The White (Male) Effect and Risk Perception: Can Equality Make a Difference?

Abstract

Previous research has shown that white males have a relatively low perception of risks, known as the 'white male effect' (WME). Many of the explanations of this effect refer to the privileged position of this particular demographic group in society, adducing white males' socio-economic resources, sense of control, worldviews etc. It can thus be argued that inequality leads women and ethnic minorities to have higher risk perception than men and the ethnic majority. Therefore the aim of this study is to investigate the WME in a gender-equal country, Sweden, to see if the pattern is similar to previous studies from the comparably less gender-equal US. The empirical analyses are based on a national survey (n=1472) on the perception of risk conducted in Sweden in the winter of 2005. The results show that in Sweden there is no significant difference between men and women in risk perception, while people with foreign backgrounds perceive risks higher than native people. The chief finding is that there is no WME in Sweden, which it is concluded results from the relative equality between the sexes in the country. On the other hand, ethnicity serves a marker of inequality and discrimination in Sweden. Consequently, ethnicity, in terms of foreign background, mediates inequality, resulting in high risk perception. Equality therefore seems to be a fruitful concept with which to examine differences in risk perception between groups in society, and we propose that the 'societal inequality effect' is a more proper description than the 'white male effect'.KEY WORDS: the white male effect, risk perception, gender and ethnicity, equality How to cite:

Vulnerability, values and heterogeneity: one step further to understand risk perception and behaviour

“…Women and minorities are more concerned by risk than white males, the so-called 'White Male Effect' (Cabrera and Leckie, 2009;Enander and Johansson, 2002;Flynn, et al, 1994;Johnson, 2004;McCright and Riley, 2013;Renn, 2000;Satterfield, et al, 2004;Weber and Hsee, 1998). This means that native men's risk perception differs from other groups in a society (McCright and Riley, 2013), although there are research indicating that race, or ethnicity, is a more important factor in understanding risk perception (Johnson, 2004;Olofsson & Rashid, 2011). However, few studies have offered a sufficient explanation of the White Male Effect or of differences between different socio-cultural groups, other than by offering rudimentary statistical analyses that point to lower levels of control and influence over both individual and societal issues among these groups, and differences in basic values or 'risk cultures' Gutteling and Wiegman, 1996;Mohai and Bryant, 1998;Palmer, 2003;Tulloch and Lupton, 2003).…”

“…Earlier studies have either focused exclusively on ethnicity and gender (e.g. Flynn, et al, 1994;Olofsson and Rashid, 2011;Palmer, et al, 2001) or on specific risk factors such as labour market participation, risk-related health behaviour, or environmental concern (e.g. Abbott, et al, 2006;Adeola, 2004;Cebulla, 2004;Silmak and Dietz, 2006).…”

Risk Assessment in Mental Health: Introducing a Traffic Light System in a Community Mental Health Team

“…It is clear that personal characteristics of SUs and cultural differences between teams influence risk management [3,4] but there was not the opportunity to investigate these factors or how they might influence care and service delivery.…”

“…This approximates to a cultural theory of risk [4] and how teams will develop views towards risk that may differ from another team's. Personal characteristics such as race and gender will also influence risk assessment, and it is likely that TLS will be susceptible to this [3].…”

“…Risk assessments are based on factors including an existing risk assessment, and experience; new information (regardless of its source) will change a person's perception of risk, however imprecision in estimating risk occurs when inadequate information is held by any assessor [1]. Without robust assessment tools, risk perception can be influenced by factors including gender and ethnicity [3], culture and the cultural group of the assessor [4] as well as clinical judgement and expertise.…”