The COVID‐19 pandemic and government responses: A gender perspective on differences in public opinion
Publication type: Journal Article
Publication date: 2021-08-25
scimago Q1
wos Q2
SJR: 0.867
CiteScore: 3.2
Impact factor: 1.8
ISSN: 00384941, 15406237
PubMed ID:
34908613
General Social Sciences
Abstract
The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis has led to shutdowns of the cultural, associational, and economic life in many parts of the world and had a severe impact on gender relations in many societies. This study engages with gender differences in public support of severe infringements of personal and economic freedoms.We use data from an original survey conducted by CINT in the United States and Germany in June 2020. Descriptive statistics both aggregated for the two countries and then split by country as well as multinomial logistic regression analyses gauge gender differences in support of COVID-19 related confinement measures.Men and women rather converge on the level of risk COVID-19 might cause to their health and economic situation, but the two sexes still differ in their assessment of their preferred government reaction to the disease. Women are approximately one-third more likely to advocate stricter infringements, compared to men. This finding illustrates that while both sexes share similar risk evaluations, women are more prudent for their health than men.With this study, we add to the literature on risk aversion and gender differences. In a pandemic situation, women appear to be more risk averse than men.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Top-30
Journals
|
1
2
|
|
|
Social Science Quarterly
2 publications, 28.57%
|
|
|
Information Processing and Management
1 publication, 14.29%
|
|
|
Contemporary Politics
1 publication, 14.29%
|
|
|
PNAS Nexus
1 publication, 14.29%
|
|
|
Japanese Journal of Political Science
1 publication, 14.29%
|
|
|
1
2
|
Publishers
|
1
2
|
|
|
Wiley
2 publications, 28.57%
|
|
|
Elsevier
1 publication, 14.29%
|
|
|
Taylor & Francis
1 publication, 14.29%
|
|
|
Oxford University Press
1 publication, 14.29%
|
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
1 publication, 14.29%
|
|
|
Cambridge University Press
1 publication, 14.29%
|
|
|
1
2
|
- We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
- Statistics recalculated weekly.
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
7
Total citations:
7
Citations from 2024:
4
(57.15%)
Cite this
GOST |
RIS |
BibTex |
MLA
Cite this
GOST
Copy
Stockemer D., Plank F., Niemann A. The COVID‐19 pandemic and government responses: A gender perspective on differences in public opinion // Social Science Quarterly. 2021. Vol. 102. No. 5. pp. 2383-2393.
GOST all authors (up to 50)
Copy
Stockemer D., Plank F., Niemann A. The COVID‐19 pandemic and government responses: A gender perspective on differences in public opinion // Social Science Quarterly. 2021. Vol. 102. No. 5. pp. 2383-2393.
Cite this
RIS
Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1111/ssqu.13028
UR - https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13028
TI - The COVID‐19 pandemic and government responses: A gender perspective on differences in public opinion
T2 - Social Science Quarterly
AU - Stockemer, Daniel
AU - Plank, Friedrich
AU - Niemann, Arne
PY - 2021
DA - 2021/08/25
PB - Wiley
SP - 2383-2393
IS - 5
VL - 102
PMID - 34908613
SN - 0038-4941
SN - 1540-6237
ER -
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors)
Copy
@article{2021_Stockemer,
author = {Daniel Stockemer and Friedrich Plank and Arne Niemann},
title = {The COVID‐19 pandemic and government responses: A gender perspective on differences in public opinion},
journal = {Social Science Quarterly},
year = {2021},
volume = {102},
publisher = {Wiley},
month = {aug},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13028},
number = {5},
pages = {2383--2393},
doi = {10.1111/ssqu.13028}
}
Cite this
MLA
Copy
Stockemer, Daniel, et al. “The COVID‐19 pandemic and government responses: A gender perspective on differences in public opinion.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 102, no. 5, Aug. 2021, pp. 2383-2393. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13028.