html5-img
1 / 9

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. Amy Bender, Ashlee Kirk, & Sarah Scott Hanover College Fall 2005. Introduction. America moving towards gender equality, but gender roles still observable

oshin
Télécharger la présentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

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

More Related