Gender Differences in Religiosity: Why Are Males Less Religious?

A literature review I wrote a few years ago for a class called “Boys’ Psychosocial Development,” taught by Professor Judy Chu.

Women are more religious than men. The phenomenon is so universally acknowledged that it has become an assumption in many sociological studies. It is not, however, the assumption itself that complicates current research, but rather the mechanism that underlies it. What accounts for gender differences in religious attitudes and behaviors? What makes men less religious than women? Several theories have tried to offer a cohesive explanation. By way of analysis, I will look at four of the most influential theories – including gender role socialization, structural location, gender orientation, and risk aversion – in order of their entrée into the academic literature. These theories alternately prioritize social, contextual, personal, and biological processes as a means of interpreting the gender-religion link. After considering the advantages and limitations of each, I will concede that no theory has proven robust enough to give a comprehensive view. Understanding the origin of gender differences in religion thus remains a difficult problem. But it is also a crucial one, with implications for the broader context of male development. Religiosity – which I will define here as how religious a person is, with respect to activity and belief – can be negatively correlated with criminality and violence and positively tied to health and healing. More generally, religion is one of the major resources used to generate meaning in life, explaining the world through positive beliefs, rituals, symbols, traditions, and support (Fletcher, 2004). Therefore understanding why men are less religious may produce insights in service of a larger goal, namely, helping men to lead full and healthy lives.

Observing the differences

A few trends have been evident in the sociological research on religiosity. Church attendance has declined over the past decades, especially among males (Walter, 1990). Indeed, males can lapse from church membership at an earlier age than girls and be considered socially acceptable (Francis & Lankshear, 1991; as cited in Francis & Wilcox, 1998). A variety of surveys, designed to measure religious belief and practice, show that women have more favorable attitudes toward religion than men (Francis & Stubbs, 1987; Francis & Wilcox, 1998; Walter, 1990) and that religion is more salient to their everyday activities (Thompson, 1991). Meanwhile, teenage boys reveal that religious beliefs as an expression of spirituality are peripheral, and developmental milestones – like forming relationships – are the primary locus of meaning (Engebretson, 2004). Collectively, these observations produce the conclusion that, in both private devotion and public worship, women are more religious than men. Few exceptions contradict this premise (Thompson, 1991) while many theories attempt to explain it.

Gender role socialization theory

Gender role socialization theory emerged as one of the earliest explanations of gender differences in religiosity. It invokes the power of social messages to inform identities and it requires us to understand both religion and people in gendered terms. As to the first, we should question: how is religion feminine? It may seem that, on the contrary, religion – at least in the Western tradition – inherits a strongly male legacy. After all, parts of Scripture seem to have been written exclusively for men (“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”); church organization has preferred to ordain a male clergy; and religious imagery frames God as Father, Judge, Shepherd, and King. But another, competing imagery – one which identifies virtues like compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, and unity, and which privatizes religion into the family sphere (Brinkerhoff & MacKie, 1985) – renders Christianity in apparently feminine terms. Indeed, the tension between religion-as-masculine and religion-as-feminine becomes obvious in a poll of teenage boys and girls, in which the boys described God as a supreme Power and planner and the girls saw God as loving, comforting, and forgiving (Wright & Cox, 1967). In the research we consider, a feminine conception of religion prevails. A study on mysticism, for example, links mystical experience with a feminine schema, emphasizing elements of unity, self-denial, and positive affect (Mercer & Durham, 1999).

The second question we should ask is: how are men masculine and women feminine? And, importantly for our purposes, how do these identities align with religious involvement? Gender role socialization theorists say that individuals are socialized toward, learn, and internalize culturally defined gender roles. For females, this means learning to be communal, nurturing, and dependent (Bem, 1974). For males, this means learning to adopt a personality that is aggressive, competitive, and independent. One set of attributes better serves a religion that preaches gentleness and neighborly love. Women, the logic goes, have an easier time being religious, since being religious is consistent with their internalized notion of a “proper” female role (Suziedelis & Potvin, 1981). Men, whereas, are socialized away from religion. In order to be religious, a man must resist his socialization and reject, at least in part, the hegemonic masculine ideal. Therefore differences in religiosity may partly reflect differential education.

Who imparts this education? First, we suppose that religious socialization takes place primarily in the family environment (Bradshaw & Ellison, 2009). Women in particular are charged with the task of instilling religious values in the home. Indeed, in a large-scale questionnaire about parental influence on adolescent religiosity, mothers’ religious practice proved a more powerful predictor than fathers’ practice among both sons and daughters (Francis, 1993). If women are more religious and have more influence in predicting the religiosity of their sons, the gender gap should shrink over time. So why does it not? Perhaps because the comparative influence of the father is weaker among daughters than among sons (Francis, 1993). Given the importance of role models (Gibson & Cordova, 1999), we see how a cycle begins: less religious fathers influence their sons, who in turn become less religious. But a second problem seems more intractable. Some theorists propose that religiosity causes more traditional gender attitudes, like the belief that parents should maintain stricter control over their daughters than their sons or that men make better bosses than women (Brinkerhoff & MacKie, 1985). In this framework, religion socializes men away from itself by reinforcing hegemonic gender norms. These norms in turn equate religious practice with femininity and thus as something opposed to masculinity. The result is a view of religion as a paradoxical socializing agent. Because of this paradox, and because of increasing discomfort with strict sex divisions in the academic culture, gender role socialization theory has been widely replaced by gender orientation theory (to be discussed later in this review), which presents a less dichotomous account of gender.

Structural location theory

Like gender orientation theory, structural location theory values social context, emphasizing the differential positions men and women occupy in society. It assumes that a general division of labor gives rise to gendered institutions and thus to polarized experiences (Kimmel, 2000; Luckman, 1967). Men inhabit the public sphere, finding their way in the workplace and the economy. Women, meanwhile, remain in the private sphere of home and family. The private sphere is feminized and distinguished from the masculine public sphere. According to structural location theory, this bifurcation enables different levels of religious affiliation between men and women. Religion is compatible with women’s societal position, since, like the family unit, it unites private and communal values (Moberg, 1962). Moreover, because the family is a location for moral teaching, and because women are responsible for child-rearing, religion becomes a natural presence in the home. Advocates of this theory also suggest that women have more time to devote to church-related activities and that, in fact, women depend more strongly on religion for a source of personal identity and commitment, presumably because they do not find fulfillment in the workplace (Luckman, 1967). By contrast, religion is incompatible with men’s societal position. Men who participate full-time in the work force have less time to invest in church activities (Azzi, 1975). In general, stratified economic and spatial spheres orient men and women less or more favorably, respectively, to religion. Structural location theory, while compensating for some of the inadequacies of gender role socialization theory (De Vaus & McAllister, 1987), has fallen out of favor as structures in society have changed and more women have entered the workforce and achieved financial independence. It is also hard to sustain when applied to unmarried women who live outside the family unit. Finally, it neglects the possibility that many women find satisfaction in bringing up their children by locating the workplace, not the home, as the ultimate site of intellectual and financial fulfillment.

Gender orientation theory

Gender orientation theory builds on earlier models of differential socialization. It retains the premise that feminine attitudes are compatible with religious practice. It differs, however, in its focus on individual variation. Instead of attributing perceived gender differences in religiosity to differences in sex roles per se, this theory says that such differences are a function of feminine outlook, which can belong properly to women and men. Gender orientation theory argues that being religious is a consonant experience for people with a feminine orientation. Several studies (Francis & Wilcox, 1996; Mercer & Durham, 1999; Thompson, 1991) support this hypothesis, indicating, among other things, that a feminine cognitive schema best explains openness to mystical experience. A study by Sherkat (2002) revealed that gay men have high rates of religious participation, while lesbians and bisexuals have significantly lower rates. These results accord with Thompson’s (1991) observation that “the visibility of some men’s religiousness might have been masked … by a failure to look beneath men’s status for variations within gender.” Contemporary thought generally embraces the idea that variations exist in both femininity and masculinity among men and women.

Yet despite its popular premise, gender orientation theory has faced challenges. Francis and Wilcox (1998) demonstrated through a pair of surveys that the theory could not entirely account for all the differences in Christian attitudes they observed among young adolescent boys and girls. Another, more substantial challenge was issued by Miller and Stark (2002), who determined that socialization variables showed no relationship to gender differences in religiosity across times periods, cohorts, religious traditions, and cultures. Miller and Stark rejected socialization explanations in favor of a risk-preference model.

Risk aversion theory

Risk aversion theory asserts that gender gaps in religiosity are related to risk preference. Men appear to be risk takers, while women tend to be risk-averse. Religion, in this theory, is considered less risky and thus more amenable to women or to those with a feminine orientation. How do scholars explain the link between religion and risk? Miller and Hoffman (1995) propose, first, that a risk-averse person is more likely to deal with uncertainties and fears (like the fear of death) in culturally appropriate ways (like participating in religion). Second, a risk-averse person evaluates both costs and rewards, and finds comfort in the eschatological explanations, moral guidance, and social support of religion. Third, a risk-averse person avoids the danger of not belonging to an institution that provides a moral education, especially if he or she is a parent. Finally, religion often entails the belief in an afterlife, and a risk-averse person acts prudently so as to avoid the threat of eternal punishment. Taken together, these dispositions fundamentally link risk aversion with religiosity (Abbott-Chapman & Denholm, 2001; Miller & Hoffman, 1995; Miller & Stark, 2002).

Framing gender differences in religiosity in terms of risk aversion simply extends findings from other fields. In careers (Sapienza, Zingales, & Maestripieri, 2009), in financial decision-making (Powell & Ansic, 1997), and in criminal behavior (Gove, 1985; as cited in Miller & Stark, 2002), men have consistently appeared more likely to take risks than women. Scholars have proposed different rationales. Two explanations borrow from the logic of differential socialization (Miller & Hoffman, 1995), suggesting that boys have been encouraged to be courageous and adventurous (à la the “warrior narratives” of Jordan & Cowan, 1998) while girls have been fitted to ideals of passivity and gentleness; and that physically risky occupations have historically been defined as male (Barry, 1987; as cited in Miller & Stark, 2002). A different strand of explanation uses a biological vocabulary. Contemporary research (Bradshaw & Ellison, 2009) has become interested in genetics as a mediator of gender difference in religiosity. Some authors admit the possible influence of hormones in risk preference, but reject a pure biological determinism (Collet & Lizardo, 2009). These disputes put risk aversion theory in unclear territory, as do recent studies suggesting that the theory’s ability to explain gender differences in religiosity is only partial (Freese, 2004; Roth & Kroll, 2007).

Broader implications and future research

This review has summarized four major attempts to explain gender differences in religiosity. The literature has favored different frameworks at different times, responding to changes in cultural forms and theoretical modes. Although the research has produced many important insights, no existing theory has given a definitive explanation for why women are more religious than men. Future research might broaden its parameters by combining theories or by assessing dimensions of “spirituality” rather than “religiousness.” It might also consider non-Western religious traditions, which, it has been suggested, can be conceptualized in more masculine terms (Archer, 2001). Finally, a relational approach to the subject might be worthwhile, grounded in the idea that devotion to God can be considered one of the most emotionally intimate relationships in a person’s life.[1] Whatever the direction of future research, the impetus to investigate remains vital. Understanding why males stray from religious practice may shed light on other phenomena. If risk aversion theory suggests that criminality is linked to risk taking (Dalhbäck, 1990), then religious activity (or its absence) may be relevant to social problems. And if women are more likely than men to seek religious consolation in times of illness (Kelley-Moore, 2000), then the gender divide in religiosity becomes important to physical health. And if, at last, we acknowledge that healthy development involves care of mind, body, and spirit (Chan, Ho, & Chow, 2001), then our research project aspires to nothing short of giving men a fuller life experience.

 

[1] With gratitude to Professor Judy Chu (2012) for proposing this new and as yet unexplored direction of research.

References
Abbott-Chapman, J., & Denholm, C. (2001). Adolescents’ risk activities, risk hierarchies, and the influence of religiosity. Journal of Youth Studies, 4(3), 279-297.
Archer, L. (2001). “Muslim brothers, black lads, traditional Asians”: British Muslim young men’s constructions of race, religion, and masculinity. Feminism and Psychology, 11(1), 79-105.
Azzi, C. (1975). Household allocation of time and church attendance. Journal of Political Economy, 83(1), 27-56.
Barry, J. (1987). Compensatory wages for women production workers at risk. In D. Larwood, A. Stromberg, & B. Gutek (Eds.), Women and work: An annual review (pp. 69-91). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 55-162.
Bradshaw, M., & Ellison, C. G. (2009). The nature-nurture debate is over, and both sides lost! Implications for understanding gender differences in religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(2), 241-251.
Brinkerhoff, M. B., & MacKie, M. (1985). Religion and gender: A comparison of Canadian and American student attitudes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 47(2), 415-429.
Chan, C., Ho, P. S., & Chow, E. (2001). A body-mind-spirit model in health: An Eastern approach. Social Work Health Care, 34(3-4), 261-282.
Collett, J., & Lizardo, O. (2009). A power-control theory of gender and religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(2), 213-231.
Dalhbäck, O. (1990). Criminality and risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(3), 265-272.
De Vaus, D., & McAllister, I. (1987). Gender differences in religion: a test of the structural location theory. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 472-481.
Engbretson, K. (2004). Teenage boys, spirituality, and religion. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 9(3), 263-278.
Ferraro, K. F., & Kelley-Moore, J. A. (2000). Religious consolation among men and women: Do health problems spur seeking? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(2), 220-234.
Fletcher, S. K. (2004). Religion and life meaning: Differentiating between religious belief and religious community in constructing life meaning. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 171-185.
Francis, L. J. (1993). Parental influence and adolescent religiosity: A study of church attendance and attitude toward Christianity among adolescents 11 to 12 and 15 to 16 years old. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3(4), 241-253.
Francis, L. J. (1997). The psychology of gender differences in religion: A review of the empirical research. Religion, 27(1), 81-96.
Francis, L. J., & Lankshear, D. (1991). Continuing in the way: Children, young people, and the church. London: National Society.
Francis, L. J., & Stubbs, M. T. (1987). Measuring attitudes toward Christianity: From childhood into adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 8(5), 741-743.
Francis, L. J., & Wilcox, C. (1996). Religion and gender orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(1), 119-121.
Francis, L. J., & Wilcox, C. (1998). Religiosity and femininity: Do women really hold a more positive attitude toward Christianity? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(3), 462-469.
Freese, J. (2004). Risk preferences and gender differences in religiousness: Evidence from the World Values Survey. Review of Religious Research, 46(1), 88-91.
Gibson, D. E., & Cordova, D. I. (1999). Women’s and men’s role models: The importance of exemplars. In A. Murrell, F. Crosby, & R. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 121-142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gove, W. R. (1985). The effect of age and gender on deviant behavior: A biopsychosocial perspective. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Gender and the life course (pp. 210-234). New York: Aldine.
Kimmel, M. S. (2000). The gendered society (3rd ed.) . New York: Oxford University Press.
Jordan, E., & Cowan, A. (1998). Warrior narratives in the kindergarten classroom: Renegotiating the social contract? In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 127-140).
Luckmann, T. (1967.) The invisible religion. New York: Macmillan.
Mercer, C., & Durham, T. W. (1999). Religious mysticism and gender orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38(1), 175-182.
Miller, A. S., & Hoffman, J. P. (1995). Risk and religion: An explanation of gender differences in religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34(1), 63-75.
Miller, A. S., & Stark, R. (2002). Gender and religiousness: Can socialization explanations be saved? American Journal of Sociology, 107(6), 1399-1423.
Moberg, D. O. (1962.) The church as a social institution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behavior in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 605-628.
Roth, L. M., & Kroll, J. C. (2007). Risky business: Assessing risk preference explanations for gender differences in religiosity. American Sociological Review, 72(2), 205-220.
Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., & Maestripieri, D. (2009). Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone. Proceedings of the National Academy f Sciences of the United States of America, 106(36), 15268-15273.
Sherkat, D. E. (2002). Sexuality and religious commitment in the United States: An empirical examination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 313-323.
Thompson, E. H., Jr. (1991). Beneath the status characteristic: Gender variations in religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(4), 381-394.
Walter, T. (1990). Why are most churchgoers women? A literature review. Vox Evangelica, 20, 73-90.
Wright, D., & Cox, E. (1967). A study of the relationship between moral judgment and religious belief in a sample of English adolescents. Journal of Social Psychology, 72(1), 135-144.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top