No abstract

The fact that women are more religious than men is one of the most consistent findings in the sociology of religion. Miller and Stark (2002) propose that a gender difference in riskpreference of physiological origin might explain this phenomenon. While acknowledging the utility of their risk-preference mechanism, we believe that their assumption regarding the genesis of this difference is a premature concession to biology. Returning to Miller's original paper on gender, risk, and religiosity (Miller and Hoffmann 1995), we draw on power-control theory (PCT), developed in the work of John Hagan and colleagues, to introduce a plausible socialization account for these differences. PCT attributes the origins of gender differences in risk-preference to class-based differences in the socialization of children, with women raised in more patriarchal families-as indexed by the mother's class position-more likely to be riskaverse than men raised in the same type of households and women raised in more egalitarian households. If religiosity and risk-aversion are related, then the gender difference in religiosity should be strongest among those raised by women of low socioeconomic status. We evaluate these claims using data from the General Social Survey. The results are consistent with a socialization explanation: women raised by high-SES mothers are less religious than women raised by low education mothers, but mother's socioeconomic status has little effect on men's chances of being irreligious and father's socioeconomic status has a negligible effect on the gender difference in religiosity.2

The value of reciprocity in social exchange potentially comprises both instrumental value (the value of the actual benefits received from exchange) and communicative or symbolic value (the expressive and uncertainty reduction value conveyed by features of the act of reciprocity itself). While all forms of exchange provide instrumental value, we propose that the voluntary and uncertain nature of recurring reciprocal exchanges, in which actors individually give benefits to each other without formal agreements, make the act of reciprocity itself an important vehicle for conveying symbolic value. We experimentally test the value actors place on partners' voluntary acts of reciprocity-over and above the instrumental benefits obtained-by providing subjects with computer-simulated partners who systematically vary in the instrumental value, probability, and predictability of their reciprocity. Our results show that behavioral preferences are governed primarily by the instrumental value of exchange, while sentiments of trust, affective regard, and solidarity are strongly influenced by the symbolic value of constant reciprocity. We discuss implications for theories of social exchange and social capital.

Previous research has examined the use of others as props for impression management (e.g., presidents' use of first ladies), but has left many areas underexplored, including the role of nonadults as important associates. This article focuses on the unacknowledged role of children's appearances in the maintenance of identities and management of impressions for their mothers. Using both participant observation of a playgroup and interviews with mothers of young children, the research described here investigates what these mothers think about children's clothing, mothers' concerns about when—and with whom—to manage impressions, and the impressions these women hope they portray through the physical appearance of their children. In addition to providing insight about these phenomena, the article also discusses responses surrounding the importance of first impressions, differences in meanings attached to children's spoiled appearances, and the sacrifices made in motherhood. Results show that women do use well‐dressed and groomed children to enact and confirm identities as “good mothers” and to protect and enhance their own self‐concepts during the course of everyday social interaction.

No abstract