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
Lonnie Schubert says:
September 15, 2010 at 5:52 am
“The warmists are the same as the young earth creationists.”
Lest that be misunderstood – vanishingly few young earth creationists are warmists.
I’d tend to agree that they’re both the same in the way of believing in things despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Both groups wear blinders but are generally only blind to things that dispute their beliefs and have no problem accepting things that don’t.
This paper is being reported today as serious and valid science by jounalist Leo Hickman on the Guardian blog!!!
How the mighty have fallen!
Thoughts:
Men have posted here that women tend to belong to left leaning parties. If true, it is understandable. Historically, the imposed “veil” comes in many different forms and is, in my experience, the reason why women gravitate towards the party that offers that gender the greatest amount of individual liberty, laws against any form of discrimination, and seeks to protect our reproductive decision rights. Men would do the same if their rights were constantly being threatened. The fact that I am no longer a registered Democrat and have chosen the Independent party instead of the Tea or Republican party is primarily because of the Democratic Party’s plank on global warming but also because the conservative right continues to believe in and would seek to re-enforce the “veil”.
A proper review of history would demonstrate a clear and convincing tendency for women to fight AGAINST consensus in many fields of study, including and especially the medical field, siting just one example among many: autism.
The field of sociology is not a soft science at all. Previous to its advent, scientists would not touch anything having to do with mental issues, believing them to be unmeasurable. This meant that emotional disorders were completely disregarded as an area in need of medical consideration. Sociologists attempted to measure mental and emotional processes, demonstrating it could be done. With reluctance, the science community eventually recognized this field of study and began scientific inquiries into it’s disordered forms. Therefore history refutes the notion posted here by several commenters that sociology, as a field of study, has no merit.
However, this particular study’s only redeemable value would be as a fire starter on a cold weekend morning.
This is a sexist discussion, by definition. So why not make it more obvious? AGW is hysteria. The word ‘hysteria’ is derived from the greek word ‘hystera’, meaning ‘uterus’. QED.
“so in summary, women are more gullible than men”
REPLY “and we have ignition…”
Priceless. A true LOL moment.
I have yet to see hysteria from women commenters. It appears that men however, are having a free-for-all good time at the expense of the opposite gender. We do that too. By the way, the uterus was thought to be the only female organ involved in re-production in terms of making a baby. In every sense of the word, it was considered to be just the oven. It was the man that gave birth to the fully formed baby for safe keeping in the oven till it got bigger. QED.
The credibility of any research rests on two things. One is the the sample methodology and the other is interpretation of results. Without a close study of how these were accomplished, the author’s conclusion that women more readily accept the AGW theory can only be viewed as wishful thinking. Indeed, the statement that women’s beliefs conform more to the scientific consensus already includes the falsehood there is a consensus so why not add another and say women are also more inclined to believe it? These researchers know which side of the bread needs buttering in order for them to access research funds.
Among the people I know, far more men believe in the AGW theory and they’re very aggressive in promoting and defending that belief.
anna v says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Being genetically compelled to become a serious adult must really suck. It’s a dirty job but I guess someone has to do it. You have my deepest sympathy and utmost thanks.
Dan in California writes,
“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.”
An “alarmist party line” does not exist among scientists, social or otherwise. But virtually all major US scientific organizations (and internationally, many more) have made statements agreeing with the scientific consensus that human activities including greenhouse gas emissiona are changing the climate. These include the American Chemical Society, American Statistical Association, American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society, along with many others. No sign whatsoever of the division Dan mentions.
I can state with unmitigated certainty:
1. My wife is an optimist compared to me,
2. My wife likes her environment warmer than I.
Therefore, put the two together and women believe because they want it warmer. ;~P
I got a HUGE chuckle over the comment made regarding the dazed adoring look on the female faces of audience members attending an Oprah taping.
Gosh, never seen that before in men, this staring with a dazed look at anything.
Pamela ,
Please explain why the left leaning media launch such vicious attacks on sucessful women who happen to have a conservative point of view .
Dave Springer says:
September 15, 2010 at 4:27 am
Would it be a fair to restate the title of paper:
“Girly men more likely to believe in CAGW”
???
I think so. 🙂
ROFLMAO
“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”
So parents do not teach their boys attachment,empathy and care?
When a boy scrapes his knee a mother does not kiss it better, and supply a bandaid? When a boy comes for a hug and attention, he is pushed away?
Boys are babied as much as girls, until they reach school age in most societies, and according to researchers a child’s personality is shaped in the first 5 years, therefore a boy learns to emphathise and care by the time he reaches school age.
Alexander K says:
September 15, 2010 at 7:45 am
How the mighty have fallen!
I didn’t think the British gutter press could really fall any further… guess i must have forgotten about the drains and sewers fed by the effulent from the Street of Shame…
If you are talking about the Tea Party candidate who won the primary in Delaware with Palin’s endorsement, I have this to say, regardless of her gender, mine is important and as a woman who cherishes her individual freedoms, the criticism pointed at her is valid.
So when do we start the truly free “Freedom Party”? At the very least, it is a better title than “Tea Party”. For Gawdsake, it sounds so whimpy ;>). My local rifle range was going to sponsor a Tea Party shoot for women. I was ready to sign up till I found out we weren’t shooting tea cups and plates, we shooting at the plain old plinking targets and then having tea afterwords!
Many women are critical thinkers, I for one and I’m pretty critical of some of the generalisations offered here tonight!
Dear Pamela Gray, may I illustrate my point? Here is an old joke:
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: (Woman’s voice) That’s not funny!!!
My original post was intended to be critical of the thread itself. We are all getting way too serious. I wish we could lighten up. But that’s hard to do these days.
Our society is too fractured and ready to explode. That is largely due to manufactured crises like AGW, and our economy. There is always somebody else to blame. We are being pushed to the edge of what we can tolerate so we will accept ‘solutions’ that will give government greater control over our lives. We need to realize we all need each other, stop being afraid, and solve problems together. The more government does, the less freedom we have.
If we can laugh, we let off steam, and that allows us to work more effectively. Humor can be team building.
Humor can ease tensions. Women and men use it to express frustration. There often is critical truth embodied in humor, even if it is frequently stereotypical. That means individuals may not be accurately depicted in the joke, but a recognizable issue must be present for the joke to be funny to the listener. If someone laughs, it shows they understand you.
What was the critical truth in the to joke at the top? Stereotypical feminists seem to be too angry and can’t take a joke.
Men are the butt of jokes in virtually all media, so I’m not sympathetic to women’s complaints about jokes here. For example, dads are usually dumb on TV and in the movies. I’m tired of it, but I don’t make a big deal out of it.
There are differences between men and women. We are not the same, and we should not be the same. Our society puts pressure on us to conform to some theory of how we should behave. That sexual homogenization ignores our nature, and may even weaken our civilization. In my opinion, the feminization of boys as currently practiced in schools is dangerous. A feminized society that wants everyone to get along at all costs may not be able to defend itself.
Honestly, I hope you have a great day, Pamela.
[Notes to self: Pamela has a weapon. Pamela has shot that weapon in public. Be nice to Pamela. Be very nice to Pamela in public. 8<) Robert ]
“For Gawdsake, it sounds so whimpy ;>). ”
Hey Pamela – watch out, with talk like that you’ll be labelled the exception that proves the rule!! 😉
It is interesting that so many commenters seem to accept that this study can say anything whatever about scientific literacy. As far as I can tell, it did not address the occupation or education of respondents. Belief in a premise doesn’t require scientific literacy, and neither does scepticism. I’ve known people who can’t add single digit numbers who “believe” in evolution. You can be sceptical about global warming, just because you are a disagreeable, macho, beer-swilling, know-it-all who thinks Al Gore is a pansy. You can be sceptical without having read one single scientific study or even without visiting this website!
Maybe there is something gender specific that makes women more apt to believe in global warming. Maybe it is because women are the ones who get stuck with the mundane activites like keeping the family washed and fed, so they don’t have time to ruminate about whether or not what they are told on the morning shows is true.
At any rate, the number of women obtaining scientific/technical degrees is very close to the number of men: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/content.cfm?pub_id=3634&id=2
Gullibility is a male concept. Men spend hours trying to devise ways to get someone else to believe something that isn’t true. My husband has hilarious stories of such pranks from his Coast Guard days. He once sent a seaman to the hardware store to purchase “fallopian tubing.” For the most part, it wouldn’t occur to women to do something like that to another woman. Since they aren’t expecting it, that may make women more gullible.
Beth Cooper says:
September 15, 2010 at 9:30 am
Many women are critical thinkers
I thought ALL women were critical thinkers when it comes to men 🙂
but do they have a better understanding than sociologists??
Pamela – If your post at 9:26 was in answer to my question , no it was not in reference to any specific individual . As far as the candidate in Delaware goes , I know little about her except that she defeated Mike Castle . Mike was one of the few Republicans who voted for the climate bill in the House last year and deserves my scorn . Ditto for the other six or seven others who did likewise .
Joseph Day says:
September 15, 2010 at 9:37 am
Honestly, I hope you have a great day, Pamela.
Great post… totally agree.
But honestly reckon a bit more grovelling was called for ☺☺☺
And honestly I nearly believed your last sentence ☺☺☺
Jack Lacton says:
September 14, 2010 at 7:50 pm
“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 yet…the media message is geared towards women…indicating that the women are the real policy drivers….
Oh, the power!!!!!! The limitless power, mhuwahahahahaha!