Individual Differences in Existential Orientation: Empathizing and Systemizing Explain the Sex Difference in Religious Orientation and Science Acceptance

Abstract

On a wide range of measures and across cultures and societies, women tend to be more religious than men. Religious beliefs are associated with evolved social-cognitive mechanisms such as agency detection and theory-of-mind. Women perform better on most of these components of social cognition, suggesting an underlying psychological explanation for these sex differences. The Existential Orientation Scale was developed to extend the measurement of religion to include non-religious beliefs (Study 1). Factor analysis extracted two dimensions: religious orientation and science acceptance. This new scale was used to investigate the hypothesis that the dimensions of empathizing, a measure of social cognition, and systemizing can explain the sex differences in religious orientation (Study 2). The sex differences in both religious orientation and science acceptance disappeared when empathizing and systemizing were entered. This indicates that underlying dimensions of individual differences can explain existential orientation better than being male or female.

New Spirituality and Social Engagement

“…The fact that women have paid jobs less often (58%) than men (67%) may explain that they have more time to give informal care, but it does not explain the higher volunteering rate of men. Additional explanations for the high difference in informal care may be that women are higher in empathy than men (Markstrom et al, 2010;Rosenkranz and Charlton, 2013), or that women, especially in holistic spiritual milieus, are attracted to the combination of authentic selfhood and relational care that is promoted there (Sointu and Woodhead, 2008). As for comparison between the groups we distinguished (see table 4.6), both target groups have larger percentages of women (60 and 68%) than the affiliated and the traditionally religious groups.…”

Believing in other minds: Accurate mentalizing does not predict religiosity

“…Including empathizing and systemizing into a model examining gender differences in science acceptance and religious beliefs eradicated gender differences, suggesting that empathizing explained the positive relationship between gender and religious orientation. Systemizing was negatively related to religious orientation, but positively related to science acceptance (Rosenkranz & Charlton, 2013). Furthermore, individuals higher in empathy have been found to be more likely to report a religious or supernatural experience (Barnes & Gibson, 2013).…”

‘Science disproves the biblical account of creation’: exploring the predictors of perceived conflict between science and religion among 13- to 15-year-old students in the UK

“…The relevant literature was reviewed by Francis (1997) and brought up to date by Francis and Penny (2014). A different strand of literature has routinely reported more positive attitudes towards science among males than among females (see Rosenkranz and Charlton 2013). Taken together, these two strands of research identify sex differences as a relevant personal factor in predicting perceived conflict between science and religion, with greater conflict being assumed by male students than by female students.…”