Li Y I, Woodberry Robert, Liu Hexuan, Guo Guang
Department of Sociology, University of Macau.
Institute for the Study of Religion, Baylor University.
J Sci Study Relig. 2020 Jun;59(2):289-310. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12657. Epub 2020 Apr 23.
Risk preference theory argues that the gender gap in religiosity is caused by greater female risk aversion. Although widely debated, risk preference theory has been inadequately tested. Our study tests the theory directly with phenotypic and genetic risk preferences in three dimensions-general, impulsive, and sensation-seeking risk. Moreover, we examine whether the effect of different dimension of risk preference on the gender gap varies across different dimensions of religiosity. We find that general and impulsive risk preferences do not explain gender differences in religiosity, whereas sensation-seeking risk preference makes the gender gap in self-assessed religiousness and church attendance insignificant, but not belief in God, prayer, or importance of religion. Genetic risk preferences do not remove any of the gender gaps in religiosity, suggesting that the causal order is not from risk preference to religiosity. Evidence suggests that risk preferences are not a strong predictor for gender differences in religiosity.
风险偏好理论认为，宗教信仰方面的性别差异是由女性更强的风险厌恶情绪导致的。尽管该理论存在广泛争议，但尚未得到充分验证。我们的研究通过在三个维度——一般风险、冲动风险和寻求刺激风险——上的表型和基因风险偏好，直接对该理论进行了检验。此外，我们还考察了风险偏好的不同维度对性别差异的影响在宗教信仰的不同维度上是否有所不同。我们发现，一般风险偏好和冲动风险偏好并不能解释宗教信仰方面的性别差异，而寻求刺激风险偏好使得在自我评估的宗教信仰和教堂礼拜方面的性别差异不再显著，但在对上帝的信仰、祈祷或宗教重要性方面并非如此。基因风险偏好并未消除宗教信仰方面的任何性别差异，这表明因果顺序并非从风险偏好到宗教信仰。有证据表明，风险偏好并非宗教信仰方面性别差异的有力预测指标。
