They actually spent money studying this: Hurricanes with female names more deadly than male-named storms

Evil girl posterFrom the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the department of bad baby names, something sure to piss off somebody, somewhere.

In the coming Atlantic hurricane season, watch out for hurricanes with benign-sounding names like Dolly, Fay or Hanna. According to a new article from a team of researchers at the University of Illinois, hurricanes with feminine names are likely to cause significantly more deaths than hurricanes with masculine names, apparently because storms with feminine names are perceived as less threatening. 

An analysis of more than six decades of death rates from U.S. hurricanes shows that severe hurricanes with a more feminine name result in a greater death toll, simply because a storm with a feminine name is seen as less foreboding than one with a more masculine name. As a result, people in the path of these severe storms may take fewer protective measures, leaving them more vulnerable to harm.

The finding indicates an unfortunate and unintended consequence of the gendered naming of hurricanes, which has important implications for policymakers, meteorologists, the news media and the public regarding hurricane communication and preparedness, the researchers say.

“The problem is that a hurricane’s name has nothing to do with its severity,” said Kiju Jung, a doctoral student in marketing in the U. of I.’s College of Business and the lead author on the study.

“Names are assigned arbitrarily, based on a predetermined list of alternating male and female names,” he said. “If people in the path of a severe storm are judging the risk based on the storm’s name, then this is potentially very dangerous.” The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examined actual hurricane fatalities for all storms that made landfall in the U.S. from 1950-2012, excluding Hurricane Katrina (2005) and Hurricane Audrey (1957) because they were much deadlier than the typical storm.

The authors found that for highly damaging storms, the more feminine the storm’s name, the more people it killed. The team’s analysis suggests that changing a severe hurricane’s name from the masculine “Charley” to the feminine “Eloise” could nearly triple its death toll.

“In judging the intensity of a storm, people appear to be applying their beliefs about how men and women behave,” said Sharon Shavitt, a professor of marketing at Illinois and a co-author of the report. “This makes a female-named hurricane, especially one with a very feminine name such as Belle or Cindy, seem gentler and less violent.”

In a follow-up set of experiments, Jung and his colleagues examined how the gender of names directly affected people’s judgments about storms. They found that people who were asked to imagine being in the path of “Hurricane Alexandra” (or “Christina” or “Victoria”) rated the storm as less risky and intense compared to those asked to imagine being in the path of “Hurricane Alexander” (or “Christopher” or “Victor”).

“This is a tremendously important finding. Proof positive that our culturally grounded associations steer our steps,” said Hazel Rose Markus, a professor in behavioral sciences at Stanford University, who was not involved in the research. Hurricanes in the U.S. formerly were given only female names, a practice that meteorologists of a different era considered appropriate given the unpredictable nature of the storms. According to the paper, an alternating male-female naming system was adopted in the late 1970s because of increased societal awareness of sexism.

(The names of this year’s storms, alternating between male and female names, will start with Arthur, Bertha, Cristobal and Dolly.) Even though the “gender” of hurricanes is pre-assigned and arbitrary, the question remains: Do people judge hurricane risks in the context of gender-based expectations?

“People imagining a ‘female’ hurricane were not as willing to seek shelter,” Shavitt said. “The stereotypes that underlie these judgments are subtle and not necessarily hostile toward women – they may involve viewing women as warmer and less aggressive than men.”

“Such gender biases are pervasive and implicit,” said Madhu Viswanathan, a professor of marketing at Illinois and a co-author of the study. “We found that people were affected by the gender of hurricane names regardless of whether they explicitly endorsed the idea that women and men have different traits. This appears to be a widespread phenomenon.”

Hurricanes kill more than 200 people in the U.S. each year, and severe hurricanes are capable of producing casualties in the thousands, according to the paper. Even with climate change increasing the frequency and severity of storms, hurricane preparedness remains a challenge for officials.

Although the negative effect of gender stereotypes is well-known in hiring decisions and other evaluations of women and men, this research is the first to demonstrate that gender stereotypes can have deadly consequences.

###

Joseph Hilbe, of Arizona State University, also was a co-author of the paper.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

119 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rich Horton
June 3, 2014 2:13 pm

The real problem here is they use pre-satellite era data and they don;t contrast it with post-satellite era data. Those two era have completely different death rates, and it has nothing to do with female names, it has to do with accurate predictions. Pre-1970 the average death rate was 35.4 per storm (their own data). Post-1970 that drops to 16.8.
Now since 1979, when male names were used, there were 15.8 deaths on average per female named storm. Male named storms averaged 17.9 deaths. I’m sure the difference is not statistically significant, but it sure as hell isn’t twice as large for female named storms.

Allencic
June 3, 2014 2:26 pm

I think we can all see that a hurricane named Barack is already wreaking havoc even though it hasn’t formed yet. The most damage in history.

June 3, 2014 2:59 pm

Saren Calvert says:
June 3, 2014 at 12:58 pm
I’ve never heard a person admit to being a racist or misogynist but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Which has to do with this — how? A storm is not a human being, so regardless of feelings one might have that females are generally weaker than males, we aren’t talking about humans. We are talking about codenames assigned to storms. Storms aren’t humans and there are no “female” or “male” storms. I’m pretty sure everyone understands that.

June 3, 2014 3:13 pm

You said you’ve never heard of anyone say out-loud that they were more afraid of male-named hurricanes than female named hurricanes. My point is that just because someone doesn’t say it doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking it.

Philemon
June 3, 2014 5:49 pm

Ah, marketing people! Only they would think “Floyd” sounds deadlier than “Camille” because it’s obviously more “masculine”! Marketing people thought “New Coke” was a good idea, too.
Throwing out outliers like Katrina just because they are outliers… Not a good reason. Except for reducing the standard deviation, which did have the benefit, for them, of increasing statistical significance for what remained. Nice one!
Of course, ignoring infrastructure problems and blaming the resulting loss of life and property damage on “the horrible storm which was never anticipated” is politics at its finest.
Trying to put the blame on poor people, who have practically no control over the funding for infrastructure projects, on poor people being dumb enough to think a feminine name makes a storm less dangerous regardless of what they were assured the infrastructure could withstand, whether the storm was a category one or a category three…
All based on undergraduate Illinois students’ seat-of-the-pants sense of which names sound more masculine or evacuation-worthy…
Great study!
Do I really need a sarcasm tag here?

June 3, 2014 6:09 pm

If this is what science is becoming in this country, we’re all in serious trouble.
Meanwhile…if we exclude the years before 1979 (the date when we began giving storms “boy” names as well as “girl” names), then using the dataset used in the study (http://www.pnas.org/…/2014/05/29/1402786111.abstract…) we see the following:
The dataset contains 27 named storms bearing both “boy” names and “girl” names, and both “boy” storms and “girl” storms averaged Category 1.96. Deaths in storms denoted as “male” totaled 413, giving an average of 15.3 deaths per storm; deaths in storms denoted as “female” totaled 459, yielding an average of 17 deaths per storm. However, this includes 159 deaths from Hurricane Sandy, a unisex name that the researches included as a “female” storm, because that was how it fell in the rotation. If we exclude it as a meteorological hermaphrodite — which seems logical, given that the researchers conclude that it’s the perception of a female name that causes death tolls to rise — then the average for “female” storms falls to 11.5.
Of course, the researchers also excluded Hurricanes Katrina (2005, resulting in >1800 deaths) and Audrey (1957, death toll unknown but estimated at >500), from the dataset, reasoning that they were two “outliers.” They did, however, include Diane (1955, 200 deaths), Camille (1969, 256 deaths), and Agnes (1972, 117 deaths)…all of which significantly hiked the overall average of “female” storms (which averaged about 27 in the pre-1979 era).
All in all…not exactly a grand day for science.

Editor
June 3, 2014 6:39 pm

The last major hurricane to hit the US was Wilma in October 2005. The study subjects were likely undergrads, say some 20 years old. They were 11 when Wilma hit the US, and not too many had become weather nuts yet.
So, students, mostly a thousand miles from landfall, are asked about evacuation from storms they’ve never experienced. Absent useful knowledge, you might as well go by some artificial name.

June 3, 2014 7:11 pm

The methodological problems of the study are severe. The hypothesis fails if you only consider the time period since 1979, when male and female names alternated. The hypothesis also fails if you consider male and female names as a binary category. The hypothesis only succeeds if you include the pre-1979 period, when all hurricane names were female, and you rate them on how feminine they are rated in surveys. Their conclusion that “sexism kills” rests not on people preparing themselves less for hurricane Gloria than for Bob. It rests on the result that people in surveys think Fern sounds less feminine than Camille, and therefore take Fern more seriously. I rate it a category 2 BS storm.

P@ Dolan
June 3, 2014 8:12 pm

“What’s in a name?” Nothing if you’re talking about cyclonic storms. What matters is in the Notice to Mariners. I don’t know any sailors give a rat’s a$$ about the name of the storm…
BUT—
I’m surprised the AGW fools don’t jump all over this one! If they call their pet hobbyhorse something nicey-nice, like Bambi, the carnage will be HORRIBLE—because no one will give a darn. But if they call it something like Snorkatron Flesh-Eating Deathdealer…
I mean, “Climate Change”?? Come on. No wonder it’s like 15 on a list of 15 top concerns to the average American Citizen (or 16 of 16, 17 of 17, you get the idea). Surely, with all their effort hyping the effects (“Tidal waves! Summer in the Arctic while it blizzards in Miami because of the evil ‘Polar Vortex’!! 25 foot sea level change by 10.30 am, March 2nd, 2017, EDT!! Sharknados in L.A.!!!”), they can come up with something better, something to put fear into the souls of those poor, gullible fools who’ve been deceived by those vile “deniers”, than “Climate Change”??! I mean, can I just say, LAME! AGW was no better: half of the population couldn’t pronounce “anthropogenic” and the other half thought it mean, “Cute Neanderthal”.
Puh-lease.
I bet Algore is all upset that “heat death” was already taken…

Rick K
June 4, 2014 4:02 am

Name all hurricanes “Pat.”
Problem solved.

P@ Dolan
Reply to  Rick K
June 4, 2014 10:07 am

Rick K:
We wanna frighten ’em, not make ’em drop dead!
7;->
p

John F
June 4, 2014 4:24 am

It was with this same kind of logic that the EPA has been using as of late. There absolutely no actual correlation between names and destruction. What a complete waste of money.

June 4, 2014 4:53 am

Quote:
” elftone says: June 3, 2014 at 6:13 am
So if we start calling them “Butch” and “Vlarg, the Destroyer of Worlds”, it’ll save lives? What are we waiting for? 😉 ”
That’s About the smartest thing I heard in a long time!! http://bit.ly/1oVrzsD

m
June 4, 2014 5:51 am

“Ah, marketing people! Only they would think “Floyd” sounds deadlier than “Camille” because it’s obviously more “masculine”! Marketing people thought “New Coke” was a good idea, too.”
All you need to remember when I marketeer is bending your ear is that 95% of new product launches fail..

TomVonk
June 6, 2014 3:46 am

A moron in a white coat masquerading for a scientist : “So Mr Smith you relax now. I will give you a name and you will tell me the intensity of a hurricane that would have this name. Ready ?”
Mr Smith (frantically checking if there is an exit in the room) : “Errr … No velocities ? No energy ? Just a name ?”
A moron (smiling) : “Right Mr Smith. Just a name. This is groundbreaking science.”
Mr Smith (slowly backing and stottering) : “But, but, but … I have no clue what the intensity would be. None whatsoever !”
A moron (the smile is widening) : “Just guess Mr Smith. On a scale from 1 to 7. Groundbreaking science, remember ?”
Mr Smith (secretly dialling 911 in his pocket) : “Whatever you want. Just please don’t hurt me.”
A moron (positively glowing) : “No need for that Mr Smith if you are reasonable. And you are a reasonable man, aren’t you ? Here we go . SANDY !”

Philemon
June 6, 2014 5:25 pm

But, but… Sandy was a boy!

Philemon
June 6, 2014 5:35 pm

Like Sandy Weill!
Now that’s scary!

1 3 4 5
Verified by MonsterInsights