kth.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Risk and gender: Daredevils and eco-angels
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History, Philosophy.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4671-758X
2012 (English)In: Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk, Springer Nature , 2012, p. 1029-1048Chapter in book (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Nature , 2012. p. 1029-1048
National Category
Public Health, Global Health and Social Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-309706DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_41Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84952781023OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-309706DiVA, id: diva2:1644996
Note

Available in ISBN 9789400714335, 9789400714328.

QC 20220315

Available from: 2022-03-15 Created: 2022-03-15 Last updated: 2025-02-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Wester, Misse

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wester, Misse
By organisation
Philosophy
Public Health, Global Health and Social Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 172 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf