Is digit ratio (2D:4D) associated with a religious profession? An exploratory study on male Polish seminary students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1898-6773.85.3.07Keywords:
prenatal testosterone, foetal androgen, 2D:4D, digit ratio, occupation, religiosityAbstract
Human females demonstrate higher religiosity than men in populations. Digit ratio (2D:4D), being a putative indicator of prenatal testosterone, is associated in varying degrees with characters that show sexual dimorphism. A small number of studies have indicated that religiosity may be associated with the biological basis of sex differences in humans. The objective of the present study was to ascertain whether 2D:4D in religiously oriented seminary students is different from individuals in other occupations. The study followed a cross-sectional design. Male participants of the study included 13 seminary students, 18 military chaplains and 91 control students from study courses relating to civil occupations. Lengths of second (2D) and fourth (4D) digits and their ratio (2D:4D) for each hand, height and weight were the variables and 2D:4D was the outcome measure. The results demonstrated that the seminary students had significantly higher 2D:4D than both the military chaplains and civil students. The military chaplains had the lowest 2D:4D. The study also revealed that the choice of religious occupation, and for that matter, religiosity, could be linked with the prenatal hormonal environment, particularly lower intrauterine testosterone compared to oestrogen.
Downloads
References
Apicella CL, Dreber A, Campbell B, Gray PB, Hoffman M, Little AC. 2012. Testosterone and financial risk preferences. Evol Hum Behav 29:384–390, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.07.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.07.001
Auger J, Le Denmat D, Berges R, Doridot L, Salmon B, Canivenc-Lavier MC. 2013. Environmental levels of oestrogenic and antiandrogenic compounds feminize digit ratios in male rats and their unexposed male progeny. Proc Roy Soc Biol 280, https://doi.org/10.101098/rspb2013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1532
Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD. 1999. Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 125:367–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367
Charness G, Gneezy U. 2012. Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Econ Behav Org 83:50–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007
Cohen-Bendahan CC, van de Beek C, Berenbaum SA. 2005. Prenatal sex hormone effects on child and adult sex-typed behavior: methods and findings. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:353–384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.11.004
Das A. 2018. Are Men’s Religious Ties Hormonally Regulated? Adaptive Human Behaviour and Physiology 4:306–320, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-018-0094-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-018-0094-3
Dell Inc. Dell Statistica (data analysis software system), version 13. software.dell. com, 2016.
Ellis L, Hoskin AW, Ratnasingam M. 2016. Testosterone, risk taking, and religiosity: Evidence from two cultures. J Sci Study Rel 55:153-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12248
Freese J, Montgomery JD. 2007. The devil made her do it? Evaluating risk preference as an explanation of sex differences in religiousness. In: Correll SJ. (Ed.), Social Psychology of Gender (Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 24). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 187–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(07)24008-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(07)24008-1
Galis F, Ten Broek CM, Van Dongen S, Wijnaendts LC. 2010. Sexual dimorphism in the prenatal digit ratio. Arch Sex Behav 39:57–62, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9485-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9485-7
Garbarino E, Slonim R, Sydnor J. 2011. Digit ratios (2D:4D) as predictors of risky decision making for both sexes. J Risk Uncertainty 42:1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-010-9109-6
Goodyear MDE, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T. 2007. The Declaration of Helsinki. Br Med J 335:624–625. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39339.610000BE DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39339.610000.BE
Harris CR, Jenkins M, Glaser D. 2006. Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men? Judgement Decis Making 1:48–63. http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06016.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e511092014-212
Hickey M, Doherty DA, Hart R, Norman RJ, Mattes E, Atkinson C et al. 2010. Maternal and umbilical cord androgen concentrations do not predict digit ratio (2D:4D) in girls: A prospective cohort study. Psychoneuroendocrinol 35:1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.02.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.02.013
Hines M, Constantinescu M, Spencer D. 2015. Early androgen exposure and human gender development. Biol Sex Differ 6:3. https://doi.org//10.1186/s13293-015-0022-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-015-0022-1
Hoffmann JP. 2019. Risk preference theory and gender differences in religiousness: a replication and extension. J Sc Study Rel 58:210–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12578
Hönekopp J. 2011. Relationships between digit ratio 2D:4D and self-reported aggression and risk taking in an online study. Pers Ind Differ 51:77–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.010
Ilori OS. 2014. Religiosity, paranormal beliefs, and psychopathological symptoms in two ethnic samples. Human Soc Sci Lett 2:192–202.
Kociuba M, Koziel S, Chakraborty R. 2016. Sex differences in digit ratio (2D:4D) among the students of military and civil courses at military academy in Wroclaw, Poland. J Biosoc Sci 48:658–671. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932015000401 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932015000401
Kociuba M, Koziel S, Chakraborty R, Ignasiak Z. 2017. Sport preference and digit ratio (2D:4D) among female students in Wroclaw, Poland. J Biosoc Sci 49:623–633, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932016000523 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932016000523
Koziel S, Kociuba M, Chakraborty R, Sitek A, Ignasiak Z. 2018. Further evidence of association of low second-to-fourth digit ratio (2D:4D) with selection in uniformed services – a study among police personnel from Wroclaw, Poland. J Biosoc Sci 50:527–539. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932017000438 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932017000438
Koziel S, Kociuba M, Ignasiak Z, Chakraborty R. 2016. Is sport choice and participation related to 2D:4D? A study among adult male student in Wroclaw, Poland. Coll Antropol 40:105–110, hrcak.srce.hr:166686
Lindeman M, Aarnio K. 2006. Paranormal beliefs: Their dimensionality and correlates. Eur J Pers 20:585–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.608 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/per.608
Malas MA, Dogan S, Evcil EH, Desdicioglu K. 2006. Fetal development of the hand, digits and digit ratio (2D:4D). Early Hum Dev 82:469–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2003.12.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2005.12.002
Manning JT. 2011. Resolving the role of prenatal sex steroids in the development of digit ratio. Proc Nat Acad Sci, USA 108:16143–16144. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113312108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113312108
Manning JT, Fink B. 2008. Digit ratio (2D:4D), dominance, reproductive success, asymmetry, and sociosexuality in the BBC Internet Study. Am J Hum Biol 20:451–461, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20767 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20767
Manning JT, Fink B, Trivers R. 2021. Digit ratio (2D:4D) and body mass index in the BBC Internet Study: prenatal sex steroids and a Trivers-Willard effect on body composition. J Biosoc Sci (online first), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932021000390 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932021000390
Manning JT, Scutt D, Wilson J, Lewis-Jones DI. 1998. The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length: A predictor of sperm numbers and concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen. Hum Reprod 13:3000–3004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-010-9109-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.11.3000
Manning JT, Taylor RP. 2001. 2nd to 4th digit ratio and male ability in sport: implications for sexual selection in humans. Evol Hum Behav 22:61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00063-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00063-5
Manning JT, Reimers S, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Fink B. 2010. Sexually dimorphic traits (digit ratio, height, systemizing-empathizing scores) and gender segregation between occupations. Evidence from the BBC internet study. Pers Ind Differ 49:511–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.015
McIntyre MH, Ellison PT, Lieberman DE, Demerath E, Towne B. 2005. The development of sex differences in digital formula from infancy in the Fels Longitudinal Study. Proc Biol Sci 272:1473–1479. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3100 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3100
Miller AS, Hoffmann JP. 1995. Risk and religion: An explanation of gender differences in religiosity. J Sci Study Rel 34:63–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386523 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1386523
Miller AS, Stark R. 2002. Gender and religiousness: Can socialization explanations be saved? Am Journal Sociol 107:1399–1423. https://doi.org/10.1086/342557 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/342557
Nave G, Koppin CM, Manfredi D, Richards G, Watson SJ, Geffner ME et al. 2021. No evidence for a difference in 2D:4D ratio between youth with elevated prenatal androgen exposure due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia and controls. Horm Behav 128:104908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104908 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104908
Niederle M. 2015. Gender. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 481–561. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400883172-009
Orenstein A. 2001. Religion and paranormal belief. J Sci Study Rel 41:301–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00118 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00118
Pitel L, Geckova AM, Kolarcik P, Halama P, Reijneveld SA, van Dijk JP. 2012. Gender differences in the relationship between religiosity and health-related behaviour among adolescents. J Epidemiol Comm Health 66:1122–1128. http://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2011-200914 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2011-200914
Richards G. 2017. Digit ratio (2D:4D) and belief in superstitions, conspiracy theories, and the paranormal. PsyPAG Quart 10321-26.
Richards G, Davies W, Stewart-Williams S, Bellin W, Reed P. 2018. 2D:4D digit ratio and religiosity in university student and general population samples. Transpers Psychol Rev 20:23–36.
Robinson O, Hanson K, Hayard G, Lorimer D. 2018. Age and cultural gender equality as moderators of the gender difference in the importance of religion and spirituality: comparing the United Kingdom, France, and Germany: age, gender, and spirituality across three cultures. J Scic Study Rel 58:301–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12567 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12567
Rogers P, Caswell N, Brewer G. 2017. 2D:4D digit ratio and types of adult paranormal belief: An attempted replication and extension of Voracek (2009) with a UK sample. Pers Ind Differ 104:92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.038
Roth LM, Kroll JC. 2007. Risky business: Assessing risk preference explanations for gender differences in religiosity. Am Sociol Rev 72:205–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200204 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200204
Sapienza P, Zingales L, Maestripieri D. 2009. Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone. Proc Nat Acad Sc, USA 106:15268–15273. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907352106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907352106
Schmitt DP, Fuller RC. 2015. On the varieties of sexual experience: Cross-cultural links between religiosity and human mating strategies. Psychol Rel Spiritual 7:314–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000036 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000036
Stark R. 2002. Physiology and faith: Addressing the “universal” gender difference in religious commitment. J Sci Study Rel 41:495–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00133 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00133
Sullins DP. 2006. Gender and religion: Deconstructing universality, constructing complexity. Am J Sociol 112:838–80. https://doi.org/10.1086/507852 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/507852
Tomaszewska A, Lubońska JA. 2022. 2D:4D digit ratio and its relationship to BMI, sporting choices and physiological predispositions among women. Anthropol Rev 85(2):135–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1898-6773.85.2.07
Trzebiatowska M, Bruce S. 2012. Why are women more religious than men? Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608102.001.0001
Voas D, McAndrew S, Storm I. 2013. Modernization and the gender gap in religiosity: Evidence from cross-national European surveys. Cologne J Sociol Soc Psychol 65:259–283. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-013-0226-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-013-0226-5
Voracek M. 2009. Who wants to believe? Associations between digit ratio (2D:4D) and paranormal and superstitious beliefs, Pers Ind Differ 47:105–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.051
Zheng Z, Cohn MJ. 2011. Developmental Basis of Sexually Dimorphic digit ratios. Proc National Academy of Science, USA 108:16289–16194. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108312108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108312108
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
