CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 136Risk Perception and ManagementSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Culture and Identity‐Protective Cognition: Explaining the White‐Male Effect in Risk Perception

Open access
Kahan, Dan M., Braman, Donald, Gastil, John, Slovic, Paul, Mertz, C. K.·2007·Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
DOI 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Why do white men fear various risks less than women and minorities? Known as the “white‐male effect,” this pattern is well documented but poorly understood. This article proposes a new explanation: identity‐protective cognition. Putting work on the cultural theory of risk together with work on motivated cognition in social psychology suggests that individuals selectively credit and dismiss asserted dangers in a manner supportive of their cultural identities. This dynamic, it is hypothesized, drives the white‐male effect, which reflects the risk skepticism that hierarchical and individualistic white males display when activities integral to their cultural identities are challenged as harmful. The article presents the results of an 1,800‐person study that confirmed that cultural worldviews interact with the impact of gender and race on risk perception in patterns that suggest cultural‐identity‐protective cognition. It also discusses the implications of these findings for risk regulation and communication.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper proposes identity-protective cognition to explain the “white male effect” in risk perception: cultural worldviews shape risk assessments in ways that defend identities. In a 1,844-person U.S. survey, cultural worldviews strongly predicted environmental, gun, and abortion risk perceptions, and the white-male effect was culture-specific, largely attributable to hierarchical and individualistic white men.

Key findings

  • The sample displayed the conventional white-male effect: white males were significantly less concerned about each risk evaluated. In Table 1, for example, hierarchical white males versus everyone else scored 2.66 vs. 3.02 on environmental risk, 2.13 vs. 2.47 on gun risk, and 2.61 vs. 2.92 on abortion risk.
  • Cultural worldviews strongly predicted risk perceptions. For environmental risks, adding Individualism and Hierarchy increased explanatory power by about 20%; Hierarchy had the largest single effect, and the combined worldview variables explained over nine times as much variance as education and over three times as much as gender. For gun risks, worldview measures increased explanatory power by over 50% and combined explained almost 5 times as much variance as gender, 34 times as much as education, and 17 times as much as rural residence. For abortion risks, hierarchical worldview predicted greater concern and individualistic worldview predicted less; cultural scales added about 10% explanatory power and had a combined effect nearly five times that of education and almost double that of party affiliation and ideology combined.
  • The white-male effect was culture-specific. Differences between white males and others were pronounced among hierarchical respondents for each risk and among individualists for every risk but abortion; they were muted or nonsignificant among egalitarian and communitarian respondents for gun and abortion risks. In environmental regressions, adding a “Hierarchical White Male” dummy made Female, Black, and Other Minority nonsignificant, confirming the white-male effect was attributable entirely to hierarchical white males. In gun regressions, the Female coefficient became nonsignificant after adding hierarchical and individualistic white-male dummies. In abortion regressions, adding a “Hierarchical White Female” dummy made Female nonsignificant.
  • Anomalous finding: being African-American remained a significant predictor of greater abortion-risk concern even after cultural worldviews were controlled for; the paper calls its explanation conjectural and says it merits additional investigation.

Methods

  • Nationwide random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted June–September 2004 with 1,844 U.S. residents aged 18 or older, including an oversample of 242 African-Americans. Sample included 519 white male, 707 white female, 153 black male, and 254 black female subjects; mean age was 39; average household income was between $40,000 and $50,000; average interview length was about 21 minutes; response rate was 42% and cooperation rate 59%.
  • Cultural worldviews were measured with 32 items forming Communitarianism-Individualism (α = .77) and Egalitarianism-Hierarchy (α = .81) scales. Risk perceptions were measured for environmental risks (α = .72), gun risks (α = .83), and abortion risk via agreement with “Women who get abortions are putting their health in danger.” Other measures included demographics, sensation-seeking, religion, political ideology, and party affiliation.
  • Analysis used group means and multivariate regressions with interaction terms and dummy variables for cultural-demographic groups. Missing data were imputed through multiple imputation with Stata’s MICE module, generating five imputed data sets. The sample had sufficient power to detect small effects (e.g., r = .10) at p = .01 in anticipated multivariate regressions.

Limitations

  • The paper states its proof is “admittedly indirect” and calls for future experimental methods to corroborate the findings. It also says the mode of proof does not rule out alternative or supplemental mechanisms, including affect, biased assimilation, availability bias, and in-group/out-group dynamics such as naïve realism, reactive devaluation, and group polarization.
  • The paper describes the African-American abortion-risk finding as the primary anomalous result and says its proposed explanation is “obviously conjectural” and merits additional investigation.
  • Evident from the text: the study is a cross-sectional telephone survey with a 42% response rate and 59% cooperation rate, relying on self-reported attitudes; the African-American oversample was excluded from the Table 1 analysis to avoid overweighting African-Americans relative to white women and other minorities.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 24 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Individuals are disposed selectively to accept or dismiss risk claims in a manner that expresses their cultural values.

    “We find that individuals are disposed selectively to accept or dismiss risk claims in a manner that expresses their cultural values.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The distribution of risk perceptions across persons can yield insight about the formation of those perceptions.
  • Findingown data

    The significance of Female_x_Hierarchy shows an interaction between gender and the grid or Egalitarianism-Hierarchy dimension of worldview.

    “The significance of Female_x_Hierarchy shows that there was an interaction between gender and the grid or Egalitarianism-Hierarchy dimension of worldview.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    When risk perceptions were examined for groups defined by combinations of demographic characteristics and cultural worldviews, the white male effect was highly culture specific.

    “When risk-perceptions were examined for groups defined by combinations of demographic characteristics and cultural worldviews, the “white male effect” turned out to be highly culture specific (Table 1, Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The relative concerns of white females and male and female nonwhites varied across risks.

    “The relative concerns of white females and male and female nonwhites varied across risks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The significant influence of being African-American on environmental risk perception disappeared once cultural orientation was taken into account.

    “Indeed, the significant influence of being African-American on risk perception disappeared once cultural orientation was taken into account.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 17
  • May combine two claims. 23

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Missing data were imputed through multiple imputation with Stata using MICE, generating five imputed data sets.

    “Missing data were imputed through multiple imputation with Stata using the MICE (multivariate imputation by chained equations) module (Royston, 2004).Five imputed data sets were generated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Royston, 2004 source
    • cites King et al. (2001) source
    • cites Rubin (1987) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Differences in the perceptions of white males and others for all risks were relatively muted among persons holding egalitarian and communitarian worldviews and were nonsignificant for gun risks and abortion risks.

    “Differences in the perceptions of white males and others for all risks were relatively muted among persons holding egalitarian and communitarian worldviews and were nonsignificant with respect to gun risks and abortion risks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Persons with relatively hierarchical and individualistic outlooks, particularly both simultaneously, were least concerned about environmental and gun risks, while persons with relatively egalitarian and communitarian views were most concerned.

    “As expected, persons who held relative hierarchical and individualistic outlooks-and particularly both simultaneously-were the least concerned about environmental risks and gun risks, while persons who held relatively egalitarian and communitarian views were most concerned.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the environmental risk regression, each worldview variable was significant and had the predicted sign.

    “Each worldview variable was significant and had the predicted sign.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For abortion risks, persons who were both relatively hierarchical and communitarian were most concerned, while individuals with an egalitarian outlook, particularly Egalitarian Individualists, were least worried about the risk of abortion for women's health.

    “With regard to abortion risks, in contrast, persons who were both relatively hierarchical and communitarian in their views were most concerned; individuals who had an egalitarian outlook, particularly those who qualified as Egalitarian Individualists, were least worried about the risk of abortion for women's health.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When combined, hierarchy and individualism explain almost 5 times as much variance as gender, 34 times as much as education, and 17 times as much as residing in a rural environment.

    “When combined, they explain almost 5 times as much variance as gender, 34 times as much as education, and 17 times as much as residing in a rural environment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Egalitarian and communitarian worldviews predicted the belief that guns are dangerous, while hierarchical and individualistic worldviews predicted the belief that guns are safe.

    “As predicted, egalitarian and communitarian worldviews predicted the belief that guns are dangerous, while hierarchical and individualistic worldviews predicted the belief that guns are safe.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Hierarchy and Individualism had the first and second largest effect sizes, respectively, of all the independent variables.

    “Hierarchy and Individualism have the first and second largest effect sizes, respectively, of all the independent variables.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Model 4, the coefficients for Female, Black, and Other Minority on environmental risk perceptions were not significant.

    “Those coefficients were not significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The more hierarchical and individualistic respondents' worldviews became, the less seriously they took putative environmental risks; the more egalitarian and communitarian their worldview, the more concerned they were.

    “Egalitarian and communitarian worldviews predicted risk-sensitivity, hierarchical and individualistic worldviews risk-skepticism, toward environmental risks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Hierarchy had the single largest effect of any independent variable, and the combined effect of the two worldview variables explained over nine times as much variance as education and over three times as much as gender.

    “Hierarchy had the single largest effect of any independent variable, and the combined effect of the two worldview variables explained over nine times as much variance as education, and over three times as much as gender.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were significant or borderline significant three-way interactions between gender, the cultural orientation variables, and Black, and between gender, individualism, and Other Minority.

    “There were significant (or borderline significant: p = .07for Fe-male_x_Individualism_x_Black) three-way interactions between gender, the cultural orientation variables, and Black, and between gender, individualism, and Other Minority.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Being a woman remained a significant predictor of higher levels of concern about abortion risks, as did being African-American, once worldviews were taken into account in Model 2.

    “Being a woman remained a significant predictor of higher levels of concern about abortion risks, as did being African-American, once worldviews were taken into account in Model 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Abortion-risk sensitivity grew in proportion to respondents' commitment to a hierarchical worldview but receded in proportion to their commitment to an individualistic as well as an egalitarian one.

    “Abortion-risk sensitivity, in contrast, grew in proportion to respondents' commitment to a hierarchical worldview but receded in proportion to their commitment to an individualistic as well as an egalitarian one.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Hierarchy and individualism explained 20 times as much as party affiliation and ideology when combined, and 10 times as much as the religious affiliation variables when combined.

    “They explained 20 times as much -25-as party affiliation and ideology when combined, and 10 times as much as the religious affiliation variables when combined.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Which type of gun risks alarmed respondents most depended on cultural orientation: the more egalitarian and communitarian respondents became, the more concerned they were that insufficient regulation would lead to gun accidents and crime, whereas the more hierarchical and individualistic they became, the more worried they were that excessive regulation would undermine the ability of law-abiding,

    “Which type of gun risks alarmed respondents most also depended on cultural orientation: the more egalitarian and communitarian respondents became, the more concerned they were that insufficient regulation would lead to gun accidents and crime, whereas the more hierarchal and individualistic they became the more worried they were that excessive regulation would undermine the ability of law-abiding”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Male and female African Americans were uniformly receptive to environmental risk claims, and no more so than whites once cultural orientation was controlled for.

    “Our data also demonstrated that male and female African Americans were uniformly receptive to environmental risk claims ⎯ and no more so than whites once cultural orientation was controlled for.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was no interaction between hierarchical worldviews and gender for African-Americans, and African-Americans on the whole see abortion as more dangerous than whites even after cultural orientation is taken into account.

    “There no interaction between hierarchical worldviews and gender for African-Americans, and African-Americans on the whole see abortion as more dangerous than whites even after cultural orientation is taken into account.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Model 6 of Table 3, the coefficients for Black and Other Minority are significant but have negative signs.

    “The coefficients for Black and Other Minority are significant but have negative signs, indicating that being a minority correlates with viewing guns as more safe once the effect of being a hierarchical white or individualistic male is controlled for.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The combined effect size of the cultural orientation scales is nearly five times that of education, almost double that of the combined effect of party affiliation and ideology, and greater than that of religious affiliations when combined.

    “Their combined effect size is nearly five times that of education, almost double that of the combined effect of party affiliation and ideology, and over that of religious affiliations when combined.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Individuals selectively credit and dismiss claims of societal danger based on whether the putatively hazardous activity defies or conforms to their cultural norms.

    “Individuals, according to the theory, selectively credit and dismiss claims of societal danger based on whether the putatively hazardous activity is one that defies or instead conforms to their cultural norms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The established empirical correlation between membership in cultural groups and beliefs on societal risks constitutes a fertile testing ground for hypotheses about identity-motivated cognition.

    “The established empirical correlation between membership in cultural groups of these types and beliefs on societal risks constitutes a fertile testing ground for hypotheses about the contribution identity-motivated cognition is making to real-world conflict on issues of tremendous consequence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Identity-protective cognition is a mechanism by which individuals conform their appraisals of information to buttress beliefs associated with belonging to particular groups.

    “Accordingly, as a means of identity self-defense, individuals conform their appraisals of information in a manner that buttresses beliefs associated with belonging to particular groups (Cohen, Aronson & Steele, 2000;Cohen, 2003;Cohen, Sherman, Bastardi, Hsu, McGoey & Ross, in press).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cohen, Aronson & Steele, 2000 source
    • cites Cohen, 2003 source
    • cites Cohen, Sherman, Bastardi, Hsu, McGoey & Ross, in press

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The statements formed two reliable scales: Communitarianism-Individualism (α = .77) and Egalitarianism-Hierarchy (α = .81).

    “The statements were intended to form (and did form) two reliable scales: Communitarianism-Individualism (α = .77),which is patterned on the group dimension of the Douglas typology; and Egalitarianism-Hierarchy (α = .81),which is patterned on the grid dimension.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    If risk perceptions strongly correlate with worldviews after other individual characteristics are taken into account, that result would supply strong evidence that culture is motivating identity-protective cognition.

    “If it turns out, then, that perceptions of risk do in fact strongly correlate with individuals' worldviews even after other pertinent individual characteristics are taken into account, that result would supply strong evidence that culture is motivating identity-protective cognition in the way we surmise.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The cultural theory of risk supplies a vivid and realistic picture of the types of groups and associated beliefs likely to generate identity-protective forms of cognition.

    “The cultural theory of risk, in turn, supplies a vivid and realistic picture of the types of groups and associated beliefs likely to generate identity-protective forms of cognition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Individuals' perceptions of risk reflect and reinforce their commitments to visions of how society should be organized.

    “The cultural theory of risk perception (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982;Rayner, 1992) asserts that individuals' perceptions of risk reflect and reinforce their commitments to visions of how society should be organized.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Rayner, 1992

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The cultural theory of risk perception suggests that individuals conform their view of how dangerous an activity is to their moral assessment of it.

    “The cultural theory of risk perception suggests that individuals conform their view of how dangerous an activity is to their moral assessment of it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    When expert risk regulators dismiss public estimations of various risks as uninformed, they can just as easily be understood to be discounting the benefits that individuals attach to activities by virtue of their cultural worldviews.

    “Accordingly, when expert risk regulators dismiss public estimations of various risks as uninformed, they can just as easily be understood to be discounting the benefits that individuals attach to activities by virtue of their cultural worldviews.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    These findings expose a host of new practical and moral challenges for reconciling the rational regulation of risk with democratic decisionmaking.

    “But they also expose a host of new practical and moral challenges for reconciling the rational regulation of risk with democratic decisionmaking.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    These findings solve many long-standing theoretical puzzles about the nature and significance of variance in risk perception.

    “These findings solve many long-standing theoretical puzzles about the nature and significance of variance in risk perception.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Hierarchical women would be more risk-sensitive insofar as abortion rights are perceived to denigrate hierarchical norms that confer status on women for occupying domestic rather than professional roles.

    “We hypothesized that hierarchical women would be more risk-sensitive insofar as abortion rights are perceived to denigrate hierarchical norms that confer status on women for occupying domestic rather than professional roles.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The mode of proof used in this study is an admittedly indirect form of proof.

    “This is, however, an admittedly indirect form of proof.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The fearlessness of hierarchical and individualistic white men is convincingly attributable to identity-protective cognition insofar as they are the persons who need guns most to occupy social roles and display individual virtues within their cultural communities.

    “Their stance of fearlessness is convincingly attributable to identity-protective cognition insofar as they are the persons who need guns the most in order to occupy social roles and display individual virtues within their cultural communities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Cultural worldviews exert a causal influence on risk perceptions rather than merely being correlated with them.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Because individuals' identities are threatened when they encounter information that challenges beliefs commonly held within their group, the result is political conflict over risk regulation among groups committed to opposing hierarchical and egalitarian, individualistic and communitarian worldviews.

    “Because individuals' identities are threatened when they encounter information that challenges beliefs commonly held within their group (Cohen et al., in press), the result is political conflict over risk regulation among groups committed to opposing hierarchical and egalitarian, individualistic and communitarian worldviews.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cohen et al., in press

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    In selecting some risks for attention and dismissing others as unimportant, individuals are effectively advancing one culturally partisan vision of the ideal society over others.

    “In selecting some risks for attention and dismissing others as unimportant, individuals are, effectively, advancing one culturally partisan vision of the ideal society over others (Kahan, in press).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kahan, in press

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The mode of proof used in this study does not rule out the possibility that alternative or supplemental mechanisms of cognition are also contributing to the impact of cultural worldviews on individual risk perceptions.

    “The mode of proof used in this study also does not rule out the possibility that alternative or supplemental mechanisms of cognition are also contributing to the impact of cultural worldviews on individual risk perceptions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The survey response rate was 42%, and the cooperation rate was 59%.

    “Conservatively estimated, the survey response rate was 42%, and the cooperation rate was 59%, which means that roughly six-in-ten of those identified as eligible respondents completed the survey.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
38 of 38

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The distribution of risk perceptions across persons can yield insight about the formation of those perceptions.

    “The basic premise of the study was that the distribution of risk perceptions across persons can yield insight about the formation of those perceptions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Cultural worldviews exert a causal influence on risk perceptions rather than merely being correlated with them.

    “Model 2 adds the cultural worldviews variables.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cultural worldview variables validly and reliably measure the group-grid cultural dispositions they are intended to measure.

    “Each worldview variable was significant and had the predicted sign.”
3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Abortion-risk dummy-variable analysis is assigned to the wrong model

    Minor

    The text says the Hierarchical White Female dummy variable was added in Model 4, but Table 4 places it in Model 6.

  • Environmental regression table names the gun-risk outcome

    Minor

    Table 2 is identified and discussed as an environmental-risk regression, but its note identifies the dependent variable as Gun Risk Perception.

  • Individualism interaction figure labels its predictor Hierarchy

    Minor

    Figure 6 is presented as an interaction with Communitarianism-Individualism and labels that dimension on its horizontal axis, but its displayed equations use Hierarchy as the predictor.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Balkin J. M., 1998, Cultural Software
  2. Bord R. J., 1997, The Gender Gap in Environmental Attitudes: The Case of Perceived Vulnerability to Risk, Social Science Q, 78, 830
  3. Cohen J., 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
  4. Douglas M., 1982, In the Active Voice
  5. Douglas M., 1986, How Institutions Think
  6. Douglas M., 1999, Implicit Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology
  7. Ellis R., 1997, Culture Matters: Essays in Honor of Aaron Wildavsky
  8. Hofstadter R., 1970, America as a Gun Culture,” 21, American Heritage, 4
  9. Jenkins‐Smith H., 2001, Modeling Stigma: An Empirical Analysis of Nuclear Waste Images of Nevada, Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology
  10. Jenkins‐Smith H., 1994, Politics, Policy, and Culture
  11. Kahan D. M., 2006, Cultural Cognition of Public Policy, Yale J. of Law & Pubic Policy, 24, 147
  12. Kalof L., 2002, Race, Gender and Environmentalism: The Atypical Values and Beliefs of White Men, Race, Gender & Class, 9, 1
  13. Kennedy R., 1997, Race, Crime, and the Law
  14. Margolis H., 1996, Dealing with Risk: When the Public and Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues
  15. Ross L., 1995, Barriers to Conflict Resolution
  16. Smith T. W., 1990, Ethnic Images
  17. Thompson M., 1990, Cultural Theory

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Oregon (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kahan, Dan M.
  • Braman, Donald
  • Gastil, John
  • Slovic, Paul
  • Mertz, C. K.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-09-11
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
465-505
ISSN
  • 1740-1453 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-1461
DOI
10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x
OpenAlex
W2084725137
Semantic Scholar
5685fbc8fa1fa5b4e70827fc82daaf2a877b4024
Cited by
136
References
90
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
12.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (publishedVersion)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0242106)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
risk perception, cultural identity, motivated cognition, gender differences, racial differences, cultural worldview, risk communication, risk regulation

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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