Premium
The Nature‐Nurture Debate Is Over, and Both Sides Lost! Implications for Understanding Gender Differences in Religiosity
Author(s) -
Bradshaw Matt,
Ellison Christopher G.
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.1468-5906.2009.01443.x
Subject(s) - religiosity , nature versus nurture , socialization , fallacy , causality (physics) , confounding , psychology , social psychology , sociology , epistemology , philosophy , anthropology , medicine , physics , quantum mechanics , pathology
In the debate about biological dispositions or differential sex‐role socialization, too much emphasis is given to an either‐ or dichotomy. We argue that the higher religiosity of women is likely the product of both biological and environmental influences by discussing: (1) the fallacy of nature “versus” nurture; (2) biological influences on religious outcomes; (3) biological influences on the predictors of religious involvement; (4) causality and confounding in social science; and (5) interdisciplinary models of biology‐environment interplay.