Premium
Gender, Risk, and Religiousness: Can Power Control Provide the Theory?
Author(s) -
Hoffmann John P.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal for the scientific study of religion
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.941
H-Index - 71
eISSN - 1468-5906
pISSN - 0021-8294
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01442.x
Subject(s) - miller , skepticism , power (physics) , context (archaeology) , sociology , set (abstract data type) , juvenile delinquency , control (management) , epistemology , psychology , social psychology , criminology , philosophy , economics , computer science , management , ecology , physics , quantum mechanics , biology , programming language , paleontology
Collett and Lizardo (2009) offer a model of gender differences that revisits and expands earlier research, in particular nascent ideas used by Miller and Hoffmann (1995) that were borrowed, in part, from a power‐control theory of delinquency and crime. However, I am skeptical of their attempt to apply power‐control theory as a general explanation of gender differences in religiousness. In this response piece, I first set the context by describing how Alan Miller and I initially approached our risk and religion work. I then point out where I think the research stream went awry and why recent studies of risk preferences and religion have failed to provide convincing evidence one way or the other. Finally, I offer an appraisal of Collett and Lizardo's work, with particular attention to why adopting power‐control theory should be viewed with caution. I conclude with suggestions for future research on gender and religiousness.