CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 652

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men?

Harris, Christine R., Jenkins, Michael·2006·Judgment and Decision Making
DOI 10.1017/s1930297500000346
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Across many real-world domains, men engage in more risky behaviors than do women. To examine some of the beliefs and preferences that underlie this difference, 657 participants assessed their likelihood of engaging in various risky activities relating to four different domains (gambling, health, recreation, and social), and reported their perceptions of (1) probability of negative outcomes, (2) severity of potential negative outcomes, and (3) enjoyment expected from the risky activities. Women’s greater perceived likelihood of negative outcomes and lesser expectation of enjoyment partially mediated their lower propensity toward risky choices in gambling, recreation, and health domains. Perceptions of severity of potential outcomes was a partial mediator in the gambling and health domains. The genders did not differ in their propensity towards taking social risks. A fifth domain of activities associated with high potential payoffs and fixed minor costs was also assessed. In contrast to other domains, women reported being more likely to engage in behaviors in this domain. This gender difference was partially mediated by women’s more optimistic judgments of the probability of good outcomes and of outcomes being more intensely positive.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1930297500000346

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. 10.1006/obhd.1994.1010 · DOI
  2. Slovic, 2002, Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.
  3. Slovic, 2000, The Perception of Risk, 137
  4. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S · DOI
  5. Johnson, 2004, Beyond a trait view of risk-taking: A domain- specific scale measuring risk perceptions, expected benefits, and perceived-risk attitude in German-speaking populations., Polish Psychological Bulletin, 35, 153
  6. Trivers, 1972, Sexual selection and the descent of man, 136
  7. Baron, 2000, Thinking and Deciding
  8. 10.1037/h0021721 · DOI
  9. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.505 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00151-1 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Raykov, 2000, A first course in structural equation modeling
  12. 10.4054/DemRes.2005.13.17 · DOI
  13. Slovic, 1998, Environment, ethics and behavior: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation, 277
  14. 10.1006/obhd.2000.2914 · DOI
  15. 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Buss, 2003, Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind
  17. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1002/bdm.414 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00014.x · DOI
  20. 10.2307/256844 · DOI
  21. Jervis, 1976, Perception and misperception in international politics
  22. 10.1037/0021-9010.61.3.359 · DOI
  23. Gurmankin Levy, 2005, How bad is a 10% chance of losing a toe?, Memory and Cognition, 33, 1399, 10.3758/BF03193372 · DOI
  24. 10.1287/mnsc.43.2.123 · DOI
  25. Weber, 1998, Decision science and technology: Reflections on the contributions of Ward Edwards, 53
  26. Sobel, 1982, Sociological methodology 1982, 290

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Harris, C. R., & Jenkins, M.
Venue
Judgment and Decision Making
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2006-07
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
48-63
ISSN
1930-2975
DOI
10.1017/s1930297500000346
Cited by
652
References
4
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 6028 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review