The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk
Abstract
Recent research finds that perceived risk is closely associated with race and gender. In surveys of the American public a subset of white males stand out for their uniformly low perceptions of environmental health risks, while most nonwhite and nonmale respondents reveal higher perceived risk. Such findings have been attributed to the advantageous position of white males in American social life. This article explores the linked possibility that this demographic pattern is driven not simply by the social advantages or disadvantages embodied in race or gender, but by the subjective experience of vulnerability and by sociopolitical evaluations pertaining to environmental in justice. Indices of environmental (in)justice and social vulnerability were developed as part of a U.S. National Risk Survey (n= 1,192) in order to examine their effect on perceived risk. It was found that those who regarded themselves as vulnerable and supported belief statements consistent with the environmental justice thesis offered higher risk ratings across a range of hazards. Multivariate analysis indicates that our measures of vulnerability and environmental (in)justice predict perceived risk but do not account for all of the effects of race and gender. The article closes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for further work on vulnerability and risk, risk communication, and risk management practices generally.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Slovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Self-citationValue orientations, gender and environmental concern
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0013916593255002 · Cited by 2,162 · cited 1×
“2%), (4) disagree that people in positions of authority tend”
Background
Cited by
Adger, W. N. (2006) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 · Cited by 5,417
Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 · Cited by 1,217
Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: A cross-European analysis
Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G., & Fisher, S. (2019) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.007 · Cited by 678
Wolf, J., Adger, W. N., Lorenzoni, I., Abrahamson, V., & Raine, R. (2010) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.09.004 · Cited by 489
Culture and Identity‐Protective Cognition: Explaining the White‐Male Effect in Risk Perception
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x · Cited by 136
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Satterfield, T. A., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 115-129
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2005123697
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 36.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00416.x
- The paper
- Satterfield, T. A., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (2004). Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00416.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.