Does Masculinity Thwart Being Religious?

An Examination of Older Men’s Religiousness

EDWARD H. THOMPSON, JR.

KATHRYN R. REMMES

Previous work shows a significant relationship between gender orientation and being religious in samples of
college-age and adult men. Before entering later life, men with a feminine orientation have greater religious
involvement than other men. In a sample of older men from three Massachusetts counties, this study assessed the
bearing of men’s gender orientation and gender ideology on their religious involvement. Gender orientation more
than masculinity ideology was found to be a reliable predictor of older men’s religiousness. Similar to studies
of younger men, a feminine orientation was a significant determinant of the older men’s religious participation,
commitment, and intrinsic orientation. Older men who define self in very masculine terms, however, engaged
in a quest religiosity. When the masculinity ideology contains norms that prescribe the virtues of a traditional
masculinity and acquiring status, men’s religious orientation was extrinsic (or means) oriented. These important
findings are discussed in terms of how masculinity is at times a barrier to men’s private devotion and at other
times can be a trigger to questing.

Research studies often observe gender differences in religious practice and belief. Men par-
ticipate in religious ritual and worship less often, espouse different religious motivations for their
participation, profess less devout beliefs, testify that religious faith is not always germane to
their everyday activities, and identify less with “being religious” than do women (cf. Batson,
Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993). This gender difference is a reliable one. But the observed gen-
der difference does not translate to mean that men are not religious. As a group there is great
variation among men’s religious involvement and spirituality. What determines the variation has
not been thoroughly investigated, but studies have begun to identify masculinity as an important
determinant of men’s religiosity.
The pattern that emerges from a wide range of studies is that masculinity thwarts people
from embracing spirituality, whereas femininity promotes religious experience. The way that
masculinity has been conceptualized differs across prior work. Psychologists argued that men are
expected to internalize a sex-appropriate gender orientation and live with masculinity expectations
to avoid all things feminine, which includes being religious (Brannon 1976). Similarly, earlier
sociological studies proposed that men’s lesser religiousness was guided by the gendered division
of labor. This separate-spheres conceptualization emphasized that because men were to take on
the provider role (Lenski 1953), they encountered a socialization track that placed them on a
nonreligious path (de Vaus and McAllister 1987). Participation in church activities was viewed as
incongruent with workforce participation and men’s everyday provider roles (Luckmann 1967;
Roof 1978).
A recent discussion exemplifying these traditions was presented in Miller and Hoffman
(1995). Men’s irreligiousness was defined as another type of masculine risk-taking behavior.
Their thesis is directly related to the blueprint of a traditional masculinity that urges men to avoid
“sissy stuff” and to “give ‘em hell” when necessary (Brannon 1976; Thompson and Pleck 1986).
Brannon stressed that the masculinity standards in our culture encouraged men to seek adventure,

Edward H. Thompson, Ph.D., is Director of the Gerontology Studies Program and Professor of Sociology, Holy Cross
College, 1 College Street, Worcester, MA 01610. Email: ethompson@holycross.edu
Kathryn Remmes is a MPH candidate in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, Yale
University, New Haven, CT 06520. Email: kathryn.remmes@yale.edu

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:3 (2002) 521–532

522 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

danger, and take other risks. A caveat: this interpretation of the cultural mandate for men’s
irreligiousness may be more applicable to white men than African-American men. Hunter and
Davis (1992) argue that the meanings of manhood for African-American men include spirituality,
and risk-taking is associated with self-determination and pride rather than short-term gratification
and lack of self-control.
These explanations account for why men as a group are less religious than women, but
they generally fail to recognize why some men are in fact religious, some more religious than
women. Drawing upon the work in gender studies, Thompson (1991) observed that men’s lesser
religiousness was explained by the smaller proportion of men with a feminine worldview than
women. More than gender as a demographic category, gender orientation predicted religious
involvement. Men who were more religious scored higher on a standardized measure of femininity
than other men, and women with a higher score on a measure of masculinity were less religious
than other women and men. Francis and Wilcox (1996, 1998) affirmed that the feminine gender
orientation is predictive of greater religious involvement in their studies of U.K. adults and clergy.
Herman (1996) found that adult men and women with a masculine orientation were significantly
less spiritual than androgynous or feminine individuals. A recent study of ministers found that
men called to the ministry were more closely oriented to the feminine than the personality profile
of men in general (Robbins et al. 2001).
Mahalik and Lagan (2001) examined the importance of gender ideology, not gender orien-
tation. They sampled seminarian and undergraduate men and found that the men who adhere to
traditional masculinity norms are less intrinsically religious and have lesser feelings of spiritual
well-being. Their findings are consistent with the thesis that masculinity thwarts being religious.
Thus, whether part of one’s gender ideology or internalized gender orientation, masculinity norms
seem to influence religious activity and being one with a faith community (de Vaus and McAllister
1987; Feltey and Poloma 1991; Mahalik and Lagan 2001).
This study was designed to examine the importance of masculinity to older men’s religious-
ness. The study would be unnecessary if aging has little or no effect on men’s gender ideology,
gender orientation, or religiousness. If growing older did not affect men’s view of their social
world or themselves, then we could draw upon past work and propose that older men with a
developed feminine orientation would be more religiously, or spiritually, involved. We also could
assume that older men who adhere to a traditional masculinity ideology will be more irreligious.
But neither gender orientation, gender ideology, nor religious involvement remain constant across
the life span. Theorists have acknowledged that as men age, they experience transformations in
identity, self, belief, and behavior (cf. Ryff 1986, 1991; Whitbourne 1999). Gutmann (1987;
Gutmann and Huyck 1994) proposed that middle-aged and older men are less oriented to mascu-
line traditions in their postreproductive years, and they are less likely to be risk takers. “Exempted
now, they can reclaim some of their blunted ‘feminine’ component and experience new potentials
as resources of an expanded self” (Gutmann and Huyck 1994:66).
In addition, religious and spiritual involvement seem to grow in importance in later life.
A special analysis of Gallup Poll data collected from 1992 to 1999 highlights the finding that
religious involvement increases in the later stages of life (Gallup and Lindsay 2000). One question
asked Americans to rate the importance of religion in their daily lives. Of the 18 to 29 year olds
polled, 45 percent report that religion is “very important.” This percentage increases steadily with
age to 55 percent for those 30–49 years old, 70 percent for those 50 and older, and 77 percent
among those 75 and older. Patterns are similar for older adults’ involvement in religious services.
This is particularly noteworthy because some older adults are no longer physically able to attend
public religious services (Ainlay, Singleton, and Swigert 1992). Payne (1994) argued that a mature
“faith” emerges in men’s late life. Prior to men’s mid-life, men’s religiousness largely entails pro-
church involvement, and they translate their faith outward into acts of justice. Payne observes that,
over time, men’s religiousness shifts from ritualistic participation and a rational/logical orientation
to spiritual journeys and an introspective orientation (cf. Fowler 1981; Stokes 1982, 1989).
OLDER MEN’S RELIGIOUSNESS 523

MASCULINITY AND RELIGIOUSNESS

The character of “being religious” is understood to be multidimensional, yet what constitutes

the scope and breadth of religiousness among older adults continues to be debated (Futterman
and Koenig 1995). Most researchers recognize two distinct factors. There is a cognitive and
behavioral belonging dimension that assumes being religious is a social activity and that group
norms may steer individual action as much as subjective belief. Masculinity norms appear to
influence religious activity as well as awareness of being part of a faith community (de Vaus
and McAllister 1987; Feltey and Poloma 1991). There is the cognitive and emotive believing
dimension that recognizes being religious is an individual, subjective affair in which particular
beliefs affect individual action. Masculinity norms also appear to influence religious orientation
(Mahalik and Lagan 2001).
Distinct types of religious orientations have been described. The intrinsic form of religious
sentiment regards spirituality and faith as ultimate, flooding the individual’s life with motivation
and meaning (Allport 1950:455). The self-serving extrinsic form is utilitarian, granting the indi-
vidual safety, social standing, solace, and an endorsement for a way of life. Whereas the extrinsic
orientation is most clearly “religion as a means,” or instrumental in nature, the intrinsic orien-
tation can become an uncritical acceptance of religious ideals and characteristic of “religion as
an end.” Batson and his colleagues (1991a, 1991b, 1993) have introduced another dimension of
religious orientation—religion as a quest. It involves dialogue with existential questions raised
by the contradictions and tragedies of life. “Religion as a quest” is an open-ended approach to
religion that emphasizes the merit of questioning orthodox answers as much as existential inquiry
and facing difficult questions such as life’s meaning.
Because of the makeup of traditional masculinity norms (Brannon 1976; Thompson and
Pleck 1986), we expect that older men who endorse a traditional masculinity ideology will be
extrinsically motivated by the security and social capital that participation in a religious congre-
gation may offer; they will be oriented to religion as a means. As prior research suggests, the
men who ascribe to traditional gender norms are less likely than others to be spiritually involved
(Cornwall 1989; Feltey and Poloma 1991; Mahalik and Lagan 2001). By contrast, older men who
disagree with the tenets of traditional masculinity are more likely to participate in a congregation
and conceptualize religion as an end. No prior work has assessed the relationship between religion
as a quest and masculinity.
Consistent with the research examining gender orientation and religiousness among younger
and middle-aged men, the spiritual aspects of “being religious” are also expected to be minimally
related to older men’s masculine orientation. For the older men whose gender outlook is dictated
by their masculine orientation, this internalized masculinity may underpin their active involvement
in church organizations, since leadership positions are consistent with the instrumental character
of masculinity. This study’s design was guided by the following two exploratory questions.

• Question 1: Is older men’s gender orientation a reliable predictor of their religious ori-
entation, as it has been for younger men? Despite the changes that can occur in men’s
identities over their life span, we assume that gender orientation is more continuous than
discontinuous in its effect on men’s religiousness. We anticipate that a feminine orientation
is positively associated with older men’s religious commitment and their intrinsic religious
motivation, as has been found in samples of younger men. Their masculine orientation may
also covary with a utilitarian, “religion as an end” orientation. Accordingly, a masculine
orientation may predict participation and service to the congregation, since this type of
religious activity conforms to masculinity norms urging men to seek social recognition
and social standing. The relationship between gender orientation and “religion as a quest”
has never been investigated. Earlier findings that being firmly committed to the values of
traditional masculinity yields less introspection (Good, Dell, and Mintz 1989; Wisch et al.
524 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

1995) suggest that older men’s masculinity orientation may be negatively related to the
“religion as a quest” motivation.
• Question 2: Will endorsement of a traditional masculinity ideology predict older men’s
religiosity? Prior findings are equivocal, and we are uncertain. There is the grounded
expectation that older men who strongly endorse a traditional gender ideology will be
participatory in their church, synagogue, or mosque (Feltey and Poloma 1991). There also
are the findings that being stressed about living up to traditional masculinity yields less
existential well-being and less of an intrinsic religious orientation among younger men
(Mahalik and Lagan 2001). Consequently, endorsing a traditional masculinity ideology
may be directly related to their “religion as a means” orientation and inversely related to
older men’s “religion as an end” motivation. However, these presumptions are not firmly
grounded because no prior study has examined how gender ideology affects religiousness
when gender orientation is simultaneously studied.

METHOD

A convenience sample of elder men (N = 214) from three Massachusetts counties (Essex,
Middlesex, and Worcester) completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing “men’s reli-
gious opinions and gender.” Older men able to participate in their religious community and of
general good health were targeted. Questionnaires were distributed through local senior centers,
clubs and men’s groups, meal sites, and retirement communities. At times we were unable to
directly recruit and depended on a staff person at a site to do the recruiting; in this situation, we
left a small number of questionnaires with the staff person. Participants typically completed the
questionnaire at their convenience and maintained the self-administered and anonymous integrity
of the study by returning the questionnaire in a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. A very
small number, about five, requested assistance in reading the questionnaire and would either mark
their response on their own or indicate for the researcher to record the response.
Ages of the men ranged from 60 to 92, and the mean age was 74.9 years (S D = 6.4). Three-
quarters of the men are married (78 percent) and about one in seven (15 percent) are widowed.
About 3 percent were either separated or divorced, and 3 percent had never married. Among the
retired men, nearly 13 percent were active volunteers. A small portion (6 percent) of the sample
engaged in paid work, whereas most of the sample defined themselves as retired and not involved
in either volunteer or paid work. The men’s educational background ranged from not completing
high school to graduate work: 12 percent had not completed high school, 37 percent earned
a high school diploma, 23 percent had begun college, 17 percent graduated from college, and
11 percent held graduate degrees. In keeping with the ethnic and denominational composition of
New England,1 the sample is predominately Christian: 51 percent were Catholic, 32 percent were
affiliated with a mainline Protestant church, and 5 percent identified themselves as members of an
evangelical Protestant congregation. Significant numbers of Jews (11 percent) are present. Only
1 percent reported no religious affiliation.

Measuring Religiousness

There were seven religiosity measures in this study and, with two exceptions, each is a
multiple-item scale. The first exception is religious commitment, or self-assessed religiousness,
which is represented by asking respondents to evaluate “How religious would you consider
yourself?” on an 11-point scale ranging from “not religious at all” to “extremely religious.” The
second is frequency of attending worship services, which was measured on a five-point ordinal
scale ranging from “weekly or more often” to “never.” Drawing from Ainlay and Smith (1984),
a more thorough measure of organizational religious involvement uses four items to tally the
amount of time spent in other church-related activities, if church positions are held, if monetary
OLDER MEN’S RELIGIOUSNESS 525

contributions to a church are frequent, and if the respondent participates in religious education
activities (α = 0.82 in this sample). The nonorganizational religious activity scale consists of four
items documenting how frequently each older person reported he prayed privately, read the Bible
or other religious material, watched religious programs on television, and listened to religious
programs on the radio (α = 0.69). Both participation scales are constructed by algebraically
averaging the items that range from 1 (never) to 5 (once a week or more).
Religious orientation was assessed using Batson’s conceptualization of means, end, and
quest religiosity (Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993; Batson and Schoenrade 1991a, 1991b).
The “religion as a means” dimension identifies the extent to which the person may use religion
in a self-centered way. Defined by the Allport and Ross extrinsic scale, this 11-item measure
indexes a type of orientation that is utilitarian and useful to the self (α = 0.85). The “religion as a
end” dimension isolates the sentiment that faith is a supreme value. This intrinsic orientation was
defined by the items in the Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis’s internal and external scales (α = 0.79
in this study; see Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993:168–77). Part of an intrinsic orientation is
thus indexed by the extent to which the men’s religious orientation was shaped by social forces
and a response to social influence (e.g., “Certain people have served as ‘models’ for my religious
development”). Another part of the orientation is tapped by items that determine the extent to
which an individual’s religiousness arises from needs for certainty, strength, and direction (e.g.,
“I have found it essential to have faith” and “I find it impossible to conceive of myself not being
religious”). “Religion as a quest” was measured with the 12-item Batson et al. quest scale (e.g.,
“Questions are far more central to my religious experience than are answers”). The scale has good
internal consistency (α = 0.78).

Measuring Gender Orientation

Masculinity and femininity can be viewed as distinct, learned gender orientations, and some-
one can have both masculine and feminine outlooks. The short form of Bem Sex Role Inventory
(Bem 1981) was used to measure gender orientation. The respondent assesses himself on 30 trait
attributes, indicating on a seven-point scale (ranging from “never or almost never true” to “always
or almost always true”) how each attribute mirrors himself. Among the attributes are 10 socially
desirable, instrumental attributes (e.g., independent, assertive) to define a masculine orientation,
10 attributes (e.g., sensitive to others, compassionate) summarizing a feminine orientation, and 10
nongendered attributes (e.g., tactful, jealous) that are ignored. Both measures are algebraic sums.
Reliability estimates reveal the “masculinity” and “femininity” scales are internally consistent
(α = 0.86 and 0.89, respectively).

Measuring Masculinity Ideology

Masculinity ideology is one type of gender ideology, distinct from a pro-feminist ideology,
or an egalitarian ideology, and it was assessed with the male role norm scale (Thompson and
Pleck 1986). Using a seven-point Likert format, the respondent reports his endorsement of a
traditional conception of manhood (e.g., “Success in his work has to be a man’s central goal in
this life”). The 26 agree-disagree statements determined the extent to which patriarchal ideology
is supported. The three subscales are: anti-feminity (the importance of men avoiding activity and
behavior perceived as feminine), status orientation (the importance of gaining and maintaining
respect and status from others), and toughness (the importance of the values of being emotionally
inexpressive and physically violent, if necessary). Reliability estimates indicate that the subscales
have satisfactory internal consistency in this sample of older men (α = 0.70, 0.82, and 0.50,
respectively).
526 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

Analysis Strategy

We employ a set of hierarchical multiple regression analyses, one for each of the dependent
variables in this study—organizational involvement, church attendance, and nonorganizational
religious activity; self-assessed religiousness; means, end, and quest orientations. Each analysis
assesses the significance of older men’s gender orientation and masculinity ideology on their reli-
giousness, after first controlling for age, race, education, religious affiliation (mainline Protestant,
evangelical Protestant, Catholic, all others), marital status (widowed, married, all others), and
employment status (retired and volunteering, retired and not volunteering, employed).

RESULTS

Worth mentioning are several relationships among the background variables. The oldest men
in the sample were not as educated as others (r = −0.18), more often unmarried (r = −0.14),
and not just unmarried, but widowed (r = 0.32). They were more supportive of the ideology that
prescribes men to vigilantly seek out others’ respect (r = 0.21) and uphold standards of toughness
(r = 0.18). Men with less education were more likely to endorse the status norms that prescribe men
to seek out others’ respect (r = −0.32). They were also more likely to be Catholic and less likely
to be married. As expected, the two measures of gender orientation (BSRI masculine and BSRI
feminine) are correlated (r = 0.35), and the three gender ideology measures are intercorrelated
(largest r = 0.45). However, no measure of gender ideology is significantly correlated with gender
orientation. These near-zero coefficients demonstrate that gender orientation and gender ideology
are independent constructs. Respondents can endorse a traditional masculinity ideology and not
define themselves as masculine or as feminine.2
Summarized in Table 1 are the results of the three hierarchical regression analyses that inves-
tigate the bearing of masculinity on religious participation. Each regression involves an identical
two-step model. The first equation is denoted by Column 1. It assessed the influence of age,
race, education, religious affiliation (Catholic, mainline Protestant, evangelical Protestant), em-
ployment status (active in labor force, retired yet volunteering), and marital status (married) on
the measure of religiousness. The information in Column 1 for each of the measures of reli-
gious participation clearly shows religious affiliation is the primary predictor. Affiliation with an
evangelical Protestant denomination or being Catholic was a strong predictor of men’s nonorga-
nizational religious activity, and being Catholic predicted church attendance. In addition, men’s
organizational religious involvement was significantly related to their work status; those men who
were retired and engaged in volunteer activities were also more likely to be engaged in service
work within their congregations. Church attendance was determined by men’s marital status;
married men attended church (presumably with their wives) more often than the unmarried. Of
lesser importance, the more highly educated men were church attenders as well as engaged in
activities associated with the maintenance of their congregation.
The second equation in Table 1, denoted by Column 2, added the measures of gender orienta-
tion and masculinity ideology. When the information in this column is systematically reviewed, the
first important finding is that most of the initial predicting factors (religious affiliation, education,
and work status) remain robust after the introduction of the gender orientation and masculinity
ideology variables. The introduction of intra-individual descriptors does not diminish the signifi-
cance of sociological predictors. Second, for two of the regression models, there is evidence that
a feminine orientation seems to have the predicted effect on both church attendance (beta = 0.12)
and private religious activity (beta = 0.14). By comparison, organizational religious involvement
was reliably predicted by men’s masculinity orientation (beta = 0.16). Third, church attendance
and private religious activity were more common among men who reject the ideological standards
of toughness and anti-femininity (beta = − 0.13).
OLDER MEN’S RELIGIOUSNESS 527

TABLE 1
TWO-STEP HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES: DIMENSIONS
OF RELIGIOUS INVOLVEMENT REGRESSED ON BACKGROUND
INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONS OF GENDER

Organizational Religious Nonorganizational

Involvement Church Attendance Religious Activity

(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)

Age −0.042 −0.038 −0.002 −0.017 0.046 0.050
Education 0.119+ 0.123+ 0.115+ 0.144∗ 0.055 0.067
Married 0.023 0.012 0.202∗∗ 0.190∗∗ −0.026 −0.032
Race (white) −0.036 −0.059 −0.006 −0.009 −0.048 −0.060
Catholic −0.182 −0.194+ 0.487∗∗∗ 0.462∗∗∗ 0.369∗∗∗ 0.347∗∗
Mainline −0.162 −0.152 0.117 0.124 0.202+ 0.199+
Evangelical 0.092 0.081 0.090 0.070 0.220∗∗ 0.210∗∗
Active in labor force 0.044 0.055 −0.070 −0.066 −0.083 −0.063
Retired, volunteering 0.182∗∗ 0.156∗ 0.097 0.089 0.085 0.066
Masculinity status norms 0.046 0.081 0.042
Masculinity anti- −0.114 0.051 −0.128+
femininity norms
Masculinity toughness 0.028 −0.128+ 0.040
norms
BSRI masculine 0.160∗ 0.019 0.105
BSRI feminine 0.093 0.119+ 0.135+
R 0.308 0.390 0.459 0.494 0.283 0.365
R2 0.095 0.152 0.210 0.244 0.080 0.133
F 2.40 2.73 5.98 4.53 1.960 2.166
p <0.05 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.01
(1) df = 9,202; (2) df = 14,197.
+
p ≤ 0.10; ∗ p ≤ 0.05; ∗∗ p ≤ 0.01; ∗∗∗ p ≤ 0.005.

Religious commitment, or self-assessed religiousness, was initially observed to be signifi-

cantly related to being Catholic and retired (Table 2, Column 1). However, after gender ideology
and gender orientation were introduced into the regression equation, work status was no longer
predictive (Column 2). Men who describe themselves as more religious are Catholics who have
a feminine orientation and endorse status norms.
As might be anticipated, the coefficients in the first step of the three regression equations
for religious orientation indicate that orientation is strongly determined by religious affiliation
(Table 2). Catholics and the men affiliated with an evangelical Protestant denomination were most
likely to view religion as an end, and they were unlikely to engage religion as a means or a quest.
Their religiousness was intrinsically motivated. Neither men’s work status nor their marital status
had any bearing on their religious orientation. Educational background was related to religion as
a means, suggesting that education is inversely related to using religion for functional personal
needs.
The second step of these three analyses reveals the significance of gender ideology and
gender orientation on men’s perception of religion as a means, an end, and a quest. Endorsing
status norms proved to be a strong predictor of an extrinsic religious orientation, suggesting that
an extrinsic orientation is consistent with the dimension of masculinity ideology that emphasizes
personal accomplishment and social standing. In comparison, men’s intrinsic religious orientation
was not determined by gender ideology. Rather, a feminine orientation predicted the extent to
 528
TABLE 2
TWO-STEP HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES: DIMENSIONS OF RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT
AND ORIENTATION REGRESSED ON BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONS OF GENDER

Commitment
Orientation
Self-Assessed
Religiousness Religion as a Means Religion as an End Religion as a Quest

(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)

+
Age −0.052 −0.075 0.129 0.094 −0.074 −0.055 0.089 0.082
Education −0.002 0.054 −0.380∗∗∗ −0.318∗∗∗ −0.033 −0.035 −0.090 −0.101
Married 0.014 −0.008 0.009 −0.010 0.111 0.107 −0.017 −0.036
Race (white) 0.010 0.008 −0.060 −0.051 −0.034 −0.043 −0.049 −0.078
Catholic 0.353∗∗∗ 0.311∗∗∗ −0.217∗ −0.230∗ 0.431∗∗∗ 0.397∗∗∗ −0.300∗∗ −0.254∗
Mainline 0.111 0.109 −0.149 −0.131 0.112 0.085 −0.106 −0.059

JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

Evangelical 0.097 0.072 −0.145 −0.155∗ 0.198∗ 0.192∗ −0.185∗ −0.176∗
Active in labor force −0.138∗ −0.109 0.009 0.011 −0.100 −0.068 −0.037 −0.063
Retired, volunteering 0.065 0.053 −0.084 0.099 0.094 0.089 −0.008 −0.037
Masculinity status norms 0.143∗ 0.238∗∗∗ −0.053 0.089
Masculinity anti-femininity −0.042 −0.062 −0.115 −0.058
norms
Masculinity toughness norms 0.026 0.017 0.083 0.101
BSRI masculine 0.081 0.059 0.044 0.231∗∗∗
BSRI feminine 0.271∗∗∗ 0.011 0.198∗∗ −0.205∗∗∗
R 0.306 0.460 0.463 0.518 0.399 0.467 0.300 0.416
R2 0.094 0.211 0.215 0.268 0.159 0.218 0.090 0.173
F 2.32 3.77 6.13 5.15 3.81 3.51 2.21 2.95
p <0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001
(1) df = 9,202; (2) df = 14,197.
∗
p ≤ 0.05; ∗∗ p ≤ 0.01; ∗∗∗ p ≤ 0.005.
OLDER MEN’S RELIGIOUSNESS 529

which men view religion as an end. It was self-perception as gendered beings, not attitudes toward
gender relations, that predicted intrinsic orientation. Finally, religion as a quest was predicted by
a strong masculine orientation and the absence of a feminine orientation. This pattern suggests
that among older men questing is a dimension of religiousness that is especially influenced by
gender orientation.

DISCUSSION

This study was designed to explore older men’s religiousness and, in particular, to determine
the bearing of gender ideology and gender orientation on their participation in, commitment to,
and orientation toward being religious. For three reasons this study is an important addition to
the literature on gender and religiousness. First, the findings extend the research on the extent to
which masculinity thwarts religiousness while femininity develops religious experience. There
is strong evidence that the presence of a feminine outlook affects older men’s religiousness, as
other studies have previously demonstrated for younger and middle-aged men (Francis and Wilcox
1996; Robbins et al. 2001; Thompson 1991). The predictiveness of a feminine orientation persisted
even when gender ideology was part of the regression equation. A feminine orientation was a
key predictor of older men’s self-assessed religiousness and intrinsic religious motivation, and it
helped to predict their church attendance and private devotion. Simply put, from the belonging
dimension to the believing dimension of religiousness, a feminine orientation forecasts and might
causally determine men’s participation, commitment, and orientation. In comparison, the extent
to which masculinity directly thwarts men’s religiousness seems restricted to those cases where
the men endorse a traditional masculinity ideology. It was when traditional masculinity guidelines
were disregarded that older men participated in church services and private devotion.
Second, and contrary to prior theorizing, at times masculinity may encourage specific types
of religious involvement. We observed that older men’s organizational religious involvement was
determined by their masculine orientation. We also observed that their perception of religion
as a means was guided by the dimension of masculinity ideology that emphasized acquiring
status. Organizational involvement and an extrinsic orientation may be more instrumental than
we first anticipated. That is, both forms of being religious allow men to behave and perceive
themselves in ways that are consonant with the masculinity norms for men to maintain social
standing. Ironically, the two dimensions are not correlated (r = −0.09, p > 0.10). More than
all other predictors studied, older men’s willingness to take on leadership positions and involve
themselves in church committees was determined by their masculine orientation (and involvement
in other volunteer work). Their extrinsic orientation was also determined by their view that men
should gain others’ respect and define themselves through their work.
Third, and equally surprisingly, the absence of a feminine orientation was important to ex-
plaining religion as a quest. Religion as a quest was principally determined by the salience of
older men’s masculine orientation and the absence of a feminine orientation. Batson et al. (1991a,
1991b, 1993) urged researchers to recognize quest as a unique dimension of religious orienta-
tion, distinct from both the extrinsic or intrinsic dimensions. This dimension does seem to be
determined by unique gender orientations. Even though the extrinsic scale covaried with quest
(r = 0.43) and the two measures share 18 percent common variance, we surmise that gender
differentially determines religious orientation. Intrinsic religiousness is more associated with a
feminine nature, quest is profoundly masculine, and extrinsic is not an outcome of older men’s
gender orientation. Religion as a quest occurred principally among the men who saw themselves
in strictly masculine terms and adamantly chose to not use feminine descriptors. They are often the
same men who have maintained an extrinsic religious orientation, using religion as a way to serve
a range of other needs, such as gaining social capital and fellowship. The men who viewed religion
as a quest were affiliated with neither Catholic nor evangelical Protestant traditions. Perhaps, then,
Jewish and unchurched men engage their spirituality in less methodical and ritualistic manners
530 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

and are open to having religious doubts and raising existential questions about life’s meaning. As
Payne (1994) and Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis (1993) propose, maybe these men’s religious
doubts reflect a dimension in faithing wherein religious involvement entails questioning one’s
own (un)conventionality and (un)certainties.
Unlike Miller and Hoffman’s (1995) provocative proposal that men’s irreligiousness (and
women’s religiousness) is a exemplar of masculinity risk taking, we found religiousness was gen-
erally unrelated to older men’s endorsement of the norms that advocate risk taking. The measure
of the masculinity toughness norms we used is a reasonable post-hoc approximation of will-
ingness to take risks. One would expect to find, if Miller and Hoffman’s thesis is correct, that
the endorsement of toughness norms covaries with irreligiousness. In our sample, endorsing or
rejecting the toughness norms fails to predict most aspects of older men’s religiousness, espe-
cially their religious commitment and orientation. Endorsing toughness did emerge as a potential
predictor ( p < 0.10) of one religiosity variable—not attending church—and on the surface this
seems consistent with Miller and Hoffman’s premise. Whether older men’s church attendance is,
in fact, evidence of risk aversion or risk taking is a raw guess. Older men may not be risk takers,
compared to younger men, and their motivations for attending church may not logically result
from a lesser willingness to take risks.
Perhaps, for older men, “irreligiousness” has less to do with either form of religious involve-
ment and, instead, translates into an orientation that views religion as a quest. We observed that
older men who were questing are the men whose gender orientation is staunchly masculine. Quest-
ing could be theorized as risk taking from an orthodox perspective. “Questers” are “doubters,”
and their self-assessed religiousness is inversely related to their quest orientation (r = −0.16,
p < 0.05). Whether religion as a quest is best explained by assuming that masculinity thwarts
religiousness (Miller and Hoffman 1995) needs further examination. It may be that men who
abide by the same masculinity standards in late life that dictated their earlier experiences may
have “hit the wall” with their faith and begun questing.
In effect, this study best substantiates prior research that evaluates the importance of gender
orientation to religiosity, even among older men. Across different religiosity measures, men’s
gender orientation more than gender ideology contributes reliably and significantly to explaining
their religiosity. Older men who have developed a feminine orientation define themselves as
religious, are quite actively engaged in their faith through private prayer and worship, attend
religious services regularly, and are not likely to have much religious doubt. These men are not
atypical. In fact they are quite ordinary. They do not appreciably stand out in terms of their age,
education, employment status, or marital status. They are “believers.” By comparison, the older
men whose gender orientation is decidedly masculine are the men who view religion as a quest.
If they endorse a traditional masculinity ideology they are not likely to view religion as an end,
but as a means that could be self-serving.
These conclusions are based on a nonprobability sample of older men living in New England.
Some regional bias may well exist in the measurement of gender ideology, gender orientation,
and religiousness. In addition, the convenience sample may not have captured the true views of
older men in the general population. Nonetheless, the primary finding that masculinity thwarts
religiousness replicates prior work. Still needed are theoretically driven investigations that better
tease out the determinants of older men’s religiosity. Does masculinity thwart being religious?
Is religiosity adequately theorized when men’s involvement is assessed as religious versus ir-
religious involvements, or is men’s religiousness more multidimensional, multidetermined, and
differentially influenced by masculine and feminine gender orientations? We believe that research
is needed on the bearing of men’s gender orientation on their religious lives across the life course.
The question is not do younger men “do gender” by denouncing religious orthodoxy and older
men “do gender” by questing, rather do older men see themselves “doing gender” by questing?
How intimately connected is masculinity and religiosity in the lives of older men? We suspect that
the older men engaged in religion as a quest are not consciously being irreligious; rather, in late
OLDER MEN’S RELIGIOUSNESS 531

life this subgroup of older men have been unraveling the constraints of a traditional masculinity
and are beginning spiritual quests. Whether these “questers” are less or more “mature” in their
faithing than older men who view religion as an end is, as Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis (1993)
argued, not the point. Questing is a religious orientation, as are the means and ends orientations.
Its determinants are not well understood, and the bearing of men’s age and aging on the types of
their religiousness warrants more attention.

NOTES

1. In the State of Massachusetts, the Catholic (53 percent) and Jewish (4.5 percent) populations are greater than national
averages. Our sample also has a greater proportion of older Jewish men because we actively recruited men participating
in organized men’s groups, including Jewish community centers. The sample is predominately white (93 percent),
which is consistent with the demographics of older adults in Massachusetts (94 percents of adults aged 60 and older
in 1995 were non-Hispanic white; Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs 2000).
2. The correlation matrix can be obtained by contacting either author.

REFERENCES

Ainlay, S. C., R. Singleton, Jr., and V. L. Swigert. 1992. Aging and religious participation: Reconsidering the effects of
health. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31:175–88
Ainlay, S. C. and D. R. Smith. 1984. Aging and religious participation. Journal of Gerontology 84:357–63.
Allport, G. W. 1950. The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan.
Allport, G. W. and J. M. Ross. 1967. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 5:432–43.
Batson, C. D. and P. A. Schoenrade. 1991a. Measuring religion as quest: 1. Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 30:416–29.
———. 1991b. Measuring religion as quest: 2. Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30:430–47.
Batson, C. D., P. A. Schoenrade, and W. L. Ventis. 1993. The religious experience: A social-psychological perspective.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Bem, S. L. 1981. Bem sex role inventory professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Brannon, R. 1976. The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint of manhood, and what it’s done for us lately. In The forty-nine
percent majority: The male sex role, edited by D. David and R. Brannon, pp. 1–45. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cornwall, M. 1989. The determinants of religious behavior: A theoretical model and empirical test. Social Forces 68:572–
92.
de Vaus, D. and I. McAllister. 1987. Gender differences in religion: A test of the structural location theory. American
Sociological Review 51:472–81.
Feltey, K. M. and M. M. Poloma. 1991. From sex differences to gender role beliefs: Exploring effects on six dimensions
of religiosity. Sex Roles 25:181–93.
Fowler, J. W. 1981. Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. New York:
HarperCollins.
Francis, L. J. and C. Wilcox. 1996. Religion and gender orientation. Personality and Individual Differences 15:43–59.
———. 1998. Religiosity and femininity: Do women really hold a more positive attitude toward Christianity? Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion 37:462–69.
Futterman, A. and H. Koenig. 1995. Measuring religiosity in later life: What can gerontology learn from the sociology and
psychology of religion? Paper presented at the Conference on Methodological Advances in the Study of Religion,
Health, and Aging. Bethesda, MD.
Gallup, G. and D. M. Lindsay. 2000. Surveying the religious landscape: Trends in U.S. beliefs. New York: Morehouse
Publishing.
Good, G. E., D. M. Dell, and L. B. Mintz. 1989. Male role and gender role conflict: Relations to help seeking in men.
Journal of Counseling Psychology 36:295–300.
Gutmann, D. 1987. Reclaimed powers: Men and women in later life. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Gutmann, D. and M. H. Huyck. 1994. Development and pathology in postparental men. In Older men’s lives, edited by
E. Thompson, pp. 65–84. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herman, D. M. 1996. An investigation of the relationship between androgyny and spirituality. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 57(6-B):4074.
Hunter, A. G. and J. E. Davis. 1992. Constructing gender: An exploration of Afro-American men’s conceptualization of
manhood. Gender and Society 6:464–79.
Lenski, G. 1953. Social correlates of religious interest. American Sociological Review 18:533–44.
532 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

Luckmann, T. 1967. The invisible religion. New York: Macmillan.

Mahalik, J. R. and H. D. Lagan. 2001. Examining masculine gender role conflict and stress in relation to religious
orientation and spiritual well-being. Psychology of Men and Masculinity 2:24–33.
Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs. 2000. Highlights of the Massachusetts elderly population. http://
www.state.ma.us/elder, retrieved June 15, 2001.
Miller, A. S. and J. P. Hoffman. 1995. Risk and religion: An explanation of gender differences in religiosity. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion 34:63–75.
Payne, B. P. 1994. Faith development in older men. In Older men’s lives, edited by E. Thompson, pp. 85–103. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robbins, M., L. J. Francis, J. M. Haley, and W. K. Kay. 2001. The personality characteristics of Methodist ministers:
Feminine men and masculine women? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:123–28.
Roof, W. C. 1978. Community and commitment. New York: Elsevier.
Ryff, C. D. 1986. The subjective construction of self and society: An agenda for life-span research. In Late life: The social
psychology of aging, edited by V. W. Marshall, pp. 33–74. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
———. 1991. Possible selves in adulthood and old age: A tale of shifting horizons. Psychology and Aging 6:286–95.
Stokes, K. 1982. Faith development in the adult life cycle. New York: W. H. Sadlier.
———. 1989. Faith is a verb: Dynamics of adult faith development. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications.
Thompson, E. H. 1991. Beyond the sex difference: Gender variations in religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 30:381–94.
Thompson, E. H. and J. H. Pleck. 1986. The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist 29:531–43.
Whitbourne, S. K. 1999. Identity and adaptation to the aging process. In The self and society in aging processes, edited
by C. D. Ryff and V. W. Marshall, pp. 122–49. New York: Springer.
Wisch, A., J. R. Mahalik, J. A. Hayes, and E. A. Nutt. 1995. The impact of gender role conflict and counseling technique
on psychological help seeking in men. Sex Roles 33:77–89.