The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Slovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Value orientations, gender and environmental concern
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0013916593255002 · Cited by 2,162
Fear of Rape among Urban Women
Warr, M. (1985) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/800684 · Cited by 388
Cited by
How artificial intelligence will change the future of marketing
Davenport, T., Guha, A., Grewal, D., & Bressgott, T. (2020) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-019-00696-0 · Cited by 2,875
Pluye, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., & Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2009) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009 · Cited by 1,119
Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time
Whitmarsh, L. (2011) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016 · Cited by 890
Messing, K., Punnett, L., Bond, M., Alexanderson, K., Pyle, J., Zahm, S., Wegman, D., Stock, S. R., & de Grosbois, S. (2003) · American Journal of Industrial Medicine · doi:10.1002/ajim.10225 · Cited by 391
Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors
Botzen, W. J. W., Aerts, J. C. J. H., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2009) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2009wr007743 · Cited by 358
Metadata
- Authors
- Gustafson, P. E.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 805-811
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2106237303
- Cited by
- 720
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1 (tdm, 6118 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1023/b:rian.0000005926.03250.c0
- The paper
- Gustafson, P. E. (1998). Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1023/b%3Arian.0000005926.03250.c0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.