From press release at Michigan State University via Eurekalert, something sure to rile almost everyone.
Published: Sept. 14, 2010
EAST LANSING, Mich. — Women tend to believe the scientific consensus on global warming more than men, according to a study by a Michigan State University researcher.
The findings, published in the September issue of the journal Population and Environment, challenge common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate, said sociologist Aaron M. McCright.
“Men still claim they have a better understanding of global warming than women, even though women’s beliefs align much more closely with the scientific consensus,” said McCright, an associate professor with appointments in MSU’s Department of Sociology, Lyman Briggs College and Environmental Science and Policy Program.
The study is one of the first to focus in-depth on how the genders think about climate change. The findings also reinforce past research that suggests women lack confidence in their science comprehension.
“Here is yet another study finding that women underestimate their scientific knowledge – a troubling pattern that inhibits many young women from pursuing scientific careers,” McCright said.
Understanding how the genders think about the environment is important on several fronts, said McCright, who calls climate change “the most expansive environmental problem facing humanity.”
“Does this mean women are more likely to buy energy-efficient appliances and hybrid vehicles than men?” he said. “Do they vote for different political candidates? Do they talk to their children differently about global warming?”
McCright analyzed eight years of data from Gallup’s annual environment poll that asked fairly basic questions about climate change knowledge and concern. He said the gender divide on concern about climate change was not explained by the roles that men and women perform such as whether they were homemakers, parents or employed full time.
Instead, he said the gender divide likely is explained by “gender socialization.” According to this theory, boys in the United States learn that masculinity emphasizes detachment, control and mastery. A feminine identity, on the other hand, stresses attachment, empathy and care – traits that may make it easier to feel concern about the potential dire consequences of global warming, McCright said.
“Women and men think about climate change differently,” he said. “And when scientists or policymakers are communicating about climate change with the general public, they should consider this rather than treating the public as one big monolithic audience.”
###
Michigan State University has been advancing knowledge and transforming lives through innovative teaching, research and outreach for more than 150 years. MSU is known internationally as a major public university with global reach and extraordinary impact. Its 17 degree-granting colleges attract scholars worldwide who are interested in combining education with practical problem solving.
Contact: Andy Henion, University Relations, Office: (517) 355-3294, Cell: (517) 281-6949, Andy.Henion@ur.msu.edu; Aaron M. McCright, Sociology and Lyman Briggs, Office: (517) 432-8026, mccright@msu.edu
I pity the idiot who might suggest this is gender specific. My girlfriend would probably bite the head off of an AGW alarmist. My ex-wife, on the other hand, is a professional eco-geek for the DOE and probably believes this crap (one of the reasons she is an EX-wife). This issue has to do more with common sense than book learnin’.
One of my best friends is a mechanical engineer with a degree from MSU. I can’t wait to send him this link. He’ll go ballistic!
Mike:
Report: More women than men in U.S. earned doctorates last year for first time
Washington Post
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091400004.html
Looking at the research paper which this article is based on tends to re-inforce the thrust of many previous posters on this topic. From Table 2.16 (Total Doctoral Enrolment)
Men strongly dominate in:
Engineering – 76.8%
Mathematics and Computer Sciences – 74.8%
Physical and Earth Sciences – 65.5%
Women strongly dominate in:
Health Sciences – 70.7%
Education – 68.6%
Public administration and Services – 62.1%
Social and Behavioural Sciences – 60.3%
“John from CA says:
September 14, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Jimash says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“These weenies are weenies for trying to get [it] over on women, or assuming that they can.””
Just for the record, to “get over” on someone is to con them. The “it” is not necessary to the expression.
Correction to last post:
That was FIFTY pounds of flank steak (beef, of course). Fire up the barbie!
Unfortunately, Aaron M. McCright, associate professor of sociology, is a buffoon. I am completely unsurprised that a sociology professor does not understand people.
Why are women more likely to believe in global warming? McCright’s answer is that they are more scientifically literate than men but simply don’t know it.
The real answer, politically incorrect as it is, is that women are 1) more gullible than men and 2) defer to men/authority on issues of science (and maths etc) while men are much more skeptical because that’s what has kept the species going for millenia.
My highly intelligent wife speaks three langauges fluently and in each tells others that CAGW is total B/S
This one’s simple. The gender or any individual who realizes that global warming is a scam and that “consensus” is meaningless in science knows more science (real science) than the other(s).
Women might be more likely to do or buy things that would counter warming, but that does not obviate the fact that their basis for these decisions is centered on a false proposition.
This explains why my wife keeps telling me I’m “in denial”.
I guess there’s no reason why humanities professors shouldn’t also have their turn at the CAGW trough. But as to whether women are better able than men to critically analyze the multitude of scientific reports that address global warming, this I very much doubt. Could it be perhaps that males are much more likely to have had an eduction focused on science and technology, leaving them better placed to sort the wheat from the chaff?
I’m not going to dengrate women. I think the study is probably flawed. However, it isn’t accidental that in Australia the womens magazines have pages and pages of adverts for the “worlds greatest psychics – call now!”, and a bunch of other woo-woo, along with the nonsense articles and astrology, feng-shui and the like. It isn’t accidental that you can walk into a newsagenbt and buy “Witchcraft” magazines, complete with “spells to snare your man!”
I will point out that neither my wife nor daughter read such nonsense, and they read this blog, question AGW, dissaprove of the Greens, laugh at “crystal gazers” and the like, beleive in Evolution and understand it, and understand a multi-billion year old universe.
Obviously they aren’t unique, but I worry they are in the minority, considering the popularity of “womens magazines”. Oh, and by the way, the marketing of this crap starts early. Look at a girls teen magazine. Sad really.
Of all the tripe and rubbish I’ve seen related to climate alarmism, I find this one is the most offensive. I agree with Sandy’s comment that it trivializes both genders.
More to the point, we have seen this psychological tactic used before. Remember (was it a few months ago or a year ago – can’t quite remember) a similar study that tried to float the idea that skeptics are somehow mentally hard wired to not believe the in global warming? So in other words, its not our fault for being deniers, we simply need “help” because we are born defective. This method is nothing new, so pay close attention to the underlying intent to insult intelligence on both sides and most important of all, do not allow alarmists like this to divide us.
In Australia, during the election campaigns, it is common to have the Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition in a televised debate. Over the last few years, they have been using a ‘worm’, a computer generated plot that tracks the reactions of the audience. There is also a question time in which the worm is active. There is usually more than one TV station and more than one worm monitoring the debate. This year, they employed three worm traces on the graph, one for women, one for men and one combined. The result was staggering, if not frightening. During the debate, when our female Prime Minister was speaking, the females’ worm would soar and would never go into the negative, no matter how badly she was delivering or answering a question. The males’ worm was much less biased. This contrast was the case with more than one TV station’s worm plot.
With the worm, an individual turning the vote control knob hard one way, will score a lot more than if he/she turns it slightly that way. Therefore the dedicated knob cranker will have a lot more worm voting power than will someone who is more reasonable. With an election, though, you essentially can only select ‘1’ for your chosen candidate, so there is less opportunity for an individual’s passion or emotion to override the majority.
Interestingly, there have been years when the worm has clearly favoured the left side of politics, but the right side has gone on to win the actual election. This observation generated charges of the leftist media cherry picking with the audiences. I would suggest another possibility is that female wormers are more likely to favour the kumbaya side of politics and will gratuitously hard bias the control knob as described above. I would also suggest that male wormers are more likely to find their feminine side, when using the left side of their political brain.
So yes, I am not surprised that woman more readily buy Global Warming.
I can assure you that McCright is an activist, not an academic.
well, he proves his point that men aren’t more scientifically literate – he’s NOT a hard scientist. He accepts everything the climategate community tells him without any skeptisim. He’s certainly showing his “faith” in AGW, which is pure emotion, since it cannot withstand genuine scientific scruntiny.
I’m a woman, and I think he’s the illiterate. (but then, there are certain majors I wouldn’t let my daughters, or sons, go anywhere near. His is one.)
David70 says:
September 14, 2010 at 7:30 pm
According to religioustolerance.org, (sorry, not sure how to link this up- just google belief in creation) 53% of women believe in biblical new Earth creation versus 39% of men. Wonder what conclusions the sociology prof would draw from this? Could AGW be similar to religion? Hmmmm
======================================================
Sis, these are almost diametrically opposing views. Gender or no, people that believe in the biblical version of creation, in general, don’t believe in man’s ability to control Nature.
That being said, your word “new” in between biblical and Earth isn’t understood by me.
latitude says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:34 pm
“McCright, an associate professor with appointments in MSU’s Department of Sociology, Lyman Briggs College and Environmental Science and Policy Program.”
I hope he’s not saying what I think he is…………
And what might your thought be on what he’s not saying?
What riles me most is that unshaven chap McCwrong is drinking his beer on my tab.
Jack –
I am a woman. Women are taught to use “emotion” when making decisions. (this is why leftist politics – the government nanny state – tend to attract women voters.)Therefore, if it “feels” good, they are taught to “support it”. Rationality and logic (re: cold, hard facts that stand up in the light of day. Those pesky facts, they can be soooo unforgiving.) are deemed beyond a woman’s ability – who you ask is teaching us this? why, our mothers, grandmothers, and aunts. Incidently, they are WHY I ran from the leftist politics they supported.
They had women as soon as they said
“think of the grandchildren”
We know what the majority of men think with.
Most women think with their hearts.
If women knew what was being done to some of the children today,to supposedly benefit their grandchildren in the future,they would change their mind.
You cannot watch tv,read a book,listen to the radio,read a newspaper,go shopping without green policy,and planet destruction being mentioned these days.
Most women are too busy socialising( socialising online-facebook)and tending to families to realise where the real threat to their grandchildren is coming from.
Pamela Gray says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:33 pm
========================================================
See what you started!! lol
Believe it or not it is possible to be a female CAGW skeptic, a church-goer and a Darwinist, all at the same time. ‘Speaking’ as one. (Bah! to some of you) I suspect the high level of acceptance of CAGW amongst females is due to the fact that most are not paying any attention to the matter beyond what they see in the mainstream news. Most of my female students are not even aware that there’s any debate. I’ve not encountered a high level of skepticism from my male students, either, for that matter. Were this report not complete rubbish to begin with– because of the assumptions made by Prof. McWrong– one criticism would be that there should be some break down by age group, education, and professional groupings.
Women tend to believe the scientific consensus on global warming more than men, according to a study by a Michigan State University researcher.
The findings, published in the September issue of the journal Population and Environment, challenge common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate
Um . . . er . . . ah . . .
Bye!
[Hasty exit, stage right.]
Dan in California says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:20 pm
This sociology professor obviously believes the “scientific consensus,” and anyone who agrees with him is “more scientifically literate.” I think it’s interesting that the alarmist party line is bought by sociologists, psychologists, liberal arts graduates, and some climatologists. On the other hand, the skeptics tend to be physicists, engineers, chemists, statisticians, computer programmers, other climatologists, and farmers.
So if you grew up on a farm and became a computer programmer – double dose of sceptic powers.
Sad this, posts, not only here(this particular thread), which is of negligible value regarding the climate debate, but through this entire blog has slowed to a trickle after a seemingly terminal amount of time.
The real effect that this so called sociaologist missed is the plea to authority, which women respond to more than men.