IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v107y2014icp105-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity

Author

Listed:
  • Morioka, Rika

Abstract

This paper presents the preliminary findings of gender difference in the perception of radiation risk in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. In-depth interviews were conducted with the residents of Fukushima and other parts of Japan in November 2011 and July 2012. Compared to mothers, fathers in general expressed less concern for radiation. Fathers prioritized their responsibilities as the breadwinner for their families and saw radiation risk as a threat to economic stability and masculine identity. As a result, mothers' health concerns were dismissed, and they were prevented from taking preventive actions. The social norms in the dominant institutions such as corporations and the government influenced men's perception of radiation risk. The findings illustrate the importance of sociocultural context in which meanings of health risk are constructed.

Suggested Citation

  • Morioka, Rika, 2014. "Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 105-112.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:107:y:2014:i:c:p:105-112
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361400118X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.014?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Kraus & Torbjörn Malmfors & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 215-232, June.
    2. Courtenay, Will H., 2000. "Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-being: a theory of gender and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(10), pages 1385-1401, May.
    3. Jost, John T. & Blount, Sally & Pfeffer, Jeffrey & Hunyady, Gyorgy, 2003. "Fair Market Ideology: Its Cognitive-Motivational Underpinnings," Research Papers 1816, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    4. Terre A. Satterfield & C. K. Mertz & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 115-129, February.
    5. Thomas Dietz & Linda Kalof & Paul C. Stern, 2002. "Gender, Values, and Environmentalism," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 353-364, March.
    6. Paul Slovic & Torbjörn Malmfors & Daniel Krewski & C. K. Mertz & Nancy Neil & Sheryl Bartlett, 1995. "Intuitive Toxicology. II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 661-675, December.
    7. Donald MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Robert G. Mason & John Detweiler & Stephen E. Binney & Brian Dodd, 1994. "Perceived Risks of Radioactive Waste Transport Through Oregon: Results of a Statewide Survey," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 5-14, February.
    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. Shuhei Nomura & Masaharu Tsubokura & Akihiko Ozaki & Michio Murakami & Susan Hodgson & Marta Blangiardo & Yoshitaka Nishikawa & Tomohiro Morita & Tomoyoshi Oikawa, 2017. "Towards a Long-Term Strategy for Voluntary-Based Internal Radiation Contamination Monitoring: A Population-Level Analysis of Monitoring Prevalence and Factors Associated with Monitoring Participation ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    3. Adams, Nicholas Norman, 2023. "“It's how people act out there that counts”: Examining linkages between emerging and protective organisationally desirable managerial masculinities and a reimagining of formal safety policies in the o," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).
    4. Anna Maria Górska & Karolina Kulicka & Zuzanna Staniszewska & Dorota Dobija, 2021. "Deepening inequalities: What did COVID‐19 reveal about the gendered nature of academic work?," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 1546-1561, July.
    5. Daran Gray‐Scholz & Timothy J. Haney & Pamela MacQuarrie, 2019. "Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Geographic and Social Predictors of Flood Risk Awareness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2543-2558, November.
    6. Eiji Yamamura & Chisako Yamane & Shoko Yamane & Yoshiro Tsutsui, 2022. "Effect of major disasters on geographic mobility intentions: the case of the Fukushima nuclear accident," Chapters, in: Mark Skidmore (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Disasters, chapter 14, pages 275-291, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Kyoko Yoshioka‐Maeda & Mariko Kuroda & Taisuke Togari, 2018. "Difficulties of fathers whose families evacuated voluntarily after the Fukushima nuclear disaster," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 296-303, September.
    8. Victor Matanggaran & Jan M. Gutteling, 2021. "Explaining Risk Perception of Climate Change in Indonesia through Cultural Dimension of Uncertainty Avoidance, Collectivistic, and Long-term Orientation," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(5), pages 336-345, May.

    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. Ronald L. Schumann & Kevin D. Ash & Gregg C. Bowser, 2018. "Tornado Warning Perception and Response: Integrating the Roles of Visual Design, Demographics, and Hazard Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 311-332, February.
    2. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    3. Dan M. Kahan & Donald Braman & John Gastil & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 2007. "Culture and Identity‐Protective Cognition: Explaining the White‐Male Effect in Risk Perception," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 465-505, November.
    4. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    5. Vern R. Walker, 1995. "Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 603-609, October.
    6. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    7. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    8. McAuliffe, Sarah & Potts, Jonathan & Canessa, Rosaline & Baily, Brian, 2014. "Establishing attitudes and perceptions of recreational boat users based in the River Hamble Estuary, UK, towards Marine Conservation Zones," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 98-107.
    9. Jagadish Thaker & Nicholas Smith & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2020. "Global Warming Risk Perceptions in India," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2481-2497, December.
    10. Michael R. Greenberg & Dona F. Schneider, 1995. "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed vs. Non‐Stressed Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 503-511, August.
    11. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.
    12. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    13. Mary E. Thomson & Dilek Önkal & Ali Avcioğlu & Paul Goodwin, 2004. "Aviation Risk Perception: A Comparison Between Experts and Novices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1585-1595, December.
    14. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    15. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    16. Andy S. L. Tan & Susan Mello & Ashley Sanders‐Jackson & Cabral A. Bigman, 2017. "Knowledge about Chemicals in e‐Cigarette Secondhand Vapor and Perceived Harms of Exposure among a National Sample of U.S. Adults," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1170-1180, June.
    17. Zhihua Xu & Jingzhu Shan, 2018. "The effect of risk perception on willingness to pay for reductions in the health risks posed by particulate matter 2.5: A case study of Beijing, China," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(8), pages 1319-1337, December.
    18. George Wright & Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2002. "An Empirical Test of the Relative Validity of Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1107-1122, December.
    19. Anna Olofsson & Saman Rashid, 2011. "The White (Male) Effect and Risk Perception: Can Equality Make a Difference?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 1016-1032, June.
    20. C. K. Mertz & Paul Slovic & I. F. H. Purchase, 1998. "Judgments of Chemical Risks: Comparisons Among Senior Managers, Toxicologists, and the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 391-404, August.

    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:eee:socmed:v:107:y:2014:i:c:p:105-112. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.