Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Is digit ratio (2D:4D) associated with a religious profession? An exploratory study on male Polish seminary students

dc.contributor.authorKociuba , Marek
dc.contributor.authorKulik, Tomasz
dc.contributor.authorChakraborty, Raja
dc.contributor.authorIgnasiak, Zofia
dc.contributor.authorRokita, Andrzej
dc.contributor.authorKoziel, Slawomir
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-03T14:47:03Z
dc.date.available2022-11-03T14:47:03Z
dc.date.issued2022-09-30
dc.identifier.issn1898-6773
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/44013
dc.description.abstractHuman 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.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesAnthropological Review;3en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectprenatal testosteroneen
dc.subjectfoetal androgenen
dc.subject2D:4Den
dc.subjectdigit ratioen
dc.subjectoccupationen
dc.subjectreligiosityen
dc.titleIs digit ratio (2D:4D) associated with a religious profession? An exploratory study on male Polish seminary studentsen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number95-106
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationKociuba , Marek - Department of Physical Education, Military University of Technology, Warsaw, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationKulik, Tomasz - Department of Anthropology, Ludwik Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wrocław, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationChakraborty, Raja - Department of Anthropology and Tribal Studies, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, Purulia, West Bengal, Indiaen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationIgnasiak, Zofia - Faculty of Physical Education, University School of Physical Education, Wroclaw, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationRokita, Andrzej - Faculty of Physical Education, University School of Physical Education, Wroclaw, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationKoziel, Slawomir - Department of Anthropology, Ludwik Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wrocław, Polanden
dc.identifier.eissn2083-4594
dc.referencesApicella 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.2008.07.001en
dc.referencesAuger 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/rspb2013en
dc.referencesByrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD. 1999. Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 125:367–83.en
dc.referencesCharness 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.2011.06.007en
dc.referencesCohen-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.en
dc.referencesDas A. 2018. Are Men’s Religious Ties Hormonally Regulated? Adaptive Human Behaviour and Physiology 4:306–320, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-018-0094-3en
dc.referencesDell Inc. Dell Statistica (data analysis software system), version 13. software.dell. com, 2016.en
dc.referencesEllis 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.12248en
dc.referencesFreese 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)24008-1en
dc.referencesGalis 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/s10508-009-9485-7en
dc.referencesGarbarino 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.en
dc.referencesGoodyear MDE, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T. 2007. The Declaration of Helsinki. Br Med J 335:624–625. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39339.610000BEen
dc.referencesHarris 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.pdfen
dc.referencesHickey 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.2010.02.013en
dc.referencesHines M, Constantinescu M, Spencer D. 2015. Early androgen exposure and human gender development. Biol Sex Differ 6:3. https://doi.org//10.1186/s13293-015-0022-1en
dc.referencesHoffmann JP. 2019. Risk preference theory and gender differences in religiousness: a replication and extension. J Sc Study Rel 58:210–230.en
dc.referencesHönekopp 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.2011.03.010en
dc.referencesIlori OS. 2014. Religiosity, paranormal beliefs, and psychopathological symptoms in two ethnic samples. Human Soc Sci Lett 2:192–202.en
dc.referencesKociuba 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/S0021932015000401en
dc.referencesKociuba 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/S0021932016000523en
dc.referencesKoziel 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/S0021932017000438en
dc.referencesKoziel 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:166686en
dc.referencesLindeman M, Aarnio K. 2006. Paranormal beliefs: Their dimensionality and correlates. Eur J Pers 20:585–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.608en
dc.referencesMalas 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.2003.12.002en
dc.referencesManning 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.1113312108en
dc.referencesManning 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.20767en
dc.referencesManning 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/S0021932021000390en
dc.referencesManning 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/s11166-010-9109-6en
dc.referencesManning 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)00063-5en
dc.referencesManning 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.2010.05.015en
dc.referencesMcIntyre 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.2005.3100en
dc.referencesMiller AS, Hoffmann JP. 1995. Risk and religion: An explanation of gender differences in religiosity. J Sci Study Rel 34:63–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386523en
dc.referencesMiller AS, Stark R. 2002. Gender and religiousness: Can socialization explanations be saved? Am Journal Sociol 107:1399–1423. https://doi.org/10.1086/342557en
dc.referencesNave 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.2020.104908en
dc.referencesNiederle M. 2015. Gender. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 481–561.en
dc.referencesOrenstein A. 2001. Religion and paranormal belief. J Sci Study Rel 41:301–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00118en
dc.referencesPitel 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-2011-200914en
dc.referencesRichards G. 2017. Digit ratio (2D:4D) and belief in superstitions, conspiracy theories, and the paranormal. PsyPAG Quart 10321-26.en
dc.referencesRichards 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.en
dc.referencesRobinson 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.12567en
dc.referencesRogers 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.2016.07.038en
dc.referencesRoth LM, Kroll JC. 2007. Risky business: Assessing risk preference explanations for gender differences in religiosity. Am Sociol Rev 72:205–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200204en
dc.referencesSapienza 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.0907352106en
dc.referencesSchmitt 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/rel0000036en
dc.referencesStark R. 2002. Physiology and faith: Addressing the “universal” gender difference in religious commitment. J Sci Study Rel 41:495–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00133en
dc.referencesSullins DP. 2006. Gender and religion: Deconstructing universality, constructing complexity. Am J Sociol 112:838–80. https://doi.org/10.1086/507852en
dc.referencesTomaszewska 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.en
dc.referencesTrzebiatowska M, Bruce S. 2012. Why are women more religious than men? Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.en
dc.referencesVoas 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/s11577-013-0226-5en
dc.referencesVoracek 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.2009.01.051en
dc.referencesZheng 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.1108312108en
dc.contributor.authorEmailKociuba , Marek - marekkociuba@wp.pl
dc.contributor.authorEmailKulik, Tomasz - tomras@poczta.fm
dc.contributor.authorEmailChakraborty, Raja - rajanth2003@yahoo.co.uk
dc.contributor.authorEmailIgnasiak, Zofia - zofia.ignasiak@awf.wroc.pl
dc.contributor.authorEmailRokita, Andrzej - andrzej.rokita@awf.wroc.pl
dc.contributor.authorEmailKoziel, Slawomir - slawomir.koziel@hirszfeld.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1898-6773.85.3.07
dc.relation.volume85


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Nazwa:
95-106_Kociuba_et_al..pdf
Rozmiar:
249.2KB
Format:
PDF
Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0