Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Difference in Male Door-Opening Behavior in Relation to Age of Male Benefactor and Sex of Beneficiary PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Difference in Male Door-Opening Behavior in Relation to Age of Male Benefactor and Sex of Beneficiary

Difference in Male Door-Opening Behavior in Relation to Age of Male Benefactor and Sex of Beneficiary

140 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Difference in Male Door-Opening Behavior in Relation to Age of Male Benefactor and Sex of Beneficiary

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Difference in Male Door-Opening Behavior in Relation to Age of Male Benefactor and Sex of Beneficiary Amy Bender, Ashlee Kirk, & Sarah Scott Hanover College Fall 2005

  2. Introduction • America moving towards gender equality, but gender roles still observable • Generational differences in door-holding • Fengler & Wood, 1972; Twenge, 1997 • Social movement’s effects on door-holding • Women’s movement (Twenge, 1997) • Benevolent sexism (Yoder, Hogue, Newman, Mertz, & LaVigne, 2002)

  3. Hypothesis • Age of Benefactor • Older men more likely to open the door for women than younger men • Sex of Beneficiary • Men more likely to open the door for women than other men

  4. Methods • Observed 28 subjects in natural setting • Inter-rater reliability: 0.5 • Judgements between both observers never differed by more than 5 years • Madison, IN and HC Campus Center in early evening • Definition of “door-opening” • Recorded men who had potential to open door • Recorded sex of beneficiary & age of benefactor

  5. Results • Found men who opened the door were significantly younger (M=20.75) than men who did not open the door (M=34.63). According to a t-test adjusted for inequality of variances, this relationship was significant, t(25.72)=3.14, p=.004. Age of Benefactor Door Holding Behavior

  6. Results, cont’d. • 4 of the 28 cases were dropped for analysis • Men rarely opened doors but when they did, they opened them more for women • Although more females had the door opened for them (M=0.2) than males (M=0.0), these results were not significant according to Fisher’s exact test, p=1.0.

  7. Discussion • Age of Benefactor • Lack of older subjects • Location of observation • Non-existence of generation gap • E. Thomas, 1974

  8. Discussion • Sex of Beneficiary • Benevolent Sexism • J.D. Yoder, M. Hogue, R. Newman, L. Mertz, and T. Lavigne, 2002 • Limitations of location • Economic Class Differences • M.D. Smith and L.J. Fisher, 1982

  9. Further Research • Limit observation to beneficiary directly • Examine a different definition of door holding