Ifsttar PhD subject

French version
Detailed form :

Title : Gender, (in)vulnerability and risk perception

Main host Laboratory - Referent Advisor AME - MODIS  -  DEVIF Julie

Director of the main host Laboratory GRANIE Marie-Axelle  -

PhD Speciality Psychologie sociale du développement

Axis of the performance contract 1 - COP2017 - Efficient transport and safe travel

Main location Bron

Doctoral affiliation UNIVERSITE LUMIERE- LYON 2

PhD school SCIENCES DE L'EDUCATION, INFORMATION ET COMMUNICATION, PSYCHOLOGIE

Planned PhD supervisor GRANIE Marie-Axelle  -  Université Gustave Eiffel  -  AME - MODIS

Planned PhD co-supervisor DIAS Pierre  -  Université Gustave Eiffel  -  AME - MODIS

Planned financing Contrat doctoral  - Université Gustave Eiffel

Abstract

Many factors come into play when an individual judges whether a risk is high or low. The French are not a monolithic bloc, and individuals’ position in the social structure plays an important role in how they perceive risk. The gendered nature of risk perception has been noted in numerous studies, highlighting the fact that, on average, women tend to perceive risks as higher than men. For example, data from the IRSN barometer (https://barometre.irsn.fr/) show that the concerns of French men and women are similar: economic events and problems are the main sources of concern between 2005 and 2015. However, women are more aware of risks than men, whatever the type of risk (individual, collective, medical, technological or environmental). What's more, this difference remains stable over time. These results are robust even when factors such as age, education and sampling are taken into account. It is as if men and women rank risks in the same way and with the same evolution over time (a common 'culture' of the relative importance of risks), but that women have a lower threshold of risk perception than men (a social construction of vulnerability: they feel more threatened).
Women are therefore more sensitive to all risks. This difference has been observed since the first studies on risk perception in the 1950s, but it was not until the late 1970s that scientists began to try to explain it. The first hypothesis explored was that men were less sensitive to risk because they were more educated and competent than women. However, research shows that greater knowledge of risks can also increase the perceived level of threat, and that these differences between men and women are observed even when men and women have the same level of knowledge. The second major hypothesis is related to the traditional division of social roles. In particular, the nurturing role and the responsibility for the well-being of others, which are traditionally assumed more by women, would make them more sensitive to health risks. This hypothesis has been supported by numerous results showing that when women perceive higher risks, it's not because they know less, but because they feel more concerned.
These gender differences in risk perception are observed from childhood for many perceived risks and could be related to gendered socialisation and, in particular, to differences in parental risk education practices. Parents are more tolerant of risk-taking by boys and focus their educational efforts on teaching girls to avoid risks, as they are seen as more fragile and vulnerable. The difference between boys' and girls' sense of vulnerability is thus constructed by the educational practices of the various socialising agents (parents, peers, school, media). It should be noted that even the expression of fear and anxiety in the face of risk is more or less socially accepted depending on whether one is a boy or a girl, a woman or a man. These gendered socialisation practices also lead to specific risk-related experiences. Boys, who are exposed to more risks than girls, also have more opportunities to develop the skills to deal with them. The greater number of risks taken by boys and men and the increased sense of invulnerability can also lead to desensitisation to the threat. Research shows that while girls seem to be sensitive to the mere presence of risk ('will it hurt?') in order to avoid it, boys tend to assess the importance of the risk ('how much will it hurt?') in order to better control it. Risk perception and practice are thus socially constructed, and the observed differences between men and women are the result of the internalisation of masculine and feminine roles.
The aim of this PhD project is to explore the links between gender, (in)vulnerability and risk perception (particularly in relation to mobility, road safety and the environment), possibly from a developmental perspective: What explains the gender differences in feeling more or less vulnerable? How is this sense of (in)vulnerability constructed through social roles, which in turn depend on asymmetries in the social structure? Finally, does the sense of (in)vulnerability explain risk perception and prevention practices? The aim is to gain a better understanding of the intra- and inter-individual variability in risk perception depending on the type of risk (individual/collective, risk of harm to others/self, etc.), how perceived risks change with age (representations and meanings of risk in general and of different risks in particular), and risk perception thresholds (developmental/transversal approach). More specifically, the aim is to explore the construction of the relationship to risk through the prism of sex and gender, by investigating the impact of the different agents of socialisation (family, school, peers, media) on the construction of the sense of vulnerability/invulnerability over the life course and the links with the perception of different types of risk.
Candidates for this thesis are invited to propose a research programme (maximum 6 pages) including 1/ a review of the literature on the links between gender, feelings of (in)vulnerability and risk perception, 2/ theoretical hypotheses on the psychological and social determinants of feelings of vulnerability and risk perception (gender differences, effect of adherence to gender stereotypes, effect of educational practices, etc.) and 3/ operational hypotheses to be tested in a programme of quantitative (correlational or experimental) and/or qualitative (interviews, logbooks, discourse analysis) studies addressing these different issues.
References
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367-383.
Chauvin, B. (2014). Chapitre 4. Déterminants proximaux de la perception des risques. La perception des risques Apports de la psychologie à l'identification des déterminants du risque perçu. ( p. 111 -177 ). De Boeck Supérieur. https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.chauv.2014.01.0111.
Cutter, S. L., Tiefenbacher, J., & Solecki, W. D. (1992). En-gendered fears: femininity and technological risk perception. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 6(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/108602669200600102
Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research. Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 302-339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283003
Fischer, G.W., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Nair, I. and Lave, L.B. (1991), What Risks Are People Concerned About. Risk Analysis, 11: 303-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00606.x
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108.
Granié, M.-A., Blanc, C., Dias, P., & Devif, J. (2024). La perception des risques selon le genre. In H. Lutun, T. Bourgois, & P. Bueso (Eds.), Baromètre 2024. La perception des risques et de la sécurité par les Français. L'analyse. IRSN. https://www.irsn.fr/sites/default/files/2024-09/Analyse-Barometre2024_IRSN_maquette_VDEF.pdf
Gustafson, P. E. (1998). Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18(6), 805–811. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIAN.0000005926.03250.c0
Harris CR, Jenkins M. Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? Judgment and Decision Making. 2006;1(1):48-63. doi:10.1017/S1930297500000346
Hawkes, G., Houghton, J., & Rowe, G. (2009). Risk and worry in everyday life: Comparing diaries and interviews as tools in risk perception research. Health, Risk & Society, 11(3), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570902906439
Hillier, L. M., & Morrongiello, B. A. (1998). Age and gender differences in school-age children's appraisals of injury risk. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 23(4), 229-238.
Jan L. Hitchcock, J.L. (2001). Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Broadening the Contexts, RISK: Health, Safety & Environment, 12(3), 179-204. https://scholars.unh.edu/risk/vol12/iss3/4
Joffe H. (2003). Risk: from perception to social representation. The British journal of social psychology, 42(Pt 1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603763276126
Wester, M., Alfaro, E., & Lama, P. (2024, August 21). Gender Differences in Risk Perception: A Review. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Retrieved 14 Jan. 2025, from https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-525.

Keywords : Risk perception, gender, (in)vulnerability, socialisation

Main host Laboratory - Referent Advisor	AME - MODIS - DEVIF Julie
Director of the main host Laboratory	GRANIE Marie-Axelle -
PhD Speciality	Psychologie sociale du développement
Axis of the performance contract	1 - COP2017 - Efficient transport and safe travel
Main location	Bron
Doctoral affiliation	UNIVERSITE LUMIERE- LYON 2
PhD school	SCIENCES DE L'EDUCATION, INFORMATION ET COMMUNICATION, PSYCHOLOGIE
Planned PhD supervisor	GRANIE Marie-Axelle - Université Gustave Eiffel - AME - MODIS
Planned PhD co-supervisor	DIAS Pierre - Université Gustave Eiffel - AME - MODIS
Planned financing	Contrat doctoral - Université Gustave Eiffel
Abstract Many factors come into play when an individual judges whether a risk is high or low. The French are not a monolithic bloc, and individuals’ position in the social structure plays an important role in how they perceive risk. The gendered nature of risk perception has been noted in numerous studies, highlighting the fact that, on average, women tend to perceive risks as higher than men. For example, data from the IRSN barometer (https://barometre.irsn.fr/) show that the concerns of French men and women are similar: economic events and problems are the main sources of concern between 2005 and 2015. However, women are more aware of risks than men, whatever the type of risk (individual, collective, medical, technological or environmental). What's more, this difference remains stable over time. These results are robust even when factors such as age, education and sampling are taken into account. It is as if men and women rank risks in the same way and with the same evolution over time (a common 'culture' of the relative importance of risks), but that women have a lower threshold of risk perception than men (a social construction of vulnerability: they feel more threatened). Women are therefore more sensitive to all risks. This difference has been observed since the first studies on risk perception in the 1950s, but it was not until the late 1970s that scientists began to try to explain it. The first hypothesis explored was that men were less sensitive to risk because they were more educated and competent than women. However, research shows that greater knowledge of risks can also increase the perceived level of threat, and that these differences between men and women are observed even when men and women have the same level of knowledge. The second major hypothesis is related to the traditional division of social roles. In particular, the nurturing role and the responsibility for the well-being of others, which are traditionally assumed more by women, would make them more sensitive to health risks. This hypothesis has been supported by numerous results showing that when women perceive higher risks, it's not because they know less, but because they feel more concerned. These gender differences in risk perception are observed from childhood for many perceived risks and could be related to gendered socialisation and, in particular, to differences in parental risk education practices. Parents are more tolerant of risk-taking by boys and focus their educational efforts on teaching girls to avoid risks, as they are seen as more fragile and vulnerable. The difference between boys' and girls' sense of vulnerability is thus constructed by the educational practices of the various socialising agents (parents, peers, school, media). It should be noted that even the expression of fear and anxiety in the face of risk is more or less socially accepted depending on whether one is a boy or a girl, a woman or a man. These gendered socialisation practices also lead to specific risk-related experiences. Boys, who are exposed to more risks than girls, also have more opportunities to develop the skills to deal with them. The greater number of risks taken by boys and men and the increased sense of invulnerability can also lead to desensitisation to the threat. Research shows that while girls seem to be sensitive to the mere presence of risk ('will it hurt?') in order to avoid it, boys tend to assess the importance of the risk ('how much will it hurt?') in order to better control it. Risk perception and practice are thus socially constructed, and the observed differences between men and women are the result of the internalisation of masculine and feminine roles. The aim of this PhD project is to explore the links between gender, (in)vulnerability and risk perception (particularly in relation to mobility, road safety and the environment), possibly from a developmental perspective: What explains the gender differences in feeling more or less vulnerable? How is this sense of (in)vulnerability constructed through social roles, which in turn depend on asymmetries in the social structure? Finally, does the sense of (in)vulnerability explain risk perception and prevention practices? The aim is to gain a better understanding of the intra- and inter-individual variability in risk perception depending on the type of risk (individual/collective, risk of harm to others/self, etc.), how perceived risks change with age (representations and meanings of risk in general and of different risks in particular), and risk perception thresholds (developmental/transversal approach). More specifically, the aim is to explore the construction of the relationship to risk through the prism of sex and gender, by investigating the impact of the different agents of socialisation (family, school, peers, media) on the construction of the sense of vulnerability/invulnerability over the life course and the links with the perception of different types of risk. Candidates for this thesis are invited to propose a research programme (maximum 6 pages) including 1/ a review of the literature on the links between gender, feelings of (in)vulnerability and risk perception, 2/ theoretical hypotheses on the psychological and social determinants of feelings of vulnerability and risk perception (gender differences, effect of adherence to gender stereotypes, effect of educational practices, etc.) and 3/ operational hypotheses to be tested in a programme of quantitative (correlational or experimental) and/or qualitative (interviews, logbooks, discourse analysis) studies addressing these different issues. References Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367-383. Chauvin, B. (2014). Chapitre 4. Déterminants proximaux de la perception des risques. La perception des risques Apports de la psychologie à l'identification des déterminants du risque perçu. ( p. 111 -177 ). De Boeck Supérieur. https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.chauv.2014.01.0111. Cutter, S. L., Tiefenbacher, J., & Solecki, W. D. (1992). En-gendered fears: femininity and technological risk perception. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 6(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/108602669200600102 Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research. Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 302-339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283003 Fischer, G.W., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Nair, I. and Lave, L.B. (1991), What Risks Are People Concerned About. Risk Analysis, 11: 303-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00606.x Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108. Granié, M.-A., Blanc, C., Dias, P., & Devif, J. (2024). La perception des risques selon le genre. In H. Lutun, T. Bourgois, & P. Bueso (Eds.), Baromètre 2024. La perception des risques et de la sécurité par les Français. L'analyse. IRSN. https://www.irsn.fr/sites/default/files/2024-09/Analyse-Barometre2024_IRSN_maquette_VDEF.pdf Gustafson, P. E. (1998). Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18(6), 805–811. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIAN.0000005926.03250.c0 Harris CR, Jenkins M. Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? Judgment and Decision Making. 2006;1(1):48-63. doi:10.1017/S1930297500000346 Hawkes, G., Houghton, J., & Rowe, G. (2009). Risk and worry in everyday life: Comparing diaries and interviews as tools in risk perception research. Health, Risk & Society, 11(3), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570902906439 Hillier, L. M., & Morrongiello, B. A. (1998). Age and gender differences in school-age children's appraisals of injury risk. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 23(4), 229-238. Jan L. Hitchcock, J.L. (2001). Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Broadening the Contexts, RISK: Health, Safety & Environment, 12(3), 179-204. https://scholars.unh.edu/risk/vol12/iss3/4 Joffe H. (2003). Risk: from perception to social representation. The British journal of social psychology, 42(Pt 1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603763276126 Wester, M., Alfaro, E., & Lama, P. (2024, August 21). Gender Differences in Risk Perception: A Review. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Retrieved 14 Jan. 2025, from https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-525.
Keywords :	Risk perception, gender, (in)vulnerability, socialisation

List of topics

Applications closed