Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 25, Issue 3–4, pp 181–193 | Cite as

From sex differences to gender role beliefs: Exploring effects on six dimensions of religiosity

  • Kathryn M. Feltey
  • Margaret M. Poloma
Article

Abstract

Regardless of the particular dimension of religiosity under consideration, women are generally found to be more religious than men. To date, empirical data has not been used to explore the importance of gender role ideology in explaining these differences. Using the 1988 Akron Area Survey, the effects of sex differences and gender role beliefs on six dimensions of religiosity are explored. The major findings include the following: (1) sex differences in religiosity are not supported for most dimensions of religiosity when other demographic variables are considered; (2) gender role ideology, while not sex related, does improve the explanation of variance in most dimensions of religiosity; and (3) sex is a predictor of the closeness of an individual's relationships to God, while gender role ideology is not. We suggest that stereotypes about women being more religious are misleading and that gender role ideology has an important effect on religiosity. However, sex is more indicative of the level of religious intimacy, measured by perceived closeness to God. We discuss the implications of this finding for changes in family structure and relationships between men and women.

Keywords

Social Psychology Demographic Variable Empirical Data Gender Role Family Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler, M. (1983). Women, feminism, and the craft. In L. Richardson & V. Taylor (Eds.), Feminist frontiers, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. L. (1988). Thinking about women: Sociological perspectives on sex and gender. New York: Macmillan Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Argyle, M. & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975). The social psychology of religion. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. Babbie, E. (1986). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Batson, D. C., & Ventis, W. (1982). The religious experience: A social psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chalfant, H. P., Beckley, R. E., & Palmer, C. (1987). Religion in contemporary society. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Chodorow, N. (1974). Family structure and feminine personality. In M. Z. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Woman, culture and society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Christ, G., & Plaskow, J. (1979). Womanspirit rising: A feminist reader in religion. NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. De Vaus, D., & McAllister, I. (1987). Gender differences in religion: A test of the structural location theory. American Sociological Review, 52, 472–481.Google Scholar
  10. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Glock, C. Y., Ringer, B. B., & Bobbie, E. R. (1967). To comfort and to challenge: A dilemma of the contemporary church. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gurin, P. (1985). Women's gender consciousness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 143–163.Google Scholar
  13. Hargrove, B. (1989). The sociology of religion: Classical and contemporary approaches. Arlington Heights: Harlan Davidson.Google Scholar
  14. Jacobs, J. L. (1989, October). Religious experiences among men and women: A gender perspective on mystical revelation. Paper presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion annual meeting, Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
  15. Johnstone, R. L. (1988). Religion in society: A sociology of religion (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Lazerwitz, B. (1961). Some factors associated with variations in church attendance. Social Forces, 39, 301–309.Google Scholar
  17. Lindsey, L. L. (1990). Gender roles: A sociological perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. McBroom, W. H. (1984). Changes in sex-role orientations: A five-year longitudinal comparison. Sex Roles, 11, 583–592.Google Scholar
  19. McGuire, M. B. (1987). Religion: The social context. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  20. Pleck, J. (1977). Men's power with women, other men and society. In D. V. Hiller & R. A. Sheets (Eds.), Women and Men: The consequences of power. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati Women's Studies.Google Scholar
  21. Poloma, M. M., & Pendleton, B. F. (1990). Exploring types of prayer and the quality of life. Review of Religious Research, 31, 46–53.Google Scholar
  22. Poloma, M., & Pendleton, B. F. (1991). Exploring neglected dimensions of religion in quality of life research. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
  23. Renzetti, C. M., & Curran, D. J. (1989). Women, men, and society: The sociology of gender. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  24. Richardson, L. (1988). The dynamics of sex and gender: A sociological perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  25. Roberts, K. (1990). Religion in sociological perspective (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  26. Rubin, L. (1983). Intimate strangers. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  27. Sapiro, V. (1990). Women in American society. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  28. Sattel, J. W. (1989). Men, inexpressiveness and power. In L. Richardson & V. Taylor (Eds.), Feminist Frontiers II. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  29. Stone, M. (1976). The paradixe papers. London: Quartel Books.Google Scholar
  30. Thornton, A. (1985). Reciprocal influences of family and religion in a changing world. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 381–394.Google Scholar
  31. Thornton, A., Alwin, D. F., & Camburn, D. (1983). Sex Role Attitudes and Attitude Change. American Sociological Review, 48, 211–227.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn M. Feltey
    • 1
  • Margaret M. Poloma
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AkronUSA

Personalised recommendations