practical investigation

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To investigate gender differences between males and females in anti-social behaviours with regards to following rules in public spaces, such as opening doors for others.

Question 2

Fully operationalised alternative hypothesis

Answer 2

There will be significantly more females that hole the door open with any body part for another person 3m away from them than males

Question 3

Fully operationalised 2-tailed hypothesis

Answer 3

• there will be a significant difference between males and females in the number of pro-social behaviours such as holding a door open with any body part when 3m away from someone

Question 4

Sample

Answer 4

• 20 ppts
• students at king edward vi college, Stourbridge
• 16-19 years old
• sampling method- opportunity, event

Question 5

Method used

Answer 5

Naturalistic, covert observation

Question 6

Qualitative data

Answer 6

• event sampling
• observer narratives- collected data on the appearance and actions of the people walking through the doors

Question 7

Quantitative data

Answer 7

• tally
• event sampling
• tally of what gender helped and did not help at each time

Question 8

Procedure

Answer 8

• carried out a pilot study
• operationalised pro-social behaviour to be that of holding a door open for someone also walking through the door at a distance of 3m or less behind or in front of them
• operationalised anti-social behaviour to be that of closing a door or leaving it to shut after they have walked through it, without holding it open for someone 3m behind or in front of them.
• looked for a door which had a regular flow of people, but not too fast so couldn’t accurately record
• sat in two seats to the left of the entrance to the student lounge, in King Edward VI College, Stourbridge
• 2 researchers collecting qualitative data in which they described the appearance, gender and actions of the people going through the doors
• 1 person was collecting quantitative data in a tally of which gender held the door open and which did not help with the door
• this was completed for an hour, using event sampling- data was recorded each time it occurred

Question 9

Quantitative data

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Statistical analysis of quant results

Answer 10

• used a chi-squared
• used a 0.05 significance level
• calculated value was 0.4
• critical value was 3.84
• therefore, results were not significant (for 2-tailed hypothesis)

Question 11

Qualitative data results

Answer 11

• only one female said thank you to a male for holding a door open
• one female saw a male approaching and stood to the side to let him pass through first
• one male slammed the door shut

Question 12

Conclusion

Answer 12

• although there was more females opening the door than males, there was no significant difference between females and males for holding a door open for another person 3m away
• we therefore accept the null hypothesis
• instead the reason could be due to culture of politeness, leading to women opening doors more
• this goes with the previous research conducted by Leslie, Snyder and Glomb (2013) in which women are more likely to engage in pro-social behaviour.

Question 13

Generalisability

Answer 13

• low
• students of same age
• not representative of wider population
• all from same area of West Midlands- so not representative of other cultures or areas

Question 14

Reliability

Answer 14

• standardised procedure- event sampling, sat in the same space, recorded for 60 minutes. Fully operationalised so can be repeated easily
• high inter rater reliability- two researchers recording qualitative data- found there was 100% agreement between the two

Question 15

Applications

Answer 15

• yes
• no significant difference between females and males
• helps to remove gender stereotyping between the two
• such as men being classed as ‘gentlemanly’ for holding doors open and women being more ‘polite’

Question 16

Validity

Answer 16

• high ecological validity- natural setting, no DC’s as it was a covert experiment, so can’t change behaviour - accurate reflection of how they would normally behave with pro/anti social behaviour
• quant data- statistically analysed using a chi-squared and so this reduces misinterpretation or researcher bias, so results more valid

Question 17

Ethics

Answer 17

• unethical
• didn’t know they were being studies- covert observation
• no informed consent was given, didn’t have right to withdraw

Question 18

How would we improve

Answer 18

• use a larger, more varied sample- increasing generalisability ( go into Stourbridge town centre)
• get more more qualitative data by recording the scene- go back and analyse, increase internal validity