Risk and Gender : Daredevils and Eco-Angels
(2012) p.1029-1048- Abstract
- Through history and in most cultures differences between men and women have been observed and expressed in various ways. Also in our society differences between men and women are evident and this becomes particularly clear in the context of risk perception. This chapter will present three models that are found in the research literature that aim at explaining these differences. The first model focuses on differences due to knowledge and familiarity with science, including trust. This model however, fails to take into consideration the distinction between estimated knowledge and factual knowledge, making it difficult to understand exactly what role knowledge plays in risk perception. Second, differences between men and women have also been... (More)
- Through history and in most cultures differences between men and women have been observed and expressed in various ways. Also in our society differences between men and women are evident and this becomes particularly clear in the context of risk perception. This chapter will present three models that are found in the research literature that aim at explaining these differences. The first model focuses on differences due to knowledge and familiarity with science, including trust. This model however, fails to take into consideration the distinction between estimated knowledge and factual knowledge, making it difficult to understand exactly what role knowledge plays in risk perception. Second, differences between men and women have also been explained by biological mechanisms or social roles. Here it is believed that women are more nurturing by nature and men are more driven toward growth and expansion. It is argued that it is of limited importance whether these differences are biological or social, as it will have little bearing on the management of risk. The third explanation focuses on cultural differences and uses examples from disaster management. Here it is concluded that women are by social processes most often excluded from the areas where risks are created and managed, and suffer the consequences from this lack of influence in disasters. The chapter concludes with three suggestions for future research. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/235319ed-c7ab-45f4-8980-86c4dd5d66a9
- author
- Wester, Misse LU
- publishing date
- 2012
- type
- Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
- publication status
- published
- subject
- host publication
- Handbook of Risk Theory : Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk - Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk
- editor
- Roeser, Sabine ; Hillerbrand, Rafaela ; Sandin, Per and Peterson, Martin
- pages
- 20 pages
- publisher
- Springer
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:84952781023
- scopus:84952781023
- ISBN
- 978-94-007-1432-8
- 978-94-007-1433-5
- DOI
- 10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_41
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- 235319ed-c7ab-45f4-8980-86c4dd5d66a9
- date added to LUP
- 2017-04-03 15:21:30
- date last changed
- 2024-03-31 06:59:06
@inbook{235319ed-c7ab-45f4-8980-86c4dd5d66a9,
abstract = {{Through history and in most cultures differences between men and women have been observed and expressed in various ways. Also in our society differences between men and women are evident and this becomes particularly clear in the context of risk perception. This chapter will present three models that are found in the research literature that aim at explaining these differences. The first model focuses on differences due to knowledge and familiarity with science, including trust. This model however, fails to take into consideration the distinction between estimated knowledge and factual knowledge, making it difficult to understand exactly what role knowledge plays in risk perception. Second, differences between men and women have also been explained by biological mechanisms or social roles. Here it is believed that women are more nurturing by nature and men are more driven toward growth and expansion. It is argued that it is of limited importance whether these differences are biological or social, as it will have little bearing on the management of risk. The third explanation focuses on cultural differences and uses examples from disaster management. Here it is concluded that women are by social processes most often excluded from the areas where risks are created and managed, and suffer the consequences from this lack of influence in disasters. The chapter concludes with three suggestions for future research.}},
author = {{Wester, Misse}},
booktitle = {{Handbook of Risk Theory : Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk}},
editor = {{Roeser, Sabine and Hillerbrand, Rafaela and Sandin, Per and Peterson, Martin}},
isbn = {{978-94-007-1432-8}},
language = {{eng}},
pages = {{1029--1048}},
publisher = {{Springer}},
title = {{Risk and Gender : Daredevils and Eco-Angels}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_41}},
doi = {{10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_41}},
year = {{2012}},
}