Yes. Research in social psychology and risk perception shows that some men who are highly concerned with appearing traditionally masculine are less likely to express concern about climate change or to adopt pro-environmental behaviors because these actions are stereotyped as feminine. The effect is not universal, varies by culture and politics, and often diminishes when environmental actions are framed in identity-consistent ways.
What are masculinity norms?
Masculinity norms are socially shared expectations about how a “real man” should think and act, often emphasizing toughness, dominance, and self-reliance. A key idea is precarious manhood, which holds that male status must be earned and publicly defended, and can feel easily threatened by behaviors coded as weak or feminine.
Precarious manhood theory: manhood is a social status that is hard to earn, easy to lose, and requires continual social proof (Vandello & Bosson, 2013).
When environmentalism is culturally associated with care, restraint, or nurturance, some men may perceive visible climate concern as risking a loss of masculine status.
What does the research show about masculinity and environmental concern?
- Green behavior seen as feminine. Experiments find that many people implicitly associate pro-environmental behaviors and brands with femininity. In multiple studies, men were less willing to engage with “green” options when they felt those choices signaled lower masculinity. Re-describing the same actions with masculine cues removed this gap (Brough & Wilkie, 2017, Journal of Consumer Research).
- Masculinity threat reduces prosocial choices. Broader work on masculinity concerns shows that when men feel their manhood is questioned, they often compensate with dominance-affirming choices. This dynamic has been documented across behaviors and helps explain why some men avoid actions labeled as gentle, cautious, or communal (Vandello & Bosson, 2013).
- Gender gap in environmental attitudes. Across surveys, women on average report higher environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior than men. A classic meta-analysis and subsequent studies document this pattern, though the size of the gap varies by context (Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000, Environment and Behavior).
- Identity and ideology amplify the effect. In the United States, men who strongly identify with conservative politics are disproportionately likely to downplay climate risks, a pattern sometimes called the conservative white male effect (McCright & Dunlap, 2011, Global Environmental Change; Finucane et al., 2000, Risk Analysis).
- Framing matters. Identity-consistent framing can change responses. When identical environmental actions are presented with language that emphasizes strength, protection, or national pride rather than gentleness or purity, men’s stated willingness to engage rises to match women’s in experiments (Brough & Wilkie, 2017).
Experimental work shows that reframing the same pro-environmental choice with identity-consistent cues eliminated the gender gap in willingness to choose it (Journal of Consumer Research).
How big is the effect and who is most affected?
Effect sizes are typically modest at the population level and highly contingent on culture and politics. The pattern tends to be strongest among men who are:
- Highly motivated to protect a traditional masculine image
- Embedded in contexts where environmentalism is stereotyped as feminine
- Politically conservative in countries where climate change is polarized
Importantly, many men show high environmental concern and leadership, especially in communities where stewardship, duty, or technical problem solving are valued parts of masculine identity. Cross-national research also finds smaller or reversed gender gaps in some places, reflecting different cultural associations.
How do politics and identity interact on climate beliefs?
Climate beliefs are shaped by more than gender norms. A large body of work shows that political identity, cultural worldviews, and trusted social networks strongly predict perceptions of climate risk. For example, higher science literacy can increase polarization in the United States because people use ability and motivation to align with their group’s position, a process called motivated reasoning (Kahan et al., 2012, Nature Climate Change).
Gender norms intersect with these identities. In groups where toughness and dominance are central to male identity, acknowledging limits or long-term risk may feel identity-threatening, which can make climate downplaying more attractive as a signal of group loyalty.
What are the limitations of the evidence?
- Measurement nuance. Some studies rely on single-item measures of climate concern or masculinity threat, which can miss complexity. Others use validated scales and experiments, offering stronger inference.
- Causality and generalization. Correlational surveys show associations, not causes. Experiments demonstrate mechanisms in controlled settings, but real-world behavior depends on many factors, including cost, convenience, and policy.
- Cultural variability. Findings from the United States do not always generalize elsewhere. Stereotypes linking environmentalism to femininity are culturally constructed and change over time.
What does this mean for climate communication research?
For researchers and practitioners studying communication, the takeaway is that cues embedded in words, visuals, and messengers can signal gendered meanings that affect some men’s responses. Describing environmental action in terms that align with widely held values such as protection, responsibility, ingenuity, and stewardship has been shown to reduce identity threat in experiments, while the underlying facts remain the same (Brough & Wilkie, 2017).
At a systems level, political identity and social networks remain powerful drivers of climate beliefs. Understanding how gender norms intersect with these forces helps explain why climate communication succeeds in some contexts and stalls in others.