ArticleSocial science quarterly2021
The COVID-19 pandemic and government responses: A gender perspective on differences in public opinion.
Article in Social science quarterly, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social inequality and cultural factors impact the awareness and reaction during the cryptic transmission period of pandemic.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Racial Differences in Feelings of Distress during the COVID-19 Pandemic and John Henryism Active Coping in the United States: Results from a National Survey.Social science quarterly · 2024Article
- Reassessing Gender Differences in COVID-19 Risk Perception and Behavior.Social science quarterly · 2022Article
- The COVID-19 pandemic and government responses: A gender perspective on differences in public opinion.Social science quarterly · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsMen 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.
conclusionWith 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.