The ‘White Male Effect’ in perceptions of risk of dying from COVID‐19

IF 4.8 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Ekim Luo, Simone Schnall
{"title":"The ‘White Male Effect’ in perceptions of risk of dying from COVID‐19","authors":"Ekim Luo, Simone Schnall","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the COVID‐19 pandemic people had to gauge their personal health risks in order to decide which protective behaviors to adopt. We explored whether mortality risk perceptions varied by demographic background. Using data from a nationally representative U.S. survey, we analyzed bi‐weekly mortality estimates of 8339 individuals from 1 April 2020 to 21 July 2021. Consistent with a White Male Effect, White men estimated the risk of death to be lower than White women, non‐White men, and non‐White women. Furthermore, when linking those estimates to the actual risk of dying from COVID‐19, as reflected in official fatality rates recorded by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), White men were indeed less likely to die from the coronavirus than would be expected based on their proportion of the populations. In contrast, deaths in non‐White men and non‐White women were higher than would be expected. Thus, subjective risk perceptions tracked objective mortality risks. Because White men tend to disproportionally hold positions with high decision‐making power, although biased risk estimates may be less likely to have negative consequences for themselves, they may be especially detrimental to those for whom such decisions are made.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12877","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the COVID‐19 pandemic people had to gauge their personal health risks in order to decide which protective behaviors to adopt. We explored whether mortality risk perceptions varied by demographic background. Using data from a nationally representative U.S. survey, we analyzed bi‐weekly mortality estimates of 8339 individuals from 1 April 2020 to 21 July 2021. Consistent with a White Male Effect, White men estimated the risk of death to be lower than White women, non‐White men, and non‐White women. Furthermore, when linking those estimates to the actual risk of dying from COVID‐19, as reflected in official fatality rates recorded by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), White men were indeed less likely to die from the coronavirus than would be expected based on their proportion of the populations. In contrast, deaths in non‐White men and non‐White women were higher than would be expected. Thus, subjective risk perceptions tracked objective mortality risks. Because White men tend to disproportionally hold positions with high decision‐making power, although biased risk estimates may be less likely to have negative consequences for themselves, they may be especially detrimental to those for whom such decisions are made.
对COVID - 19死亡风险认知中的“白人男性效应
在COVID - 19大流行期间,人们必须评估自己的个人健康风险,以决定采取哪些保护行为。我们探讨了死亡率风险认知是否因人口背景而异。利用一项具有全国代表性的美国调查的数据,我们分析了2020年4月1日至2021年7月21日8339人的两周死亡率估计数。与白人男性效应一致,白人男性估计的死亡风险低于白人女性、非白人男性和非白人女性。此外,当将这些估计值与美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)记录的官方死亡率所反映的死于COVID - 19的实际风险联系起来时,白人男性死于冠状病毒的可能性确实低于根据其人口比例预期的死亡率。相反,非白人男性和非白人女性的死亡率高于预期。因此,主观风险感知跟踪客观死亡风险。由于白人男性往往拥有高决策权,尽管有偏见的风险估计可能不太可能对他们自己产生负面影响,但对那些做出此类决策的人来说,它们可能尤其有害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Social and Personality Psychology Compass Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
59
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信