Evaluating The Mental Differences Between Men And Women In The Process Of Creating/Promoting Spiritual Feelings When Encountering Religious Places (Case Study: Mosques In Yasouj City)

Sadeghi Habibabad, Ali; De Cesaris, Alessandra

doi:10.22034/jspr.2026.2074427.1189

Evaluating The Mental Differences Between Men And Women In The Process Of Creating/Promoting Spiritual Feelings When Encountering Religious Places (Case Study: Mosques In Yasouj City)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Ali Sadeghi Habibabad ¹

Alessandra De Cesaris ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Architectural Engineering Department, Faculty of Technical and Engineering, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran.

² Associate Professor, Department of Planning, Design, and Architectural Technology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

https://doi.org/10.22034/jspr.2026.2074427.1189

Abstract

Introduction
In the contemporary era, marked by significant transformations in lifestyle, cultural diversity, and the growing complexities of urban spaces, the nature of individuals' engagement and interaction with religious environments has undergone noticeable changes. This evolution is particularly crucial when considering the ways in which a sense of spirituality is cultivated or enhanced within religious spaces, specifically among women and men. Empirical findings alongside various research studies indicate that individuals’ spiritual connection to mosques can be influenced by an array of factors. These factors encompass physical characteristics, such as the architectural design of the dome or mihrab, the strategic use of lighting, and sensory attributes, including scents, sounds, color schemes, and the materials used in the mosque's construction. Furthermore, socio-cultural dimensions play a significant role, involving community engagement, intergenerational connections, and the facilitation of human interactions within the mosque environment. While numerous studies have explored the role of mosques in fostering social and spiritual interactions, there remains a notable gap in comprehensive research addressing these three dimensions (physical, sensory, and cultural) through the lens of gender differences. This raises an essential question: Which architectural elements and features exert the most profound influence on individuals' spiritual experiences in mosques? Additionally, does the extent of this influence vary significantly between women and men, or are these impacts distributed equally across genders?
Theoretical framework
The differences in environmental perception between women and men are significant and encompass various dimensions influenced by factors such as socialization, cognitive processing, and ideological frameworks. Numerous studies have highlighted that women generally exhibit stronger attitudes and behaviors concerning environmental protection and awareness compared to men. Women tend to demonstrate a heightened sensitivity toward their surroundings, often focusing intensely on the finer details of their immediate environment. This inclination makes them more likely to carefully evaluate specific aspects of a space, whereas men are generally observed to approach spatial interpretation with a broader and more comprehensive perspective. These notable distinctions in how individuals perceive their environment underline the importance of incorporating such considerations into architectural design practices. By doing so, designers can effectively engage the senses and attention of all users. Furthermore, women and men hold varied perceptions of the quality of interior environments, which further emphasizes the necessity of adaptable and inclusive spatial designs tailored to meet diverse needs.
Methodology
The research methodology was conducted in two phases: an initial descriptive-analytical approach, followed by a survey-based method. A structured questionnaire was employed to gather data, comprising 31 indicators related to physical, sensory, and socio-cultural components in mosque architecture. Each indicator was assessed using a nine-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." The questionnaire’s content validity was confirmed prior to implementation by five specialists in architecture with expertise in environmental psychology. Its reliability was also verified by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The study population consisted of worshippers and individuals participating in cultural activities at mosques in Yasuj city. The final sample size included 282 respondents, evenly distributed between genders, with 141 men and 141 women. Participants' ages ranged from 21 to 71 years, with the highest frequency observed in the 43–59 age group. Sampling was carried out using a purposeful and convenience-based method to ensure representation across various gender and age demographics among mosque users. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software. The questionnaire’s reliability was evaluated again using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, while its validity was established through content review by experts. To identify the factor structure of the questionnaire, exploratory factor analysis with the Varimax rotation method was applied. Additionally, an independent t-test was conducted to examine significant differences between gender groups regarding the influence levels of the indicators. Furthermore, a one-sample t-test was utilized to assess the significance of indicator means against hypothetical values. Statistical descriptions including mean values, standard deviation, and frequency percentages were presented during the analysis process.
Result and discussion
The present study aimed to explore mental and psychological differences between women and men in the process of fostering and enhancing spiritual feelings within mosque architecture, yielding noteworthy findings. The results indicate that sensory components have the most significant impact on individuals' spiritual experiences. This influence is particularly pronounced among women, who exhibit greater sensitivity to these factors. Elements such as natural light, appealing acoustics, pleasant fragrances, and soothing colors play a crucial role in creating a spiritually uplifting environment for women. These characteristics align with women's heightened sensitivity to environmental details and sensory stimuli, ultimately fostering a sense of belonging, psychological tranquility, and spiritual upliftment. Conversely, men tend to be more influenced by structural and architectural elements. Features such as grand domes, tall minarets, intricately designed mihrabs, and the effective utilization of human-scale proportions in spatial design are among the aspects that capture men's attention. These architectural elements, emphasizing divine order and unity, effectively contribute to enhancing men's focus and spiritual experience.
Conclusion
The thoughtful design of mosques can deeply enrich the spiritual experience of worshippers, especially when practical recommendations are applied. Sensory elements play a crucial role, with features like natural lighting, calming acoustics, harmonious color schemes, and soothing fragrances such as incense and rosewater enhancing the atmosphere. Attention to traditional architectural details, like domes, mihrabs, and human-scaled minarets, combined with designs that promote unity and focus, further elevates the space. Equally important are cultural and social considerations. Spaces dedicated to dialogue, religious education, and community activities foster a sense of belonging and collective spirituality. For women, creating private and serene areas ensures a more focused and tranquil worship experience. Balancing sensory, architectural, and social dimensions in mosque design creates an environment that meets the diverse needs of all attendees. Such holistic approaches provide a deeply immersive and sustainable spiritual experience for everyone.

Keywords

Men and Women

Spiritual Sensations

Religious Spaces and Places

Psychology

Subjects

Urban sociology

1. Agha, F., Maqbool, S., & Javed, S. (2016). Gender differences in spirituality among college students. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(4), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.15614/IJPP/2016/V7I4/133888

2. Aliakbari, F. (2014). Meaning‌-‌oriented architecture. Tarrah Publications.

3. Antunes, L. G. (2022). Recensão de: MORE. Expanding architecture from a gender‌-‌based perspective. Cidades, Comunidades e Territórios, Au22. https://doi.org/10.15847/cct.26224

4. Arnold, D. (2024). Refracting feminine subjectivities through space, time, and architectural history (pp. 23–41). Informa. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003224662‌-‌4

5. Bahraini, H. (2011). Urban design with Islamic approach. Center for Urban Studies.

6. Barrera‌‌-‌‌Hernández, L. F., Corral‌‌-‌‌Verdugo, V., Tapia‌‌-‌‌Fonllem, C., & Fraijo‌‌-‌‌Sing, B. (2015). Psychological meanings of “positive spiritual environment” and “places to communicate with God.” European Scientific Journal, 11(26). https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/6251

7. Bord, R. J., & O’Connor, R. E. (1997). The gender gap in environmental attitudes: The case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78(4), 830–840.

8. Bridges, R. A., Spilka, B., & Schumaker, J. F. (1992). Religion and the Mental Health. Religion and mental health, 43.‏ https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195069853.003.0003

9. Bryant‌‌-‌‌Davis, T., Austria, A. M., Kawahara, D. M., & Willis, D. J. (Eds.). (2014). Religion and spirituality for diverse women: Foundations of strength and resilience. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b‌-‌9798216006992

10. Buckingham, S. (2000). Gender and environment. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315179926

11. Čarapina, I. (2015). Women are more religious than men – is this true? Journal of Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.15406/JPCPY.2015.02.00056

12. Chan, H.‌‌ W., Pong, V., & Tam, K.‌ ‌P. (2019). Cross‌‌-‌‌national variation of gender differences in environmental concern: Testing the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 51(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517735149

13. Counted, V., & Zock, H. (2019). Place spirituality: An attachment perspective. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 41(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0084672419833448

14. DeBono, K. G., & Kuschpel, A. (2014). Gender differences in religiosity: The role of self‌-‌monitoring. North American Journal of Psychology, 16(2), 415.

15. Economou, A., & Halkos, G. (2020). The gender environmentalism gap in Germany and the Netherlands. Social Science Quarterly, 101(3), 1038–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/SSQU.12785

16. Eslami, K. (2012). The role of mosque in Islamic society. Bustan Ketab.

17. Fattahi, R. (2017). Mosque as a center of worship and social interaction. Islamic Culture Research Center.

18. Flere, S. (2007). Gender and religious orientation. Social Compass, 54(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037768607077035

19. Garfield, C. F., Isacco, A., Sahker, E. (2013). Religion and spirituality as important components of men’s health and wellness: An analytic review. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 7(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827612444530

20. Gersch, K. (2013). The feminine in body, language and spirituality.‏ https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:313275

21. Ghobadian, V. (2006). Understanding space in traditional Iranian architecture. Shahid Beheshti University.

22. Greenfield, E. A., Vaillant, G. E., & Marks, N. F. (2009). Do formal religious participation and spiritual perceptions have independent linkages with diverse dimensions of psychological well‌‌-‌‌being? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(2), 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650905000206

23. Habibi, M. (2011). Man, space, architecture. Tehran University Press.

24. Haque, A. (2001). The psychology of religion: A short introduction. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 18(1), 100–102. https://doi.org/10.35632/AJIS.V18I1.2037

25. Haselsteiner, E. (2021). Gender matters! Thermal comfort and individual perception of indoor environmental quality: A literature review (pp. 169–200). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‌-‌3‌-‌030‌-‌71819‌-‌0_9

26. Hendy, A. M. (2015). Gender differences necessities in interior design. Interior Design Journal, 5(3), 1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.21608/IDJ.2015.101786

27. Holman, M. R., & Podrazik, E. (2018). Gender and religiosity in the United States. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.686

28. Huang, Y., & Napawan, N. C. (2021). “Separate but equal?” Understanding gender differences in urban park usage and its implications for gender‌‌-‌‌inclusive design. Landscape Journal, 40(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.40.1.1

29. Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. W. (2004). Cross‌‌-‌‌national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3), 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038‌-‌4941.2004.00239.x

30. Karori, J. K. (2024). Integration between spirituality and psychology in the transformation of body, mind, and soul of the human person with an encounter with the divine. https://doi.org/10.51317/jpr.v3i1.493

31. Kaufman, K. (2014). Happiness and Anxiety as a Function of Gender and Religiosity.‏ https://digitalworks.union.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1540&context=theses

32. Khaleghimoghaddam, N. (2023). A neurological examination of gender differences in architectural perception. Architectural Science Review, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2023.2264822

33. King, U. (2008). Spirituality and gender viewed through a global lens (pp. 119–136). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781847423634.ch009

34. Kirschner, M. H. (2003). Spirituality and health. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 185. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.2.185

35. Koushki, H. (2015). Women and religious spaces. Soroush.

36. Lace, J. W., Haeberlein, K., & Handal, P. J. (2018). Religious integration and psychological distress: Different patterns in emerging adult males and females. Journal of Religion & Health, 57(6), 2378–2388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943‌-‌018‌-‌0608‌-‌0

37. Lankshear, D. W., & Francis, L. J. (2015). Inside Southwark Cathedral: A study in psychological‌-‌type profiling. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 18(8), 664–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2014.961705

38. Lelhaj, R., & Moosavi, M. S. (2015). Considering the effect of gender on women’s understanding of architectural spaces. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 3, 520–533.

39. Lico, G. R. (2001). Architecture and sexuality: The politics of gendered space. Humanities Diliman: A Philippine Journal of Humanities, 2(1), 30–44. https://www.journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/humanitiesdiliman/article/download/74/56

40. Luqman, N., Puri, A., & Tanwar, K. C. (2015). Gender differences in spiritual personality. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 3. http://ijmcr.com/gender‌-‌differences‌-‌in‌-‌spiritual‌-‌personality

41. Mandarić, D., & Hunjet, A. (2023). Are there gender differences in pro‌‌-‌‌environmental attitudes? Evidence from Croatia. https://doi.org/10.35609/gcbssproceeding.2023.1(181)

42. Mazzonis, Q. (2007). Spirituality, gender, and the self in Renaissance Italy: Angela Merici and the Company of St. Ursula (1474–1540). CUA Press.

43. McCright, A. M., & Sundström, A. (2013). Examining gender differences in environmental concern in the Swedish general public, 1990–2011. International Journal of Sociology, 43(4), 63–86. https://doi.org/10.2753/IJS0020‌-‌7659430402

44. Mohai, P. (1992). Men, women and the environment: An examination of gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society & Natural Resources, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929209380772

45. Motahari, M. (2004). Aesthetics in Islam. Sadra Publications.

46. Naeibi, S. (2016). Visual culture in Islamic architecture. Islamic Arts Institute.

47. Nasr, S. H. (2008). Islamic art and spirituality (A. Fardid, Trans.). Hikmat Publications.

48. Niculae, R. L. (2012). Architecture, a career option for women? Romania case. Review of Applied Socio‌‌-‌‌Economic Research, 4(2), 170–180. http://reaser.eu/RePec/rse/wpaper/22_Niculae_Reaser4_170‌-‌180.pdf

49. Nourbakhsh, E. (2012). The role of light in religious architecture. Jahad‌-‌e Daneshgahi.

50. Pakzad, J. (2012). The evolution of Islamic architecture. SAMT Publications.

51. Plavsic, S. (2013). An investigation of gender differences in pro‌-‌environmental attitudes and behaviors [Senior Honors Thesis, University of Connecticut]. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/404

52. Rahnamai, M. (2019). Intergenerational architecture in religious places. Architecture Research Institute.

53. Reich, K. H. (1996). Women’s contribution to the psychology of religion. Journal of Empirical Theology, 9(1), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1163/157092596X00042

54. Rezaei, S. (2014). Designing religious spaces for women. Ferdowsi University Press.

55. Rich, A. I. (2012). Gender and spirituality: Are women really more spiritual? [Undergraduate thesis, Liberty University]. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1293&context=honors

56. Saffarzadeh, L. (2013). Sensory‌-‌based architecture in religious spaces. University of Art, Shiraz.

57. Sajjadi, S. (2013). Mihrab in Islamic architecture. Soroush‌-‌e Elm Publications.

58. Sakellari, M., & Skanavis, C. (2013). Environmental behavior and gender: An emerging area of concern for environmental education research. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2013.820633

59. Schnabel, L. (2017). Gendered religiosity. Sociology Compass, 11(9), e12490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644‌-‌017‌-‌0302‌-‌9

60. Shirazi, G. (2010). Symbolism in Islamic architecture. University of Art, Isfahan.

61. Smythe, T. T. (2014). Boys to men: A phenomenological study of men’s construction of masculinity at a faith‌‌-‌‌based university [Master’s thesis, Taylor University]. https://pillars.taylor.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=mahe

62. Tahmasbi, M. (2018). Climate and comfort in Islamic architecture. Memar Publications.

63. Ülkü, G. K. (2018). Konutun cinsiyeti. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 3(2), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.287911

64. Van Ness, A., & Nguyen, T. M. (2013). Identificare i parametri spaziali per le differenze nel comportamento di genere negli ambienti costruiti. Techne: Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, 6(10), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.6092/2281‌-‌4574/1554

65. Vardy, T., Moya, C., Placek, C. D., Apicella, C. L., Bolyanatz, A., Cohen, E., Handley, C., Klodová Klocová, E. K., Lesorogol, C., Mathew, S., McNamara, S. A., Purzycki, B. G., Soler, M. F., Weigel, J., Willard, A. K., Xygalatas, D., Norenzayan, A., Henrich, J., Lang, M., & Atkinson, Q. D. (2022). The religiosity gender gap in 14 diverse societies. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 12(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006292

66. Village, A., Baker, S., & Howat, S. (2012). Psychological‌‌-‌‌type profiles of churchgoers in England. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15(10), 969–978. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2012.686479

67. Vosloo, C., Wissing, M. P., & Temane, Q. M. (2009). Gender, spirituality and psychological well‌-‌being. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 19(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2009.10820274

68. Wang, B. (2022). Is female a more pro‌‌-‌‌environmental gender? Evidence from China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(13), 8002. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138002

69. Wheeler, A. (2004). About being‌‌-‌‌two in an architectural perspective: Interview with Luce Irigaray. Journal of Romance Studies, 4(2), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138002

70. Wilson, E. E. (2015). Relational spirituality, gender, and power: Applications to couple therapy (pp. 133–144). In Spiritually Oriented Psychotherapy for Women: A Guide to Issues, Clinical Approaches, and Resources. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‌-‌3‌-‌319‌-‌13398‌-‌0_11

71. Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2012). Explaining gender differences in concern about environmental problems in the United States. Society & Natural Resources, 25(11), 1067–1084. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.651191

72. Yelamali, S. N., & Ulhe, R. S. (2023). A behavioural analysis of the intersectionality of gender in housing among Indian middle‌‌-‌‌class families (pp. 759–782). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‌-‌3‌-‌031‌-‌36302‌-‌3_56

73. Zare, A. (2011). Use of natural materials in traditional Iranian architecture. Fanavaran.

74. Zelezny, L., Chua, P.‌ ‌P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022‌-‌4537.00177

75. Zepp, D. A. (2016). College men at the intersection of masculinity and spirituality: A literature review and synthesis. Religion & Education, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2015.1106930