Some men may downplay climate change risks to avoid appearing feminine

New research provides evidence that men who are concerned about maintaining a traditional masculine image may be less likely to express concern about climate change. The findings suggest that acknowledging environmental problems is psychologically linked to traits such as warmth and compassion. These traits are stereotypically associated with femininity in many cultures. Consequently, men who feel pressure to prove their manhood may avoid environmentalist attitudes to protect their gender identity. The study was published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology.

Scientific consensus indicates that climate change is occurring and poses significant risks to global stability. Despite this evidence, public opinion remains divided. Surveys consistently reveal a gender gap regarding environmental attitudes. Men typically express less concern about climate change than women do. Michael P. Haselhuhn, a researcher at the University of California, Riverside, sought to understand the psychological drivers behind this disparity.

Haselhuhn conducted this research to investigate why within-gender differences exist regarding climate views. Past studies have often focused on political ideology or a lack of scientific knowledge as primary explanations. Haselhuhn proposed that the motivation to adhere to gender norms plays a significant but overlooked role. He based his hypothesis on the theory of precarious manhood.

Precarious manhood theory posits that manhood is viewed socially as a status that is difficult to earn and easy to lose. Unlike womanhood, which is often treated as a biological inevitability, manhood must be proven through action. This psychological framework suggests that men experience anxiety about failing to meet societal standards of masculinity. They must constant reinforce their status and avoid behaviors that appear feminine.

Socialization often expects women to be communal, caring, and warm. In contrast, men are often expected to be agentic, tough, and emotionally reserved. Haselhuhn theorized that because caring for the environment involves communal concern, it signals warmth. Men who are anxious about their social status might perceive this signal as a threat. They may reject climate science not because they misunderstand the data, but because they wish to avoid seeming “soft.”

The researcher began with a preliminary test to establish whether environmental concern is indeed viewed as a feminine trait. He recruited 450 participants from the United States through an online platform. These participants read a short scenario about a male university student named Adam. Adam was described as an undergraduate majoring in Economics who enjoyed running.

In the control condition, Adam was described as active in general student issues. In the experimental condition, Adam was described as concerned about climate change and active in a “Save the Planet” group. After reading the scenario, participants rated Adam on various personality traits. Haselhuhn specifically looked at ratings for warmth, caring, and compassion.

The results showed that when Adam was described as concerned about climate change, he was perceived as significantly warmer than when he was interested in general student issues. Participants viewed the environmentalist version of Adam as possessing more traditionally feminine character traits. This initial test confirmed that expressing environmental concern can alter how a man’s gender presentation is perceived by others.

Following this pretest, Haselhuhn analyzed data from the European Social Survey to test the hypothesis on a large scale. This survey included responses from 40,156 individuals across multiple European nations. The survey provided a diverse sample that allowed the researcher to look for broad patterns in the general population.

The survey asked participants to rate how important “being a man” was to their self-concept if they were male. It asked women the same regarding “being a woman.” It also measured three specific climate attitudes. These included belief in human causation, feelings of personal responsibility, and overall worry about climate change.

Haselhuhn found a negative relationship between masculinity concerns and climate engagement. Men who placed a high importance on being a man were less likely to believe that climate change is caused by human activity. They also reported feeling less personal responsibility to reduce climate change. Furthermore, these men expressed lower levels of worry about the issue.

A similar pattern appeared for women regarding the importance of being a woman. However, statistical analysis confirmed that the effect of gender role concern on climate attitudes was significantly stronger for men. This aligns with the theory that the pressure to maintain one’s gender status is more acute for men due to the precarious nature of manhood.

To validate these findings with more precise psychological tools, Haselhuhn conducted a second study with 401 adults in the United States. The measure used in the European survey was a single question, which might have lacked nuance. In this second study, men completed the Masculine Gender Role Stress scale.

This scale assesses how much anxiety men feel in situations that challenge traditional masculinity. Items include situations such as losing in a sports competition or admitting fear. Women completed a parallel scale regarding feminine gender stress. This scale includes items about trying to excel at work while being a good parent. Climate attitudes were measured using a standard scale assessing conviction that climate change is real and concern about its impact.

The results from the second study replicated the findings from the large-scale survey. Men who scored higher on masculinity stress expressed significantly less concern about climate change. This relationship held true regardless of the participants’ political orientation. Haselhuhn found no relationship between gender role stress and climate attitudes among women in this sample. This suggests that the pressure to adhere to gender norms specifically discourages men from engaging with environmental issues.

A third study was conducted to pinpoint the underlying mechanism. Haselhuhn recruited 482 men from the United States for this final experiment. He sought to confirm that the fear of appearing “warm” or feminine was the specific driver of the effect. Participants completed the same masculinity stress scale and climate attitude measures used in the previous study.

They also completed a task where they categorized various personality traits. Participants rated whether traits such as “warm,” “tolerant,” and “sincere” were expected to be more characteristic of men or women. This allowed the researcher to see how strongly each participant associated warmth with femininity.

Haselhuhn found that men with high masculinity concerns were generally less concerned about climate change. However, this effect depended on their beliefs about warmth. The negative relationship between masculinity concerns and climate attitudes was strongest among men who viewed warmth as a distinctly feminine characteristic.

For men who did not strongly associate warmth with women, the pressure to be masculine did not strongly predict their views on climate change. This provides evidence that the avoidance of feminine stereotypes is a key reason why insecure men distance themselves from environmentalism. They appear to regulate their attitudes to avoid signaling traits that society assigns to women.

These findings have implications for how climate change communication is framed. If environmentalism is perceived as an act of caring and compassion, it may continue to alienate men who are anxious about their gender status. Haselhuhn notes that the effect sizes in the study were small but consistent. This means that while gender concerns are not the only factor driving climate denial, they are a measurable contributor.

The study has some limitations. It relied on self-reported attitudes rather than observable behaviors. It is possible that the pressure to conform to masculine norms would be even higher in public settings where men are watched by peers. Men might be willing to express concern in an anonymous survey but reject those views in a group setting to maintain status.

Future research could examine whether reframing environmental action affects these attitudes. Describing climate action in terms of protection, courage, or duty might make the issue more palatable to men with high masculinity concerns. Additionally, future work could investigate whether affirming a man’s masculinity in other ways reduces his need to reject environmental concern. The current data indicates that for many men, the desire to be seen as a “real man” conflicts with the desire to save the planet.

The study, “Man enough to save the planet? Masculinity concerns predict attitudes toward climate change,” was authored by Michael P. Haselhuhn.