Testosterone, Risk Taking, and Religiosity: Evidence from Two Cultures

Ellis, Lee M.; Hoskin, Anthony W.; Ratnasingam, Malini

doi:10.1111/jssr.12248

Cited by 15 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 70 publications

(145 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Stark and Miller (Miller and Stark 2002;Stark 2002) attributed risk preferences to biology, arguing that testosterone makes men engage in "risky" behaviors-such as violent crime and not going to church. 2 More recent research on gender differences in religiosity has focused on debating, nuancing, or refuting the risk preferences approach and no alternative has yet gained traction (Collett and Lizardo 2009;Ellis, Hoskin, and Ratnasingam 2016;Freese and Montgomery 2007;Lizardo and Collett 2009;Roth and Kroll 2007). Some scholars have focused on gendering processes to either build upon or suggest a move beyond religion-specific theories.…”

Section: Gender Differences In Religiositymentioning

confidence: 99%

More religious, less dogmatic: Toward a general framework for gender differences in religion

Schnabel

2018

Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender gaps in religiosity are among the most consistent findings in the social sciences. The literature, however, has typically under-emphasized gender theory, paid insufficient attention to variation across different contexts, and failed to consider styles of religious expression. This study draws on gender theory, brings religion and political attitudes research into dialogue, and explores potential gender differences in religious dogmatism (e.g., religious absolutism, exclusivity, and intolerance). Using U.S. data from the Baylor Religion Survey and cross-national data from the International Social Survey Programme, I demonstrate that women are generally more religious, but less dogmatic. As expected based on gender theory, however, the patterns I uncover are not universal and vary by societal context (i.e., Christian vs. non-Christian nations). I argue that religion appears to be a gendered sphere like any other in which we express our gendered selves, and that gender gaps in religion are the result not of essential differences, but of context-specific gender regimes, religion regimes, and the simultaneous "doing" of both gender and religion.

show abstract

Section: Gender Differences In Religiositymentioning

confidence: 99%

More religious, less dogmatic: Toward a general framework for gender differences in religion

Schnabel

2018

Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results are in contrast to those that have determined that risk preferences do not affect gender differences in religiousness (cf. Ellis, Hoskin, and Ratnasingam 2016). Thus, risk preference theory should, for the time being, remain a viable, though at best partial, explanation for gender differences in religiousness, at least among adolescents.…”

Section: Risk Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few of the other studies that have assessed the theory used precise measures of risk preference. Table 1 provides a list of the studies that tested risk preference theory and the various risk measures Edgell, Frost, and Stewart (2017) Discrimination due to nonbelief b Ellis, Hoskin, and Ratnasingam (2016) Being a risk taker; enjoy taking risks (11-point scales)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Freese (2004), who offered perhaps the most faithful replication, relied on an adult sample, whereas Miller and Hoffmann (1995) used data from adolescents in the United States. Ellis, Hoskin, and Ratnasingam (2016) examined the theory with samples of college students, but it is not clear why the particular colleges were chosen, nor whether they were representative of young people in their respective nations. Although a desirable quality of a theoretical model is its generalizability and scope-whether it applies across a wide range of social and cultural arrangements (Lucas 2003)-a hallmark of theory development and empirical testing is replication: the same type of methods and analyses using different-yet closely comparable-data sets (Firebaugh 2008;Freese and Peterson 2017;King 1995;Makel and Plucker 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Risk Preference Theory and Gender Differences in Religiousness: A Replication and Extension

Hoffmann¹

2018

Scientific Study of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Almost 25 years ago, Miller and Hoffmann developed a theory of risk preferences as a way to account for gender differences in religiousness. Although several subsequent studies have purportedly examined the theory, there has been no genuine replication of their empirical analysis. This study provides a replication and extension using three nationally representative samples of adolescents in the United States: the 2015 Monitoring the Future (n = 2,292) study, the 2010 National Survey of Drug Use and Health (n = 18,394), and the 2005 National Survey of Youth and Religion (n = 2,059). The results provide modest support for risk preference theory: the introduction of risk preferences diminishes the female‐male difference in religiousness among youth in all three data sets. However, there is also evidence that risk behaviors and religious affiliation may be more important than risk preferences in accounting for gender differences in religiousness.

show abstract

“…Miller and Hoffman (1995) and Hoffman (2019) argue that risk preference theory is supported because the gender gap in religiosity declines after controlling for the risk measures. Freese (2004) and Ellis and colleagues (2016) argue that the theory is not supported because when they control for risk preference the reduction in the gender gap is small, insignificant, or negative. It is difficult to interpret these results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are Women More Religious than Men? Do Risk Preferences and Genetic Risk Predispositions Explain the Gender Gap?

Woodberry

Liu

et al. 2020

Scientific Study of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk preference theory argues that the gender gap in religiosity is caused by greater female risk aversion. Although widely debated, risk preference theory has been inadequately tested. Our study tests the theory directly with phenotypic and genetic risk preferences in three dimensions—general, impulsive, and sensation‐seeking risk. Moreover, we examine whether the effects of different dimensions of risk preferences on the gender gap vary across different dimensions of religiosity. We find that general and impulsive risk preferences do not explain gender differences in religiosity, whereas sensation‐seeking risk preference makes the gender gap in self‐assessed religiousness and church attendance insignificant, but not belief in God, prayer, or importance of religion. Genetic risk preferences do not remove any of the gender gaps in religiosity, suggesting that the causal order is not from risk preference to religiosity. Evidence suggests that risk preferences are not a strong predictor for gender differences in religiosity.

show abstract

Testosterone, Risk Taking, and Religiosity: Evidence from Two Cultures

Abstract: Miller and Stark (2002) argued that worldwide tendencies for males to be less religious than females must have a physiological foundation. In the same year, Stark (2002)

Cited by 15 publications

References 70 publications

More religious, less dogmatic: Toward a general framework for gender differences in religion

More religious, less dogmatic: Toward a general framework for gender differences in religion

Risk Preference Theory and Gender Differences in Religiousness: A Replication and Extension

Why are Women More Religious than Men? Do Risk Preferences and Genetic Risk Predispositions Explain the Gender Gap?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About