IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i5p2124-2133.html

Gender differences in perceived risk of COVID‐19

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Lewis
  • Raymond Duch

Abstract

Objective We examine gender‐based differences in perceived risks related to COVID‐19. Methods We analyze published findings from COVID‐related research on beliefs and attitudes about the health risks posed by the pandemic. We also design and administer a pair of online survey experiments (n = 502) to test if and how responsive men's attitudes are to information about male‐specific risks. Results Across 16 studies, men consistently express lower perceived risk of contracting COVID‐19 and less concern about the potential health consequences if they were to catch it. Our experimental results are mixed: Results for one information treatment indicate that men report greater relative risk of adverse outcomes. Men in one of the risk information treatments express less concern for their health if they were to contract the disease. Risk perceptions are positively correlated with self‐reported propensity toward protective behaviors. Conclusion Our review of recent studies finds a small‐but‐consistent gap in men and women's beliefs about their health risks related to the present pandemic. These risk beliefs are crucial determinants of whether individuals take protective measures. Our experimental results suggest that informing men of male‐specific risks associated with COVID‐19 can reduce their risk perceptions and perceptions of risk and widen the gap between men and women's perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Lewis & Raymond Duch, 2021. "Gender differences in perceived risk of COVID‐19," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2124-2133, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:5:p:2124-2133
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13079
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13079
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13079?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine R. Harris & Michael Jenkins & Dale Glaser, 2006. "Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 48-63, July.
    2. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    3. John M. Barrios & Yael Hochberg, 2020. "Risk Perception Through the Lens of Politics in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic," NBER Working Papers 27008, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Anton Gollwitzer & Cameron Martel & William J. Brady & Philip Pärnamets & Isaac G. Freedman & Eric D. Knowles & Jay J. Van Bavel, 2020. "Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1186-1197, November.
    5. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2012. "Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 50-58.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Linnea A. Evans & Omar Gomez & Dulce J. Jiménez & Heather J. Williamson & Ann Turnlund Carver & Sairam Parthasarathy & Samantha Sabo, 2023. "Engaging Youth and Young Adults in the COVID-19 Pandemic Response via the “It’s Our Turn” Crowdsourcing Contest," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Migheli, Matteo, 2025. "Economic freedom and gender health gap in the E.U," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    3. Candio, Paolo & Violato, Mara & Clarke, Philip M & Duch, Raymond & Roope, Laurence SJ, 2023. "Prevalence, predictors and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Results of a global online survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    4. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Ciucani, Carlo & Morone, Andrea & Morone, Piergiuseppe & Tiranzoni, Paola, 2026. "Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of self-control, risk aversion, and fear of infection in shaping compliance with preventive measures," SocArXiv s5fa4_v1, Center for Open Science.
    5. Lorena Barberia & Thomas Plümper & Guy D. Whitten, 2021. "The political science of Covid‐19: An introduction," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2045-2054, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2018. "Gender & Collaboration," Working Papers 856, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    2. Beatty, Timothy K.M. & Katare, Bhagyashree, 2018. "Low-cost approaches to increasing gym attendance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 63-76.
    3. Yating Chuang & John Chung-En Liu, 2020. "Who wears a mask? Gender differences in risk behaviors in the COVID-19 early days in Taiwan," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(4), pages 2619-2627.
    4. Vennis Hong & Sage K Iwamoto & Rei Goto & Sean Young & Sukhawadee Chomduangthip & Natirath Weeranakin & Akihiro Nishi, 2020. "Socio-demographic determinants of motorcycle speeding in Maha Sarakham, Thailand," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea & Pierno, Donato, 2024. "From Measurements to Measures: Learning Risk Preferences under Different Risk Elicitation Methods," MPRA Paper 121590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Sabina Źróbek & Elżbieta Zysk & Mirosław Bełej & Natalija Lepkova, 2020. "Do Women Affect the Final Decision on the Housing Market? A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-23, June.
    7. Rafkin, Charlie & Shreekumar, Advik & Vautrey, Pierre-Luc, 2021. "When guidance changes: Government stances and public beliefs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Andeltová, Lucie & Catacutan, Delia C. & Wünscher, Tobias & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2019. "Gender aspects in action- and outcome-based payments for ecosystem services—A tree planting field trial in Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 13-22.
    9. Sandra H. Goff & John Ifcher & Homa Zarghamee & Alex Reents & Patrick Wade, 2023. "Support for bigger government: The principle‐implementation gap and COVID‐19," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(2), pages 243-261, April.
    10. Mellacher, Patrick, 2023. "The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 113-140.
    11. Amy M. Wolaver & John A. Doces, 2021. "The impact of COVID‐19 and political identification on framing bias in an infectious disease experiment: The frame reigns supreme," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2459-2471, November.
    12. Khan, Adnan & Nasim, Sanval & Shaukat, Mahvish & Stegmann, Andreas, 2021. "Building trust in the state with information: Evidence from urban Punjab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    13. Michael Bayerlein & Vanessa A. Boese & Scott Gates & Katrin Kamin & Syed Mansoob Murshed, 2021. "Populism and COVID-19: How Populist Governments (Mis)Handle the Pandemic," Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy, now publishers, vol. 2(3), pages 389-428, December.
    14. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    15. Burnitt, Christopher & Gars, Jared & Stalinski, Mateusz, 2025. "Politics of Food: An Experiment on Trust in Expert Regulation and Economic Costs of Political Polarization," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 744, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    16. BARBER Dennis III & SAADATMAND Yassaman & KAVOORI Thomas, 2016. "Gender And Financial Risk: The U.S. And Brazil," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 15-25, April.
    17. Laine, Tei & Silander, Tomi & Sakamoto, Kayo, 2020. "What distinguishes people who turn into tax evaders when properly incentivized from those who don’t? An experimental study using hypothetical scenarios," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    18. Rinaldi, Anna & Dellino, Pierfrancesco & Paradiso, Massimo, 2025. "Framing the loss: Preferences for vaccine hesitancy and gender effect in France and Italy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    19. Boese-Schlosser, Vanessa A. & Bayerlein, Michael & Gates, Scott & Kamin, Katrin & Murshed, Syed Mansoob, 2023. "Trust issues? How being socialised in an autocracy shapes vaccine uptake," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Transformations of Democracy SP V 2023-502, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    20. Qun Harris & Analise Mercieca & Emma Soane & Misa Tanaka, 2018. "How do bonus cap and malus affect risk and effort choice Insight from a lab experiment," Bank of England working papers 736, Bank of England.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:5:p:2124-2133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.