The DOI matches its Crossref record; 97 of the 97 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 24 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Culture and Identity‐Protective Cognition: Explaining the White‐Male Effect in Risk Perception
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
57 Own result · 52 Own interpretation · 6 Sources not found · 6 Not checked yet · 5 No basis given · 4 Own method · 1 Supported so far · 1 No full text of the sources
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that individuals are disposed selectively to accept or dismiss risk claims in a manner that expresses their cultural values.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The distribution of risk perceptions across persons can yield insight about the formation of those perceptions.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The significance of Female_x_Hierarchy shows that there was an interaction between gender and the grid or Egalitarianism-Hierarchy dimension of worldview.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relative concerns of white females and male and female nonwhites varied across risks.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plaincorrelationaln = 1,844- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the significant influence of being African-American on risk perception disappeared once cultural orientation was taken into account.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gender remained a significant predictor after cultural worldviews were taken into account.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Rather, as the positive coefficient associated with Female_x_Hierarchy conveys (Aiken & West, 1991;Jaccard & Potter, 1998), women discounted environmental risk less than men as their respective orientations became more hierarchical.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Aiken & West, 1991
- Not matchedcites Jaccard & Potter, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For individualists, differences in the perceptions of white males and others were pronounced for evey risk but abortion.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The difference between the mean risk perceptions of white men those of white females and minorities was pronounced among persons subscribing to hierarchical worldviews for each of the risks examined.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The distribution of risk perceptions across persons can yield insight about the formation of those perceptions.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- It may state two separate claims as one. 23
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > 3. Missing Data
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Royston, 2004 source
The opening passage (p. 1) identifies Royston’s work as a Stata implementation of MICE and defines MICE as multivariate imputation by chained equations. The Introduction (p. 2) describes five imputed datasets as a traditional choice; the Example (p. 8) generates five with mvis. The citing authors’ statement that they generated five datasets describes their own procedure, rather than a result attributed to Royston. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites King et al. (2001) source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rubin (1987) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plaincorrelationaln = 1,844 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each worldview variable was significant and had the predicted sign.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plaincorrelationaln = 1,602- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plaincorrelationaln = 1,844 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > 2. Gun Risks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > 2. Gun Risks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hierarchy and Individualism have the first and second largest effect sizes, respectively, of all the independent variables.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > 2. Gun Risks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those coefficients were not significant.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Egalitarian and communitarian worldviews predicted risk-sensitivity, hierarchical and individualistic worldviews risk-skepticism, toward environmental risks.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Summary of Key Findings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of Mean Risk Perceptions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > Model 5 tests for significant interactions between demographic characteristics and cultural
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > Model 5 tests for significant interactions between demographic characteristics and cultural
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Summary of Key Findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > 2. Gun Risks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Summary of Key Findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Summary of Key Findings
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > 2. African-American Abortion Risk Perceptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > Additional information
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. The Cultural Theory of Risk
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > C. Synthesis: Cultural-Identity-Protective Risk Perception
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > B. Identity-Protective Cognition
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > 3. Abortion Risks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Overview
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > C. Synthesis: Cultural-Identity-Protective Risk Perception
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. The Cultural Theory of Risk
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rayner, 1992
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cultural theory of risk perception suggests that individuals conform their view of how dangerous an activity is to their moral assessment of it.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > C. Some Practical Implications
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > C. Some Practical Implications
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But they also expose a host of new practical and moral challenges for reconciling the rational regulation of risk with democratic decisionmaking.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > V. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings solve many long-standing theoretical puzzles about the nature and significance of variance in risk perception.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > V. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Summary of Key Findings
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is, however, an admittedly indirect form of proof.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > B. Outstanding Issues and Questions 1. Experimental Follow-ups
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > A. Summary of Key Findings
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Cultural worldviews exert a causal influence on risk perceptions rather than merely being correlated with them.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > V. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cohen et al., in press
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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).”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > C. Some Practical Implications
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kahan, in press
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > B. Outstanding Issues and Questions 1. Experimental Follow-ups
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > Additional information
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > High Low
“In Model 4, we added the dummy variable Hierarchical White Female.”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > V. Conclusion
“| Hierarchical White Female | | | | | .098*** |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > V. Conclusion
“Table: 2 Table 2 : Environmental Risk Perception Regression Models”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > V. Conclusion
“N = 1844. Dependent variable is Gun Risk Perception. Coefficients are semi-”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > Model 5 tests for significant interactions between demographic characteristics and cultural
“Figure 6: Interaction of Communitarianism-Individualism with Gender and Race on Gun-Risk Perceptions White women: y = 4.04 -.58 x Hierarchy White men: y = 5 -.95 x Hierarchy Communitarian Individualist Worldview”
§ Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception > Model 5 tests for significant interactions between demographic characteristics and cultural
“Nonwhite men: y = 4.61 -.73 x Hierarchy Nonwhite women: y = 3.1 -.14 x Hierarchy”
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,647
The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497 · Cited by 23,245
Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Cohen, P., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410606266 · Cited by 20,870
Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
Rubin, D. B. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316696 · Cited by 20,701
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984 · cited 1×
“…to credit or discredit factual information in a manner supportive of their prior, culturally-grounded views (Kahan et al. 2007); availability bias (Tversky & Kahneman 1973; Slovic et al. 1976), which might be expected to interact with worldviews if individuals are disposed more readily to take…”
BackgroundSlovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Self-citationStereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797 · Cited by 9,020
(1991) · Cited by 7,187
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.127.2.267 · Cited by 6,500
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Balkin J. M., 1998, Cultural Software
- Bord R. J., 1997, The Gender Gap in Environmental Attitudes: The Case of Perceived Vulnerability to Risk, Social Science Q, 78, 830
- Cohen J., 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
- Douglas M., 1982, In the Active Voice
- Douglas M., 1986, How Institutions Think
- Douglas M., 1999, Implicit Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology
- Ellis R., 1997, Culture Matters: Essays in Honor of Aaron Wildavsky
- Hofstadter R., 1970, America as a Gun Culture,” 21, American Heritage, 4
- 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
- Jenkins‐Smith H., 1994, Politics, Policy, and Culture
- Kahan D. M., 2006, Cultural Cognition of Public Policy, Yale J. of Law & Pubic Policy, 24, 147
- Kalof L., 2002, Race, Gender and Environmentalism: The Atypical Values and Beliefs of White Men, Race, Gender & Class, 9, 1
- Kennedy R., 1997, Race, Crime, and the Law
- Margolis H., 1996, Dealing with Risk: When the Public and Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues
- Ross L., 1995, Barriers to Conflict Resolution
- Smith T. W., 1990, Ethnic Images
- Thompson M., 1990, Cultural Theory
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–136 of 136
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.002.0008
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0003
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0009
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0006
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0005
Scientific Justification as the Basis of Scientific Testimony
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0004
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.002.0006
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0001
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.002.0003
Testimony and the Scientific Enterprise
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0002
The Significance of Scentific Testimony
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0008
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.002.0004
(2023) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/14496.003.0015
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.003.0011
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.003.0009
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.003.0007
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.003.0006
A Critical Realist Theory of Democracy
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.003.0002
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.003.0001
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.002.0003
Beyond Participatory Inclusion
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.003.0004
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.002.0004
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.003.0012
Beyond Responsive Representation
Bagg, S. E. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848826.003.0003
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.003.0001
Real-life Cases and the Link between Needs, Ideology, and Conflict
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.003.0010 · Cited by 1
Right, Left, and Religious Ideologies
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.003.0007
From Individual Psychological Needs to Social and Political Conflicts
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.003.0002
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.003.0008
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.002.0007
Relational Needs and Need Deprivation
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.003.0004
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.002.0004
Fundamental (Psychological) Human Needs
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.003.0003
Agency Needs and Need Deprivation
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.003.0005 · Cited by 1
Müller, V., & Gries, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197670187.003.0009
Dams are old and abandoned, are people concerned? Risk perceptions from Michigan, USAPreprint
Mayer, A., Schooley, J., Parks, P., López, M. C., & Moran, E. F. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4022111/v1
Metadata
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
