Gender, Risk, and Religiousness: Can Power Control Provide the Theory?
gender, power-control theory, crime, religion, risk
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.
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation
Hoffmann, John P., "Gender, Risk, and Religiousness: Can Power Control Provide the Theory?" (2009). Faculty Publications. 3910.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Family, Home, and Social Sciences
The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Copyright Use Information