WSU researcher finds future-oriented women most likely to fight global warming
PULLMAN, Wash. – Politicians who discredit global warming risk losing a big chunk of the female vote. A new study found women who consider the long-term consequences of their actions are more likely to adopt a liberal political orientation and take consumer and political steps to reduce global warming.
Jeff Joireman, associate professor of marketing at Washington State University, demonstrated that “future-oriented” women are the voting bloc most strongly motivated to invest money, time and taxes toward reducing global warming.
Previous studies have shown that women and those with liberal viewpoints are more likely to act to protect the environment than men and conservatives. Joireman’s model helps explain why this occurs and is the first to document the combined influence of gender and concern for the future.
The findings were published this month online in the Journal of Environmental Psychology.
Joireman (YOUR-man) said belief in global warming is positively linked to outdoor temperatures, so in light of recent record-breaking heat, people may have climate change on their minds during next week’s midterm elections, especially future-oriented women.
It just so happens that September was the hottest on record in 135 years, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration projects 2014 will likely break the record for hottest year.
This year’s political contests are also heated, with environmental ads surging to record levels. More than 125,000 political spots cite energy, climate change and the environment – more than all other issues except health care and jobs – according to an analysis by Kantar Media/CMAG.
Social dilemma
Motivating the wider populace to engage and take action on global warming, however, is an ongoing challenge, said Joireman.
“Decisions that affect global warming pose a dilemma between what is good for individuals in the ‘here and now’ versus what is good for society and the environment ‘in the distant future,'” he said.
“Unfortunately, it can take several decades for the lay public and lawmakers to realize there is a problem that needs fixing. This is clearly the case with global warming, as the consequences of our current lifestyle are not likely to be fully realized for another 25 to 50 years.”
Live for today or tomorrow?
Hoping to clarify another piece of the global warming psyche, Joireman investigated how the time element contributes to people’s willingness to address climate change.
For the study, he focused on the personality trait called “consideration of future consequences.”
Those who score high on the trait scale tend to be very worried about the future impacts of their actions, while those with lower scores are more concerned with immediate consequences.
Joireman and his team polled 299 U.S. residents, with an age range from 18 to 75. Forty-eight percent of the respondents were female and 80 percent were Caucasian.
Women scored higher than men on liberal political orientation, environmental values, belief in global warming, and willingness to pay to reduce global warming when their concern with future consequences was high.
But, it wasn’t a simple gender difference. Women scored lower than men on liberal political orientation and willingness to pay when their concern with future consequences was low.
Future-oriented women step up
Joireman said a specific chain of influences makes future-oriented women more likely to take action. First, they are more politically liberal and liberals are more likely to value the environment, which makes them more likely to believe in global warming. All together, these effects lead to a willingness to pay more in goods, services and extra taxes to help mitigate climate change.
“Future-oriented women, for example, might be more willing to pay higher prices for fuel-efficient cars, alternative forms of transportation and energy efficient appliances. They might also eat less meat, all to help lower greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.
Appealing
The question for environmental advocates now, said Joireman, is to “figure out how to motivate all people to engage in behaviors that reduce global warming. To be effective, we will likely need to tailor persuasive messages to appeal to the consequences people value.”
“If people are not worried about future consequences, we have to try to appeal to their more immediate concerns – like encouraging them to buy a fuel efficient vehicle so they can instantly start saving money on gas.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This gender gap seems plausible, since most studies have shown women being also more prone to superstitiousness.
This makes me wonder why there hasn’t already been a feminist campaign against MEN-made global warming.
I wish I knew how to measure future orientation. Is it directly proportional to how much stuff is on your plate? ie.
Married with children + morgage = low future orientation
Student loans + complacency studies at indoctrination U = high future orientation
I guess one will never know.
Well, you could count the number that are oriented toward and focus on past considerations and subtract them from the whole.
So, for the sake of the planet, all future-oriented men should undergo sex change surgery, as their sense of responsibility will be greater when contained within a female body. By the same token, all females who are not future-oriented should transformed into men.
Save the planet – change your gender!
On the other hand, if you are a man and are so selfish as to want to remain one, you must stop worrying about the future now. If you are and want to remain a woman, start worrying, please.
Shhhh! You’ll have “progressives” giving out grants for this. Anything for policy support.
Seems like another case of confirmation bias. The “researchers knew the conclusion they wanted and tailored the study appropriately. For cryin’ out loud, the name of the journal is “Journal of Environmental Psychology.” That doesn’t sound like a serious scientific journal to me.
OK, as a WSU alum (BSME 1992), I am sad to see them produce this tripe. More of what I’ve come to expect from the UW! 😉 But since the gov is giving free money away to study a problem they defined and to come up with the answers they are looking to get, then I guess it is no surprise that everybody and his brother are lining up for it. PS A little global warming would do some good in Pullman, WA. I remember a Siberian front that settled in the area my first winter there, the daytime highs typically were -10°F.
Claim: Future-focused women stand up to global warming with taxes, checkbook
WRT the “future-focused” carbon taxes initiated over the last 15 years or so: Republicans who assume both houses of Congress next year should aim for clawbacks with interest for any carbon taxes designed to reduce increases in warming. They haven’t happened. Perhaps SEC can extend provisions of Dodd-Frank from executive compensation in business to this massive fraud in government:
— Wiki on “clawbacks”
“Joireman (YOUR-man) said belief in global warming is positively linked to outdoor temperatures, so in light of recent record-breaking heat,…”
Is it hot in here, or is it just me?
In the immortal words of Gabby Hayes “gol darn women”.
Remember, this was a marketing study on how to change people’s behaviors. How to separate women from their income through taxation.
Any study of sex differences should be careful to control for culture-based sex differences — not all differences between the sexes are genetic. Girls, women, boys, men, most conform to what their culture expects of them. There are huge differences between cultures.
“not all differences between the sexes are genetic.”
True that. Thinking of clothes.
It is clear that Janice Moore needs some remedial education.
Oh, D. B., that was SO FUNNY.
So THAT is what I’ve been doing wrong all these years … . lolololol
Thanks for the laugh!
#(:))
It is not only a very small group of people that was interviewed for such an assumption. The above does not tell us at all how many of the small number were actually more concerned about climate. Where was the poll taken, that in itself can skew the numbers.
Nothing in the above to conclude anything. Even if there were 70 women showing no concern and 74 more concerned with AGW, that is a majority if you wish to report it like that, but meaningless.
Who funded this? That can tell you a lot about the result too.
But what percentage of women were deemed to be “future-oriented women?
This tells me that the researchers were forced to data mine in order to generate a headline. I bet the raw data reveals that women weren’t significantly different than men – which is why they broke women into two different categories.
Does that include all the thousands of Future Focused women living in the 3rd World killed in their own hovels by Carbon Monoxide poisoning with no access to Proper electricity and Heating making do by having to walk miles everyday to collect local firewood.
PS was this survey peer reviewed then.
liberals are more likely to value the environment, which makes them more likely to believe in global warming.
1. I’m not a liberal and I consider the notion that this makes me less likely to value the environment nothing but a naked smear and poorly attempted guilt trip.
2. Valuing the environment makes one more likely to believe in global warming? Let’s re-word that a bit. I think it is important to protect the environment, therefore I believe global warming is happening? There’s such a disconnect in that logic chain that it is tragic.
As someone upthread already pointed out, this is just a global warming propaganda puff piece.
From the press release it looks to me like the gist of the research is that women in a certain collective (group) are being targeted in order to extract their votes and resources by a researcher using collectivist ethics who advocates the failed theory behind the climate change cause.
Women are being set up to be treated as purely manipulatable assets by this researcher.
To collectivists, humans are just herd animals to be manipulated into some sacrifice to the collective.
John
“Politicians who discredit global warming risk losing a big chunk of the female vote.”
Politicians need to look after their core supporters before they court those who wouldn’t normally vote for them anyway. Both left and right voters are being leeched from their traditional parties in the UK because the politicians have been expressing their own niche interests rather than those of their voters. AGW has been shown to be a very low priority for average people on both sides of the political divide and only wealthy individuals can afford to indulge their worries about CO2.
It’s trying to get Republicans to back off by telling them they will lose votes at the upcoming US election.
Most of the women I know in Soooooouth Lundon are all voting UKIP
The irony of someone”future focused” determined to destroy said future with idiotic”present policy”is almost too much to be believed.
This so much hogwash I don’t know where to start. But there really isn’t gender gap in voting. There is a married gap in voting. Married people of all three genders (I say three to be politically correct.) Tend to vote more conservatively than unmarried people and the reason is because married people are more future oriented they know what we do today will affect their grandchildren, unmarried people often don’t have children, and so don’t care about the future as much. Married people want to leave money to their children, they don’t want to have it taxed away by a government doing stupid things. Fighting global warming is about as stupid as it gets.
I would extend that thought slightly.
(US observation.) Today’s liberal woman has been brought up and indoctrinated very carefully in an extreme anti-masculine, anti-male, ultra-feminist, anti-child, anti-capitalist, anti-energy, anti-male-role-play (all tieing back into the previous) … “She” – this ideal indoctrinated female has been taught and indoctrinated AGAINST what her 250,000 years of breeding have bred INTO her body, her mind, her genes, and her instincts. Darwin ain’t stupid.
But, at the same time, today’s uber-socialist, uber-liberal women’s groups (particularly on the sheltered habitats of university campuses, government bureaucracies, and female-dominated industries) KNOW that they MUST gain the mental, physical, emotional support and financial security that 250,000 years have always required.
They have been taught that they cannot marry, that the should not marry, that males are despicable rapists and pigs. They have been taught that they do not need children, should kill (abort) their children that are accidentally or incidentally conceived, and should turn the the children that they do allow to live to be sent immediately to government day care, government schools, government social programs, and government supervision and “love” … All of which are opposite the genes they are mentally fighting.
They have no family and so they can only turn to the one group they have been taught to love and trust for their life, their money, and their security: Their government!
Thus, the government – at least the liberal-progressive-socialist democrat party in the US – trains their women employees and dependents (elderly and sick and permanent welfare class) to become dependent on the government for their money. Then the liberal women’s love and affection and votes comes back to the government party that promises more support.
Life of Julia.
So, it’s a myth that a significantly larger percentage of women vote for liberal candidates, consistently, than men? Sorry, folks, but the PC gibberish is getting a little deep.
Wait till the Winter Power Cuts More votes for Nigel .more Tory defections.
Interesting survey to do .
Find out from Ebay Amazon Homebase B and Q Screw fix and all the main DIY retailers how many people have started panic buying Generators and fuel cans
He insults the reasoning ability of women and men when his claims there is a personality trait called “consideration of future consequences.”
There are ideas held by men and women about the nature of reality and what to value in human life, they are not personality traits. The researcher needs some fundamental epistemic training.
John
Uh-huh. Wouldn’t one concerned w/such think a soaring U.S. government 17 trillion dollar deficit is the immediate “consideration of future consequences”? That’s $55,000 for every man, woman & child.