Gender, Risk, and Religiousness: Can Power Control Provide the Theory?

Keywords

gender, power-control theory, crime, religion, risk

Abstract

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.

Original Publication Citation

Hoffmann, John P. 2009. “Gender, Risk, and Religiousness: Can Power-Control Provide the Theory?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(2): 232-240.

Document Type

Peer-Reviewed Article

Publication Date

2009-06-01

Permanent URL

http://hdl.lib.byu.edu/1877/6720

Publisher

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

Language

English

College

Family, Home, and Social Sciences

Department

Sociology

University Standing at Time of Publication

Full Professor

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS