Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T04:21:14.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Religiosity and gender bias structure social networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2024

Erhao Ge*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University College London, 14 Taviton Street, University College London, UK
CaiRang DongZhi
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Grassland and Agro-ecosystems, College of Ecology, Lanzhou University, 222 Tianshui South Rd, Lanzhou, Gansu Province 730000, China
Ruth Mace
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University College London, 14 Taviton Street, University College London, UK IAST, Toulouse School of Economics, Toulouse, Occitanie, 31080, France
*
Corresponding author: Erhao Ge; E-mail: erhao.ge.20@ucl.ac.uk

Abstract

The number of studies examining gender differences in the social relationship rewards associated with costly religious practice has been surprisingly low. Here, we use data from 289 residents of an agricultural Tibetan village to assess whether individuals are more inclined to establish supportive relationships with religious individuals in general and to investigate the gender disparities in the relationship between religiosity and personal network characteristics. Our results reveal that participation in religious rituals contributes to the overall development of social support networks. The benefits to personal networks, however, seem to be contingent upon gender. For resource-intensive, infrequent religious rituals such as distant pilgrimages, males seem to benefit slightly more in terms of elevated in-degree values in their personal networks, despite similar levels of investment as females. In contrast, for daily, low-cost religious practices requiring ongoing participation, both genders obtain similar increases in in-degree values through regular engagement. It becomes more challenging for women to increase their status in communities when the effort invested in religious rituals yields smaller rewards compared with the same effort by men, contributing to ongoing gender inequality. These findings highlight the importance of examining the particular characteristics of religious rituals and the gender disparities in the associated rewards.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Gender bias in nominations. (a) Gender composition of nominees stratified by male and female nominators. Each boxplot shows the distribution of the proportions of male and female nominees for individual male and female nominators, respectively. (b) Gender composition of nominators stratified by male and female nominees. Each boxplot presents the distribution of the proportions of male and female nominators for individual male and female nominees, respectively. The red diamonds indicate the mean proportion of male/female nominees/nominators. The box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the central line designating the median. Whiskers extend up to 1.5 times the IQR, while outliers are denoted as dots.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Social support networks among adult residents (nodes = 288, edges = 4214). Each node represents an individual, with colour indicating gender: blue for males and red for females. The size of the nodes corresponds to their in-degree value. The directed edges signify the flow of support, with the arrow pointing from the individual seeking help to the one providing it. The colour of the edge is determined by the gender of the initiator and recipient: where both the initiator and recipient are male it is coloured blue, and where both parties are female it is coloured red. Mixed-gender interactions are represented in grey.The only isolated node is not shown. Networks were produced in Gephi using a Yifan Hu layout. Also see Figures S2–S6 for visualisation of each specific type of supportive network.

Figure 2

Table 1. Exponential random graph model predicting the log-odds of a tie in the full adult support network

Figure 3

Table 2. Exponential random graph model estimates of religious variables in different types of support. Significant effects are in bold.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Predicted in-degree values as a function of interaction between gender and religiosity. (a) The x-axis represents an unstandardised pilgrimage score, ranging from low to high. The scatterplot displays the observed pilgrimage scores and in-degree values of personal networks. The lines represent the predicted in-degree values for any given pilgrimage scores, based on the fitted model that includes the interaction between gender and pilgrimage score (Model 4 in Table S13). The shaded area indicates the 95% confidence intervals. (b) The x-axis illustrates the presence or absence of regular engagement in daily practices, and the y-axis represents the predicted in-degree values based on the fitted model that includes the interaction between gender and daily practice (Model 3 in Table S13). The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Detailed model parameter estimations can be found in the Supplementary Material, Table S13.

Supplementary material: File

Ge et al. supplementary material 1

Ge et al. supplementary material
Download Ge et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 6.9 MB
Supplementary material: File

Ge et al. supplementary material 2

Ge et al. supplementary material
Download Ge et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 2.7 MB
Supplementary material: File

Ge et al. supplementary material 3

Ge et al. supplementary material
Download Ge et al. supplementary material 3(File)
File 6.9 MB