Research into the public understanding of science has revealed that the effect of scientific knowledge on attitudes toward science is contextualized by gender; however there has not yet been an account of how gender contextualizes knowledge. This paper investigates how gender identification affects attitudes toward science, and tempers the effects of scientific knowledge on attitudes toward science. Utilizing data from the Eurobarometer 52.1, it is predicted that when males perceive a threat to their masculinity (as measured by a perceived threat to their financial security) they will become more likely to be aversive to biotechnology, and that increased levels of perceived threat will reduce the effects of knowledge on attitudes toward biotechnology. Moreover, it is predicted that these effects will be smaller than their female counterparts. All predictions are affirmed.
AllumN.SturgisP.TabouraziD.Brunton-SmithI. (2008) “Science Knowledge and Attitudes across Cultures: A Meta-Analysis,” Public Understanding of Science17(1): 35–54.
2.
ArcuryT. A.ScollayS. J.JohnsonT. P. (1987) “Sex Differences in Environmental Concern and Knowledge: The Case of Acid Rain,” Sex Roles16(9/10): 463–72.
3.
AryeeS.LukV. (1996) “Balancing Two Major Parts of Adult Life Experience: Work and Family Identity among Dual-Earner Couples,” Human Relations49(4): 465–87.
4.
BakH. (2001) “Education and Public Attitudes toward Science: Implications for the ‘Deficit Model’ of Education and Support for Science and Technology,” Social Science Quarterly82(4): 779–95.
5.
BarkeR. P.Jenkins-SmithH.SlovicP. (1997) “Risk Perceptions of Men and Women Scientists,” Social Science Quarterly78(1): 167–76.
6.
BauerM. W.GaskellG. (eds) (2002) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CopenhaverM. M.LashS. J.EislerR. M. (2000) “Masculine Gender-Role Stress, Anger, and Male Intimate Abusiveness: Implications for Men’s Relationships,” Sex Roles (5/6): 405–14.
8.
CramerP. (1991) The Development of Defense Mechanisms: Theory, Research, and Assessment. New York: Springer.
9.
CramerP. (1998) “Threat to Gender Representation: Identity and Identification,” Journal of Personality66(3): 335–57.
10.
DavidsonD. J.FreudenburgW. R. (1996) “Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research,” Environment and Behavior28(3): 302–39.
11.
DurantJ. R.EvansA. G.ThomasG. P. (1989) “The Public Understanding of Science,” Nature340(6228): 11–14.
12.
EislerR. M.SkidmoreJ. R. (1987) “Masculine Gender Role Stress: Scale Development and Component Factors in the Appraisal of Stressful Situations,” Behavior Modification11: 123–36.
13.
Eurobarometer 52.1: Europeans and Biotechnology (2000) Report by INRA (Europe) – ECOSA on behalf of Directorate-General for Research Directorate B – Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Programme. Brussels: EC.
14.
FoxM. F.FirebaughG. (1992) “Confidence in Science: The Gender Gap,” Social Science Quarterly73(1): 101–13.
15.
FreudenburgW. R. (1993) “Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perception,” Social Forces71(4): 909–32.
16.
FreudenburgW. R.PastorS. K. (1992) “Public Responses to Technological Risks: Toward a Sociological Perspective,” Sociological Quarterly33(3): 389–412.
17.
GoldbergH. (1976) The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege. Plainview, NY: Nash Publishing.
18.
HayesB. C. (2001) “Gender, Scientific Knowledge, and Attitudes toward the Environment: A Cross-National Analysis,” Political Research Quarterly54(3): 657–71.
19.
HayesB. C.TariqV. N. (2000) “Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science: A Comparative Study of Four Anglo-American Nations,” Public Understanding of Science9(4): 433–47.
20.
JakupcakM.TullM. T.RoemerL. (2005) “Masculinity, Shame, and Fear of Emotions as Predictors of Men’s Expressions of Anger and Hostility,” Psychology of Men and Masculinity6(4): 275–84.
21.
JasanoffS. (2000) “The ‘Science Wars’ and American Politics,” in DierkesM.von GroteC. (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, pp. 39–60. Amsterdam: Harwood.
22.
LambM. E. (1995) “The Changing Roles of Fathers,” in ShapiroJ. L.DiamondM. J.GreenbergM. (eds) Becoming a Father: Contemporary Social, Developmental, and Clinical Perspectives. Springer Series, Focus on Men, Vol. 8, pp. 18–35. New York: Springer.
23.
LaytonD.JenkinsE.MacgillS.DaveyA. (1993) Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education. Driffield: Studies in Education Ltd.
24.
MahalikJ. R.CournoyerR. J. (2000) “Identifying Gender Role Conflict Messages that Distinguish Mildly Depressed from Nondepressed Men,” Psychology of Men and Masculinity1(2): 109–15.
25.
MahalikJ. R.LockeB. D.LudlowL. H.DiemerM. A.GottfriedM.ScottR. P. J.FreitasG. (2003) “Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory,” Psychology of Men and Masculinity4(1): 3–25.
26.
MaurerT. W.PleckJ. H.RaneT. R. (2001) “Parental Identity and Reflected Appraisals: Measurement and Gender Dynamics,” Journal of Marriage and Family63: 309–21.
27.
MelichA. (2006) Eurobarometer 52.1: Modern Biotechnology, Quality of Life, and Consumers’ Access to Justice, November-December 1999 (computer file). ICPSR02893-v3. Conducted by INRA (Europe), Brussels. Cologne: Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributors), updated 12 February 2007.
28.
MoerbeekH.CasimirG. (2005) “Gender Differences in Consumers’ Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods,” International Journal of Consumer Studies29(4): 308–18.
29.
MurphyJ. (2002) “Breadwinning: Accounts of Work and Family Life in the 1950s,” Labour and Industry12(3): 59–75.
30.
O’NeilJ. M.HelmsB. J.GableR. K.DavidL.WrightsmanL. S. (1986) “Gender-Role Conflict Scale: College Men’s Fear of Femininity,” Sex Roles14(5/6): 335–50.
31.
PiferL. K. (1996) “Exploring the Gender Gap in Young Adults’ Attitudes about Animal Research,” Society and Animals4(1): 37–52.
32.
PleckE. H. (1976) “Two Worlds in One: Work and Family,” Journal of Social History10: 178–95.
33.
PleckJ. H. (1981) The Myth of Masculinity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
34.
QinW.BrownJ. L. (2007) “Public Reactions to Information about Genetically Engineered Foods: Effects of Information Formats and Male/Female Differences,” Public Understanding of Science16(4): 471–88.
35.
SheehyH.LegaultM.IrelandD. (1998) “Consumers and Biotechnology: A Synopsis of Survey and Focus Group Research,” Journal of Consumer Policy21(4): 358–86.
36.
SimonR. M. (forthcoming) “Gender Differences on Knowledge and Attitudes toward Biotechnology,” Public Understanding of Science.
37.
SturgisP. S.AllumN. (2001) “Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science: Reply to Hayes and Tariq,” Public Understanding of Science10(4): 427–30.
38.
SturgisP. S.AllumN. (2004) “Science and Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55–74.
39.
TrankinaM. L. (1993) “Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Science,” Psychological Reports73(2): 123–30.
40.
von RotenF. C. (2004) “Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Science in Switzerland,” Public Understanding of Science13(2): 191–9.
41.
WeberK.RaoH.ThomasL. G. (2009) “From Streets to Suites: How the Anti-Biotech Movement Affected German Pharmaceutical Firms,” American Sociological Review74(1): 106–27.
42.
WillottS.GriffinC. (1999) “Building Your Own Lifeboat: Working-Class Male Offenders Talk about Economic Crime,” British Journal of Social Psychology38: 445–60.
43.
WrightN.NerlichB. (2006) “Use of the Deficit Model in a Shared Culture of Argumentation: The Case of Foot and Mouth Science,” Public Understanding of Science15: 331–42.
44.
WynneB. (1991) “Knowledge in Context,” Science, Technology, and Human Values16(1): 111–21.
45.
WynneB. (1995) “Public Understanding of Science,” in JasanoffS.MarkleG. E.PetersenJ. C. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 366–88. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46.
YearlyS. (2000). “What Does Science Mean in the ‘Public Understanding of Science’?,” in DierkesM.von GroteC. (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, pp. 217–36. Amsterdam: Harwood.
47.
ZamarripaM. X.WampoldB. E.GregoryE. (2003) “Male Gender Role Conflict, Depression, and Anxiety: Clarification and Generalizability to Women,” Journal of Counseling Psychology50(3): 333–8.
