What Is Religiosity?

Public and private religious practices, beliefs, and experiences all constitute components of religiosity. Scholars commonly use three central components to measure religiosity: institutional religious engagement, non-organizational religious activities, and expressive or subjective religiosity. Scholars use church attendance and participation in congregational activities to measure organizational religious engagement. Self-reported frequency of prayer, reading the Bible or other religious materials, or requesting others to pray for you are common measures of non-organizational religious activities. Self-assessed religiousness is measured through responses to questions like “How religious would you consider yourself?,” attachment to a particular denomination, and endorsements of specific views, such as belief in an afterlife, hell, and whether the Bible is the literal word of God.

Scholars often distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic forms of religiosity, with intrinsic forms defined in terms of faith and spirituality. Intrinsic forms are thought to permeate every aspect of an individual’s psyche and life, motivating their behavior and giving meaning to their life’s actions (Allport, 1954). Extrinsic forms are distinctly “worldly” and utilitarian, such as belief in sin or an afterlife, leading to individual worldly rewards like safety, social dominance, and external validation for one’s way of life. Thompson and Remmes (2002) distinguish between the two as “religion as a means” versus “religion as an end.”

Both intrinsic and extrinsic forms of belief influence individual religious behavior, so while scholars often use individual measures such as a literal belief in God or church attendance to represent religiosity overall, recent scholarship has focused on cumulative measures that use factor analysis to create multidimensional scales. These scales encompass intellectual and ideological thought, public and private practices and experiences, emption, and perception of experiential aspects of religiousness (Huber & Huber, 2012; Neff, 2006). Duke University’s religion index is similarly composed of three dimensions, including frequency of attendance at religious services and private religious activities and intensity of intrinsic religiosity (Koenig & Büssing, 2010). Future research might engage with these measures to identify when aggregate measurement provides more or less explanatory value than individual behaviors and beliefs.

Gender Differences in Religiosity

One of the most consistent findings from over a half-century of scholarship on religious behaviors and beliefs is that women, as compared to men, exhibit higher levels of most forms of religiosity (de Vaus & McAllister, 1987; Lenski, 1953; Miller & Hoffmann, 1995; Trzebiatowska & Bruce, 2012). The distinct and persistent effects of gender on religiosity, coupled with vigorous debate over its causes, makes it one of the most studied group-based differences in the subfield. These gender differences in religiosity have been documented across locations, including in North America, Africa, Australia, and Western Europe (Akinyele, 2007; Crockett & Voas, 2006). While the majority of research focuses on Christian faiths, gender differences in religiosity have also been documented among Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu men and women (Firth, 1997; Hartman, 2016; Hassan, 2007; Kalkstein & Tower, 2009; Read, 2003). This article discusses the forms that gender gaps take and outlines several of the most common explanations for gender differences in religious activity and interest.

The gender gap is larger for private forms of piety than for public religiosity, although gaps exist across both measures (Sullins, 2006). For example, women report much higher levels of belief in God and the supernatural (Sherkat, 2008) and more frequent personal religious practice, such as prayer (Baker, 2008; Levin, Taylor, & Chatters, 1994). At the same time, women are also more publicly religious than men and exhibit higher rates of organizational affiliation (Batson, Schoenrade, & Larry, 1993; Rinehart & Perkins, 1989) and participation in religious habits like prayer and Bible reading (Davis & Smith, 1991).

There is a high level of heterogeneity within women’s religiosity. For example, age matters: older women—across races—participate more frequently in religious activities than do older men (Levin et al., 1994), and girls report higher levels of religious belief than do boys (Tamminen, 1994). Education decreases religiosity equally across both men and women; that is, highly educated men and women are equally likely to identify as non-religious or non-believers (Baker & Whitehead, 2016; but see Burge, 2017). Location-based differences in religiosity also exist, with higher religiosity among those that who live in rural areas (as compared to urban) and the South and Midwest (as compared to the Northeast and West) (Chalfant & Heller, 1991; Lay, 2012). While there is clear evidence that location shapes the political behavior of women and girls (Lay, 2017), scholars have yet to investigate how location might shape the religious behavior of men compared to women.

Heterogeneity in women’s religious experiences is also in evidence across race and ethnic groups. Race and gender have multiplicative—rather than additive—effects on religious involvement, consistent with theories of intersectionality (Brown & Gershon, 2016; Crenshaw, 1989; Farris & Holman, 2014). Although most women of color exhibit higher levels of religiosity than their co-racial male counterparts, the levels and types of these activities vary by racial and ethnic group. Thus, while black adults—both men and women—participate in religious communities at higher rates than their white counterparts (Calhoun-Brown, 1996; Levin et al., 1994; McDaniel, 2013) with stable levels of engagement over time (Emerson & Sikkink, 2006), there is heterogeneity when white and black women are compared (Farris & Holman, 2014). And while Latinos generally are more religious than whites (Gershon, Pantoja, & Taylor, 2016), less is known about gender differences in specific forms of religiosity between Latinas and Latinos or the degree to which these differences vary by generation, acculturation, or socioeconomic status.

Much of the literature on gender differences in religiosity focuses on sex differences and conceptualizes sex as a binary biological marker. Recent research points out the folly in this approach, rightfully calling for a more nuanced view of gender as a social construct (Cornwall, 2009). Of particular interest are Bittner and Goodyear-Grant’s (2017) findings of the inconsistencies in using sex to measure gender. Future research should evaluate questions of religiosity using their more nuanced measure of masculinity and femininity. Indeed, the limited extant literature demonstrates the importance of considering gender rather than sex: Francis and Wilcox (1998) found that degrees of masculinity and femininity were better predictors of religious orientation than sex, particularly among adolescents. In a follow-up study Francis (2005) found that the effect of femininity persisted among older men and women.

Research on religiosity also largely focuses on why women and men do engage in religious activities, not why they do not. Scholars have found that men, non-Hispanic whites, and Asian Americans are most likely to identify as religiously unaffiliated or non-religious (Baker & Smith, 2009; Baker & Whitehead, 2016; Djupe, Neiheisel, & Sokhey, 2018). Social and economic status, upbringing, political preferences, and lived experiences all shape religious disengagement (Baker & Whitehead, 2016; Djupe et al., 2018). For instance, previously incarcerated individuals and cohabitating adults were both less likely to participate in organized religion (Chatters, Taylor, & Lincoln, 1999). Future research might build on work by Baker and colleagues (Baker & Smith, 2009; Baker & Whitehead, 2016) to evaluate how gender interacts with social and economic forces to shape religious disengagement, or on work by Djupe et al. (2018) to examine how political and social attitudes shape whether women—as compared to men—decide to switch churches.

Good Girls Go to Heaven? Central Explanations for Gender Differences in Religiosity

Religiosity and Political Attitudes

Religiosity and Political Participation

Religion has long played a role in national politics on both the individual and organizational levels, including increasing voter turnout and political engagement (Djupe & Gilbert, 2006; Jones-Correa & Leal, 2001). Churches can develop congregants’ political knowledge, skills, and resources as well as provide skills with political spillover benefits, including social capital, psychological engagement in a community, and organizational membership (Burns, Schlozman, & Verba, 2001; Dawson, Brown, & Allen, 1990; Djupe & Gilbert, 2006; Gershon et al., 2016). As a result, religiosity is generally associated with higher levels of various forms of political participation, including voter turnout and political knowledge, particularly among minority communities (Austin, 2006; Gershon et al., 2016; McDaniel, 2013; Warren, 2001). In many ways, church involvement may supplement or replace resources unavailable to these communities, encouraging group-based political activism and individual-level engagement (Dawson, 2001; Djupe & Grant, 2001; but see Holman, 2016; Verba, Burns, & Schlozman, 2003).

At the same time, women and men may not receive equal political benefits from religious engagement (Coffé & Bolzendahl, 2010; Read, 2007; Robnett & Bany, 2011). Indeed, while religiosity is associated with higher levels of political engagement, these effects are not uniform across men and women (Cassese & Holman, 2016; Coffé & Bolzendahl, 2010) or within heterogeneous groups of women (Farris & Holman, 2014; Holman, 2016). Indeed, gender shapes how individuals receive cues regarding political participation found in religious environments (Djupe, Sokhey, & Gilbert, 2007). And while research shows that church involvement facilitates the political participation of black men, it does not always do so for black women. The limited evaluations of Asian Americans suggest that religiosity has a smaller effect on women’s (as compared to men’s) religiosity (Jamal, 2005; Read, 2007). Research has yet to evaluate the degree to which religiosity may intersectionally shape the political engagement of Latinas and Latinos, although extant research on gender, ethnicity, and political participation suggests room for scholarly investigations (Brown, 2014; Gershon et al., 2016; Kam, Zechmeister, & Wilking, 2008).

The gendered structures of churches may also reduce the effect of religiosity on women’s political participation. Djupe (2014) argues that the underrepresentation of women in clergy positions (Olson, Crawford, & Deckman, 2005) may limit the degree to which women draw political benefits from churches but finds only limited evidence of a positive effect of a woman clergy member on political participation. Scholars have also pointed to the demobilizing effects of sexism within black churches on black women’s activism (Alexander-Floyd, 2007; Robnett & Bany, 2011). And, as Cassese and Holman (2016) find, women who adhere to literalist beliefs that designate strict gender roles for women reinforce their in-group identity and reduce their political participation. Future research might evaluate the degree to which other central religious beliefs shape political engagement across gender and racial groups.

Religiosity is also associated with important political activities like seeking naturalization. Latina immigrants are more likely to pursue naturalization than their male counterparts (Pantoja & Gershon, 2006). Lien (1994) found that that acculturation to American culture increased political participation among Hispanics; if these findings hold, they help create a fascinating intersectional image of Latinas both as culturally immersed in their traditional religious practices and as active instigators of cultural integration.

Religious beliefs associated with some denominations may be particularly important for political mobilization. For instance, if one perceives God as being active in daily life—as many white evangelical and black Protestant churches do—the need for individual action to address political problems may be seen as useless, as God will handle these issues (Froese & Bader, 2010). By contrast, Jews and mainline Protestants—who regard God as more inactive—may feel a need to be politically engaged since the Lord is further removed from political events (Driskell, Embry, & Lyon, 2008). At the same time, a black image of Christ has no effect on African American political engagement (Calhoun-Brown, 1999). Yet little of this research evaluates the ways in which gender shapes these views of God or if the views of God are equally influential in men’s and women’s political participation; this provides an avenue for future research.

Conservative doctrines provide an opening for conservative interest groups (and the Republican Party) to target voters who are likely to be receptive to their message about traditional social and family values but may be unlikely to turn out to vote (Smith & Walker, 2013; Wilcox & Sigelman, 2001). Although evangelical Protestant churches are most closely associated with institution-backed political activism, the Catholic Church routinely promotes voter turnout as well (Holman & Shockley, 2017). How much this activism increases women’s turnout is unclear, but such efforts may interact with the mobilizing effects of group membership and beliefs to promote political engagement (Wilcox & Sigelman, 2001). As such, mobilization by churches may promote men’s conservative activism while moving women toward liberal activism.

Conclusion

The research here documents the scholarship on how gender shapes religiosity, with a focus on the central discussions of why women are consistently more religious than men. The article then delves into the potential consequences of these differences in terms of group membership, political attitudes, and political engagement. Throughout the article gaps in the scholarship are noted, with a focus on understanding how gender interacts with core religious and political beliefs and activities to produce differing experiences and attitudes for men and women.

Religiosity includes a diverse set of activities and beliefs. The diversity in religiosity is also reflected in who engages in these activities and endorses these beliefs. The long-standing and consistent pattern of women’s higher levels of religiosity has produced vigorous debates and a large body of scholarship. At the same time, however, there are still clear gaps in our knowledge about the forms of religiosity, differences in religiousness across groups, and the effects of these religious behaviors and attitudes on social and political views and engagement. We have laid out this literature and identified various gaps in our collective knowledge. For example, we know much less about how women across racial and ethnic groups engage in religious activities as compared to their male counterparts. These gender differences are particularly important as we consider that, for example, the white evangelical population in the United States is declining while the Asian and Latino evangelical population increases (Putnam & Campbell, 2012; Wong, 2015). Nor do we know much about how race, gender, and religiosity interact to shape political attitudes. The interaction of gender and racial or ethnic identity in shaping religious and political experiences is worthy of further attention.

There is also methodological room in the study of gender and religiosity in how both gender and religiosity are measured in the scholarship. While research demonstrates the utility of moving beyond a binary measure of gender and some research suggests this is important for discussions of gender and religiosity, there is still considerable room for uncovering how gender as a social construct and spectrum can influence religious behavior. Similarly, in the measurement of religiosity, there have been some efforts toward developing aggregate measures of religious behaviors and beliefs. What remains unclear, however, is how these efforts might shape our understanding of gender and religiosity, particularly given the extensive findings that particular components of religious identity are key to gendered religious and political behavior.