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
John Luft says:
September 15, 2010 at 7:02 am
“When you watch something Like Oprah and watch the vacant grins of many of the women in the audience, you know many are easily misled.”
Actually, I think most of them are just there for the free stuff she gives away. The glazed expressions are due to Oprah’s topics. 🙂
@David70 said on September 14, 2010 at 7:30 pm:
Anti-Religion bigotry by David et al. Why are people always grinding this Dawkins militant atheism axe ? Shouldn’t there be a seperation of science and religion.
As to the relative superstition of women, I would like to offer up the example of men and sports. How many professional athletes have “lucky” hats, or don’t shave during the playoffs, or follow some other loony ritual so as not to anger the sports gods.
My husband knocks on wood every time a commentator says something favorable about one of his team’s players. Obviously, scientific evidence shows that if he didn’t the player would be irreparably jinxed.
Getting a little edgy around here. So, on a lighter note.
Hell hath no fury as a:
a) climategate scientist scorned
b) WUWT blogger scorned
c) female of species “x” scorned, where “x” is any species on earth
d) ” male ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
e) AGW religious leader scorned in a Seattle hotel room, when refused by a masseuse
f) mother earth scorned by AGW theory’s disrespect for her
g) and so on and so on . . . .
John
A terrible, but warranted, slur on the reputation of “Climate Consensus” .
I’ve really enjoyed this thread, but I think the bashing of sociologists as a group is unfair. Like any other profession, there are good ones and bad ones. This article is an example of not just a badly done study, but one that was clearly done for the purposes of supporting a political agenda under the guise of scientific study.
I recall a fascinating study (by sociologists) I read some years ago about the way men and women navigate. If you bear with me, this circles back to the issue at hand.
The study began with researchers standing on a downtown street corner and asking strangers for directions. They noted that in general, men provided directions through direction and distance. “take this street north for six blocks and turn west…” while women were more likely to provide direction via landmarks. “keep going on this street until you see a white church with blue trim, that’s the corner where you turn left…”
Ever since reading that study I have taken anecdotal mental notes. When asked for directions by my wife or daughter, I try and use landmarks, and believe me it works much better.
This doesn’t mean that women can’t tell direction or that men can’t recognize landmarks. It means they think in different terms. The theory proposed by the researchers was that primitive societies were hunter/gatherer most hunting being done by men and most gathering by women. Women needed to navigate short distances and very precisely to get to the exact same berry patch as they did the year before, hence the use of specific and detailed landmarks as their core navigation construct. Men needed to range far further to find game, and while finding the same berry patch time after time was a good thing, in hunting that is a bad thing because a given area becomes “hunted out” as the prey’s population declines and their sensitivity to the presence of humans goes up. As a result, men needed to navigate larger distances in order to vary their hunting territories, and the shortest path home after a hunt might well not be to retrace ones steps, so direction and distance became their core construct.
I see no particular flaw in this line of reasoning, so let’s extend it to the matter at hand. Gathering was most likely a group activity. To be effective gatherers, the group would be best served by working together to harvest that berry patch. The primitive hunter however, was a solitary effort. One hunter might get close enough to a rabbit to stick it with a spear, but not 20 together.
So it seems to me that our primitive roots geneticaly favoured societies in which gatherers were predisposed to accepting the consensus and cooperating with it, while hunters were predisposed to a more individualistic and self reliant approach to their primary task, their goal being to proceed unubtrusively, and on the basis that the valley that produced good yields last month would have to be shunned in favour of new ones possibly unseen and unexplored previously.
None of the above means that men can’t be gatherers or that women can’t be hunters. It is a matter of learning the skills and applying them. I find it far more difficult for example to teach a women how to aim a rifle than a man. I also find that when women “get it” they are frequently better shots than men.
So… it is no surprise to me that women accept the consensus more easily than do men. But if this politician in a sociologist’s cloak had studied men and women with equal knowledge of the relevant issues, I doubt that he would have found a significant difference. Just as I expect scientists with moral fibre stand up and say what needs to be said about the flaws in climate science, it would be nice to see sociologists with the guts to do the same. I know they are out there. Somewhere.
Gneiss;
the pronouncements you so tritely list are by the admin Head Orifice types. They have mightily riled their actual members by speaking falsely on their behalf.
Just a consequence of a “Macho” attitude toward women.
I can’t even find the words to express my distaste for this kind of pitting woman against men.
There are differences between men and women but stupidity isn’t one of them. That quality is shared equally.
davidmhoffer says:
September 15, 2010 at 11:02 am (Edit)
I’ve really enjoyed this thread, but I think the bashing of sociologists as a group is unfair. Like any other profession, there are good ones and bad ones. This article is an example of not just a badly done study, but one that was clearly done for the purposes of supporting a political agenda under the guise of scientific study.
I recall a fascinating study (by sociologists) I read some years ago about the way men and women navigate. If you bear with me, this circles back to the issue at hand.
The study began with researchers standing on a downtown street corner and asking strangers for directions. They noted that in general, men provided directions through direction and distance. “take this street north for six blocks and turn west…” while women were more likely to provide direction via landmarks. “keep going on this street until you see a white church with blue trim, that’s the corner where you turn left…”
Ever since reading that study I have taken anecdotal mental notes. When asked for directions by my wife or daughter, I try and use landmarks, and believe me it works much better.
This doesn’t mean that women can’t tell direction or that men can’t recognize landmarks. It means they think in different terms. The theory proposed by the researchers was that primitive societies were hunter/gatherer most hunting being done by men and most gathering by women. Women needed to navigate short distances and very precisely to get to the exact same berry patch as they did the year before, hence the use of specific and detailed landmarks as their core navigation construct. Men needed to range far further to find game, and while finding the same berry patch time after time was a good thing, in hunting that is a bad thing because a given area becomes “hunted out” as the prey’s population declines and their sensitivity to the presence of humans goes up. As a result, men needed to navigate larger distances in order to vary their hunting territories, and the shortest path home after a hunt might well not be to retrace ones steps, so direction and distance became their core construct.
I see no particular flaw in this line of reasoning, so let’s extend it to the matter at hand. Gathering was most likely a group activity. To be effective gatherers, the group would be best served by working together to harvest that berry patch. The primitive hunter however, was a solitary effort. One hunter might get close enough to a rabbit to stick it with a spear, but not 20 together.
So it seems to me that our primitive roots geneticaly favoured societies in which gatherers were predisposed to accepting the consensus and cooperating with it, while hunters were predisposed to a more individualistic and self reliant approach to their primary task, their goal being to proceed unubtrusively, and on the basis that the valley that produced good yields last month would have to be shunned in favour of new ones possibly unseen and unexplored previously.
None of the above means that men can’t be gatherers or that women can’t be hunters. It is a matter of learning the skills and applying them. I find it far more difficult for example to teach a women how to aim a rifle than a man. I also find that when women “get it” they are frequently better shots than men.
So… it is no surprise to me that women accept the consensus more easily than do men. But if this politician in a sociologist’s cloak had studied men and women with equal knowledge of the relevant issues, I doubt that he would have found a significant difference. Just as I expect scientists with moral fibre stand up and say what needs to be said about the flaws in climate science, it would be nice to see sociologists with the guts to do the same. I know they are out there. Somewhere.
—…—…—…
I dislike repeating another writer’s (excellent and inciteful!) words, but feel it is justified in this case. Let me add (but only with Pamela’s publicly armed permission and Tamera’s willing consent) an extension:
The consent-dominated “gathering and child-rearing” group MUST communicate. The more often and the more recognizable their constant communication, the more the “talkers” will survive to rear more children, and the more the “talkers” children will survive to breed more children. This is because omnivore predators (particularly bears, boars, pigs, and the like who eat the same food humans do) will be repelled and warned off by strange noises from the humans competing for food in the same area. Likewise, one talkative human in a group listening to other talkers who spys a predator will warn other humans, and those humans will be able to safely stay away from the predator.
A child wandering a few feet from his/her mother in a dense blackberry patch or vine-covered brush will only survive if he/she can hear his mother and return. Or a child who quickly cries out when lost will be heard by his mother (or other nearby “talker”) but not a predator. A child who stays quiet and hides is killed and cannot breed.
In all cases, constant speech (about anything) is a survival trait. For the gatherers. For the gatherers’ children.
Now, compare this to the classic – and never disproved – “male” as a hunter. Group or solo, the male who speaks scares away his prey. The male who talks and compares clothing styles or drapery selections rather than building weapons goes hungry and dies. His family, his tribe also goes without food, and they have a smaller chance to survive.
The “hunter” who talks socially while in a group hunting also goes hungry. (If he himself is not himself “killed” or punished by his hunting group who want silence for their survival and food. Social pressure and and his family’s survival requires silence during the hunt.
Now, an important exception to this “The strongest, quickest, most silent, most masculine hunter will survive.” theory.
Now, look at a time just a few hours later, when that same quiet, very focused masculine hunter is sitting by the fire after the hunt is over. At that point, his loud boastful talk about the hunt attracts potential mates (certainly something must make up for the lack of soap, baths, and deodorant and comfortable bedding), attracts future hunters into his group (and so improves his chances of succeeding the time they hunt), AND scares away any predators stupid enough to approach the fire. Then again, a successful hunt brings home the comfortable bedding helpful in avoiding headaches. (That is, successful breeding …)
Thus, boasting about their exploits around a fire after work is a validated male survival trait, and must be encouraged by all current and future mates of the true male.
Gneiss says:
September 15, 2010 at 9:02 am
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.
———————————————————-
My response: Of course CO2 emissions are changing the climate, the question is whether the effect is a measurable amount or a tiny amount. I am less familiar with the Statistical Association and the Meterological Society (You’ll have to ask Joe Bastardi), but I know that many members of the American Chemical Society and the American Physical Society are indignant that the administrators of the societies wrote letters supporting AGW consensus. Both organizations have petitions from working members asking to repeal that politically inspired baloney. Members are also dropping out of the organizations for the same reasons.
And, yes, I forgot to include geologists in the ranks of skeptics. They know better than most that past wide swings of CO2 concentration (much greater changes than current) did not cause corresponding global temperature extremes.
In 1922 “HLM” came out with a book amusingly titled In Defense of Women,” which can be read online here: http://gutenberg.readingroo.ms/1/2/7/1270/1270-h/1270-h.htm Here are a few extracts, mostly OT, and many of them “arguable”—but awfully provocative. If you haven’t read Mencken, here’s what you’re missing:
Hmm, a lot appears to be hidden in this result. For example the business of confidence in one’s knowledge of climate science. Why not parse the data to correlate confidence of one’s knowledge (regardless of gender) with adherence to “consensus”. From what is revealed in this fellow’s results it would appear that those who feel confident of their own knowledge tend to buck the consensus.
Personally, I think it is nonsense to draw inferences from self-reported levels of confidence in one’s own knowledge. Why not include on the survey a mini-quiz to determine responders’ ACTUAL knowledge of scientific (or climate) basics? I guess that would be far too sensible for these pollsters to consider.
I place little stock in this business of socialization as an explanation of gender-specific behavior. We gave our daughter lego and our son dolls. The dolls ended up pilots in fighter jets and the lego would be assembled into “houses” and the lego people became mini-dolls that socialized all day. Eventually our son robbed the “girl lego” sets to augment his design of space ships and our daughter kept all the dollish stuff together. Sure everyone is influenced by environment, but nature and nurture both account for eventual behavior, and one cannot cancel out the other.
That said there will be a whole range of behaviors and traits exhibited by individuals of either gender, including those that defy the norms. I wonder about Judith Currie in light of this study, however. Does she defy the norm in one respect while falling squarely under the curve in another? Could explain a few things. Currently on her blog she’s trying to square tropical storm data that doesn’t fit well with “consensus” “science” (i.e., alarmist projections). She evidently sees that the alarmist approach is unsupported but can’t be brought to toss out the clearly flawed hypothesis.
One article about physicists being unhappy with APS leadership:
http://www.examiner.com/cobb-county-conservative-in-atlanta/prominent-scientists-push-to-revise-physics-society-climate-statement
A reference to Am Chemical Society members revolting about their executives bowing to AGW claims:
http://84rules.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/american-chemical-society-revolts-against-their-editor-in-chief/
Here’s a WUWT thread on Chemists not agreeing with their organization’s policy:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/american-chemical-society-members-revolting-against-their-editor-for-pro-agw-views/
Another discussing dissent within the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Physical Society.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3905
I stand by my statement that working scientists in the “hard” sciences and engineers are skeptical that anthropogenic CO2 is more than a minor factor in climate. Skepticism is an integral part of science, and the burden of proof is on those who claim that mankind is affecting the global climate.
And to stay on thread, that’s engineers and scientists of both sexes. 🙂
I prefer landmark directions because I can’t often see the little green street sign hiding behind the overgrown tree on the corner. It has nothing to do with how I think. Now if all streets had big illuminated hanging street name signs on the overhead power lines, then I would prefer street names.
“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,”
Women are more religious too. I guess it escaped the author that concensus != science. But it does make good politics.
kasphar says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Sorry Kasphar, I jumped immediately to post a comment without reading and made the same point you did. great minds think alike.
Women prefer landmarks because you can use them to find berry patches year after year. They are not so good, however, for intercepting a herd of buffalo.
All I can say is, this ignerant perfessor dude hasn’t a clue what makes women tick, and I snorted a lung when Anthony said “We have ignition.”
(yes, the misspellings are intentional.)
Isn’t it amazing how much more response there is to this issue as opposed to the technical blogs. 219 hits for this as opposed to 54 for for water vapor feedback. As much as the study of sociology is derided, it seems everyone is interested.
Pamela Gray says:
September 15, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I prefer landmark directions because I can’t often see the little green street sign hiding behind the overgrown tree on the corner. It has nothing to do with how I think. Now if all streets had big illuminated hanging street name signs on the overhead power lines, then I would prefer street names.>>
Ah, but most esteemed Pamela, is not a street sign but a landmark? It signifies neither direction nor distance…
My anecdotal observation is that the rule holds true about 80% of the time. I myself however navigate by landmarks, but when asked for directions I automaticaly switch to direction and distance unless I make a conscious decision not to. Of course I grew up on the prairies where the question “can you tell me how to get to the Miller farm” can be answered with “its about 80 miles that direction. Look, you can just see the peak of his barn just past that tree… looks like they did laundry today, Martha’s got the whites strung up on the clothesline.”
Thanks Phil
The link between religion and AGW thickens. Another thought on an idea above.
Maybe women of the right take on religion, women of the left take on AGW.
This study’s results are not surprising as I have been following global warming polls that include gender and environmental issues and the woman are always a higher percentage in favor of “concern for”.
One major corporation I deal with has an idiotic “green team” which is made up of all women. I see more women driving around Priuses ect…
Global Warming, Al Gore and environmental doomsday nonsense are largely emotional issues and women on average are more emotional than men.
Is this not another study which makes the big fat assumption that what people say they believe, is what they actually believe? I think most post-vote polls fall into this category.
Let’s imagine: If a ditzy blonde came up dressed like a polar bear and asked if you believed in global warming – would you:
Lie?
Tell the truth?
And whichever choice you made, would you do it because:
a/ It made her happy.
b/ It made her sad.
c/ You always do and aren’t bothered by the reaction.
And finally, for all those hetrosexual males out there (though it could be formulated for anyone) if she was dressed an a fur bikini, and she bounced with excitement (and hence ‘jiggled’) every time you said how much you said you liked polar bears – would you change your answers? 😉
Helen Hawkins says: “There are differences between men and women but stupidity isn’t one of them. That quality is shared equally.”
Wonderfully said.