From Existential to Social Understandings of Risk: Examining Gender Differences in Nonreligion

Abstract

Across many social contexts, women are found to be more religious than men. Risk preference theory proposes that women are less likely than men to accept the existential risks associated with nonbelief. Building on previous critiques of this theory, we argue that the idea of risk is relevant to understanding the relationship between gender and religiosity if risk is understood not as existential, but as social. The research on existential risk focuses on religious identification as solely a matter of belief; as part of the movement away from this cognitivist bias, we develop the concept of social risk to theorize the ways that social location and differential levels of power and privilege influence women's nonreligious choices. We show that women's nonreligious preferences in many ways mirror those of other marginalized groups, including nonwhites and the less educated. We argue that nonreligion is socially risky, that atheism is more socially risky than other forms of nonreligion, and that women and members of other marginalized groups avoid the most socially risky forms of nonreligion.

Measuring Religious Identification in the United States

“…Our approach maintains the independence of religious identifications and other social identities. Religious identifications intersect with other identities to shape social attitudes and behaviors (Sherkat ; Wadsworth ), and these identities also intersect to shape religiosity (Baker and Whitehead ; Edgell, Frost, and Stewart ; Koehrsen ). Intersectional research on religious identification is particularly important for understanding religion's role in “[shaping] symbolic boundaries and [providing] cultural tools,” and how these constructions are used to make sense of and justify inequities (Edgell :255).…”

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

“…The results of the analysis that used the NSYR data should, however, give pause and motivate us to consider whether behavioral risk, such as involvement in deviant behaviors, is a more important determinant of gender differences in religiousness than is cognitive or existential risk. This points toward the development of an elaborated risk model that focuses on social risk rather than cognitive or biological risk (Edgell, Frost, and Stewart 2017;Noussair et al 2013). Nonetheless, since risk preferences affect social risk, they may still have a role in an elaborated model.…”

“…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)…”

Where Men Appear More Religious Than Women: Turning a Gender Lens on Religion in Israel

“…Based on the results presented in this study, we suggest that gender gaps arise, at least in part, simply because religions are gendered institutions with gendered norms, experiences, and social and psychological incentives (Avishai 2016;Avishai et al 2015;Edgell, Frost, and incentives vary from one religious context to another. To put these gendered norms and expectations in more concrete terms, only men count toward a minyan, synagogues are often gender-segregated, and women are not permitted to participate in some Jewish practices.…”