Genders vs. dangers: Unpacking gendered disparities in hazard recognition, risk perception, and safety performance among construction workers

• The study examines gender as a perceptual bias in construction safety judgments. • Female workers showed higher hazard recognition performance than males. • No stimulus-based gender effect on hazard recognition was observed. • Male observers perceived higher risk when evaluating female workers. • Findings support bias-aware and gender-inclusive safety training practices in construction. Construction safety research has traditionally focused on individual, organizational, and environmental determinants of safety performance. However, little is known about how visual social cues, particularly gender, influence hazard recognition and safety risk perception during visual safety evaluations. This study examines whether gender functions as a perceptual bias in construction safety judgments using a reality–perception–expression framework. Seventy construction workers evaluated static images of real construction scenarios in which the gender of the depicted worker was systematically varied. Participants identified hazards, rated perceived safety risk, and responded to attitude statements related to gender and safety. Hazard recognition performance and safety risk perception were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models to account for repeated measures, with complementary nonparametric tests used where distributional assumptions were violated. Results showed that female participants demonstrated significantly higher hazard recognition performance than male participants (Mean = 35.80% vs. 28.45%; p = 0.007; Cohen’s d = 0.65). The gender of the worker depicted in the image did not significantly affect hazard recognition, indicating no stimulus-based gender effect. For safety risk perception, mixed-effects analysis revealed no overall gender differences; however, follow-up non-parametric analyses showed that male participants perceived higher risk when evaluating images depicting female workers (Mean = 0.14 vs. − 0.17; p = 0.015; Cohen’s d = 0.60), suggesting context-specific observer bias. Attitudinal results aligned with behavioral outcomes, with female participants more strongly rejecting male superiority in safety consciousness (p = 0.031) and endorsing women’s hazard recognition capability (p = 0.014). These findings demonstrate that gender-related differences in construction safety judgments are primarily observer-driven rather than stimulus-driven. While the use of static images enhances experimental control, it limits ecological validity, highlighting the need for future research using dynamic and immersive environments. Overall, this study advances understanding of the cognitive and social dimensions of construction safety and underscores the importance of bias-aware and gender-inclusive safety training and assessment practices.