Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Economic outlook and the gender gap in attitudes about climate change

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Population and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Polling consistently shows that the USA is significantly polarized on the issue of climate change. Economic outlook and gender are frequently identified as two sources of this variation, as Americans often view the climate change issue as a tradeoff between economic and environmental risk, and women tend to express more concern than men about this issue. Much of the existing literature links the two by focusing on the role of economic outlook and worldview differences between genders to explain this gender gap. In short, economic concern overrides environmental concern, and males are more sensitive to economic concern, even with appropriate socioeconomic controls. However, little research has empirically investigated this interplay between gender and economic outlook. Using a large sample survey, this study investigates the relationships between economic outlook, gender, and support for climate change mitigation strategies. Findings suggest that economic outlook has a significant effect, and that it moderates gender effects. We find large gender effects among those who feel most economically vulnerable, but these differences dissipate as economic outlook improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Survey subjects were recruited during the fall of 2016, and interviews were conducted in two waves. The pre-election wave was conducted from September 28 to November 7 and the post-election wave from November 9 to December 14.

  2. About 12% of the 2016 CCES sample did not provide a response to the income question included on the survey. Instead of dropping observations, with missing values for income, income was imputed using the Stata impute command.

References

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1995). Economics, issues and the Perot candidacy: voter choice in the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 714–744.

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1998). Economics, entitlements, and social issues: voter choice in the 1996 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1349–1363.

  • Ansolabehere, Stephen, & Schaffner, Brian F., 2017. CCES common content, 2016. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GDF6Z0, Harvard Dataverse, V4, UNF:6:WhtR8dNtMzReHC295hA4cg== [fileUNF].

  • Arbuckle, M. B. (2017). The interaction of religion, political ideology, and concern about climate change in the United States. Society & Natural Resources, 30(2), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, M. B., & Konisky, D. M. (2015). The role of religion in environmental attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 96(5), 1244–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blocker, T. J., & Eckberg, D. L. (1997). Gender and environmentalism: results from the 1993 general social survey. Social Science Quarterly, 841–858.

  • Bord, R. J., & O’Connor, J. (1997). The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 830–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borick, C. P., & Rabe, B. G. (2010a). A reason to believe: examining the factors that determine individual views on global warming. Social Science Quarterly, 91(3), 777–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borick, C. P., & Rabe, B. G. (2010b). The climate of belief: American public opinion on climate change. Issue in Governance Studies, 31, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, W. A., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Economic growth and the environment: a review of theory and empirics. In Handbook of economic growth (Vol. 1, pp. 1749–1821). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chodorow, N. (2001). Family structure and feminine personality. Feminism in the Study of Religion, 81–105.

  • Citrin, J., & Green, D. P. (1986). Presidential leadership and the resurgence of trust in government. British journal of political science, 16(4), 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayaratna, K., Loris, N., & Kreutzer, D. (2016). Consequences of Paris protocol: devastating economic costs, essentially zero environmental benefits. The Heritage Foundation, 13.

  • DeSimone, J. S., & LaFountain, C. (2007). Still the economy, stupid: economic voting in the 2004 Presidential Election (No. w13549). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Donovan, K., Kellstedt, P. M., Key, E. M., et al. (2019). Motivated reasoning, public opinion, and presidential approval. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09539-8.

  • Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10(4), 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durr, R. H. (1993). What moves policy sentiment? American Political Science Review, 87(1), 158–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, P. J., & Mullin, M. (2012). Turning personal experience into political attitudes: the effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 796–809.

  • Elliott, E., Seldon, B. J., & Regens, J. L. (1997). Political and economic determinants of individuals’ support for environmental spending. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(1), 15–27.

  • Evans, G., & Andersen, R. (2006). The political conditioning of economic perceptions. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 194–207.

  • Ferris, A. E., Garbaccio, R., Marten, A., & Wolverton, A. (2017). The impacts of environmental regulation on the US economy. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science.

  • Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: the ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2(2), 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P. (1978). Economic retrospective voting in American national elections: a micro-analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 426–443.

  • Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino, D. J. (2006). The new environmental regulation. MIT Press.

  • Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagliardi, L., Marin, G., & Miriello, C. (2016). The greener the better? Job creation effects of environmentally-friendly technological change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(5), 779–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S., & Huber, G. A. (2010). Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 153–173.

  • Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1301–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157.

  • Guber, D. L. (2003). The grassroots of a green revolution: polling America on the environment. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. C. (2008). Who cares about polar regions? Results from a survey of US public opinion. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 40(4), 671–678.

  • Hamilton, L. C. (2011). Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change, 104(2), 231–242.

  • Hamilton, L. C., & Keim, B. D. (2009). Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. International Journal of Climatology, 29(15), 2348–2352.

  • Hetherington, M. J. (1999). The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, 1968–96. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 311–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, S. E., & Day, C. L. (2000). Complexities of the gender gap. J Polit, 62(3), 858–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 151

  • Joireman, J., & Liu, R. L. (2014). Future-oriented women will pay to reduce global warming: mediation via political orientation, environmental values, and belief in global warming. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 391–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 465–505.

  • Kahn, M. E., & Kotchen, M. J. (2010). Environmental concern and the business cycle: the chilling effect of recession (No. w16241). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Kiewiet, D. R. (1983). Macroeconomics and micropolitics: the electoral effects of economic issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: the American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 129–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klineberg, S. L., McKeever, M., & Rothenbach, B. (1998). Demographic predictors of environmental concern: it does make a difference how it’s measured: research on the environment. Social Science Quarterly, 79(4), 734–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konisky, D. M., Milyo, J., & Richardson, L. E. (2008). Environmental policy attitudes: issues, geographical scale, and political trust. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1066–1085.

  • Kono, D. Y. (2019). Compensating for the climate: unemployment insurance and climate change votes. Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719836066.

  • Kreutzer, D. W., & Campbell, K. A. (2008). CO2-Emission Cuts: the Economic Costs of the EPA's ANPR Regulations. Heritage Foundation.

  • Krosnick, J. A., & MacInnis, B. (2013). Does the American public support legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Dædalus. Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 142(1), 26–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2016). Climate change in the American mind: March, 2016. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1988). Economics and the American voter: past, present, future. Polit Behav, 10(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2006). Does economics still matter? Econometrics and the vote. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 208–212.

  • Lewis-Beck, M. S., Jacoby, W. G., Norpoth, H., & Weisberg, H. F. (2008a). The American voter revisited. University of Michigan Press.

  • Lewis-Beck, M. S., Nadeau, R., & Elias, A. (2008b). Economics, party, and the vote: causality issues and panel data. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 84–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., Berrens, R. P., & Herron, K. G. (2009). Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: investigating household willingness-to-pay for energy research and development. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 731–742.

  • MacKuen, M. B., Erikson, R. S., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Macropartisanship. American Political Science Review, 83(4), 1125–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., McCright, A. M., Dietz, T., & Dunlap, R. E. (2014). Politics eclipses climate extremes for climate change perceptions. Global Environmental Change, 29, 246–257.

  • McCright, A. M. (2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment, 32(1), 66–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011a). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011b). Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M., & Xiao, C. (2014). Gender and environmental concern: insights from recent work and for future research. Society & Natural Resources, 27(10), 1109–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McStay, J. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1983). Male-female differences in concern for environmental quality. International Journal of Women's Studies, 6, 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian, A. R., Sufi, A., & Khoshkhou, N. (2018). Partisan bias, economic expectations, and household spending. Fama-Miller Working Paper.

  • Mohai, P. (1992). Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society & Natural Resources, 5(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohai, P. (1997). Gender differences in the perception of most important environmental problems. Race, Gender & Class, 153–169.

  • Nadeau, R., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2001). National Economic Voting in U.S. presidential elections. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 159–181.

  • Nelkin, D. (1981). Nuclear power as a feminist issue. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 23(1), 14–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, P., & Paterson, M. (1998). A climate for business: global warming, the state and capital. Review of International Political Economy, 5(4), 679–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norpoth, H. (2004). Forecasting British elections: a dynamic perspective. Electoral Studies, 23(2), 297–305.

  • O'Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 461–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passino, E. M., & Lounsbury, J. W. (1976). Sex differences in opposition to and support for construction of a proposed nuclear power plant. The behavioral basis of design, book, 1, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelham, B. W. (2018). Not in my back yard: egocentrism and climate change skepticism across the globe. Environmental Science & Policy, 89, 421–429.

  • Pew Research Center. (2019), Public’s 2019 priorities: economy, health care, education and security all near top of list.

  • Price, C.E., and Bohon, S.A. (2012) Gender intersections and environmental concern. CSSJ Working Papers #12-01.

  • Roland-Holst, David W. (2008). Energy efficiency, innovation, and job creation in California. No. 1557-2016-133122.

  • Saad, L. (2019). Americans as concerned as ever about climate change. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever-global-warming.aspx. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.

  • Schlesinger, M., & Heldman, C. (2001). Gender gap or gender gaps? New perspectives on support for government action and policies. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 59–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, L., & Benegal, S. (2012). Declining public concern about climate change: can we blame the great recession? Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 505–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmaier, M., Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Brown, L. (2019). The economic voter decides. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.931.

  • Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout-Wiegand, N., & Trent, R. B. (1983). Sex differences in attitudes toward new energy resource developments. Rural Sociology, 48(4), 637–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Addressing climate change: determinants of consumers’ willingness to act and to support policy measures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hove, S., Le Menestrel, M., & De Bettignies, H. C. (2002). The oil industry and climate change: strategies and ethical dilemmas. Climate Policy, 2(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2007). Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 552–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2012). Explaining gender differences in concern about environmental problems in the United States. Society & Natural Resources, 25(11), 1067–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Miami University, 349 E. High St. 119 Harrison Hall, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    Matthew Arbuckle & Makenzie Mercer

Authors
  1. Matthew Arbuckle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Makenzie Mercer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Arbuckle.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 Retrospective economic outlook and gender interactions
Full size table
Table 8 Prospective economic outlook and gender interactions
Full size table
Table 9 Personal economic outlook and gender interactions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arbuckle, M., Mercer, M. Economic outlook and the gender gap in attitudes about climate change. Popul Environ 41, 422–451 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-020-00343-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-020-00343-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation