1 / 34

Gender, Disaster and Trust

Gender, Disaster and Trust. Why Women?. Women as a Vulnerable Population Gender and Household Division of Labor Gendered Response to Risk. Why Trust.

taryn
Download Presentation

Gender, Disaster and Trust

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gender, Disaster and Trust

  2. Why Women? • Women as a Vulnerable Population • Gender and Household Division of Labor • Gendered Response to Risk

  3. Why Trust • Rousseau, et al (1998) “Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions of behavior of another” • Frewer, et al (1998) notes the level of trust one has towards a particular organization can affect on how individuals analyze risk

  4. Metlay: Two dimensional model of Trust Competence: On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means not at all competent in dealing with hurricanes and their effect on residents, and 10 means completely competent, please rate each of the following… Preparedness: On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means not at all prepared to provide disaster relief following a hurricane, and 10 means completely prepared, please rate each of the following… Integrity Credibility: On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means not at all believable and 10 means completely believable, please rate each of the following:ed, please rate each of the following… • Local Fire Department • Local Police Department • Local Rescue/Ambulance Agency

  5. Education (Class) & Trust • Yamagishi (2001) notes that individuals with more formal education demonstrate higher levels of trust • 1: Up to HS/GED • 2: Some post-HS • 3: College or More

  6. Class Hypotheses • H1: Women with more education will have higher levels of competence-based trust than women with less education • H2: Women with more education will have higher levels of integrity-based trust than women with less education

  7. Race & Trust • Tyler (2001) He argues that “quality of treatment” such as being treated justly or fairly will impact an individual’s trust in that organization.

  8. Race Hypotheses: (The Kanye Hypothesis) • H3:White women will have higher levels of integrity-based trust than Black women • H4: White women will have higher levels of integrity-based trust than Hispanic women • H5: White women will have higher levels of competence-based trust Black women • H6: White women will have higher levels of competence-based trust than Hispanic Women

  9. An Intersectionality Approach • Crenshaw (1994) an interdisciplinary theoretical framework focused on the intersection of identity categories such as race and gender • Browne and Misra (2003): Race is ‘gendered’ and gender is ‘racialized’ • Enarson, Fothergill and Peck (2006): disaster research is rarely specifically focused on the intersection of race, class and gender

  10. Intersectionality Hypotheses • H7: As education increases, all women, regardless of race, show similar levels of competency based trust • H8: As education increases, all women, regardless of race, show similar levels of integrity based trust.

  11. Why Texas & Florida?:Pew Survey 2008(in thousands)

  12. Data: Sampling • Surveys administered September 13-27, 2006 • Survey Sampling International, online • Database of 18000 clients, restricted to registered addresses with zip codes in hurricane-threatened counties of Florida or Texas • Either on the Gulf Coast or 1-2 counties removed • Average: 35 minutes • Median: 24 minutes • Compensation: $2.50, chance for $5000

  13. Data: Description

  14. VARIABLES CompFirCompPolCompAmbPrepFirPrepPolPrepAmbCredFirCredPolCredAmb • Black ‐0.477*** ‐0.645*** ‐0.413*** ‐0.546*** ‐0.435*** ‐0.522*** ‐0.732*** ‐0.621*** ‐0.533*** • [0.149] [0.155] [0.155] [0.169] [0.166] [0.166] [0.168] [0.155] [0.150] • Hispanic ‐0.141 ‐0.146 ‐0.117 ‐0.219 ‐0.285 ‐0.068 ‐0.275 ‐0.276* ‐0.186 • [0.161] [0.168] [0.163] [0.177] [0.183] [0.169] [0.169] [0.165] [0.163] • Florida 0.385*** 0.410*** 0.431*** 0.306*** 0.387*** 0.392*** 0.144* 0.124* 0.160** • [0.0729] [0.0783] [0.0743] [0.0771] [0.0808] [0.0776] [0.0800] [0.0731] [0.0741] • Constant 7.894*** 7.581*** 7.777*** 7.827*** 7.571*** 7.721*** 7.605*** 8.020*** 7.989*** • [0.0591] [0.0638] [0.0610] [0.0607] [0.0655] [0.0623] [0.0630] [0.0579] [0.0594] • N 2510 2631 2533 2517 2605 2532 2706 2578 2576 • R‐squared 0.017 0.02 0.019 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.011 0.011 0.009

  15. Table 1a: RACE and TRUST (Baseline Model)

  16. Table 1b: EDUCATION and RACE and TRUST (Baseline Model)

  17. Table 1c: RACE, EDCUATION and TRUST (Baseline Model)

  18. Table 2a: RACE and TRUST (w/Controls)

  19. Table 2b: EDUCATION and RACE and TRUST (w/Controls)+A54

  20. Table 2c: RACE, EDCUATION and TRUST (w/Controls)

  21. Table 3a: RACE and TRUST (Quantile .25 Regression)

  22. Table 3b: EDUCATION and RACE and TRUST (Quantile .25 Regression)+A56

  23. Table 3c: RACE, EDCUATION and TRUST (Quantile .25 Regression)

  24. Questions?

More Related