Abstract
Organized religion affords the faithful a variety of civic skills that encourage political participation. Women are more religious than are men by most measures, but religious women do not participate in politics at elevated rates. This discrepancy suggests a puzzle: religion may have a different effect on the political mobilization of men and women. In the present paper, we explore the effect of biblical literalism—a widespread belief that the Bible is the actual word of God, to be taken literally—on political participation. Using the 2012 American National Election Study, we find support for our two hypotheses: (a) biblical literalism is associated with lower levels of gender consciousness, as measured by perceptions of discrimination and strength of ties to women as a group, and (b) reductions in these two factors account for lower political participation among women. Our findings provide new insights into the ways religious and gender identities intersect to influence political mobilization among women, with interesting implications for an American political climate where gender and religion both represent fundamental identities that shape political behavior.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American National Election Studies. The ANES 2012 Time Series Study [dataset]. Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers]. Retrieved from www.electionstudies.org.
American Political Science Association. (2004). American democracy in an age of rising inequality. A report from the APSA Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy. Washington, DC: The American Political Science Association. Retrieved from http://www.apsanet.org/portals/54/Files/Task%20Force%20Reports/taskforcereport.pdf.
Bang, E., Hall, M. E. L., Anderson, T. L., & Willingham, M. M. (2005). Ethnicity, acculturation, and religiosity as predictors of female college students’ role expectations. Sex Roles, 53(3–4), 231–237.
Bartkowski, J. P. (2001). Remaking the godly marriage: Gender negotiation in evangelical families. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press.
Bartkowski, J. P., & Hempel, L. M. (2009). Sex and gender traditionalism among conservative protestants: Does the difference make a difference? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(4), 805–816.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365.
Bernstein, A. G. (2005). Gendered characteristics of political engagement in college students. Sex Roles, 52(5–6), 299–310.
Burn, S. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 412–418.
Calogero, R. M. (2013). On objects and actions: Situating self-objectification in a system justification context. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and (de)humanization (pp. 97–126). New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_5.
Cameron, J. E. (2001). Social identity, modern sexism, and perceptions of personal and group discrimination by women and men. Sex Roles, 45(11–12), 743–766.
Cassese, E. C., & Holman, M. R. (2016). Religion, gendered authority, and identity in American politics. In press.
Conover, P. J. (1988a). Feminists and the gender gap. Journal of Politics, 50(4), 985–1010.
Conover, P. J. (1988b). The role of social groups in political thinking. British Journal of Political Science, 18(1), 51–76.
Conway, M. M., Steuernagel, G. A., & Ahern, D. W. (2005). Women and political participation: Cultural change in the political arena. Washington DC: CQ Press.
Dawson, M. C. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Deason, G., Greenlee, J. S., & Langner, C. A. (2015). Mothers on the campaign trail: Implications of politicized motherhood for women in politics. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 3(1), 133–148.
Deckman, M., & Mctague, J. (2015). Did the “war on women” work? Women, men, and the birth control mandate in the 2012 presidential election. American Politics Research, 43(1), 3–26.
Denton, M. L. (2004). Gender and marital decision making: Negotiating religious ideology and practice. Social Forces, 82(3), 1151–1180.
Djupe, P. A., Sokhey, A. E., & Gilbert, C. P. (2007). Present but not accounted for? Gender differences in civic resource acquisition. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 906–920.
Duncan, L. E. (1999). Motivation for collective action: Group consciousness as mediator of personality, life experiences, and women’s rights activism. Political Psychology, 20(3), 611–635.
Farris, E. M., & Holman, M. R. (2014). Social capital and solving the puzzle of Black women’s political participation. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 3(2), 331–349.
Fowler, R., Hertzke, A. D., Olson, L. R., & Den Dulk, K. (2004). Religion and politics in America (3rd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.
Francis, L., & Penny, G. (2013). Gender differences in religion. In V. Saroglou (Ed.), Religion, personality, and social behavior (pp. 313–337). New York: Psychology Press.
Friesen, A. (2013). Religion, politics, and the social capital of children. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 34(3), 197–218.
Gallagher, S. K. (2003). Evangelical identity and gendered family life. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J. E., Akande, A., Alao, A., Brunner, A., & López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775.
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, Y. R. (2002). Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47(9–10), 433–441.
Gurin, P. (1985). Women’s gender consciousness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(2), 143–163.
Hoffman, J., & Johnson, S. M. (2005). Attitudes toward abortion among religious traditions in the United States: Change or continuity. Sociology of Religion, 66(2), 161–182.
Hoffmann, J. P., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2008). Gender, religious tradition, and biblical literalism. Social Forces, 86(3), 1245–1272.
Holman, M. R. (2014). Women in politics in the American city. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Holman, M. R., & Shockley, K. (2015). Messages from above: Conflict and convergence of messages to the Catholic voter from the Catholic church hierarchy. Manuscript in preparation.
Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 293–305.
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509.
Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (2001). Emerging perspectives on the psychology of legitimacy. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaufman, G. (2000). Do gender role attitudes matter? Family formation and dissolution among traditional and egalitarian men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 21(1), 128–144.
Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1995). Identity and injustice: Exploring women’s participation in collective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5(1), 41–57.
Leege, D. C., & Kellstedt, L. A. (1993). Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Liss, M., Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2004). Predictors and correlates of collective action. Sex Roles, 50(11–12), 771–779.
Luker, K. (1984). Abortion and the politics of motherhood (Vol. 3). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Maltby, L. E., Hall, M. E. L., Anderson, T. L., & Edwards, K. (2010). Religion and sexism: The moderating role of participant gender. Sex Roles, 62(9–10), 615–622.
Mcfarland, S. G. (1989). Religious orientations and the targets of discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 324–336.
Merolla, J. L., Schroedel, J. R., & Holman, M. R. (2007). The paradox of Protestantism and women in elected office in the United States. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 29(1), 77–100.
Miller, A. H., Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Malachuk, O. (1981). Group consciousness and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 494–511.
Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., Alexander, S., & Hornsey, M. J. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 653–664.
Peek, C. W., Lowe, G. D., & Williams, L. S. (1991). Gender and God’s word: Another look at religious fundamentalism and sexism. Social Forces, 69(4), 1205–1221.
Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Read, J. G. (2007). More of a bridge than a gap: Gender differences in Arab-American political engagement. Social Science Quarterly, 88(5), 1072–1091.
Robnett, B., & Bany, J. A. (2011). Gender, church involvement, and African-American political participation. Sociological Perspectives, 54(4), 689–712.
Sanchez, G. R., & Vargas, E. D. (2016). Taking a closer look at group identity: The link between theory and measurement of group consciousness and linked fate. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 160–174.
Scheitle, C. P., & Cornell, N. (2015). Hearing clergy speak about social and political issues: Examining the effects of religious tradition and personal interest. Social Science Quarterly, 96(1), 148–160.
Schlozman, K. L., Burns, N., & Verba, S. (1999). “What happened at work today?”: A multistage model of gender, employment, and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 61(01), 29–53.
Schneider, M. C., Holman, M. R., Diekman, A. B., & McAndrew, T. (2015). Power, conflict, and community: How gendered views of political power influence women’s political ambition. Political Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/pops.12268.
Sherkat, D. E., Powell-Williams, M., Maddox, G., & De Vries, K. M. (2011). Religion, politics, and support for same-sex marriage in the United States, 1988–2008. Social Science Research, 40(1), 167–180.
Shingles, R. D. (1981). Black consciousness and political participation: The missing link. American Political Science Review, 75(1), 76–91.
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319–331.
Steensland, B., Robinson, L. D., Ilcox, W. B., Park, J. Z., Regnerus, M. D., & Woodberry, R. D. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1), 291–318.
Tolleson-Rinehart, S. (1992). Gender consciousness and politics. New York: Routledge.
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. The Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1051–1072.
Wald, K. D., Owen, D. E., & Hill, S. S. (1988). Churches as political communities. American Political Science Review, 82(2), 531–548.
Westbrook, L., & Saperstein, A. (2015). New categories are not enough rethinking the measurement of sex and gender in social surveys. Gender & Society, 29(4), 534–560.
Whitehead, A. L. (2012). Gender ideology and religion: Does a masculine image of God matter? Review of Religious Research, 54(2), 139–156.
Wilcox, B. (2004). Soft patriarchs, new men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilcox, C., Jelen, T. G., & Leege, D. C. (1993). Religious group identification: Towards a cognitive theory of religious mobilization. In D. C. Leege & L. A. Kellstedt (Eds.), Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics (pp. 72–99). New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Williams, R., & Wittig, M. A. (1997). “I’m not a feminist, but…”: Factors contributing to the discrepancy between pro-feminist orientation and feminist social identity. Sex Roles, 37(11–12), 885–904.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Tiffany Barnes, Angie Bos, Monica Schneider, Bas van Doorn, Matthew Jacobsmeier, and the Gender and Political Psychology Writing Group for their comments on this paper. Any errors that remain are our own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest
There are no funding sources to report for this research. We report secondary analysis of an existing dataset that was made publically available by the National Science Foundation. Data collection was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants SES-0937715 and SES-0937727, and also by the University of Michigan and Stanford University. The ANES Principal Investigators are Vincent Hutchings (University of Michigan) and Gary Segura and Simon Jackman (Stanford University). Ted Brader (University of Michigan) is Associate Principal Investigator. The authors report no relationship to the PIs or supporting universities.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
The research involved human subjects. Research subjects gave informed consent, data is kept secure and confidential, and all identifying information is redacted from the publically-available version of the dataset used by the authors in this research.
Informed Consent
Online administration of the survey was completed by GfK Knowledge Networks. Face-to-face survey administration was performed by Abt SRBI. In both cases, informed consent procedures were followed. Further information is available at: The American National Election Studies (ANES; www.electionstudies.org). The ANES 2012 Time Series Study [dataset]. Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers]. http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/anes_timeseries_2012/anes_timeseries_2012_userguidecodebook.pdf
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(PDF 423 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cassese, E.C., Holman, M.R. Religious Beliefs, Gender Consciousness, and Women’s Political Participation. Sex Roles 75, 514–527 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0635-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0635-9