This is a complex case where later narrative has muddled the issues considerably. The stereotype also depends on whom you ask: we in Finland haven't even really agreed yet on what the conflict should be called, since for those in the more nationalistic/right-wing/white (these are not exactly same things) end of the spectrum have preferred "War of Independence" or "Freedom War," while those in the left end have used terms like "revolution" or "rebellion," and others have used "Red rebellion" and the like. The Civil War is the neutral-ish term though, and the one I believe fits the best; although it isn't a contemporary term. But none of the other terms is completely wrong either: there were some elements of a struggle for independence, for example.

As is usual with civil wars, the background is more nuanced than simplified narratives suggest. On the face of it, the conflict pitted the working class against landowners and the middle class; but the conflict also divided Finns along territorial lines. Many people in the northern and coastal parts of the country would have qualified as working class, but they actively supported the White side; and there were people from privileged backgrounds in the southern parts supporting the Red side (although these were fairly rare).

Consequently, there is no simple answer to your question. If I stereotype somewhat, the prototypical or let's say "modal" White (right-wing isn't the term I'd use here) would be a rural farmer or farmer's son from the Western or North-Western part of Finland; the stereotypical "butcher" in the Red literature comes from Ostrobothnia. He would typically hail from a small homestead, and many possess an independent streak and pride of being a "free man" who boasts that he takes off his hat only in church for the God and no one else. Particularly in the Ostrobothnian region, a conservative pietist sect called Laestadianism (and other conservative Lutheran interpretations) would hold considerable influence, so most were at least on paper pious Christians; the level and steadfastness of actual religious practice may have differed greatly though.

The one thing these men did certainly believe in was hard work: the line in the Bible, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" definitely rang a bell to people who scraped their living from the soil near the Arctic Circle. The massive famine of 1867-8 was still within the living memory, and everyone knew how to supplant their grain stocks with dried pettu, the somewhat-edible part between pine tree's bark and trunk. Sayings such as "industrious man sweats when working, lazy when eating" and "work is man's honor" were common, and to a large extent both men and women were valued on how hard-working they were. Communality was also important, and people identified themselves according to villages they lived in. But in the end, every household was supposed to look after itself; the other households would help if needed, but becoming reliant on others for help would have been a great shame indeed.

But then: the very same description, with the possible exception of ultra-conservative Christianity (that did not root as much into southern part of the country), could easily describe the stereotypical Red as well. It was more an accident of birth or consequence that determined the side a "prototypical" Red or White might have taken in the Civil War, not any major difference in values or attitudes as such. The Reds were also, for the most part, true believers in hard work and at least (and by modern standards especially) good churchgoers, if not exactly good Christians always. Some of the more educated did question the religion for example, and such "liberalism" was more prevalent within the urban working class; but Finland was very much an agrarian country and that was still a minority compared to rural or semi-rural Reds.

Here, economic circumstances mattered more: if you were a tenant farmer or a farmhand without any land to call your own, the Socialist cause that spoke of land reform was certainly appealing. It is a good question what was the extent of a typical Red's ideological education: I'd say it was probably fairly superficial, despite the efforts of so-called "agitators." However, there were also those who had been in the Socialist movement for quite long and could be very knowledgeable indeed, so this is again a stereotype.

Similarly, those on the White side were quite probably often fairly unaware of the larger implications: when they read from their newspapers and heard from the Church sermons that there is a rebellion against "lawful" government - by "atheists" allied with the Russians, and seeking to take away all private property no less - it probably didn't take much more to label the Reds as beasts in human form, despite the fact that a nominally land-owning smallholder from Kainuu or Savo might have had much greater common interests with tenant farmers and working class in the south. Note, though that newspapers on both sides of the ideological divide did their very best in painting the other guys as monsters: balanced reporting didn't exist then. Those on the Red side, for example, implicated the upper classes as being behind the bread shortages of 1917 so that they could profit from them. The bitterness resulting from the wartime rationing and rationing policies was probably a major factor dividing the people to Reds and Whites; e.g. to "producers" in the countryside vs. "consumers" in the cities.

However, it needs to be noted that the abovementioned attitudes were far from uniform, and partially as a consequence the White army was not all-volunteer; the government introduced conscription, and the majority were in fact conscripts (estimated ca. 75 000 out of maximum strength of 90 000). The Red soldiers, on the other hand, were almost all volunteers.

In fact, the White leadership believed that the motivation of smallholder soldiers from Central and Northern Finland to fight against men of very similar background and beliefs would be fairly low; and in propaganda, the fight was depicted as one against "Red Russkies" and their lap-dogs. Nevertheless, one estimate has it that 30 000 men did not report for call-ups in the White-controlled areas, and the most prominent probable reason was Red sympathies.

In summary: it's complicated, at least if we're talking about the rank and file on both sides. It's easier with the upper classes, who tended to fairly uniformly favor the Whites and hoped that Finland would gain independence while retaining the pre-World War status quo where (in their imagination) wise, educated upper class would exert fatherly rule over noble, industrious, patriotic and grateful peasants. Well, it didn't work out exactly that way; and I suspect that in the backslash, the Reds got a lot of bad press.