follow CCP

Recent blog entries
« More R^2 envy! | Main | ASTAR: bringing the culture of science to law--and the culture of law to science »

Checking in on the "white male effect" for risk perception 

I read a couple of interesting studies of risk and the “white male effect” recently, one by McCright and Dunlap published (advance on-line) in the Journal of Risk Research and another in working paper form by Julie Nelson, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

The “white male effect” (WME) refers to the observed tendency of white males to be less concerned with all manner of risk than are women and minorities.  The phenomenon was first observed (and the term coined) in a study by Flynn, Slovic & Mertz in 1994 and has been poked and prodded by risk-perception researchers ever since.

WME was the focus of one early Cultural Cognition Project study. Extending study findings by Finucane, Slovic, Mertz, Flynn & Satterfield, a CCP research team (which included WME veterans Slovic & Mertz!) found that WME could be largely attributed to the interaction of cultural worldviews with race and gender. The WME was not so much a “white male effect” as a “white hierarchical and individualistic male effect” reflecting the extreme risk skepticism of men with those worldviews.

The design and hypotheses of the CCP study reflected the surmise that WME was in fact a product of “identity protective cognition.” Identity-protective cognition is a species of motivated reasoning that reflects the tendency of people to form perceptions of risk and other facts that protect the status of, and their standing in, self-defining groups.  White hierarchical individualistic males were motivated to resist claims of environmental and certain other risks, we conjectured, because the wide-spread acceptance of those claims would justify restrictions on markets, commerce, and industry—activities important (emotionally and psychically, as well as materially) to the status of white men with those outlooks.

The McCright and Dunlap article corroborates and strengthens this basic account of WME. Using political ideology rather than cultural worldviews to measure the latent motivating disposition, M&D find that the interaction of conservatism with race and gender explains a wide range of environmental risks (thus enlarging on an earlier study of their own, too, in which they focused on climate change).

M&D suggest that WME can be seen as being generated jointly by identity-protective cognition and “system justification,” a psychological dynamic that is said to generate attitudes and beliefs supportive of the political “status quo.” They defend this claim convincingly with the evidence that they collected. But I myself would be interested to see a study that tried to pit these two mechanisms against each other, since I think they are in fact not one and the same and could well be seen as rival accounts of many phenomena featuring public controversy over risks and related policy-consequential facts.

Nelson’s paper presents a comprehensive literature review and re-analysis of various studies—not just from the field of risk perception but from economics and decision theory, too—purporting to find greater “risk aversion” among women than men.

Actually, she pretty much demolishes this claim. The idea that gender has some generic effect on risk perception, she shows, is inconsistent with the disparity in the size of the effects reported across various settings. Even more important, it doesn’t persist in the fact of experimental manipulations that are more in keeping with explanations based on a variety of context-specific or culturally grounded dynamics (such as stereotype threat).

Nelson hints that the ubiquity of the “female risk aversion” claim in economics might well reflect the influence of a culturally grounded expectation or prototype on the part of researchers and reviewers—an argument that she in fact explicitly (ruthlessly!) develops in a companion essay to her study.

I got so excited by the papers that I felt like I had to so some data analysis of my own using responses from a nationally representative sample of 800 subjects who participated in a CCP study in late September.

The top figure, which reflects a regression model that includes only gender and race, shows the classic WME for climate change (the outcome variable is the “industrial strength risk perception” measure, which I’ve normalized via z-score). 

The bottom figure graphs the outcome once the worldview measures and appropriate race/gender/cultural interaction terms are added.  It reveals that WME is in truth a “white hierarchical individualistic male effect”: once the intense risk skepticism associated with being a white, hierarchical individualistic male is taken into account, there’s no meaningful gender or race variance in climate change risk perceptions to speak of.

For fun (and because the risk perception battery in the study also had this item in it), I also ran a model  for “the risk that high tax rates for businesses poses to human health, safety, or prosperity” in American society. Relative to the ones displayed in climate-change risk perceptions, the results are inverted:

In other words, white males are more worried about this particular risk, although again the gender-race difference is an artifact of the intensity of the perceptions of white hierarchical individualistic males.

That these characteristics predict more risk concern here is consistent with the identity-protective cognition thesis: because it burdens an activity connected to status-enhancing roles for individuals with this cultural identity, white hierarchical individualistic males can be expected to form the perception that high tax rates on business will harm society generally.

This finding also bears out Nelson’s most interesting point, in my view, since it confirms that men are more risk tolerant than women” only if some unexamined premise about what counts as a "risk" excludes from assessment the sorts of things that scare the pants off of white men (or at least hierarchical, individualistic ones).

Cool papers, cool topic!


Finucane, M., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K., Flynn, J. & Satterfield, T.A. Gender, Race, and Perceived Risk: The "White Male" Effect. Health, Risk, & Soc'y 3, 159-172 (2000).

Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C.K. Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risk. Risk Analysis 14, 1101-1108 (1994).

Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C.K. Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White-Male Effect in Risk Perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4, 465-505 (2007).

McCright, A.M. & Dunlap, R.E. Bringing ideology in: the conservative white male effect on worry about environmental problems in the USA. J Risk Res, doi:   (2012).

McCright, A.M. & Dunlap, R.E. Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change 21, 1163-1172 (2011).

Nelson, Julie.  Are Women Really More Risk-Averse than Men?, INET Researcn Note (Sept., 2012)

Nelson, Julie.  Is Dismissing the Precautionary Principle the Manly Thing to Do? Gender and the Economics of Climate Change, INET Research Note (Sept. 2012)


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (3)

I got the impression from your side-comments that your implication was it had nothing to do with race and sex, it was purely a worldview effect, but I couldn't be sure since you kept saying it was the views of "white hierarchical individualistic males" causing the effect, not dropping the race/sex determiners, and you didn't plot the other variables like minority H-I and female H-I risk assessments. Do H-I minority women cluster with the H-I's or the minority women? How about white male C-E's?

October 8, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

@NiV: the "white male effect" is the association between "white & male," on one hand, & various risk perceptions on other. But that effect turns out to be driven by only a subgroup of white males -- viz., those who have hierarchical & individualistic values; as people become more egalitarian & individualitic, gender & race variance w/ respect to risks fade out (cultural worldviews still generate differenes in risk perception but views about risks are more uniform among whites & minorities, men & women conditional on their holding the same values). Thus, the phenomenon--whatever you want to call it-- reflects the *interaction* of cultural worldviews w/ gender & race. Explaining the phenomenon requires a theory that takes that interaction into account. Neither socio-biologic explanations -- "women care more about others & so are more sensitive to risk" -- nor socio-economic ones -- "white males are less vulnerable when disaster strisks & so don't worry so much" --predict the culture-specificity of WME. "Identity-protective cognition" does. Within "hierarchical individualistic" ways of life, status-conferring roles become entangled in gender & racial identities; thus, perceptions of risk will vary by race & gender among people w/ those values in ways that reflect the special stakes they have in deflecting claims of danger away from or toward activities that respectively underwrite or threaten their status. This theory not only fits the WME but generates predictions about when white males w/ HI values are likely to be *more* rather than *less* concerned w/ risks -- and also about when when, say, white women w/ hierarchical values are likely to form distincitive risk perceptions (as they do toward the danger that abortion poses to the *health* of women). In any case, this is the theoretical framework that informed the design & hypotheses of our 2007 paper. Take a look, too, at Aken's Worldview .

October 9, 2012 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

Thanks. I understood that you had found that it was the H-I white males that were critical to the effect, but I'm still unsure whether race and sex have any explanatory role, independent of political outlook. Are race and sex confounders? If you control for political outlook, does the correlation with race and sex disappear?

I was hoping to avoid getting in to the 'identity protection' and 'status defence' hypotheses. These seem to me more like motivated reasoning originating from a particular political worldview; the experimental support for them weak, in a 'confirming the consequent' sort of way. It seems to me just as valid to call it a 'minority female' effect instead of 'white male', and hypothesise that environmental risk aversion and economic risk acceptance are attempts to protect a specific 'minority' identity - in which people protect their egos by portraying themselves as more caring, more sharing, less cold and analytical, more warm and emotional. As a rule, the less powerful require stronger defences to shore up their self-regard, and feel more threatened by challenges to it. Those with power don't need it, and can shrug off reversals more easily. Black culture and feminism are strongly asserted - nobody bothers much with 'masculinism' for example. So I would expect, a priori, that minority identity-protection is more likely to distort judgement when protecting culturally important beliefs and values. But I don't know - I'm not a social scientist. Many other hypotheses could be constructed, I'm sure.

It's a profoundly political argument, though, and I didn't see much prospect of us making progress on it. As I said, I don't think the experimental results discussed here say much on the question one way or another. But the question of whether race and sex are confounders is something that *could* be determined in principle, and which I was interested in. I've seen other people put forward the 'conservative white male' thesis before, and have always argued against its implied racism/sexism. It seems to have arisen from a particular branch of identity politics, that opposes whites and men on somewhat racist and sexist grounds, and which seemed to be taking advantage of this conservative correlation to tar all white men with a conservative brush. It would be interesting to knows if they're wrong.

October 9, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>