in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
75.
WilsonR.YoungC. (1997). Cosponsorship in the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22, 25-43.
76.
WolbrechtC. (2002). Female legislators and the women’s rights agenda. In RosenthalC. S. (Ed.), Women transforming Congress (pp. 170-194). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
77.
ZhangY.FriendA. J.TraudA. L.PorterM. A.FowlerJ. H.MuchaP. J. (2008). Community Structure in congressional cosponsorship networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 387, 1705-1712.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
