Practical

Question 1

What was the aim of our practical?

Answer 1

To investigate gender differences in helping behaviour with regards to holding the door open for another person or not because Leslie, Snyder and Glomb (2013) found that females donated more money to charity than males showing they may be prone to more helping behaviour and Eagly (2009) found that men tend to engage in more prosocial behaviours that show strength/status - such as someone holding open a door for them.

Question 2

What are the variables of our practical?

Answer 2

IV = Gender
DV = Held door or not for someone 3m behind
Controls = same door, only included members of academic institution, classification of holding the door involved any body part

Question 3

State the fully operationalised alternative hypothesis.

Answer 3

It is predicated that significantly more females will hold the door open with any body part for another person 3m away than males.

Question 4

State the fully operationalised null hypothesis.

Answer 4

There will be no significant difference between the umber of males and females holding the door open with any body part for another person 3m away.

Question 5

What sample did we use in our practical?

Answer 5

• 20 ppts, 10 of both genders
• Students and teachers
• At King Edward VI College, Stourbridge

Question 6

What sampling method did we use in our practical?

Answer 6

Opportunity - event (when the specific event being looking for takes place it is recorded during a period of time)

Question 7

What was the method used in our practical?

Answer 7

Naturalistic covert observation

Question 8

What constituted as qualitative data in this practical?

Answer 8

Using an observer narrative we collected data on appearance and speech of the people walking through the doors.

Question 9

What constituted as quantitative data in this practical?

Answer 9

Using nominal data we made a tally of what gender helped and did not help each time.

Question 10

Briefly describe the procedure of our practical.

Answer 10

• We first carried out a pilot study
• Looked for a door that had a regular (but not too fast) flow of people
• Then we sat in some seats in the reception of KEDST and began our naturalistic covert observation of the door
• 2 people were collecting qualitative data in which they describe appearance and whether anything was said
• 1 person was collecting quantitative data in which they made a tally of which gender help and did not help with the door
• We did this for an hour, gathering data on an opportunity sample of 20 ppts from King Edward VI College, Stourbridge

Question 11

State the results of the quantitative data from the tally.

Answer 11

• 17/20 people held the door
• 9 females held the door
• 8 males held the door
• 6 males held the door open for females
• 2 males held the door open for another male
• 4 females held the door open for males

Question 12

State the results of the quantitative data using Chi-Squared.

Answer 12

The calculated value of x2 was 0.4, the critical value on the table with a 0.05 level of significance and 1 degree of freedom was 2.17 showing that the results are not significant due to the x2 value needing to be equal to or higher than the critical value.

Question 13

State the results of the qualitative data.

Answer 13

• Only one person (a girl) said thank you to a male staff
• One female saw a male approaching the door and stood aside to get him to open it for her
• Male staff held door open for multiple female staff

Question 14

What can we conclude from our results?

Answer 14

Although there were more males holding the door open for females there was no significant difference between females and males holding the door open for another person 3m away and we therefore accept the null hypothesis. Instead the reason could be due to our culture of politeness leading to men holding open the door for women more. These findings go against the prior research of Leslie, Snyder and Glomb (2013) and Eagly (2009) in which women are more likely to engage in prosocial helping behaviour.

Question 15

Evaluate the generalisablity using a low point.

Answer 15

P - Low
E - Only used a sample of 20 people from King Edward VI College, Stourbridge
E - This is a very low number and due to them being from the same area, the results can’t be generalised to other cultures

Question 16

Evaluate reliability using a high and low point.

Answer 16

P - High inter-rater
E - Two researchers were recording qualitative data which was summarised at the end
E - There was a 100% level of agreement and so reduces subjectivity of results
P - Low test-retest
E - What classes as holding the door open for someone to one person may be different to another person, EVs also play a part such as weather
E - And so it makes it harder to accurately test for consistency in results as some people may have used different indicators and EVs such as weather also affect results in the same way

Question 17

Are there any applications?

Answer 17

P - Yes
E - There were no significant differences in men and women holding the door open for another person
E - Therefore this helps to remove stereotyping of genders and their helping behaviours - such as men being classed as gentlemanly by holding open the door for women

Question 18

Evaluate validity using a high and low point.

Answer 18

P - High ecological
E - Due to it being a naturalistic covert observation, ppts were in their natural environment and were unaware they were being studied
E - This means that their behaviour would be natural and void of DCs meaning that it would accurately reflect real life door holding behaviour
P - Low internal
E - No control over EVs due to it being an observation with no manipulation of variables
E - Because of this you can’t infer cause and effect and so cannot be sure that there aren’t other factors involved

Question 19

Evaluate a good and bad ethical issue raised during our practical.

Answer 19

P - Good
E - No identification of a ppts name was recorded at the scene
E - This maintains confidentiality
P - Bad
E - Ppts didn’t know they were being studied due to it being a covert observation
E - No informed consent was given and the right to withdraw was comprimised

Question 20

Give 3 examples of how we can improve our practical for future research?

Answer 20

1) Use a larger, more varied sample in order to boost generalisability and so allow for a longer time period to record data
2) Researchers may get more qualitative data by recording the scene so that they don’t miss any data, nor do they misremember
3) Find a different door that has more people walking through who won’t know each other to avoid bias in who holds the door open for who