Introduction

Sudden and protracted public crises are likely to pose a threat to millions of lives and have severe impacts on many various sorts of sectors, including health, education, employment, energy, and the environment (de Goeij et al., 2015; Li et al., 2022; Albanesi and Kim, 2021; Li, 2023; Zhang et al., 2021). These crises are also likely to manifest gender disparities across a range of socio-economic dimensions, which are equally critical yet more difficult to identify and address (Dang and Nguyen, 2021; Ratto et al., 2021; Ferrín, 2022; Mooi-Reci, Risman (2021)). In response, the recent literature has increasingly emphasized the necessity for gender-sensitive policies that target the most vulnerable groups affected by the public crisis (Broihanne et al., 2025; Xu et al., 2024; Li and Wang, 2025).

The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, has a long-lasting impact on gender dynamics, reinforcing existing inequalities through its reshaping behaviors and perceptions (Carli, 2020; Alaimo and Nigri, 2024). Given the profound uncertainties in the current global landscape, the most recent studies have focused on exploring the behavioral and psychological responses associated with gender differences during this public crisis, while also looking ahead to actively prepare for future pandemics (Campos-Mercade et al., 2021; Jesup et al., 2024).

Despite the growing body of literature on gender differences in response to public crises, a substantial gap remains in quantifying these differences across a wide range of behaviors, intentions, and emotions, particularly in the post-COVID-19 era. Moreover, analyses that consider the moderating and heterogeneous effects of socio-economic factors on gender dynamics in these behavioral and psychological responses remain overlooked (Gon et al. (2023)). Most studies to date rely on basic statistical methods, such as T-tests, to observe gender differences, oversimplifying the complexity of the topic.

Therefore, this study seeks to address the gap by providing a comprehensive examination of gender differences in twelve aspects of behavioral and psychological responses to a public crisis, using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study. By leveraging data from the Institute of Labor Economics Six-Country Survey on COVID-19, which includes over 6,000 individuals from China, Japan, South Korea, the United States, Italy, and the United Kingdom, this study employs the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique (Oaxaca, 1973; Blinder, 1973) to dissect these gender disparities into explained and unexplained components. Furthermore, this article provides a comprehensive analysis of gender dynamics across diverse income brackets and nations, offering valuable gender-sensitive insights in policy-making and public interventions. Thus, the study sheds light on enhancing the resilience of vulnerable populations against crisis-related shocks through a gender lens, thereby ensuring equitable and effective outcomes in face of future crises. By integrating the Activating Event-Belief-Consequence (ABC) theory, this study not only empirically identifies gender disparities in behavioral and psychological responses to the crisis, but also deeps the understanding of the roles of socio-economic factors in driving gender differences.

Previous literature on gender differentials connected to the COVID-19 pandemic has been explored in terms of preventive behaviors, which conceptually arise from long-term structural disparities between women and men (Mooi-Reci, Risman (2021)). For example, women observed COVID-19 as more hazardous than men, therefore, they were more inclined to wear masks and comply with public locked-out policies. (Galasso et al., 2020). Compared to men, women inherently exhibit more conservative and less risky behaviors during epidemics, such as washing hands, working from home, opting for flexible work, and avoiding gathering in public spaces (Chung et al., 2021; Ferrín, 2022). These behavioral differences arise from intrinsic cognitive disparities and social stereotypes related to genders, which influence lifestyle preferences, risk aversion, competitiveness, and empathy (Li et al., 2019; Meyers-Levy and Loken, 2015; Charness and Gneezy, 2012; Urbig et al., 2021; Prall and Scelza, 2024; Narvey et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024a). Yet, fewer studies have comprehensively examined the preventive behaviors adjustments by applying the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique to nuanced quantify the significant differences between genders.

Regarding gender differences in emotions during the COVID-19, previous literature has suggested that the fear of COVID-19 exhibits gender disparities, with notable variations across different regions, and racial groups. For instance, Broche-Pérez et al. (2022), Metin et al. (2022), Alsharawy et al. (2021) documented that pandemic-related fear and anxiety were more significant among women than men. Specifically, women tended to become more pessimistic as a result of the economic downturn during the pandemic times (Li and Wang, 2025). Alternatively, Li et al. (2021) found that news about COVID-19 decreased the fear of infection among women but not men. Furthermore, Xu et al. (2024) discovered that female elders exhibited poorer mental health compared to their male counterparts, with the exception of black females. Hence, the observed gender differences may arise from socio-economic heterogeneities.

Gender differences in travel intentions, however, are closely intertwined with the behaviors and emotions previously discussed. Indeed, trips, transportation, and global tourism have been heavily restricted by 20% to 30% in 2020 due to the outbreak of COVID-19 worldwide (Zheng et al., 2021; Li et al., 2024b; Beck and Hensher, 2020; Chen et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024). Gender differences are observed in both leisure and work travel with to varying degrees. For example, Ferrín (2022) documented that males had significantly higher frequencies of declining pleasure travel, while women had higher frequencies of canceling work travel, though the latter did not show a significant gender difference. These differences stem from emotional changes, such as heightened risk perception of women, resulting from the outbreak of pandemics (Otto and Kim, 2018; Qi and Li, 2021). Furthermore, Otto and Kim, 2018 found that female travelers were more likely to engage in preventive behaviors compare to the male travelers during their leisure travel. However, further cross-country comparisons are needed to understand gender differences in travel intentions for different purposes in the context of the COVID-19, as Zhang et al. (2024) documented significant country-level heterogeneities in travel behaviors.

To the best of our knowledge, few previous studies have taken into account the complex interaction of gender and culture in order to study the moderating effect within the aforementioned connections. In fact, culture has a fundamental role in forming an individual’s cognition, emotions, and behaviors (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Li and Li, 2022; Li et al., 2023). Individuals from different countries and continents lead to different personal responses based on culture-oriented consciousness when facing public health crisis. Thus, culture can either amplify or mitigate gender differences in behavioral and psychological responses to the crisis, depending on the specific context (Chung et al., 2022; Webster et al., 2021; Wang and Xu, 2023; Ma et al., 2024). Following Gorodnichenko et al. (2024), this article identifies the individualism-collectivism aspect of the cultural indices, one of the key dimensions constructed by Geert Hofstede (Hofstede, 2001), as the main proxy for culture to further investigate its moderating effect. As demonstrated by Fu et al. (2024), it is reasonable to expect that countries with a higher index of individualism may exhibit fewer adjustments in preventive behaviors.

Furthermore, the study utilizes a cognitive-behavioral framework, the Activating Event-Belief-Consequences (ABC) Theory originating from Ellis (2000), to elucidate how gender differences and the underlying channel of culture respond to a public crisis. In particular, the study posits that an activating event (A), such as COVID-19 or further crises, could trigger corresponding belief systems (B) that manifest gender differences in risk perceptions and consciousness. These belief systems lead to consequences of behavioral and psychological responses (C) (Gon et al. (2023); Trip and Yanagida, 2024). It is worth noting that both internal and external socio-economic factors, such as culture and income, could influence the formation of the belief systems, leading to diverse behavioral and emotional outcomes. The research framework is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Research framework of this study.

Full size image

This study contributes in three main aspects. Firstly, it contains rich individual responses and wide national diversities by utilizing an alternative econometric model, the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique, to examine gender disparities across 12 specific aspects of epidemic-related behavioral and psychological responses stemming from the COVID-19. Previous empirical studies mainly use the T-test to observe gender differences in these responses separately, and as a result, the linkages lack solid evidence of its credibility without decomposing observed or unobserved components. Secondly, it explores cultural friction by leveraging Hofstede’s cultural index to examine the moderating effect of gender differences in various crisis responses. This is an emerging area of research with growing relevance. However, few previous studies have examined the underlying mechanisms or conducted heterogeneous analyses in the socio-economic domain related to this topic. Thirdly, building upon the ABC theory, this study further clarifies the formation of gender differences in preventive behaviors, travel intentions, and negative emotions under the COVID-19 shock. It highlights the importance of designing interventions that address both material and mental support for vulnerable women, not only during the COVID-19 but also beyond, to prevent the reversal of progress toward achieving United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 on gender equality.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section “Data” describes the data, and Section “Methodology” is the methodology. Section “Empirical Results” presents empirical results, comprising baseline findings, moderating effect, and heterogeneity analysis. Lastly, Section “Conclusions” concludes the paper with policy implications.

Data

This section introduces the data and primary variables in use, followed by statistical descriptions of these variables. Notably, it focuses on gender differences in the changes of behavioral and psychological responses before and amid the COVID-19.

The dataset is accessed from the Institute of Labor Economics Six-Country Survey on COVID-19Footnote 1, with national representation upon age, gender, and incomeFootnote 2, collected from on-line respondents across six main developed and developing economics, including China, Italy, South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, and four most populous states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) in the United States recorded in April 2020 (Belot et al., 2020). The initial sample consist of 6,082 respondents, with roughly 1,000 individuals from each of the six countries. After data clean, we obtain a final sample of 6,080 respondents, within which the number of females is 3,138, occupies roughly half (51.5%) of the full sample. In specific, the dataset documents the impact of the crisis on individuals across countries, capturing detailed information on the basic socio-economic and demographic variables of the respondents. Most importantly, the changes in individual behaviors and emotions resulting from the pandemic are also incorporated in our models to understand the scope for policy intervention. Several prior studies utilized the same dataset to investigate the diverse impacts of the COVID-19, particularly in relation to self-protection behaviors and gender disparities in economic issues (Papageorge et al., 2021; Dang and Nguyen, 2021). In addition, this article employs the individualism/collectivism dimension from Hofstede’s cultural indexFootnote 3 to further explore the influence of cultural differences.

Table 1 reports the statistic descriptions of the main variables. The dependent variables are a series of changes in coping behaviors, travel intentions, and negative emotions due to the COVID-19 of the respondents. Firstly, the dataset records six coping behaviors before and amid the COVID-19 that highlight the adjusted strategies of the individual behaviors preventing from contracting COVID-19, such as the changes in the frequencies of washing hands, wearing masks, taking public transporting, and some other social gathering activities. The variables “Wash_hand” and “Wear_mask” are calculated by the frequencies during the pandemic minus pre-pandemic frequencies for an individual. The frequencies themselves range from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Positive values thus suggest more frequent hand-washing or mask-wearing amid the pandemic, reflecting increased awareness prompted by the pandemic outbreak, and vice versa. Conversely, the variables “Social_gather, Closed_space, Open_space, Public_transport” equal pre-pandemic minus pandemic frequencies, thus higher values correspond to larger post-COVID-19 reductions in social gatherings and public-transport use. Secondly, the degrees of travel restrictions, including those related to work and leisure travel intentions, range from 0 (not at all restricted) to 4 (extremely restricted). Thirdly, negative emotions include the appearance of anxiety, sleepless, conflicts, and loneliness due to the epidemic. In addition, to reduce dimensionality and reveal latent structures within the datasets, we follow Lee-Geiller (2024) to calculate the principal component analysis (PCA) scores for the six categories of coping behaviors and four aspects of negative emotions, and then normalize the two scores ranging from 0 to 1Footnote 4.

Table 1 Descriptions and summary statistics of the main variables.
Full size table

Notably, Hofstede’s individualism index is in incorporated as a moderating variable in our analysis. Higher values indicate a stronger individualistic cultural orientation. Within the scope of our study, the normalized values of the individualism index for the six countries are as follows: South Korea (0), China (0.027), Japan (0.384), Italy (0.795), UK (0.973), and US (1). In addition, descriptive statistics for each country are referred to Table A1 in Appendix A.

As mentioned before, gender is introduced as an independent variable to further investigate its impact on behavioral and psychological crisis responses. In addition, empirical models include respondents’ vaccination status, smoking habit, age level, household income level, employment status, country and regional dummies, and some other residential location and living arrangement as control variables.

To observe gender differences in regard to the adaptive coping behaviors, travel intentions and negative emotions, we first conduct a T-test for these three categories by genders. It is evident that the frequency of wearing masks show the most significant increase for both women and men (see Fig. 2a). It also suggest significant differences in the changes of coping behaviors between genders, with females exhibiting larger changes in most items. This indicates that females make more substantial adjustments in behavioral responses. One notable exception is that the increase in hand-washing frequency is greater among males than females. The reason of this exception could be attributed to the fact that females pay more attention to hygiene of the hands than males in their daily life (Garbutt et al. 2007), and thus their adaptive response to hand-washing due to the shock of COVID-19 is with less potential to further increase comparing with this behavior of the males.

Fig. 2: Gender differences in behavioral and psychological crisis responses.
figure 2

a Gender differences in changes of coping behaviors. b Gender differences in travel intentions and negative emotions. Notes: (1) The bars represent average values of the specific gender for corresponding responses; (2) The numbers above the bars are t values which represent differences of the items between genders. A positive number indicates that females exhibit greater changes in behaviors, are more bothered of traveling, or experience more severe negative emotions compared to males, and vise versa; (3) The significance levels denoted by stars (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.1) indicate that the corresponding item is significantly different from zero, highlighting the existence of gender gap.

Full size image

Figure 2b compares gender differences in travel intentions and negative emotions resulting from the pandemic. Specifically, the pandemic has a larger impact on males’ business travel intention compared to females, while leisure travel intentions do not show significant differences between the genders. As expected, females experience a broader range of negative emotions compared to males, with significant differences across all four types of negative emotions. Among the negative emotions, anxiety is particularly prevalent since the outbreak of the pandemic, with the gender gap being most pronounced at 0.15.

Additionally, cross countries’ heterogeneities exist in regard to gender differences in coping behaviors, travel intentions, and negative emotions (see Fig. 3). Regarding coping behaviors, on average, only Chinese men implement slightly greater coping strategies than women after the outbreak of COVID-19. Regarding combined work- and leisure-related travel intentions, men are more affected than women in all surveyed countries except for Korea. In terms of negative emotions, women experience greater negative emotions than men across all surveyed countries.

Fig. 3: Gender differences in behavioral and psychological responses across countries.
figure 3

The bars represent the average values for corresponding countries.

Full size image

Methodology

We present a set of empirical models to further identify gender differences in the changes of preventive behaviors, travel intentions, and negative emotions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Firstly, the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) model is employed as the baseline regression to analyze the gender differences in the three aspects aforementioned (see Eq. (1)). Subsequently, the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition approach is employed to examine the explained and unexplained gender disparities in crisis responses. Thirdly, we extend our research to examine the moderating role of culture and conduct heterogeneity analyses across various countries and income quintiles.

$${Gap}_{i}={\gamma }_{0}+{\beta }_{1}{{Female}}_{i}+{\beta }_{2}{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_{i}+{\mu }_{i}$$
(1)

where i denotes individual i in the survey, Gapi represents changes in terms of coping behaviors, travel intentions and negative emotions due to the pandemic, respectively, and \({{Female}}_{i}\) is a dummy variable, which equals to 1 if a respondent is female. \({{\boldsymbol{X}}}_{i}\) is a series of control variables that listed in the control variables section of Table 1, including age, income, employment and health statuses, smoking habit, other household characteristics, and regional dummies. \({\mu }_{i}\) is the error term, which is assumed to be independent and normally distributed. \({\gamma }_{0}\) is the constant. Notably, the coefficient of interest is \({\beta }_{1}\), which identifies gender differences of these behavioral and psychological crisis responses.

To further investigate the decomposition of gender differences in the impacts of COVID-19, the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition is employed as our main empirical analysis in this article. This method enables the decomposition of the overall mean difference into explained and unexplained components, respectively (Blinder, 1973; Oaxaca, 1973), thus facilitating a comprehensive understanding and identifying the sources of disparities between females and males. The Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition also mitigates the impact of explained differences and provides more accurate measurement and interpretation of gender differences that arise from non-explanatory factors.

This method has been used with popularity in the fields of economics and psychology. See, for example, the use of the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition method by Best (2023) uncovered racial disparities in the adoption of solar energy, providing evidence of energy injustice. Likewise, Laborda et al. (2019) used this method to distinguish the existence of intelligence between the indigenous and the non-indigenous children. Notably, Balado-Naves and Suárez-Fernández (2024); Dang and Nguyen (2021) employed the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique to explore gender disparities in residential water demand and economic outcomes attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. However, these studies primarily focuses on gender inequality in energy and economic matters rather than social behaviors and psychological well-beings.

In practice application, following Dang and Nguyen (2021), Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition models are separately conducted for male and female groups, as denoted by Eqs. (2) and (3).

$${{Gap}}_{p}^{f}={{\rm{\alpha }}}^{f}+{{\rm{\beta }}}_{p}^{f}{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_{p}^{f}+{{\rm{\varepsilon }}}_{p}^{f}$$
(2)
$${{Gap}}_{q}^{m}={{\rm{\alpha }}}^{m}+{{\rm{\beta }}}_{q}^{m}{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_{q}^{m}+{{\rm{\varepsilon }}}_{q}^{m}$$
(3)

where the subscripts p and q denote the male and female individual, respectively. For instance, the variable \({{Gap}}_{p}^{f}\) represents a series of adjustments in coping behaviors, travel intentions, and negative emotions, for women p. This variable is influenced by a set of control variables \({{\boldsymbol{X}}}_{p}^{f}\) as depicted in Eq. (1). Similarly, \({{\rm{\varepsilon }}}_{p}^{f}\) is the error term, where \({{\rm{\alpha }}}^{f}\) denotes its corresponding intercept. Like Eq. (2), Eq. (3) defines a set of variables that influence \({{Gap}}_{q}^{m}\), representing changes in behaviors, intentions, and emotions for men.

Following Jann (2008); Dang and Nguyen (2021), the process of selecting a reference group influences decomposition results. To facilitate the decomposition analysis, a neutral coefficient is utilized, as articulated in Eq. (4). This equation is derived by averaging the variables in Eqs. (2) and (3) before calculating the subtraction between them, as noted below:

$$\overline{{{Gap}}^{f}}-\overline{{{Gap}}^{m}}=(\widehat{{{\rm{\alpha }}}^{f}}+\widehat{{{\rm{\beta }}}^{f}}\overline{{{\boldsymbol{X}}}^{f}})-(\widehat{{{\rm{\alpha }}}^{m}}+\widehat{{{\rm{\beta }}}^{m}}\overline{{{\boldsymbol{X}}}^{m}})$$
$$=[{\widehat{\beta }}^{* }(\overline{{{\boldsymbol{X}}}^{f}}-\overline{{{\boldsymbol{X}}}^{m}})]+[(\widehat{{{\rm{\beta }}}^{f}}-{\widehat{\beta }}^{* })\overline{{{\boldsymbol{X}}}^{f}}+({\widehat{\beta }}^{* }-\widehat{{{\rm{\beta }}}^{m}})\overline{{{\boldsymbol{X}}}^{m}}+(\widehat{{{\rm{\alpha }}}^{f}}-\widehat{{{\rm{\alpha }}}^{m}})]$$
(4)

where \(\hat{\alpha }\) and \(\hat{\beta }\) represent the estimated parameters. \(\overline{{{\boldsymbol{X}}}^{f}}\) and \(\overline{{{\boldsymbol{X}}}^{m}}\) denote the bundle of average values for the groups of females and males, respectively. \({\hat{\beta }}^{* }(\overline{{{\boldsymbol{X}}}^{f}}-\overline{{{\boldsymbol{X}}}^{m}})\) indicates the explained difference between genders, influenced by the observed explanatory variables (Laborda et al., 2019; Dang and Nguyen, 2021). The remaining part reflects gender differences attributable to unobserved factors, which is designated as the unexplained component. By applying this approach, the causes of gender differences are more decently manifestedFootnote 5.

Afterwards, in accordance with the ABC Theory, social factors have the potential to influence individual beliefs, thereby giving rise to a range of diverse consequences. To explore the moderating role of culture, we include Hofstede’s individualism index in the baseline model of Eq. (1) and its interaction term with Female, the model is expressed in Eq. (5) as follows:

$${{Gap}}_{i}={\gamma }_{0}+{\beta }_{1}{{Female}}_{i}+{\beta }_{2}{{Individualism}}_{n}+\,{\beta }_{3}{{Female}}_{i}\times {{Individualism}}_{n}+\,{\beta }_{4}{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_{i}+{\mu }_{i}$$
(5)

where \({{Individualism}}_{n}\) represents the normalized Hofstede’s individualism index for country n, where individual \(i\) is located. A higher level of this index suggests a prefer for freedom as opposed to be tightly controlled (Chaudhry and Shafiullah, 2021), which is considered a key aspect in understanding cultural differences (Gorodnichenko et al., 2024). In Eq. (5), \({{Female}}_{i}\times {{Individualism}}_{n}\) captures the moderating effect of culture on the linkage between gender and individuals’ responses to the COVD-19 pandemic.

Subsequently, we explore heterogeneous analyses across countries and income quintiles based on the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition approach established in Eq. (4). This is justified by a substantial body of literature that highlights the potential for heterogeneity across different nations and income levels (Clingingsmith, 2016; Zhang et al., 2024).

Empirical results

This section presents the empirical results derived from the OLS estimates and the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition approach, as established in the Methodology Section, to assess gender disparities in response to coping behaviors, travel intentions, and negative emotions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Baseline results

Building on Eq. (1), Table 2 presents the results of the OLS regression analysis. The dependent variables encompass six aspects of coping behaviors as well as a composite index, the PCA score, that aggregates these behaviors. Except for the first column of wash_hand, the other five adaptive behaviors show higher prevalence among females compared to males. In other words, females exhibit significantly greater adaptive responses such as wearing masks, declining social gatherings, and avoiding public transport to prevent being infected by COVID-19. In particular, women exhibit the most significant decline in avoiding closed-pace gatherings, with a coefficient of 0.26. Potential reasons for this include that, firstly, gathering in closed spaces poses a higher risk of infection compared to outdoor settings. In this regard, women’s inclination toward risk averse is particularly evident in this item. Secondly, even prior to the pandemic, women’s frequency of visiting closed spaces like shopping centers was 5% higher than men (Kotzé et al., 2012). Consequently, the adjustment in coping behaviors, particularly regarding gathering in closed spaces, shows the most significant change among women.

Table 2 OLS regression results of gender differences in coping behaviors.
Full size table

The exception observed in wash_hand can be attributed to the fact that, on average, women engaged in hand washing more frequently than men before the pandemic, with 3.82 for women and 3.47 for men, respectively. This gender difference in hand-washing habits is supported by prior literature (Garbutt et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the result for the comprehensive index is positive at 1% significance level, indicating that women’s coping behaviors demonstrated 0.02 more changes in frequencies than those of men.

Other control variables are as expected. For example, respondents with higher levels of income tend to engage in additional adaptive behaviors to ensure their safety. Living with others negatively impacts these adaptive behaviors. Interestingly, vaccinated individuals are more likely to perceive themselves as having a safeguard against infection, which, in turn, leads to a negative impact on the adoption of coping behaviors.

Table 3 displays the results of gender differences in travel intentions and negative emotions. The results indicate that males are negatively affected in their intentions for work travel, whereas female’s leisure travel intentions are more significantly bothered by the pandemic. These results are justified by the gender division of labor, with men primarily in breadwinner roles, and women have less work-related travels compared to men, and mostly traveling for personal reasons (Crane 2007; McGuckin and Murakami 1999; Fan, 2017).

Table 3 OLS regression results of gender differences in travel intentions and negative emotions.
Full size table

Women are found to have more intense negative emotions during COVID-19 (see Columns (3)-(7) of Table 3). Specifically, the likelihood of women experiencing anxiety has increased by an additional 0.16, a change that is particularly pronounces by the pandemic. The above findings are supported by previous studies indicating that women are more likely to express emotions, and most importantly, they experience more intense negative emotions compared to men when confronted with social shocks or crises (Stevens and Hamann, 2012; Chaplin, 2015).

Interestingly, living with others appears to have a positive impact on the likelihood of experiencing loneliness during the COVID-19. This result can be explained as follows: on the one hand, the pandemic has led to widespread social isolation due to the disease control measures, such as lockdown and social distancing, which contribute to loneliness (Li and Wang, 2025; Loades et al., 2020). On the other hand, however, living in shared dwellings during this period of social isolation is likely to trigger household conflicts due to overcrowding and the restriction of diverse social connections (Meyer et al., 2023). Moreover, the dual pressures from both work and family issues may further exacerbate psychological loneliness among those who are not living alone.

Next, gender differences in regarding to coping behaviors, travel intentions, and negative emotions are further examined by using the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition approach. Following Eq. (4), Table 4 presents the results for coping behaviors. A comparison of the coefficients associated with female and male variables reveals that women experience larger adjustments in their coping behaviors as shown in Columns (2)-(7). Conversely, aligning with the findings from Table 2, men demonstrate a greater behavioral adjustment in hand washing. The gender differences are significant across all the columns.

Table 4 O-B decomposition results of gender differences in coping behaviors.
Full size table

Regarding the decomposition effects, all the unexplained components of the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition are significantly positive at 1% level, except for Wash_hand, which is significantly negative. In addition, the absolute values of these unexplained coefficients are larger than that of the explained ones, which suggests that the unobserved characteristics contribute more in leading to gender differences in these coping behaviors. For instance, the results suggest that women exhibit 0.013 extra adjustments in the comprehensive changes of coping behaviors than men (see Column (7)). However, the unexplained component contributes 0.017 of the variation, while the explained component reduces the difference by 0.004. The unexplained component accounts for 130% of the total gender difference. This implies that unobserved factors cause women to exhibit greater changes in self-protection behaviors than men during the pandemic. These factors likely include unobserved individual characteristics and measurement errors. This finding is consistent with the results in Dang and Nguyen et al. (2021), where the unexplained component accounted for 140% of the gender difference.

Similarly, Table 5 reports the results of the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition approach for travel intentions and negative emotions. As before, women exhibit greater changes in leisure travel intentions and a series of negative emotions compared to men, whereas men experience larger bothers regarding work-related travel. It is clear to see that the unexplained components are all significant, which verify the gender differences of these items are mainly consisted by unobserved components. For instance, the explained portion of the result accounts for approximately 45% of the total difference of 0.2, which helps to understand why men’s work-related travel intention are more restricted then women’s. The remaining 55% of the difference is attributed to the unexplained component. Another example, on average, women undergo negative emotions with an extra likelihood of 0.072 compared to men (see Column (7)). The unexplained component accounts for 0.075 of this difference, while the explained component slightly diminishes the gap by 0.003. In particular, the absolute values of the unexplained component are always greater than that of explained component, and hence, females perceive higher risks and adopt more preventive strategies than males during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 5 O-B decomposition results of gender differences in travel intentions and negative emotions.
Full size table

Cultural differences

Following Eq. (5), we report the moderating effect of individualism, representing cultural difference, in the association between gender and personal responses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Grounded in the ABC Theory, culture can shape the belief system of individuals, thereby influencing gender differences in various behavioral and emotional outcomes (Gon et al. (2023)). According to the first column of Table 6, in contrast to collectivist, individualist exhibits less adjustment in preventive behaviors. Women from countries with higher levels of individualism, are less likely to alter their behaviors and tend to experience less distress from negative emotions, which is reduced by 0.02 in behavioral changes and 0.07 in emotional responses, respectively. These results are as expected because individualistic cultures tend to permit a greater degree of residential freedom. Conversely, the positive interaction term between Female and Individualism in Column (3) of Table 6 suggests that individualistic culture tend to impose restrictions on women’s work-related travel intentions since the outbreak of the pandemic. This is because women from individualistic cultures are generally less willing to risk infection for the sake of collective or corporate interests.

Table 6 The moderating effect of individualism.
Full size table

It is worth noting that a more individualistic country might have imposed less stringent restrictions compared to a collectivist country during the pandemic. Therefore, the moderating effect of culture could partly reflect a country’s policy as well.

Heterogeneous analysis

Heterogeneity across countries

By employing the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition approach, this article comprehensively examines gender disparities in behavioral adjustments, travel intentions, and negative emotional responses for each country amid the COVID-19. In Table 7, the independent variable is the comprehensive index of coping behaviors. The results indicate that females in all the six countries tend to make larger adjustments in coping behaviors amid the pandemic. However, Chinese males exhibit a slightly higher degree of adjustment in preventive behaviors than their female counterparts, although this difference is minimal and insignificant, as evidenced by the insignificant coefficient of difference for China. Among these countries, Japan exhibits the most pronounced gender gap in the changes of preventive behaviors, with a difference of 0.042. This disparity is predominantly attributable to the unexplained component, suggesting that factors beyond observable variables play a significant role in shaping this divergence. In the case of South Korean alone, the explained portion of the difference is negatively significant, indicating that control variables narrow the differences in the adoption of coping behaviors between genders.

Table 7 O-B decomposition results of gender difference in coping behaviors across countries.
Full size table

Table 8 presents the results of gender differences in work- and leisure-related travel intentions across countries using the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition approach. This pattern is consistent across most countries, with the notable except of South Korea, where women appear to be more affected in terms of their travel intentions during the pandemic. Among the other five countries, the epidemic has a more pronounced impact on the work-related travel of males compared to females. Interestingly, China stands out as the only country in which this gender difference is not significant. In contrast, women’s leisure-related travel intentions are generally more adversely affected by the pandemic across most countries, with the exception of the US. These findings are consistent with the previous research, indicating that women tend to exhibit slightly higher travel intentions than men (Aziz et al., 2022). Meanwhile, however, women are also found to perceive greater travel risks and encounter more travel constraints compared to men (Green et al., 2000).

Table 8 O-B decomposition results of gender difference in travel intentions across countries.
Full size table

As previously stated, Table 9 reveals that women are significantly more affected by COVID-19 in terms of experiencing negative emotions, with the comprehensive emotion index serving as the dependent variable. When comparing gender differences across countries, China exhibits a smaller and insignificant gender gap in the occurrence of negative emotions, whereas the UK shows the largest gender difference in this regard. Gender differences in negative emotions are mainly driven by the unexplained component across these countries. For instance, in Italy, while the explained component significantly influences gender differences, its contributes is modest, accounting for approximately 20% of the total effect.

Table 9 O-B decomposition results of gender difference in negative emotions across countries.
Full size table

Heterogeneity for income

Table 10 presents the heterogeneity of gender differences across income levels. Overall, for both men and women with higher income levels exhibit greater adjustments in their coping behaviors. These findings suggest that wealthier population are more health-conscious, thereby adopting more pronounced defensive behaviors against infection. This result aligns with the findings of Finegood et al. (2021). Notably, women demonstrate larger changes in preventive behaviors compared to men with significance at income level 3 and above, indicating that females from the middle-income and higher-income groups are more likely to adjust their coping behaviors to a greater extent than their male counterparts.

Table 10 O-B decomposition results of gender difference in copying behaviors across income levels.
Full size table

From the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition analysis presented in Table 11, it is evident that individuals from richer groups, irrespective of gender, are more likely to be affected in both work- and leisure-related travel intentions due to the pandemic shock. Specifically, this gender gap becomes significant at income levels 4 and 5. Within the two higher-income brackets, males are more affected in terms of work-related travel compared to females. However, this gender difference is insignificant across income levels for leisure purpose travel.

Table 11 O-B decomposition results of gender difference in travel intentions across income levels.
Full size table

Table 12 reveals that, in response to negative emotions, women across all income groups experience a higher frequency of such emotions compared to men. Similarly, the unexplained portion accounts for the majority of this difference. In addition, the gender difference exhibits a general trend of decline as income increases, indicating that women in middle-income and higher-income groups approach the negative emotions experienced by their male counterparts. This finding is consistent with prior research by North et al. (2008); Rojas (2007), which established linkages between wealth and various emotional outcomes.

Table 12 O-B decomposition results of gender difference in negative emotions across income levels.
Full size table

Conclusions

While the world has transitioned into the post-COVID-19 era, the enduring impacts of the pandemic, particularly regarding behavioral and psychological responses between genders, remain profound and complex. Hence, this study provides a nuanced analysis of gender disparities in coping behaviors, travel intentions, and negative emotions before and during this global crisis. Drawing on data from over 6,000 individuals across six countries, this study employs multifaceted approaches to examine these disparities. Grounded in the ABC Theory, we provide a deeper understanding of gender disparities in crisis responses that affected by different socio-economic factors. Specifically, utilizing the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique, it quantifies gender differences in coping behaviors, travel intentions, and negative emotions related to pandemic responses, distinguishing between explained and unexplained components. Notably, we incorporate cultural friction, measured by the individualism dimension of Hofstede’s cultural index, to examine the role of culture in shaping gender-specific responses. Furthermore, the study examines the heterogeneities in adjustments of preventive behaviors, travel intentions, and negative emotions characterized by gender differences across diverse economic and geographic contexts.

The empirical findings of this study identify significant gender differences in these behavioral and psychological responses amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, women exhibit more pronounced changes across various coping behavior, with the exception of changes in hand-washing frequencies. Compared to men, women also experience a higher possibility of negative emotions due to the public crisis. Conversely, gender differences are evident in travel intentions, with women showing a stronger impact on their leisure travel intentions, whereas men faced more restrictions on work-related travel intentions stemming from the pandemic. Furthermore, cultural individualism significantly influences the relationship between gender and these responses. Specifically, females from individualistic cultures tend to exhibit fewer adjustments in coping behaviors and generate fewer negative emotions compared to those from collectivist cultures. Conversely, individualism tend to impose greater restrictions on females’ work travel intentions.

The Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition analysis indicates that gender differences primarily stem from the unexplained component, rather than the explained component, suggesting that unobserved characteristics outside the model play a crucial role. Additionally, variations in income levels and national contexts further contribute to the heterogeneities in behavioral and psychological responses to the crisis. Subsequently, this study leverages the ABC Theory to construct a theoretic framework that explains behavioral changes and emotional responses triggered by the public crisis, specifically through the lens of gender.

On this basis, policymakers should consider two key aspects when designing policies after understanding the variations in how different groups, particularly across genders in different cultures, income levels, and countries, respond to public crises. Firstly, this paper underscores the necessity for targeted policies to support the most vulnerable groups, particularly women in poverty-stricken regions and collectivist cultures. Effective intervention strategies should address both material and psychological support to enhance resilience and mitigate the impact of future crises. Secondly, it is imperative to address subjective factors by acknowledging gender disparities in responses to public crises. In particular, gender dynamics in different proposes of travel intentions, various coping behaviors, and negative emotions may exhibit significant inconsistencies. It is worth noting that these differences may have recently become more consolidated as part of the evolving trends in gender dynamics. In this regard, governments should design policies that align with these emerging trends at both the national and individual levels to mitigate potential risks, such as gender inequality, beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.