1989-09 the Gender Gap and Nuclear Power 0

8/3/2019 1989-09 the Gender Gap and Nuclear Power 0

1/14

Sex Roles, Vol. 21, N os . 5/6, 1989

T h e G e n d e r G a p a n d N u c l e a r P o w e r :A t t i t u d e s i n a P o l i t ic i z e d E n v i r o n m e n t IL a w r e n c e S . S o l o m o n , D o n a l d T o m a s k o v i c - D e v e y , 2 a n d B a r b ar a J . R i s m a nNorth Carolina Sta te U niversity

H i s t o r ic a l l y , w o m e n h a v e b e e n l es s l i k e ly t h a n m e n t o s u p p o r t n u c l e a r e n e r-g y . F o l l o w i n g t h i s li te r a tu r e , w e h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t t h i s g e n d e r g a p r e s u lt s f r o mc o n c e r n s o v e r s a f e ty f a c t o r s a n d ~ o r l o w e r a w a r e n e ss o f t h e i ss ue s. W e s t u d yt h e d i ff e r e n c es i n p e r c e p t i o n s b e t w e e n m e n a n d w o m e n t o w a r d t h e op e ra -t io n o f a l o ca l n u c l ea r p l a n t d u r i n g a w a v e o f p u b l i c p r o t e s t . O u r a n a ly s iss u g g e s t s t h a t g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s i n s a f e t y c o n c e r n s e x p l a i n s t h e g e n d e r g a pi n a t t it u d e s t o w a r d o p e n i n g t h e l o ca l n uc l e a r p l a n t a n d p r o v i d e s a p a r t i a le x p l a n a t io n o f t h e g e n d e r g a p i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f g e n er a l n u cl e a r p o w e rt e c h n o l o g y . A w a r e n e s s l e v e l s h a v e n o s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o n t h e g e n d e r g a p .W e s u g g e s t t h a t t h e g e n d e r g a p c a n b e t r a c e d to w o m e n ' s p r o p e n s i t y t o ra -t i on a l ly p r o c e s s n e g a t iv e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t n u c l e a r p o w e r .

Attitudes toward nuclear power are important because the fate of this in-dustry has dramatic consequences for the environment and human safety.Several explanations have been offered to explain the public's level of sup-port or oppos ition toward this technology. One of the most striking and con-sistent findings in this literature is the existence of a large "gender gap" inattitudes toward nuclear power production (e.g., Brody, 1981, 1984; Mel-ber, Nealey, Ham mers la , & Rankin , 1977; Mitchell, 1984; Nealey , Melber,& Rankin, 1983). The primary objective in this paper is to specifically un-derstand why females are less likely than males to support nuclear powerproduct ion. We also discuss the potential effect of two immediate events on~An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1987 meeting of the Southern Sociologi-cal Society, Atlanta, GA. We appreciate the comments of Charles Brody and an anonymousreviewer for this revised version.2To whom correspondence should be addressed at the Department of Sociology,North Caroli-na State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8107.

4010360-0025/89/0900-0401506.00/0 1 989 P le num Pub l i sh ing Corp ora t ion


2/14

402 S o lomon , Tomas k ov ic -D evey , an d R is manattitudes, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and the near-completion of the Shea-ron Harris nuclear power plant near Raleigh, North Carolina, upon boththe level of public approval of nuclear power and the size of the gender gap.

This paper examines a survey of attitudes toward nuclear power produc-tion within a climate of antinuclear social movement activities. The survey wasadministered in the summer o f 1986 at the peak of local social movement ac-tivity in opposition to the nearly completed Shearon Harris Nuclear PowerPlant. The political context of the survey and its following relatively closely(four months) after the Chernobyl nuclear accident ensures that we have anunusually educated and involved sample with which to address these issues.As a research focus, the gender gap is not only academically interesting butat the center of much political activity around both nuclear power politicsand national politics (Nelson, 1984).

P R E V I O U S R E S E A R C HOne explanation for the gender gap is that women are generally less

aware or knowledgeable about technological matters, feel less comfortablewith them, and therefore hesitate to support nuclear power. This presumes,of course, that knowledge leads to acceptance (rather than rejection) ofnuclear technology, a premise clearly biased toward the nuclear power in-dustry. Those who do argue for this "awareness hypothesis" suggest that be-cause women have not been socialized to understand technical andenvironmental issues (Cowan, 1979; Griffin, 1978; McStay & Dunlap, 1983),they are less accepting of them. Empirical tests, however, have not support-ed this hypothesis. Reed and Wilkes (1980) and Mitchell (1984) found that"knowledge" of nuclear technology was not a significant explanation for thegender gap.

Another previously tested reason for the gender gap is the "economicgrowth" argument: Because men have traditionally participated more fullyin economic labor markets than women, they have a more vested interestin new technologies to aid economic expansion. This explanation has alsonot fared well in empirical tests; Passino and Lounsbury (1976) and Brody(1984) found no gender differences in relation to nuclear power support basedon attitudes toward economic growth. A modern variant of this thesis hasbeen associated with postmaterialist values, which include negative views oflaissez-faire government, unbridled economic growth, and unconditionalreverence for science and technology (Ladd, Hood, & Van Liere, 1983).However, echoing earlier findings from the economic growth thesis (e.g.,Brody, 1984), there do not appear to be consistent gender differences in p o s t -


3/14

T h e G e n d e r G a p a n d N u c l e a r P o w e r 403materialist values or their effect upon attitudes toward nuclear power (Mitch-ell, 1984).Passino and Lounsbury (1976) offer yet another explanation for genderdifferences: women's greater concern about safety issues. These authors uti-lized a simple random sample of 350 adults in a Tennessee county scheduledto contain a nuclear power plant. Their analysis revealed that the significantreason for male-female differences in nuclear related opinion clusters aroundthe factors of "hazards" or safety concerns. Controlling for sex differencesin safety concerns reduced the gender gap to statistical significance in theirresearch (see also Brody, 1984). One explanation of the linkage between thegender gap and safety concerns centers on the effect of socialization and fa-mily roles. Perhaps women find more difficulty reconciling their values withthe apparent risks of nuclear power, even if its adaptation as a source ofenergy might increase economic growth. An equally plausible explanationfor women's greater concern with risky technologies may be attributed totheir positions as family caretakers, including their primary responsibility(relative to men) for child-rearing (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Chodorow,1978; Mitchell, 1984; Risman & Schwartz, 1989; Rothman, 1986; Wertz,Sorenson, & Heeren, 1985). Since children's safety is one of many women'smajor social obligations, they may simply resist new risks to their families.

Brody's (1984) findings provide an appropriate starting point for thecurrent research. In a test of both the economic and safety hypotheses, Bro-dy (1984) concludes that safety factors rather than economic attitudes un-derpin the greater concern of women over nuclear power. While Brody testedfor differences between "local" and "general" perceptions of nuclear power,his research design did not include testing perceptions about an actual localnuclear power plant facility, nor did the data permit testing the awarenesshypothesis.

In this research, we also test differences between attitudes towardnuclear power at the local and general level, but do so in a politicized cir-cumstance. A precedent for our research is given by Jasper (1988) who fo-cuses on the political life cycle of nuclear controversies. He outlines threestages of nuclear politics (prepolitical, political, and postpolitical) and ar-gues that the causal factors affecting opinions are tied to these stages. Inthe prepolitical period the technology experts reign, the media highlight con-troversy during the period of politicization, leading to the political perioddominated by value conflicts, followed by depoliticization and the eclipseof the public's attention. All of the research cited here on the gender gapin the United States has taken place during politicized periods. FollowingJasper (1988) and Mazur (1984), we would expect that media attention andbasic values, including post-materialism and safety concerns, should focus


4/14

4 0 4 S o l o m o n , T o m a s k o v i c - D e v e y , a n d R i sm a np u b l i c o p i n i o n t o w a r d n u c l e a r p o w e r . S i n c e p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h h a s su g g e s t edt h a t t h e g e n d e r g a p i s t i ed s t r o n g l y t o s a f e t y v a lu e s , w e e x p e c t t h a t t h e s e v a lu e sp l a y a s t r o n g r o l e i n t h e p r e s e n t a n a l y si s . A l s o , s in c e th e d a t a w e r e c o l l e ct e da t th e h i g h p o i n t o f m e d i a a t t e n t i o n a n d s o c ia l m o v e m e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e s ep r o c e s s e s s h o u l d b e e s p e c i a l ly c l e a r .

O u r r e s e a r c h t e st s th e u s e f u l n e s s o f th e " s a f e t y " a n d " a w a r e n e s s "h y p o t h e s e s a s e x p l a n a ti o n s o f th e g e n d e r g a p i n a c o m m u n i t y in w h i c h a p l a n tw a s i n t h e p r o c e ss o f g o i n g " o n - l i n e " u n d e r a c l o u d o f c o n t r o v e r s y r ai se db y a n a n t i n u c l e a r m o v e m e n t , s W e p o s i t , b a s e d o n p r e v i o u s r e se a r c h f i n d -i n g s, t h a t w o m e n a r e le ss l i k e ly t o s u p p o r t n u c l e a r p o w e r t h a n m e n . W e a l soh y p o t h e s i z e t h a t t hi s g e n d e r g a p c a n b e e x p l a in e d b y w o m e n ' s g r e a te r c o n -c e r n w i t h s a f e t y .

R E S E A R C H D E S I G N

The Se t t ingT h e f o c u s o f s t u d y i n t h e S h e a r o n H a r r i s N u c l e a r P o w e r P l a n t , b u i lt

b y t h e C a r o l i n a P o w e r a n d L i g h t C o m p a n y . T h e p l a n t , w h i c h is n o w c o m -p l e te d a n d o n - l i n e, is l o c a te d i n W a k e C o u n t y , N o r t h C a r o l in a , a p p r o x i m a t e l y15 m i l e s s o u t h w e s t o f t h e c i ty o f R a l e ig h . T h e p l a n t is a ls o i n c l o se p r o x i m i -t y t o t h e cit ie s o f D u r h a m a n d C h a p e l H i l l. T h e S t a n d a r d M e t r o -p o l i t a n S t a t i s t i c a l A r e a ( S M S A ) i s i n h a b i t e d b y a b o u t 6 6 0 , 0 0 0 p e r s o n sa n d i s h o m e t o th r e e m a j o r u n i v e r si ti e s , s t a te g o v e r n m e n t , a n d t h e R e s e a r c hT r i a n g l e P a r k . I n t h e w i n t e r a n d s p r i n g o f 1 9 8 6 , t h e S h e a r o n H a r r i sp l a n t , r e a d y t o b e g i n l o w - l e v e l t e s t in g , w a s t h e t a r g e t o f a c i t iz e np r o t e s t m o b i l i z e d b y th e o r g a n i z a t i o n C o a l i t i o n f o r A l t e r n a ti v e s t o S h e a r o nH a r r i s ( C A S H ) . C A S H o r g a n i z e d n u m e r o u s ra ll ie s, b e n e f it p e r f o r m a n c e s ,a n d a m a s s - m e d i a c a m p a i g n t o b l o c k t h e o p e n i n g o f t h e p l an t . T h e a p e x o ft h e s o c ia l m o v e m e n t a ct iv i ti e s b y th i s g r o u p o c c u r r e d in m i d s u m m e r 1 98 6a t a b o u t t h e s a m e t i m e t h e s u r v e y w a s a d m i n i s te r e d .

D A T A A N D M E T H O DA s u r v e y w a s d e si g n e d b y th e a u t h o r s a n d a d m i n i s t e re d b y t e le p h o n e

t o r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s i n t h e t w o c o u n t i e s ( C h a t h a m a n d W a k e ) c l o s e s t t o t h en u c l e a r p o w e r p l a n t . T h e s a m p l e s i ze w a s 5 1 4 , r e p r e s e n t i n g a 71 7 0 r e s p o n s e3We did not test the "econom ic"hypothesisbecause the variables necessary o do so w ere un-available in ou r su rvey.


5/14

T h e G e n d e r G a p a n d N u c l e a r P o w e r 405rate. Res pondent s were obtai ned by simple ra nd om sampling from the voterregistration l ists in these two countries. The major goal of the survey wasto produce policy relevant infor mati on on citizen reaction to the nuclear plant,par t icular ly about the adequancy of the plant evacuat ion zone (see Hob an,Tomaskovic -Devey, & Ri sman , 1988). The interviewers were volunteers; one-half of the interviewers were sociology department graduate students andfaculty, an d the other half were general volunteers, most of who m were peoplewho had volunteered to help the activist antinuclear organizat ion CASH. 4

The data analysis relies on logistic regression due to the presence ofnom ina l (categorical) dependen t variables (Reynolds, 1977). The depend entvariable, "attitude toward nuclear power," is measured in terms of two dimen-sions, at t i tude toward the local nuclear power plant and general at t i tudetowar d nuclear power.5 The general at t i tude question was the f irst questionasked in the survey and so is not con tami nat ed by the questionn aires ' subse-quent focus on local issues.

L O C A L A T T I T U D E SDo you think that Carolina Power and Light should be allowed to operate theShearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in Wake County, or do you think that alterna-

tive sources of energy should be used to satisfy local energy demands?Table I summarizes the relationship between gender and att i tudes

towar d nuclear power. Panel A reports the simple cross-classification ofgender an d local nuclear attitudes. Fifty-seven percent of males supp ort oper-ating the local plant, while only 40% of wo men are in agreement, giving agend er gap of 17/0. 6 Next (Pan el B of T abl e I) we regress su ppo rt for t he4The use of activists as interviewers was necessary given that the project was not funded byany source. Recent research (Bradburn, 1983) suggests that the use of activists is unlikely tobias results. In general, interviewer response effects are quite small and likely to occur onlywhen the topic is a personally sensitive one (e.g., sexual behavior or racial attitudes), and therespondent knows and can react to the interviewer characteristic. Since our survey does nothave the personally threatening quality and respondents did not know about the interviewers'CASH affiliation, this seems an unlikely source of bias. Steps were taken to ensure that theuse of activists as interviewers did not influence the reliability of the data collected. Interview-er training was done by one author in a professional atmosphere. Training stressed that nodeviations from the closed-ended questionnaire were acceptable. After the data were collect-ed, we searched for systematic differences in response patterns between activist and sociolo-gist interviewers. There were no substantive or statistically significant differences in responsesassociated with interviewer type.5No opinion cases were dropped from the analysis even though they represent substantial propor-tions of total respondents for both the general (31 70)and local (12070)attitudes toward nuclearpower electrical production. Given the well-known gender differences in no-opinion surveyresponses, this seemed a necessary course of action.6Coding for all variables is outlined in the appendix. Twelve percent of the sample expressedno opinion on this question and were dropped from the analysis.


6/14

4 0 6 S o l o m o n , T o m a s k o v i c -D e v e y , a n d R i s m a nT a b l e I . G e n d e r a n d A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d t h e L o c a l N u c l e a r P o w e r

P l a n tP a n e l A : C r o s s - c l a s si f i c a ti o n

M a l e F e m a l e( % ) ( % )S u p p o r t 5 7 4 0O p p o s e 4 3 6 0

T o t a l 1 0 0 1 0 0N 2 2 4 1 9 3

G e n d e r g a p = 1 7 70M a l e o d d s r a t i o o fs u p p o r t = 2 . 0 2

P a n e l B : L o g i s t i c r e g r e s s i o n o f g e n d e r o n s u p p o r t o f l oc a l n u c l e a rp l a n t c o n t r o l l i n g f o r e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t , r a c e , p o l i ti c a l p a r t ya f f i li a t io n , a n d i n c o m e ( N = 4 2 2) a

D e p e n d e n t v a r ia b l e: S u p p o r t f o r t h e l oc a l n u c l e a r p l a n tL o g - o d d sV a r i a b l e r a t i o O d d s r a t i o SE C h i - s q u a r e p

G e n d e r 0 . 6 7 3 1 . 9 6 0 . 2 0 6 1 0 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 1~ M i s s i n g v a l u e s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t a n d i n c o m e s u b s t i t u te dw i t h m e a n s .

l o c a l n u c l e a r p l a n t o n g e n d e r a n d a n u m b e r o f c o n t r o l v a r i a b le s , i n c lu d i n geduca t iona l a t t a inmen t , r a ce , po l i t i c a l pa r ty a f f i l i a t i on , and income . Thegend er gap s ti ll ex is ts despi te the inc lus ion o f these co nt ro l var iables . In fa c t ,t he m a le odd s ra t i o o f sup po r t i s nea r ly i den t i c a l i n t he s imp le c ros s c la s s if i -c a t i on (Pane l A , odd s ra t i o 2 . 02), an d in t he l og i s ti c r eg re s s ion tha t co n t ro l sfo r a s e r i e s o f demograph ic , s t r a t i f i c a t i on , and po l i t i c a l va r i ab l e s (Pane l B ,odds ra t io 1 .96) .The log -odd s ra t i o o f ma le supp or t i s 0 . 673 (p < 0 . 001) ; be ing ma leincreases the od ds ra t io o f suppo r t ing the loca l nuc lear pow er p lant 1 .96 t imes .

G E N E R A L A T T IT U D E S

I n g e n e r a l , w o u l d y o u d e s c r i b e y o u r s e l f a s a s u p p o r t e r o f n u c l e a r p o w e r p l a n t sa s a m e a n s o f p r o v i d i n g e l e ct ri c it y, a n o p p o n e n t o f n u c l e a r p o w e r p l a n t s , o r h a v e n ' ty o u m a d e u p y o u r m i n d y et ?

Thi s i s t he sam e ques t io n ana lyzed by the G a l lup Po l l (1981 , 1987) andthe g ende r g ap is 3070; r e su l ts a re show n in Tab le I I , P ane l A . A b ou t 59070o f m a le s su ppo r t t h is t e chno logy , bu t on ly 29070 o f f em a le s a re i n ag reement. 7

7 T h e s e p e r c e n t a g es a r e a l s o c a l c u l a te d o n t h e b a s i s o f a l l r e s p o n d e n t s w h o h a d o p i n i o n s . T h i r t y - o n ep e r c e n t o f t h e s a m p l e e x p r e ss e d n o o p i n i o n o n t h i s q u e s t i o n a n d w e r e d r o p p e d f r o m t h e a n a l y -s is . T h i s h i g h l e v el o f n o n r e s p o n s e r e f l e c ts a n i n c l u s i o n i n t h e q u e s t i o n o f a n o - o p i n i o n r e s p o n s e


7/14

T h e G e n d e r G a p a n d N u c l ea r P o w e r 4 0 7T ab l e I1. Gender and Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power in General

Panel A: Cross-classificationMale Female(%) (%)

Support 59 29Oppose 41 71

Total 100 100N 187 139

Gender gap = 30%Male odds ratio ofsupport = 3.60

Panel B: Logistic regression of gender on support of nuclear powerin general controlling for educational attainment, race, politicalparty affiliation, and income (?4 = 330)aDependent variable: Support for nuclear power in generalLog-oddsVariable ratio Odds ratio SE Chi-square p

Gender 1.24 3.45 0.255 23.55 0.000aMissing values for educational attainment and income substitutedwith means.

Table II, Panel B provides the results of the logistic regression of generalattitudes toward nuclear power on gender with control variables. The log-odds rat io of male support equals 1.24 (17 < 0.0001), and the odds ratio of3.45 indicates tha t being male increases the odds ratio o f supporting nuclearpower as a general technology by three and one-half times greater than fe-males. Again, the odds ratio is only slightly reduced relative to Panel A af-ter introducing control variables. 8

T H E G E N D E R G A P

The literature has suggested that "safety" is a major explanation forthe gender gap in attitudes toward nuclear power. Given previous research,

category (or "haven' t you made up your mind"). The size of the no-opinion response categorygiven the availability of the no-opinion choice in the question is consistent with other surveysusing the same question (GaUup Poll, 1981, 1987) and with other research on no-opinion responseeffects (Bradburn, 1984; Schuman & Presser, 1979).8Some of the local-general difference in the gender gap is attributable to differences in the no-opinion structure of the two questions. Since "no-opinion" is an explicit choice in the generalquestion and is not in the local question, gender differences in no-opinion responses affectthe relative size of the gender gap in this analysis. The general point that the gender gap issmaller for local vs. general attitudes about nuclear power is accurate when no-opinion responsesare kept in the sample, and the gender gap in nuclear power support for general issues is 26.8%and for the local plant 19.2%.


8/14

408 Solom on, Tomaskovic-Devey, and RismanTable I lL Regression of G ender and a Series of Con-t ro l Var iab les on Percep t ion of Safe ty and Aw are-ness of Lo cal Nuc lear Pow er Issues (N = 494)"Dependent variables Saf etyb Aw areness bIntercept 2.561y 2.304y(.171) (.181)Gender -0 .4 32 y 0 .294 e(0.80) .086Educa t iona lattain m ent - 0.137 a 0.129 a(.044) (.047)Pol i t i ca l pa r tyaff i l ia t ion 0.228 ~ 0.3 65 2(.093) (.099)Inco m e 0.000 0.008 cg(o.ooo) (o.ooo)Race 0.207 - 0.239(.127) (.135)Ad juste d R 2 0.106 0.083~Missing values for educ at ional a t ta inmen t and in-come substituted with means.bParameter estimates with standard errors in pare n-theses.Cp _< 0.05.d p _ . O l .ep _< .001.~p _ .OOOl.gEstimate mu lt ipl ied by 1000.

w e h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t w o m e n ' s g r e a t e r c o n c e r n w i t h s a f e t y w o u l d l e a d t h e mt o o p p o s e n u c l e a r p o w e r m o r e t h a n d i d m e n . T h e s a f e t y f a c t o r w a s m e a s -u r e d w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n , " H o w s a f e d o y o u f e e l l i v in g n e a r a n u c l e a r p l a n tb u t o u t s i d e o f t h e e v a c u a t i o n p l a n n i n g a r e a ? " C o d i n g f o r th i s v a r i a b l e i s g i v e ni n t h e a p p e n d i x . T h i s q u e s t i o n w a s o n l y a s k e d o f r e s p o n d e n t s w h o l i v e d m o r et h a n t e n m i l e s a w a y f r o m t h e p l a n t ( o u t s id e o f t h e e v a c u a t i o n z o n e ) , b u ts i nc e t h e y a r e t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s ( 8 8 . 3 % ) t h e l os s o f c a s e s i sm o r e t h a n o f f s e t b y t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e i n d i c a t o r . R e s u l t so f t h e r e g r e s s i o n o f s a f e t y o n g e n d e r a n d a s er ie s o f c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s a r es h o w n i n T a b l e I I I . A s t h e l i t e r a t u r e su g g e s ts , m a l e s a r e le ss c o n c e r n e d a b o u ts a f e ty t h a n w o m e n . T h e m e a n l ev e l f o r s a f e ty c o n c e r n f o r m a l e s i s 2 . 1 2 9( i n t e r c e p t + p a r a m e t e r e s t i m a t e o f g e n d e r ) w h i le t h e m e a n l e ve l o f s a f e t yc o n c e r n f o r f e m a l e s is 2 .5 6 1 ( i n t e r c e p t ) . S i n c e t h e o r d i n a l s c a le is c o d e d s ot h a t h i g h e r v a l u e s i n d i c a t e h i g h e r s a f e t y c o n c e r n s , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t f e m a l e sa r e m o r e h i g h l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h i s t e c h n o l o g y t h a n a r e m a l e s .

A l t h o u g h p r e v i o u s re s e a r c h h as n o t s u p p o r t e d t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t w o m e na r e m o r e o p p o s e d t o n u c l e a r p o w e r b e c a u s e t h e y a r e l e ss a w a r e , w e n e v e r t h e -l es s t e s t e d th e h y p o t h e s i s i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e m o r e e v i d e n c e o n t h e i s s u e .T h e a w a r e n e s s f a c t o r w a s m e a s u r e d w i t h a s c al e b a s e d o n f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s :


9/14

The G ende~ G ap and Nuclear Pow er 409"Are you aware that the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant is in WakeCoun ty? .... Are y ou aware t hat the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant is sched-uled to begin testing with nuclear fuel this summer ? .... Have you heard ofthe Emergency Evacuation Plant for Wak e County? .... Are you aware thatthe cost of the average Carolina Power and Light electric bill will go up be-tween twenty and twenty-five percent when the Shearon Harris Nuclear Pow-er Plant begins oper ation? ''9 A Gut tma n scale was constr ucted to combinethese questions into one measure. The face validity of this measure is un-usually high because it refers to concrete factual issues that pertain to thelocal power plant. To the extent that respondent s have knowledge on all fourquestions, we can infer that they have been closely following the discussionof this nuclear power plant in the media. In addition, this Guttman scalehas an unusually high reliability with a reproducibility coefficient of 0.994.The mean level of awareness for men is 2.598 (intercept + paramete r esti-mate of gender) while the mean level of awareness for women is 2.304 (in-tercept). The awareness scale is coded in such a way as to allow highernumbers to signify higher awareness. Utilizing ord ina ry least squares regres-sion, Table III demonstrates that men are more aware of these issues thanwom en (p < 0.001) even while considering relevant control variables. 1

Using logistic regression, the explanatory variables of awareness andsafety were analyzed in terms of their effects on the initial relationship be-tween sex and attitude tow ard nuclear power. In accordance with the researchdesign, separate analyses are reported for the "local" and "general" attitudes.Recall that males and females differ significantly in their support of nuclearpower (Table I and II), and that females tend to be more concerned aboutthe issue of safety and less aware o f the technolog y (Table III). In order tosupport either the "safety" or "awareness" hypothesis it is necessary for thecontrol variable of interest to reduce the gender gap. Table IV reports theresults for both the local and general attitudes toward nuclear power.

At neither the local nor general level of nuclear power support, doesawareness emerge as a significant explanatory variable. Awareness has nosignificant effect on the gender gap between males and females toward theissue of nuclear power. We split the model by sex to see if awareness ope rat-ed differently for males and females. In the split model analyses (tables notprovided) there were no sex differences in the awareness -nuclear power sup-port relationship. Awareness was uniformly a nonsignificant predictor of sup-port for nuclear power at both the local and general levels.9This last question, although it refers to an amount that seems preposterously large, was theutility's projected rate increase at the time.~Given the lower probability of males answering "don't know" to attitude questions, it is pos-sible that a male tendency to express knowledge even when none is present may account forsome of this gender difference.


10/14

410 Solo m on, Tomaskovic-Devey, and RismanTable IV. Logistic Regression of Gender, Awarene ss, Safety, and a Series of Control Variableson Supp ort for Local Nuclear Plant (N = 422) and Nuclea r Power in General (N = 330) ~

Dependent variable: Nuclear power supportLocal General

Variable Log-odds ratio Odds ratio Log-odds ratio Odds ratioGender 0.031 1.03 0.712 b 2.03 bAwa reness 0.104 1.11 0.025 1.02Safety -2 . 19 c 0.11 c -2 .1 9 ~ 0.11 cEducational at tai nment 0.017 1.02 0.229 1.25Political party

affi lia tion 0.170 1.18 - 0.682 0.51Income 0.000 1.00 0.000 b 1.00 bRace - 0.251 0.78 0.399 1.49"Missing values for educational attainment and income substituted with means.bp = 0.03.~p _< 0.0001.

Safety, however, is highly significant (p < 0.0001) in both equations.More importantly, this facto r also contributes to our understanding of thegender gap in nuclear power support. For the local issue, the gender gap isreduced to essentially zero. At the general level, the effect of gender is stillsignificant (p -- 0.03), but the inclusion of safety in the equation substan-tially reduces the gender gap. This can be seen by comparing the estimatedodds ratio of 2.03 with the odds ratio of 3.45 found in Panel B of Table II.

Our work strongly supports the hypothesis that differential levels ofsafety partially explain gender differences in suppor t o f nuclear power. Theargument that levels of awareness explain the gender gap in the support ofnuclear power is not supported.

THE EFFECTS OF A POLITICIZING ENVIRONMENTThere is undoubtedly a need for research that will uncover the effects

that historical events and social movement activity have on public opinion,in general, and on the gender gap in particular . It seems appropr iate to ten-tatively explore how our study might have been affected by two well-publicized events that occurred at about the time of the interviews. On thegeneral level, the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union occurredonly four months before our data were gathered. On the local level, a con-troversial nuclear plant was nearing completion. An estimate of the impactof these events can be extrapolated by comparing general support for nuclearpower in our research to that in previous research (Brody, 1984; Gallup Poll,


11/14

T h e G e n d e r G a p a n d N u c l e a r P o w e r 4 11

T a b l e V. Male and Female Approval of Nuclear Power as a TechnologyAcross four Surveys(Figures in Percent)U . S . 1975-1976 U.S. 1980 U.S. 1986 ShearonHarris 1986(Brody) (Gallup) (Gallup) (this survey)

Male 71 39 36 43Female 58 22 15 17Gender gap 13 17 21 26~~The gender gap is slightly ower for the Shearon Harris data than is reported in Table III becausethese percentages are calculated with the "don't know" responses included in order to becomparable to the other surveys.

1981, 1987)11 Brody's data were gathered in 1975-1976, before any major nuclearpower accident. The Gallup Poll (1981) surveyed a national sample of malesand females in 1980 after the Three Mile Island accident, and repeated the ques-tion in another national survey done immediately after the Chernobyl acci-dent in 1986 (Gallup Poll, 1987). We used essentially the same question asthat used in the previous surveys. Table V summarizes the findings fro m thesefour surveys. There are two striking findings in the data. First, and mostimportantly, the gender gap increases across the four surveys. The secondfinding is that male approval of nuclear power is fairly stable at least in the1980-1986 comparison, while female approval is quite low and dropping overtime. Thus, the increased gender gap may largely reflect an increased disap-prova l of nuclear power by women . In 1975-1976 the gender gap in attitudestoward nuclear power was only 1370. In the 1980 post-Three Mile Island sur-vey the gender gap had widened to 1770. The gender gap widened in 1986afte r Chernoby l to 21070. This gap is smaller still tha n the gap of 3070 inour also post-Chernobyl, locally politicized sample. The levels of both maleand female approval of nuclear power are slightly higher in the Shearon Harrissurvey than in the 1986 Gallup Poll. This reflects, we believe, the tendencyof Sou thern United States residents to be more likely to support nuclear power(CBS News, 1986).The increased gender gap reflects an increasing disapproval of nuclearpower by women. While the data are in no way conclusive on this issue, wefeel the steeper decline in female approval and the associated increase in thegender gap may reflect a tendency for women to be more willing to modifytheir opinions in the face of new infor mation . It seems reasonable to suggestthat the growth in the gender gap between 1975 and 1980 was a reaction tothe nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, and that the still largergender gap in the 1986 national survey was a reaction to the Chernobyl nuclear~lWe only discuss attitudes at the general level, because the wording of questions about atti-tudes at the local level was too different.


12/14

412 Solomon, Tomaskovic-Devey and Rismandisaster in the Soviet Union. Finally, the even higher gender gap in the Shea-ron Harris survey may represent the effect of the politicized local environ-ment on women's attitudes.

CONCLUSIONBoth differential concern for safety and different levels of awareness

of the te chno logy (Brody, 1984; Passino & Lounsb ury , 1976; Reed & Wilkes,1980) have been offered as explanations of the gender gap in support ofnuclear power. At this point, there is considerable doubt about the aware-ness hypothesis, as it has received no empirical support. There is, however,good empirical evidence to support the proposition that women's higher safetyconcerns explains the gender gap in attitudes t oward nuclear power. In thispaper, safety concerns statistically accounted for the entire gender gap inattitudes toward the local nuclear power plant. Safety concerns provided asignificant, although not complete, explanation for the gender gap towardnuclear power in general.12

The trend in the gender gap over the decade that spans the Three MileIsland accident, the Chernobyl plant disaster, and the Coalitions for Alter-natives to Shearon Har ris social movement suggests that women may be morelikely to process the information about the possible and actual devastationof nuclear power accidents and so become opponents of nuclear power. Thissuggestion turns on its head the original argument that women are lessknowledgeable about nuclear power than men and so more distrustful. Thedata reviewed here suggest that, at least in the United States, women are morelikely than men to modi fy their opi nion o f nuclear power in the face of morenegative information , an argument also supported by Brody (1981). Further-more, we believe, like Mitchell (1984), this modifica tion o f opin ion by wo menis based upon rational thought, rather than upon irrational fears of nucleartechnology. There may be an interaction effect between women's higher safetyconcerns and the rat ional processing of new info rmat ion that accelerates theiroppos ition to the techno logy in the face of actual nuclear disasters. We needto discover the causal factors o f this rationality, as well as how fu ndame ntal

12In Brody's(1984) analysis, safetyconcerns accounted for the entire gender gap for a very similarquestion. The difference in the explanatory power of the safety hypothesis probably reflectstwo factors. The first is that our measure of safety concerns was a concrete question abouthow safe respondents felt living near a local nuclear plant but outside an evacuation zone forthe plant. Brody's safety measure, like the question on attitude toward nuclear power usedin both surveys,was posed at a more abstractgeneral level. Similarity in levels of abstractionmay have increased the strength of association between Brody's safety measure and the meas-ure of attitudes toward nuclear power. A second explanation of the partial success of the safe-ty hypothesis in our research might be the much larger gender gap in our data to be explained.


13/14

T h e G e n d e r G a p a n d N u c l e a r P o w e r 4 1 3b e l i e f s a n d v a l u e s a b o u t s o c i e t y a n d m e d i a c o v e r a g e a c t as i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i -a b l e s i n t h e g e n d e r - n u c l e a r p o w e r a t t i t u d e l i n k .

R E F E R E N C E S

B l u m s t e i n , P . , & S c h w a r t z , P . A m e r i c a n c o u p l e s . N e w Y o r k : M o r r o w P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 8 3 .B r a d b u r n , N . R e s p o n s e e f fe c t s. I n P . R o s s i , J . W r i g h t , & A . A n d e r s o n ( E d s .) , H a n d b o o k o fsurvey research. O r l a n d o , F L : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1 9 83 .B r o d y , C . J . N u c l e a r p o w e r : S e x d i ff e r e n c e s i n p u b l i c o p i n i o n . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r -s i ty o f Ar izona , 1981 . ) D i s s e r ta t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t io n a l , 4 2 A , 3 3 0 7 A .Brody , C . J . D i f f e rences by s ex in supp or t fo r nuc lear power . Soc ia lF orces , 1984, 63(1), 209-228.Chod lo row, N . T h e r e p r o d u c t i o n o f m o t h e r i ng . Berke ley , Un iver s i ty o f Ca l i fo rn ia P res s , 1978 .C B S N e w s P o l l . T h e N e w Y o r k T i m e s, July 26, 1986, I :4 .C o w a n , R . S . F r o m V i r g i n i a D a r e t o V i r g i n i a S l im s : W o m e n a n d t e c h n o l o g y i n A m e r i c a n l if e .T e c h n o l o g y a n d C u l t u r e , 1979, 20, 51-63.G a l l u p P o l l . The G al lup P o l l : P ub l ic op in ion 1980 . W ilm ing ton , DE : Scho la r ly Resources , 1981 .G a l l u p P o l l . The Ga l lup P o l l : P ub l ic op in ion 1986 . W ilm ing to n , DE : Scho la r ly Resources , 1987 .G r i f f i n , S . W o m e n a n d n a t u r e: T h e r o a r i n g i n s id e he r. N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r & R o w , 1 97 8.H o b a n , T . , T o m a s k o v i c - D e v e y , D . , & R i s m a n , B . P u b l i c o p i n i o n a b o u t n u c l e a r p ow e r." R i s ka s s e s s m e n t a n d e v a c u a t i o n b e h a v i o r . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h eS o u t h e r n A s s o c i a t i o n f o r P u b l i c O p i n i o n R e s e a r c h . R a l e i g h , N C , A p r i l 1 9 8 8 .J asper , J . T he po l i t ica l l i fe cycle o f t echn o log ica l con t rover s ies . Social Forces , 1988 , 67, 357-377.L a d d , A . , H o o d , T . , & V a n L i e re , K . Id e o l o g i c a l t h e m e s i n t h e a n t i n u c l e a r m o v e m e n t : C o n -sensus and d iver s i ty . S o c i o l o g i c a l I n q u i r y , 1983, 53, 252-272.M c S t a y , J . , & D u n l a p , R . M a l e - f e m a l e d if f e r e n c e s i n c o n c e r n f o r e n v i r o n m e n t q u a l it y . In ter -

n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f W o m e n ' s S tu d i es , 1983, 6, 291-301.M a z u r , A . M e d i a i n fl u e n c e s o n p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d n u c l e a r p o w e r . I n W . R . F r e u d e n b u r g& E . A . Rosa (E ds . ) , P u b l i c r e a c t i o n s t o w a r d n u c l e a r p o W e r : A r e t h e r e c r it i ca l m a s s e s ?Bou lder , CO: W es tv iew Pres s , 1984 .M e l b e r , B . D . , N e a le y , S . M . , H a m m e r s l a , J . , & R a n k i n , W . L . N u c l e a r p o w e r a n d t h e p u b l i c :A na lys i s o f co l lec ted survey r esearch . S e a t t le , W A : B a t e l le M e m o r i a l I n s t i t u t e s , 1 9 7 7.M i t c h e l l , R . C . R a t i o n a l i t y a n d i r r a t i o n a l i t y i n t h e p u b l i c 's p e r c e p t i o n o f n u c l e a r p o w e r . I n W .R . F r e u d e n b u r g & E . A . R o s a ( E d s . ) , P u b l i c r e a c t i o n s t o w a r d n u c l e a r p o w e r : A r e t h e r ecr i t ica l masses? B o u l d e r , C O : W e s t v i e w P r e ss , 1 98 4.N e a l e y , S. M . , M e l b e r , B . , & R a n k i n , W . P u b l i c o p i n i o n a n d n u c l e a r e n e rg y . L e x i n g t on , M A :L e x i n g t o n B o o k s , 1 98 3.N e l s o n , L . P r o m i s e h e r a n y t h i n g : T h e n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y ' s a g e n d a f o r w o m e n . F e m i n i s t S t u d i es ,1984, 10, 291-314.P a s s i n o , E . M . , & L o u n s b u r y , J . S e x d i f f e re n c e s i n o p p o s i t i o n t o a n d s u p p o r t f o r c o n s t r u c t i o no f a p r o p o s e d n u c l e a r p o w e r p l a n t . I n P . S u e d f e l d & J . R u s s el l (E d s . ), T h e b e h a v i o r a lbas i s o f des ign , B o ok 1 : Se lec ted paper s , S t r o u d s b u r g , P A : D o w d e n , H u t c h i s o n , & R o s s ,1976.R e e d , J . H . , & W i l k e s , J . M . S e x a n d a t t it u d e s t o w a r d n u c le a r p o w e r . P a p e r p r e s e n te d a t t h ea n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n S o c i o lo g i ca l A s s o c ia t i o n , N e w Y o r k C i t y , A u g u s t 1 98 0.R e y n o l d s , H . T . The ana lys i s o f c ros s -c las s i f i ca t ions . N e w Y o r k : T h e F r e e P r e s s , 1 9 7 7 .Rism an , B . , & Schwar tz , P . Gen der in in t ima te r e la t ionsh ips: A m icros t ruc tu ra l approach . Bel-m o n t , C A : W a d s w o r t h , 1 9 8 9 .R o t h m a n , B . K . T h e t e n t a ti v e p r e g n a n cy : P a r e n t a l di a g n os i s a n d t h e f u t u r e o f m o t h e r h o o d .New York : V ik ing , 1986 .S c h u m a n , H . , & P r e s se r , S . T h e a s s e s s m e n t o f " n o - o p i n i o n " i n a t t i t u d e s u r v ey s . I n K . S c h u e s s -ler (Ed. ) , S o c i o l o g i c a l m e t h o d o l o g y , San F ranc i s co : Jos sey-B ass , 1979 .Wer tz , D . C . , So renson , J . R . , & Her ren , T . C . Cl ien ts " in terpre ta t ion o f r i s k prov ide d in gene t iccounse l ing . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g ic a l A s s o c i -a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D C , 1 9 8 5 .


14/14

414 Solo m on, Tomaskovic-Devey, and RismanA P P E N D I X

Variable name Coding N PercentGender 0 = Female 229 48.41 = Male 245 51.7474 100.0Aware ness 0 = Very unawa re 10 2.21 27 6.02 83 18.43 155 34.3

4 = Very awa re 177 39.2Tot al 452 100.0Saf ety 1 = Ver y safe 71 17.42 = Som ewh at safe 120 29.43 = Som ewh at uns afe 125 30.64 = Very unsa fe 92 22.5Tot al 408 100.0

Educat ional attainm ent 1 = High school graduat e 65 15.62 = Colle ge att end anc e 102 24.53 = Fou r-y ear college degree 129 30.94 = Gra dua te degree 121 29.0Tot al 417 100.0Politi cal party 1 = Demo crat 304 69.9

aff ili ati on 0 = Rep ubl ica n 131 30.1Tot al 435 100.0Inc ome (per year) 1 = Less tha n $11,000 23 6.32 = $11,000 -$14,99 9 23 6.33 = $15,000 -$24,99 9 79 21.6

4 = $25,00 0-$35,0 00 87 23.85 = Ove r $35,000 154 42.1Tot al 366 100.0Rac e 0 = Bla ck 62 13.11 = Whi te 413 86.9Tot al 475 100.0

Documents

1989-09 the Gender Gap and Nuclear Power 0