IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v18y1998i6p805-811.html

Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological erspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Per E. Gustafsod

Abstract

A substantial body of risk research indicates that women and men differ in their perceptions of risk. This paper discusses how they differ and why. A review of a number of existing empirical studies of risk perception points at several problems, regarding what gender differences are found in such studies, and how these differences are accounted for. Firstly, quantitative approaches, which have so far dominated risk research, and qualitative approaches give different, sometimes even contradictory images of women's and men's perceptions of risk. Secondly, the gender differences that appear are often left unexplained, and even when explanations are suggested, these are seldom related to gender research and gender theory in any systematic way. This paper argues that a coherent, theoretically informed gender perspective on risk is needed to improve the understanding of women's and men's risk perceptions. An analysis of social theories of gender points out some relations and distinctions which should be considered in such a perspective. It is argued that gender structures, reflected in gendered ideology and gendered practice, give rise to systematic gender differences in the perception of risk. These gender differences may be of different kinds, and their investigation requires the use of qualitative as well as quantitative methods. In conclusion, the arguments about gender and risk perception are brought together in a theoretical model which might serve as a starting point for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Per E. Gustafsod, 1998. "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological erspectives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 805-811, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:18:y:1998:i:6:p:805-811
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01123.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01123.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01123.x?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. Gregory W. Fischer & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Indira Nair & Lester B. Lave, 1991. "What Risks Are People Concerned About," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 303-314, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lennart Sjöberg, 1998. "Worry and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 85-93, February.
    2. Mohammad Rashed Hasan Polas & Ratul Kumar Saha & Mosab I. Tabash, 2022. "How does tourist perception lead to tourist hesitation? Empirical evidence from Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 3659-3686, March.
    3. David W. Shanafelt & Brian Danle & Jesse Caputo & Marielle Brunette, 2024. "More forest more problems? Understanding family forest owners’ concerns in the United States," Working Papers of BETA 2024-32, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    4. Hao Zhang & Taeyoung Cho & Huanjiong Wang, 2019. "The Impact of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Incident on Tourism Risk Perception and Attitude Change of Chinese Tourists Traveling to South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Lianying Yao & Xuewen Li & Rongrong Zheng & Yiye Zhang, 2022. "The Impact of Air Pollution Perception on Urban Settlement Intentions of Young Talent in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    7. Walton, D. & Thomas, J. A. & Cenek, P. D., 2004. "Self and others' willingness to pay for improvements to the paved road surface," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 483-494, August.
    8. Zhonggen Sun & Bingqing Yang & Ruilian Zhang & Xin Cheng, 2020. "Influencing Factors of Understanding COVID-19 Risks and Coping Behaviors among the Elderly Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-16, August.
    9. Denise Howel & Suzanne Moffatt & Helen Prince & Judith Bush & Christine E Dunn, 2002. "Urban Air Quality in North‐East England: Exploring the Influences on Local Views and Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 121-130, February.
    10. Mingming Lu & Peihua Shi, 2022. "Chinese Tourists’ Health Risk Avoidance Behavior in the Context of Regular Epidemic Prevention and Control: An Empirical Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-25, May.
    11. Alison C. Cullen & C. Leigh Anderson & Pierre Biscaye & Travis W. Reynolds, 2018. "Variability in Cross‐Domain Risk Perception among Smallholder Farmers in Mali by Gender and Other Demographic and Attitudinal Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1361-1377, July.
    12. Shefang Wang & Chaoru Lu & Chenhui Liu & Yue Zhou & Jun Bi & Xiaomei Zhao, 2020. "Understanding the Energy Consumption of Battery Electric Buses in Urban Public Transport Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-12, November.
    13. Hartmann, Patrick & Apaolaza, Vanessa & D'Souza, Clare & Echebarria, Carmen & Barrutia, Jose M., 2013. "Nuclear power threats, public opposition and green electricity adoption: Effects of threat belief appraisal and fear arousal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1366-1376.
    14. Robin M. Hogarth & Mariona Portell & Anna Cuxart, 2007. "What Risks Do People Perceive in Everyday Life? A Perspective Gained from the Experience Sampling Method (ESM)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1427-1439, December.
    15. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "The Methodology of Risk Perception Research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 407-418, November.
    16. Thaddaeus Egondi & Catherine Kyobutungi & Nawi Ng & Kanyiva Muindi & Samuel Oti & Steven Van de Vijver & Remare Ettarh & Joacim Rocklöv, 2013. "Community Perceptions of Air Pollution and Related Health Risks in Nairobi Slums," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    17. Jason Parker & Robyn Wilson & Jeffrey LeJeune & Douglas Doohan, 2012. "Including growers in the “food safety” conversation: enhancing the design and implementation of food safety programming based on farm and marketing needs of fresh fruit and vegetable producers," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(3), pages 303-319, September.
    18. Xiufang Jiang & Jianxiong Qin & Jianguo Gao & Mollie G Gossage, 2022. "The mediation of perceived risk’s impact on destination image and travel intention: An empirical study of Chengdu, China during COVID-19," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Noort, Mark C. & Reader, Tom W. & Gillespie, Alex, 2019. "Speaking up to prevent harm: a systematic review of the safety voice literature," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100774, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:wly:riskan:v:18:y:1998:i:6:p:805-811. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.