Exploring Moderators of Gender Differences: Contextual Differences in Door-Holding Behavior1 JANICE D. YODER,~ MARY HOGUE, ROBERT NEWMAN, L I N D A METZ, AND TONYA LAVIGNE University ofAkron The simple behavior of holding a door for another person can be interpreted as gender- neutral, helpful, or benevolently sexist. Each interpretation leads to competing hypotheses predicting no gender differences in door holding, consistent door holding by men as chiv- alrous helpers, and door holding by men i n the gender-salient context of dating but not in everyday interactions, respectively. Observations of 769 college-aged, female-male dyads found a strong pattern of male door holding in dating but not in everyday contexts. This pattern highlights social role theory's emphasis on understanding contextual moderators of apparent gender differences, changes in door-holding behavior in everyday contexts across the past 20 years, and the benevolent sexism subtly conveyed by male dominance in door holding in dating contexts. Eagly and Wood (1 99 1) argued that an important step toward understanding apparent gender differences in social behavior is to explore moderator variables that alternately exaggerate and attenuate these differences. Their social role the- ory proposes that the influence of gender-role expectations on gender differences in social behavior depends on the degree to which the context in which the behav- ior occurs makes salient or minimizes gender stereotypes. The importance of understanding social contextual contributions also is highlighted in Deaux and Major's (1987) exposition of gender enactments in social exchanges. The purpose of the present paper is to examine how gender salience affects patterns of female- male behavior. Specifically, we will explore door-holding behavior in the gender- salient context of dating versus everyday life. The social meaning underlying door-holding etiquette seems to be in flux. One argument assumes a gender-neutral stance, proposing that door holding is a simple form of courtesy. Following this line of reasoning, who holds a door for whom is dictated by rules independent of gender such that women should hold doors for men as readily as men extend this courtesy to women, regardless of context. 'The authors thank Eva Fong and David Worrels for their help with data collection. korrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Janice D. Yoder, Department of Psychology, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4301. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002, 32, 8, pp. 1682-1 686. Copyright 0 2002 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved. EXPLORING MODERATORS OF GENDER DIFFERENCE 1683 Others associate the public ritual of door holding with gender such that men hold doors for women and the reverse is regarded as deviant. Indeed, there is evidence to support this contention (Ventimiglia, 1982). Although participants in rituals of gender e ...

1. Exploring Moderators of Gender Differences:
Contextual Differences in Door-Holding Behavior1
JANICE D. YODER,~ MARY HOGUE, ROBERT NEWMAN,
L I N D A METZ, AND TONYA LAVIGNE
University ofAkron
The simple behavior of holding a door for another person can be
interpreted as gender-
neutral, helpful, or benevolently sexist. Each interpretation
leads to competing hypotheses
predicting no gender differences in door holding, consistent
door holding by men as chiv-
alrous helpers, and door holding by men i n the gender-salient
context of dating but not in
everyday interactions, respectively. Observations of 769
college-aged, female-male dyads
found a strong pattern of male door holding in dating but not in
everyday contexts. This
pattern highlights social role theory's emphasis on
understanding contextual moderators of
apparent gender differences, changes in door-holding behavior
in everyday contexts across
the past 20 years, and the benevolent sexism subtly conveyed by
male dominance in door
holding in dating contexts.
Eagly and Wood (1 99 1) argued that an important step toward
understanding
apparent gender differences in social behavior is to explore
moderator variables

2. that alternately exaggerate and attenuate these differences.
Their social role the-
ory proposes that the influence of gender-role expectations on
gender differences
in social behavior depends on the degree to which the context in
which the behav-
ior occurs makes salient or minimizes gender stereotypes. The
importance of
understanding social contextual contributions also is
highlighted in Deaux and
Major's (1987) exposition of gender enactments in social
exchanges. The purpose
of the present paper is to examine how gender salience affects
patterns of female-
male behavior. Specifically, we will explore door-holding
behavior in the gender-
salient context of dating versus everyday life.
The social meaning underlying door-holding etiquette seems to
be in flux.
One argument assumes a gender-neutral stance, proposing that
door holding is a
simple form of courtesy. Following this line of reasoning, who
holds a door for
whom is dictated by rules independent of gender such that
women should hold
doors for men as readily as men extend this courtesy to women,
regardless of
context.
'The authors thank Eva Fong and David Worrels for their help
with data collection.
korrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Janice D. Yoder, Department of
Psychology, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4301.

3. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002, 32, 8, pp. 1682-1
686.
Copyright 0 2002 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights
reserved.
EXPLORING MODERATORS OF GENDER DIFFERENCE
1683
Others associate the public ritual of door holding with gender
such that men
hold doors for women and the reverse is regarded as deviant.
Indeed, there is
evidence to support this contention (Ventimiglia, 1982).
Although participants in
rituals of gender etiquette typically were found to be unaware of
the motivational
meaning underlying the proscribed behavior (Parker, 1988), at
least two gendered
scenarios have been explored.
The first relates door holding to helping behavior. In this
scenario, men hold
doors for women because helping, at least as an act of chivalry,
is linked to men
and masculinity (Goldman, Florez, & Fuller, 1981). There is
strong meta-analytic
evidence to support the association between chivalry and being
male (Eagly &
Crowley, 1986). However, the connection between this form of
helping and door
holding is less solid. If, indeed, door holding is an expression of
chivalry, then we
would expect the pattern of men as holders and women as

4. recipients to remain
constant across different contexts.
A second gendered analysis of the male-as-holder pattern
regards door hold-
ing as fundamentally sexist (Walum, 1974). This reasoning is
developed more
fully by Glick and Fiske’s (1996) work that distinguishes
between openly nega-
tive, hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Although seemingly
paradoxical,
benevolent sexism refers to attitudes toward women that view
women stereotypi-
cally and confine them to restricted roles but that, on the
surface, appear favor-
able in tone. Arguably, door holding is a behavioral expression
of these attitudes
because superficially it appears kindly, but at a deeper level
might convey mes-
sages of male dominance and female passivity.
Furthermore, Glick and Fiske (1 996) empirically supported a
model whereby
benevolent sexism was shown to be rooted in three components:
protective pater-
nalism, complementary gender differentiation, and
heterosexuality. Door holding
by men for women cuts across each of these three issues by
invoking male domi-
nance and protection of women, complementary roles for men as
active and
women as passive, and sexual attraction, respectively. This
analysis suggests that
gendered patterns of men holding doors for women will be most
pronounced in
contexts emphasizing paternalism, complementarity, and

5. heterosexuality. The
corollary to this is that gendered patterns should be less evident
when the context
in which door holding occurs minimizes these three factors.
A context that emphasizes gender stereotypes as well as
protection, comple-
mentarity, and heterosexual attraction is heterosexual dating.
Indeed, undergradu-
ate men’s hypothetical and women’s actual dating scripts
included references to
courtly behaviors, such as door holding (Rose & Frieze, 1993).
On the other end
of the continuum, a context that de-emphasizes these factors,
but that draws on
the same population of participants, is door holding in everyday
public places
(e.g., campus buildings, churches, fast-food restaurants).
The three analyses of door holding we explored offer competing
hypotheses.
A gender-neutral stance predicts equal rates of door holding by
women and men
1684 YODER ET AL.
across both contexts. The helping approach postulates
consistent helping by men
for women across both contexts. Finally, speculation about
sexism expects men to
more frequently hold doors for female dates than for women in
everyday con-
texts. Only the final hypothesis predicts gender differences in
door-holding pat-

6. terns across the two contexts.
Method
Three female and two male undergraduate students, working on
a research
project for a Research Methods class, individually and
unobtrusively observed
769 female-male pairs in which one person opened a door for
the other at 16
public locations in the fall semester of 1999. The locations and
times of data col-
lection were selected to maximize the likelihood of finding
either dating or non-
dating (everyday) mixed-gender, college-aged dyads.
Seven everyday locations included a shopping mall, two large
public universi-
ties in northeast Ohio, a church adjacent to one of the campuses,
and three fast-
food restaurants. The remaining nine locations were chosen a s
common dating
environments attractive to college students: six sit-down,
inexpensive restaurants
and three skating rinks. Observations at the everyday locations
were conducted
on weekdays and involved 404 pairs; data collection at the
likely dating sites was
done on Friday and Saturday nights and included 365 couples.
Female-male pairs were included only when they appeared to be
traditional
college age, approached the targeted door as a dyad, and one
held the door open
for the other to walk through first. Couples in the dating
locations and times were

7. included only when they exhibited overt signs of courtship,
such as handholding
or some other deliberate sign of affection. Likewise, couples
exhibiting courtship
behaviors in the everyday context were excluded. In sum, dating
and everyday
designations of pairs were distinguished by differences in
location, time, and
dyad-specific behaviors. Although no systematic data were
collected about the
race/ethnicity of participants, most of the participants were
White.
Results
To test whether the context in which door holding occurs
matters, an overall
chi-square test comparing the pattern of door holding between
the dyad designa-
tions was conducted and was significant, x 2 ( 1 , N = 769) =
37.70, p < .001. This
overall chi-square test was subsequently probed with follow-up
chi squares com-
paring women and men door holders within each dyad
designation. In everyday
dyads, 223 women (55.2%) held the door for men significantly
more than vice
versa, x*( 1, N = 404) = 4 . 3 7 , ~ = .037. The pattern
reversed in the dating context,
with more men (66.8%, n = 244) holding the door for women
than vice versa,
X2(1,N=365)=41.45,p< .001.
EXPLORING MODERATORS OF GENDER DIFFERENCE

8. 1685
Discussion
Since both the gender-neutral and helping predictions about
door-holding
practices predicted no differences across contexts, neither was
supported by the
present data. Rather, the observed pattern is consistent with an
explanation draw-
ing on the concept of benevolent sexism. In the everyday
context, door holding
tipped statistically significantly in the direction of women
holding doors for men
(55.2% women holding doors for men, 44.8% men holding doors
for women).
The skew in the pattern was much more pronounced in a dating
context and
reversed such that dating men held the door for women in about
two of every
three couples (66.8%). An even stronger test of the present
speculation would be
to observe the same women and men across both contexts.
The pattern found here for everyday door holding stands in
sharp contrast to
door holding reciprocity in a non-dating setting (an airport)
about 20 years ago.
Goldman et al. (198 1) found that women returned door holding
for a man who
previously had held a door for them only 33% of the time,
compared to 48% rec-
iprocity for men. Consistent with the earlier findings but not the
present study,
Ventimiglia ( 1982), using the everyday setting of libraries,
found significantly

9. more confusion reported by participants who encountered a
woman holding a
door for a man than vice versa. It appears that the meaning of
the ritual of door
holding in day-to-day contexts has changed across the past 20
years, possibly
from chivalry (a masculine domain) to politeness (Maccoby,
1990) or caregiving
(Gerstel& Gallagher, 1994), both of which are feminized.
However, the present data suggest that door holding retains its
gendered
meanings in the more gender-salient context of heterosexual
dating. In addition
to and congruent with the contextual analysis offered here,
Rickard (1989)
related door-holding behavior in dating relationships to
individual differences in
feminist identity. Classifying participants’ feminist identity
development using
Downing and Roush’s (1985) model, Rickard found that men
with low levels of
feminist identity development were more likely to report that
they held doors
than were pro-feminist men, and that women were more likely
to describe being
the recipients of this behavior when they displayed low levels
of feminist identity
development. These individual-difference data combine with the
contextual data
presented here to support speculation that door-holding
behavior is indeed linked
to sexism, however benevolent.
At a broader levef, the present pattern of data illustrates the
importance of

10. exploring moderator variables as predicted by social role theory
(Eagly & Wood,
1991). In the dating context, where gender-role expectations are
salient and pro-
scribed, the public ritual of door holding takes on a much more
consistent pattern
than in everyday contexts. A clear gender difference in door-
holding behavior in
a dating context becomes more muddled in the less gendered
context of everyday
female-male relations.
1686 YODER ET AL.
References
Deaux, K . , & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context:
An interactive model
of gender-related behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 94,369-389.
Downing, N. E., & Roush, K. L. ( 1985). From passive
acceptance to active com-
mitment: A model of feminist identity development for women.
The Counsel-
ing Psychologist, 13, 695-709.
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping
behavior: A meta-
analytic review of the social psychological literature.
Psychological Bulletin,
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in
social behavior:
A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology

11. Bulletin, 1 7 ,
Gerstel, N., & Gallagher, S. (1994). Caring for kith and kin:
Gender, employ-
ment, and the privatization of care. Social Problems, 41, 519-
539.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism
Inventory: Differentiat-
ing hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychol-
Goldman, M., Florez, C., & Fuller, G. L. (1981). Factors
affecting courteous
behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 169- 174.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A
developmental account.
American Psychologist, 45, 5 13-520.
Parker, S. (1988). Rituals of gender: A study of etiquette, public
symbols, and
cognition. American Anthropologist, 90, 372-384.
Rickard, K. M. ( 1 989). The relationship of self-monitored
dating behavior to level
of feminist identity on the Feminist Identity Scale. Sex Roles, 2
0 , 2 13-226.
Rose, S., & Frieze, 1. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary
dating scripts. Sex
Ventimiglia, J. C. (1982). Sex roles and chivalry: Some
conditions of gratitude to
Walum, L. R. (1974). The changing door ceremony: Notes on

12. the operation of
100, 283-308.
306-3 15.
ogy, 70,491-512.
Roles, 28,499-509.
altruism. Sex Roles, 8, 1107-1 122.
sex roles in everyday life. Urban Lifr and Culture, 2, 506-5 15.
Revised 8/18
Condensed Grading Criteria for Analytic Essays in 355:100,
101, 103, 201, & 301
For extended descriptions of these criteria, visit:
http://wp.rutgers.edu/academics/undergraduate/grades
THESIS WORK WITH ASSIGNED TEXTS STRUCTURAL
COHERENCE PRESENTATION
A
thesis in essay’s opening
essay’s broader stakes and implications
embrace and incorporate questions that

13. complicate or challenge thesis to refine
overarching claim
-reads textual evidence to
arrive at original interpretive insights
ongoing intellectual conversation
contexts to make textual connections
thesis throughout paragraphs
relations between essay’s multiple parts
ate and effective use of topic
sentences and other structural “signposts”
proofreading
citational and/or
formatting errors
eloquent prose style
B+
sis in

14. essay’s opening
position
stakes and implications
confidence and authority
complicate or
refine thesis
when close-reading and making connections
thesis throughout paragraphs
transitions
ay begin to incorporate explicit structural
“signposts”
B
developed in a repetitive way

15. idence
-
reading and making connections
throughout paragraphs
o use topic sentences and
transitions throughout
C+
but not clearly articulated in essay’s opening
begins to sustain that position throughout
essay
Thesis may be implicit or underdeveloped
-reading
and uses adequate textual evidence
texts
texts may be implicit or underdeveloped

16. of a paragraph
of thesis throughout paragraphs
emerge, but may be underdeveloped or
inconsistently employed
C
following discussion of textual evidence
-read at least once
on and
appropriate use of textual evidence
text or between texts
a paragraph
paragraphs may be implicit or unclear
me paragraphs may begin to exhibit

17. emerging topic sentences
evidence of
proofreading
semantic errors
consistently impede
meaning
missing citation of
sources
NP
idence
summary, paraphrase, or generalization
and emerging thesis
rough draft to final draft
of close-reading
extraneous material

18. conventions of a paragraph
progressive development
between paragraphs
-paragraph essay” model
PAPER #5
Prof. Michael Liska| Expos 355:101
Readings: Joseph Stiglitz, “Rent Seeking and the Making
of an Unequal Society” (New Humanities Reader)
Franklin Foer, “Mark Zuckerberg’s War on Free Will” (linked
on Sakai as an excerpt from World Without Mind)
Karen Ho, “Biographies of Hegemony” (New Humanities
Reader)
Prompt:
In all three essays listed above, we see examples of small
“elite” groups that wield both financial power and significant,
sometimes unacknowledged influence over others. Taking into
account the power granted to these groups by technological
factors, regulatory capture, financial dominance, or even just
the widespread perception of elite status, please provide an
answer to the following question in an essay that makes use of
evidence from all three texts: How can we characterize
contemporary hegemony?

19. Questions to get you started:
(Please note: these questions are here to provide you with some
relevant starting points for your thinking and prewriting. You
do not need to address all (or any) of these questions
specifically in your essay)
· What connections do you see between rent-seeking behaviors
and the establishment of hegemony?
· How can appearance, identity, or institutional validation serve
to create or reinforce existing power structures?
· What is the relationship between the individuals and
institutions empowered by established hegemony?
Rough Draft Due:As a hard copy in class on Monday, December
2nd. Please also upload (as a Microsoft Word attachment) to
Paper 5 (Rough Draft) on our Canvas site before class.
Second Rough Draft Due: As a hard copy in class on
Wednesday, December 4th. P
Final Draft Due: Please upload (as an attachment) to Paper 5
(Final Draft) on our Canvas site (sakai.rutgers.edu) before class
on Monday, December 9th.
Late rough drafts will result in a half-letter grade deduction
from the final draft of Paper 1. Late final drafts will result in a
full-letter grade deduction from the final draft of Paper 1.
Required formatting: stapled, double-spaced, 1-inch margins,
12-pt. font (Times New Roman), MLA format (Your headers,
page numbers, and quotations should be formatted properly. See
Keys for Writers.)
Running
head:
FEMALE

20. ATTIRE
AND
MALE
DOOR
OPENING
BEHAVIOR
1

21. Beauty is in the Eye of the Door Opener: A Study of Chivalry
and Female Attractiveness
Julia L. Buck
University of Central Oklahoma
Julia Buck, Department of Psychology, University of Central
Oklahoma
The research is supported by an Experimental Psychology
course at the University of Central
Oklahoma
Correspondence concerning this article should be address to
Julia Buck, Department of
Psychology, University of Central Oklahoma, 100 North
University Drive, Edmond, OK 73034.
Email: [email protected]

22. FEMALE
ATTIRE
AND
MALE
DOOR
OPENING
BEHAVIOR
2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze and test the
relationship between perceived femininity
and acts of chivalry of males as measured by door-opening
behavior. Male participants (N=16)
were randomly and independently observed under one of two
conditions upon their arrival at a
Midwestern university on-campus library entrance. The first,
“dressed-up” condition involved a
female confederate dressed in desirable, feminine clothing;
whereas the second, “dress-down”
condition involved the same confederate dressed in muted,
androgynous clothing. The
confederate was to follow the participant as they arrived at the
entrance/exit of the library, and

23. participant’s behavior was measured according to their door-
opening behavior: either a full hold,
half hold, or no hold at all. A Chi-Square was run to test the
significance of relationship between
variables. Results suggested that there was no significant
relationship between perceived female
attractiveness and male door-opening behavior. These results
suggest that male subjects may
indulge in acts of chivalry due to traditional stereotypic
behavior versus a desire to interact with
their female counterpart; although, the lack of relationship
could be due to small sample size.
The current study stimulates questions as to what possible
variables influences acts of male
chivalry, such as door opening in the presence of females.
Keywords: attractiveness, stereotypes, chivalry, door opening
FEMALE

24. ATTIRE
AND
MALE
DOOR
OPENING
BEHAVIOR
3
Female Attire in Correlation to Male Door-Opening Behavior: A
Study of Chivalry
Stereotypically, the women of today’s society have frequently
sought after high levels of
femininity and attractiveness. It can be seen in magazine ads
and television commercials,
encouraging women to reach a peak of femininity that their
male counterparts will dote after.
However, along with these aesthetic gains come predisposed
stereotypes, and the attire that a
female chooses to wear can dictate how they are perceived in
everyday life. The effects of
having high levels of these feminine characteristics can be seen
wherein women with higher
levels of femininity and attractiveness seem to be more
profitable and opportunistic when placed
in bargaining situations (Solnick & Schweitzer, 1999). For the
current study, it was questioned if

25. this type of favoritism would carry-over when correlated with
acts of chivalry, such as door-
opening.
Accordingly, a meta-analytic review of helping behavior within
social psychological literature
done by Eagly & Crowley (1986) suggests that chivalrous acts
such as door-opening have been
predominantly prescribed to male gender roles, in that men will
help more often in the presence
of a women. Furthermore, Renne & Allen’s (1976) study,
wherein multiple factors where
examined in relationship to chivalrous acts performed by male
participants, significantly
determined the presence of gender roles traditionally associated
with door-opening behavior,
despite society’s forbearing perspective on chivalrous behavior.
According to their study, Viki,
Abrams, and Hutchison (cite) referred to this pattern of
behavior as benevolent sexism; wherein
the behavior is determined by a predisposition to keep women in
inferior roles, but with a
positive overtone. In relation, Ventimiglia (cite date) refers to
these types of male/female

26. interactions as the “door-opening ceremony”, wherein the
traditional sex roles assigned to men
and women suggest that men act as benefactors and women play
the beneficiaries allowing the
FEMALE
ATTIRE
AND
MALE
DOOR
OPENING
BEHAVIOR
4
door to be held for them. Viki et al. suggests that while this
kind of male behavior may be seen
as prosocial in nature, it is confined to stereotype that women
need the help of men. While
studies of this sort have had a primary focus on the existence of
chivalry amongst new-age
feminist perspectives, the research in this instance was focused
on feminine stereotypes tied to
attire and it’s direct influence on acts of male chivalry.
In relation, Renne and Allen (1976) reported that women
dressed in more “feminine”

27. clothing were four times as likely as their male counterparts to
have the door held for them. We
know that this behavior of door opening has been described as a
gender role and the presence of
a woman typically increases the behavior (Eagly & Crowley,
1986). For our study, we sought to
investigate whether this effect would be seen when the same
female confederate was dressed in
both feminine and androgynous attire, reflecting different levels
of attractiveness. Conceptually,
it was assumed that the level of femininity tied to the attire of a
female confederate would
generate a significant effect on the number of times a male
participant would open a door for
them in passing. To test our hypotheses, we independently
observed male participants (N=16)
and observed their pattern of door opening behavior when
followed by a female confederate. Our
independent variable, the level of femininity seen in confederate
attire, varied across two
separate conditions; our confederate was to be “dressed-up” or
“dressed-down”. Door-opening
behavior of participants was to be measured based upon type of
door hold; either full, half, or

28. “no” hold. It was hypothesized that when our female
confederate was dressed in the more
feminine attire in the “dressed-up” condition there would be a
significantly higher number of full
holds than in the “dressed-down” condition.
FEMALE
ATTIRE
AND
MALE
DOOR
OPENING
BEHAVIOR
5
Methods
Participants
Participants (N=16) were unobtrusively observed and assigned
by time sampling to each
condition (dress-up/dress-down confederate) from the
pedestrian population of a Midwestern
University library. Eight participants were observed per
condition. Requirements for observation

29. were that participants were of the male gender, and entering or
exiting through the chosen
entrance of the on-campus library. Demographics varied, but are
unknown due to level of
confidentiality. It was assumed that due to location, most males
were either students or faculty of
the university.
Materials
For the purpose of this study one female experimenter was
chosen as the confederate and
used as the manipulated variable between the two conditions
(dress-up confederate versus
dressed-down confederate). The second experimenter was
reserved for observations and
recording. For the dressed-up condition, the confederate wore
bright clothing considered to be
more feminine (backless dress, heals, fanciful scarf, earrings).
For the second, dress-down
condition, the confederate wore muted-color clothing
considered to be less feminine and more
androgynous (sweatpants, crew neck t-shirt, sneakers, no
accessories). The confederate held a
smartphone throughout the length of the experiment as to

30. conceal the motives of the study and to
appear preoccupied. An observation log created by the research
team was used in order to record
the type of door-opening behavior exhitibited by the participant.
In order to generate a as large of
a sample as possible, the front entrance doors of the library
were utilized due to heavier foot
traffic with more opportunities for observations. In order for
unobtrusive observations, the
FEMALE
ATTIRE
AND
MALE
DOOR
OPENING
BEHAVIOR
6
observer made use of a library table to remain as concealed as
possible and conserve a
naturalistic environment.
Procedures
An experimental, between-subjects design was used to test the
hypothesis that perceived

31. femininity has a direct, significant influence on the patterns of
male door-opening behavior.
Observations and recordings took place at a Midwestern
university on-campus library, during the
early morning hours of the day (approximately 9a.m) when most
students typically arrived to
campus. Participants were assigned to conditions by time
sampling based upon their arrival at the
chosen entrance/exit of the library. Participants were observed
individually, and observation
duration per participant lasted approximately 10-30 seconds,
and condition duration lasted until 9
observations were achieved.
To test the hypothesis that female attractiveness has an
influence on male chivalry, the
confederate was to approach the male participant upon arrival at
the entrance/exit of the library.
The confederate was to be dressed according to conditions
(dress-up/dressed-down), and
observations were based upon the type of door-opening behavior
exhibited by the participant.
To conceal intent, the confederate acted to be invested in their
smartphone as they followed

32. behind the participant. Door-opening behavioral patterns were
measured as followed: “full hold”
in which the participant opened the door and stood aside as the
confederate passed, “half hold”
wherein the participant held the door after they had already
passed the threshold or lightly
bumped the door with their foot of hand to keep the door from
fully shutting on the confederate,
and “no hold” in which the participant ignored the confederate
and let the door shut behind them.
For the purpose of the study, deception was necessary in order
to create a naturalistic
observation of participant door-opening behavior. No
instructions were provided for the
FEMALE
ATTIRE
AND
MALE
DOOR
OPENING
BEHAVIOR
7
participants, as they were assumed to be unaware of their
involvement in the experiment.

33. Overall, sixteen trials were recorded, totaling sixteen male
participants. No debriefing was
required for participants, as they were unaware of participation,
and no other observations were
recorded in order to protect participant identity.
Results
To test the hypothesis that female attire has a significant
influence on male door-opening
behavior, a chi square test for independence was conducted to
determine the correlation between
expected values and observed values of male door opening
behavior across conditions. Results
showed no significant difference across conditions, χ2(2, N =
16) = .856, p < .05. While the
number of full, half, and “no” holds differed in relation to our
independent variables, it was not
significantly so; therefore, we fail to reject our null hypothesis
showing that female attire has no
significant effect on male door-opening behavior.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to detect the level at
which perceived femininity

34. and attractiveness would have a significant effect on acts of
chivalry. Conceptually, it was
hypothesized that the level of femininity tied to our
confederate’s attire (dressed-up/dressed-
down) would have a significant effect on door-opening behavior
of male participants.
Specifically, it was hypothesized that when acting in the
“dressed-up” condition, significantly
more male participants would perform “full holds” for the
female confederate. Results from a
between-subjects Chi-Square test of significance showed no
significant influence of the level of
feminine attire of our confederate on male door-opening
behavioral patterns.
Minimal limitations can be seen in our current study. Firstly,
due to time constraints we were
limited to a small sample size. If replicated with a significantly
larger sample size, it could be
FEMALE
ATTIRE
AND
MALE
DOOR
OPENING
BEHAVIOR

35. 8
possible that more of an effect would be seen from our
independent variables on door-opening
behavior. Secondly, only two experimenters participated in the
current study. With one
experimenter working as the confederate, only one experimenter
was used in recording of
observations, leaving room for experimenter bias. Future
replications wherein multiple observers
were present would be advised.
While no significance was found in our study, replications of
the current study on a larger
scale could be deemed important. Identifying the variables that
affect male behavior within our
current society could shed light on understanding the existence
of traditional gender roles.

36. FEMALE
ATTIRE
AND
MALE
DOOR
OPENING
BEHAVIOR
9
References
Eagly, A., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior:
A meta-analytic review of the
social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100,
283-308.
Renne, K., & Allen, P. (1976). Gender and the ritual of the
door. Sex Roles, 2, 167-174.
Solnick, S., & Schweitzer, M. (1999). The influence of physical
attractiveness and gender on
ultimatum game decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human

37. Decision Processes, 79,
199-215.