The transition to parenthood is a highly disruptive experience. Previous research has found that this disruption can change an individual’s political views, but there is a debate in both the academic and popular literature on if parenthood makes individuals more liberal or more conservative, particularly on technical social risks such as climate change and gun control. Taking advantage of recent evolutions in Differences-in-Differences methodology & best practices, I test the impact of parenthood on public opinion toward climate change and gun control in the United States using panel data (N = 9,000) that allows each individual to be used as their own control group. This is the first panel study of climate change and parenthood to take advantage of these methodological improvements and the first panel study to examine the link between parenthood and gun attitudes. Despite expectations that individuals will move their opinions once they become parents, I do not find any evidence that, regardless of subgroup and model selection, parenthood has a significant impact on preferences towards either topic. I find null effects of parenthood on political ideology, but evidence for a conservative effect on social issues. I argue that these results are a reflection of parenthood’s nature as a treatment: individuals self-select with full anticipation into a treatment they know will be risky.
AnsolabehereS.SchaffnerB. (2025). Cooperative congressional election study: 2010-2014 panel study: University of Massachusetts. [Computer File] Release 1: June 10, 2015.
2.
BaileyJ. A.JacovidesC. L.ButlerD.BassG. A.SeamonM. J.CannonJ.MartinN. D. (2023). Adolescent Gun violence shows an age group to focus trauma prevention. Journal of Surgical Research, 283, 853–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.10.011
3.
BainP. G.MilfontT. L.KashimaY.BilewiczM.DoronG.GarðarsdóttirR. B.GouveiaV.GuanY.JohanssonL. O.PasqualiC.Corral-VerdugoV.AragonesJ.UtsugiA.DemarqueC.OttoS.ParkJ.SolandM.StegL.GonzálezR.…SaviolidisN. M. (2016). Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Climate Change, 6(2), 154–157. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2814
4.
BarneyD. J.SchaffnerB. F. (2019). Reexamining the effect of mass shootings on public support for Gun control. British Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 1555–1565. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123418000352
5.
BassB.NewJ. (2023). How will United States commercial building energy use be impacted by IPCC climate scenarios?Energy, 263, Article 125945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125945
6.
BorusyakK.JaravelX.SpiessJ. (2024). Revisiting event study designs: Robust and efficient estimation. The Review of Economic Studies, 91(6), rdae007.
7.
BotermanW. R. (2012). Residential mobility of urban middle classes in the field of parenthood. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(10), 2397–2412. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44558
BurtonA. L.PickettJ. T.JonsonC. L.CullenF. T.BurtonJ. , V. S. (2021). Public support for policies to reduce school shootings: A moral-altruistic model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 58(3), 269–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427820953202
CliffordS.SheagleyG.PistonS. (2021). Increasing precision without altering treatment effects: Repeated measures designs in survey experiments. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 1048–1065. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421000241
13.
CohenJ. (2016). A power primer.
14.
DalyK. J.AshbourneL.BrownJ. L. (2013). A reorientation of worldview: Children’s influence on fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 34(10), 1401–1424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12459016
15.
DechezleprêtreA.FabreA.KruseT., & et al. (2022). Fighting climate change: International attitudes toward climate policies (no. w30265). National Bureau of Economic Research.
16.
EkholmS. (2020). Swedish mothers’ and fathers’ worries about climate change: A gendered story. Journal of Risk Research, 23(3), 288–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1569091
17.
EkholmS.OlofssonA. (2017). Parenthood and worrying about climate change: The limitations of previous approaches. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 37(2), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12626
18.
ElderL.GreeneS. (2006). The children gap on social welfare and the politicization of American parents, 1984–2000. Politics and Gender, 2(4), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x06060144
19.
ElderL.GreeneS. (2007). The myth of “security moms” and “NASCAR dads”: Parenthood, political stereotypes, and the 2004 election. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00443.x
20.
ElderL.GreeneS. (2008). Parenthood and the gender gap. Voting the gender gap, (pp. 119–140). University of Illinois Press.
21.
ElderL.GreeneS. (2012). The politics of parenthood: Causes and consequences of the politicization and polarization of the American family. SUNY Press.
22.
ElderL.GreeneS. (2016). The politics of walmart moms: Parenthood and political attitudes in the 2012 election. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 37(4), 369–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2016.1198651
23.
ElderL.GreeneS. (2019). Gender and the politics of marijuana. Social Science Quarterly, 100(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12558
24.
ElderL.GreeneS.LizotteM. (2018). The gender gap in public opinion on genetically modified foods. The Social Science Journal, 55(4), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.02.015
25.
ErgunS. J.RivasM. F. (2019). The effect of social roles, religiosity, and values on climate change concern: An empirical analysis for Turkey. Sustainable Development, 27(4), 758–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1939
26.
EvansL.MilfontT. L.LawrenceJ. (2014). Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Global Environmental Change, 25, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.013
27.
FrymerP.GrumbachJ. M. (2021). Labor unions and white racial politics. American Journal of Political Science, 65(1), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12537
28.
GazmararianA. F. (2024). Valuing the future: Changing time Horizons and policy preferences. Political Behavior, 47(2), 553–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09965-3
29.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A. (2010). Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00424.x
30.
GoldstickJ. E.CunninghamR. M.CarterP. M. (2022). Current causes of death in children and adolescents in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 386(20), 1955–1956. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
GreeneS.DeckmanM.ElderL.LizotteM. K. (2022). Do moms demand action on guns? Parenthood and Gun policy attitudes. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 32(3), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2020.1862130
35.
GreenleeJ. (2014). The political consequences of motherhood. University of Michigan Press.
36.
HainmuellerJ. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr025
37.
HernandezN.TrubowitzA.ZacherS. (2025). The insurance value of abortion and support for reproductive rights. Forthcoming in Political Behavior.
38.
JacksonR. A.PietrykaM. (2022). The influence of becoming a parent on political participation in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 103(3), 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13142
39.
JantaB. (2014). Caring for children in Europe: How childcare, parental leave, and flexible working arrangements interact in Europe. Prepared for the european commission, directorate-general for employment, social affairs, and inclusion. Document No. RR-554-EC, RAND Europe.
40.
KahanD. M.BramanD. (2003). More statistics, less persuasion: A cultural theory of gun-risk perceptions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(4), 1291–1327. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312930
41.
KahanD. M.BramanD.GastilJ.SlovicP.MertzC. K. (2007). Culture and identity‐protective cognition: Explaining the white‐male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 465–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x
KnoesterC.EggebeenD. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x06290802
44.
LeeT.MarkowitzE.HoweP.KoC. Y.LeiserowitzA. A. (2015). Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 1014–1020. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2728
45.
LevyR. (1991). Status passages as critical life course transitions. A theoretical sketch. In Theoretical advances in life course research (pp. 87–114). Deutscher Studien Verlag.
46.
MargolisM. F. (2018). How politics affects religion: Partisanship, socialization, and religiosity in America. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1086/694688
47.
MasonL.WronskiJ.KaneJ. V. (2021). Activating animus: The uniquely social roots of trump support. American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1508–1516. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421000563
48.
MilfontT. L.PoortingaW.SibleyC. G. (2020). Does having children increase environmental concern? Testing parenthood effects with longitudinal data from the New Zealand attitudes and values study. PLoS One, 15(3), Article e0230361. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.023036
49.
MilfontT. L.WilsonJ.DinizP. (2012). Time perspective and environmental engagement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de Psychologie, 47(5), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.647029
50.
NaurinE.StolleD.MarkstedtE. (2023). The effect of pregnancy on engagement with politics. Toward a model of the political consequences of the earliest stages of parenthood. American Political Science Review, 117(1), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000430
51.
OlofssonA.ÖhmanS. (2007). General beliefs and environmental concern: Transatlantic comparisons. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 768–790.
52.
PriceC. E.BohonS. A. (2019). Eco-moms and climate change: The moderating effects of fertility in explaining gender differences in concern. Social Currents, 6(5), 422–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496519852691
53.
RaineyC. (2014). Arguing for a negligible effect. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1083–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12102
54.
RothJ.Sant’AnnaP. H.BilinskiA.PoeJ. (2023). What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature. Journal of Econometrics, 235(2).
55.
SandmanP. M. (1987). Risk communication: Facing public outrage. EPA Journal, 13, 21.
56.
SandmanP. M. (1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. AIHA.
57.
SandmanP. M. (2003). Four kinds of risk communication. The Synergist, 8(4), 26–27.
SchmidtL. (2008). Risk preferences and the timing of marriage and childbearing. Demography, 45(2), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0005
60.
Schneider-MayersonM. (2022). The environmental politics of reproductive choices in the age of climate change. Environmental Politics, 31(1), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1902700
61.
SheeranN.JonesL.RoweJ. (2016). Motherhood as the vehicle for change in Australian adolescent women of preterm and full-term infants. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(6), 700–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558415615942
SmithN.LeiserowitzA. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk analysis, 34(5), 937–948.
64.
SmockP. J.SchwartzC. R. (2020). The demography of families: A review of patterns and change. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12612
65.
SpenceA.PoortingaW.ButlerC.PidgeonN. F. (2011). Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature Climate Change, 1(1), 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1059
66.
SunL.AbrahamS. (2021). Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.006
67.
ThomasG. O.FisherR.WhitmarshL.MilfontT. L.PoortingaW. (2018). The impact of parenthood on environmental attitudes and behaviour: A longitudinal investigation of the legacy hypothesis. Population and Environment, 39(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-017-0291-1
68.
van der LindenS. (2017). Determinants and measurement of climate change risk perception, worry, and concern (april 16, 2017). In NisbetM. C.SchaferM.MarkowitzE.HoS.O'NeillS.ThakerJ. (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication: Oxford University Press. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2953631
69.
ViklundM. (2004). Energy policy Options—From the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions, Energy Policy, 32(10), 1159-1171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00079-X
70.
WeissA. (2024). How much should we trust modern difference-in-differences estimates? (No. Bqmws). Center for Open Science.
71.
WildsmithE.ManloveJ.CookE. (2018). Dramatic increase in the proportion of births outside of marriage in the United States from 1990 to 2016. Child Trends.
72.
ZochG.KapelleN. (2023). From parenthood to planet care? The evolution of environmental and climate concerns during family formation. Population and Environment, 47(2).
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.
