Exercise 1: Cell Transport Mechanisms and Permeability Worksheet

Emotional Reactions to Women, Pregnant and Non Pregnant,
In Relation to Customary and Non Customary Roles.
Rebekah N Diaz
American Military University
Psychology101
May 12, 2012
Dr. Ronald Jeziorski

Emotional Reactions to Women, Pregnant and Non Pregnant,
In Relation to Customary and Non Customary Roles.

Abstract This field study conducted by Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary, and Kazama in 2006 was done to determine the different types of emotional responses to pregnant versus non-pregnant women in different customary and non-customary roles. The volunteers wore false pregnant stomachs while applying for jobs and shopping in large retail stores in a shopping mall. The study was trying to determine if pregnant women would receive more compassionate treatment if they were setup in a traditional role such as shopping as opposed to a pregnant woman who tried to interview for a welding job. The idea was that the pregnant women would receive a more kind response if they were in need of help with an item as opposed to filling out an application for employment (Hebl, et al., 2006). Forward
Throughout history the word pregnancy has conjured up feelings of fragility and delicateness. These types of views gave birth, no pun intended, to many beautiful paintings such as Picasso’s “Mother and Child” or Modersohn-Becker’s “New Mother”. When someone says the word, “Mother”, one does not immediately think of a sales associate or an advertising executive. However, the study found that ambivalent sexism was the cause of the difference in the ways the pregnant women, who were trying to gain employment, were being viewed and treated. Ambivalent sexism states that a man will feel a greater hostility to women that challenges the traditional by evening the playing field, such as career women or feminists (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001).
Hypothesis
The hypothesis for this study was that pregnant (versus non pregnant) women would receive a more benevolent attitude and response when they acted out the traditional role and likewise that the pregnant (versus non-pregnant) women would receive a more hostile response if they were to engage in non-traditional roles such as seeking employment. The role manipulation was completed by having visibly pregnant versus non pregnant volunteers apply for jobs that were not traditional versus acting as simple customers. They also expected that the pregnant women applying for jobs would encounter more hostility than both the non-pregnant and the pregnant shoppers. Study 1
The first study did not test the pregnant women in a variety of both traditional and non-traditional jobs so therefore they conducted a second study in which they did observe the reaction towards the pregnant women in non-traditional job applicant positions. In study 1, they used 93 female and 17 male employees in a large shopping mall. Sixteen women from the University of Texas, between the ages of 20 and 32 years old stood in as the pregnant and non-pregnant volunteers. They used some many women so that there was no discrimination within race or appearance. These sixteen women were coupled with five men and ten additional women to act as observational observers. Each set of woman/observer went into between four and fourteen different stores. The volunteers engaged in one hundred and ten interactions, forty-three times they acted as women seeking employment and sixty-seven times as customer. In addition to all of this there were six coders, who listened to tapes of the interactions, 14 tapes where inaudible. These six coders had no idea what was being studied or to what ends the data would be used for.
Procedure
The volunteers and observers where given training and in the case of the females who would act pregnant, made to wear the pregnancy prosthesis until they were comfortable. The females volunteer was told to deliver a script in a certain fashion while the observers were told to keep to themselves to respond politely and then position themselves in a way that they could inconspicuously watch the female volunteer. The stores chosen had to have at least fifteen employees due to the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 they are held to different standards then stores with fewer employees. Merchandise stores were also chosen over commercial stores. As stated in Study 1 intro, the female volunteers where to carry purses with a tape recorder inside to provide audio feedback of the reactions.
Before the study began there was a pregnancy manipulation done in which a woman wearing a business suit, wedding band and a pregnancy prosthesis that made her to look around six to seven months pregnant were photographed along with a woman wearing the same attire minus the pregnant belly apparatus. The pictures where then given to independent raters and asked to describe the picture of the woman wearing the pregnancy apparatus. All of the raters said that the woman looked to be around six and half months along in her pregnancy.
The women who posed as pregnant women were told to ask a set of questions once they had identified the store’s manager such as “May I fill out an application?” or “Do you have any positions available?” This was for the non-traditional role but for the traditional role they were told to simply go into the store acting as customers, asking for assistance in finding a birthday gift and then following up with a separate question in selection before leaving the store. In both circumstances the females were instructed to go directly to a comment card and fill it out about the experience. Likewise, the observer was told to wait two minutes to see if the employees spoke about the female then they too were told to go fill out a similar comment card. Results
The data collected was evaluated with a seven point Likert-type scale alternating from 7 meaning very much and one meaning not at all. For perceived hostility, seven things were picked out and rated as well as, eight perceived benevolence things. Among the examples of these two different responses ranged from rudeness to over eagerness.
The result of all this was that pregnant women received a higher divided response of hostility or benevolence. The pregnant participants acquired more aggressive attitudes and responses when seeking employment or pursued a non-traditional role and they also gathered more compassionate reactions when assuming the traditional role of a customer. Now, an equal amount of benevolence was received between the non-pregnant job applicants as pregnant shoppers, this was explained in the study as being in part to the manager needing to hire new employees as much as (s)he needs to make sales (Hebl, et al).
The need for a second study was that there was a methodological limitation or hindrance in the first study and it was that the participants and the observers where aware of the experimental conditions. This was necessary but it did keep the study from being as true to life as the scientist would have liked. However, the first study did use inconspicuous procedures and lifelike explanations. Because the results were not as accurate as the scientist wanted they tweaked the experiments and staged a second study. The first study did test across a wide range of job positions because most retail establishments hire mostly women and have little worry about the cost of training or their turn-over rate. Conclusion The methods used in these studies (the wedding bands, the business suit attire, etc.) while keeping the identities unbiased, did not test for things such as hostility towards pregnant women who did not have on a wedding ring or an applicant who was not wearing the proper attire. Should these things have been done, the study would have been more related to women in general and not women in the right circumstances with the right attire. In today’s world with the age of females getting pregnant becoming younger and younger the need for those same females to then seek employment to support said child after pregnancy is also rising. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention or CDC reported in the year 2010 that in that year there were 367,752 infants born to women between the ages of fifteen and nineteen years of age (CDC, 2010). While this was a 9% decrease; it was still an alarmingly high rate. Given the statics it would make more sense for this study to be redone to fit today’s culture by introducing the above stated variables. Furthermore, the site and circumstances should be changed to offer a wider array of situations. For example, going outside of the shopping mall for job interviews, as well as, shopping situations would render far more significant results. Almost everyone has been behind a young woman with a WIC voucher and has observed the rolled eyes, heated tones and general annoyance of not only the cashier but also the people waiting in line around the woman. This would be a better study of pregnant versus non-pregnant hostility or benevolence. There are many wonderful things that could be helped, improved and worked on as a result of this study. One thing that could be improved with the information in this study is the way managers train their employees to handle and help pregnant women. In almost every workplace these days there are many training videos, manuals, seminars and even pamphlets on how to deal with anything from problem customers to potential shoplifters. If the companies applied the information gleaned from this study then they would be able to apply it to their customer service techniques and better their responses to not only pregnant customers but also female job applicants. Another thing that could be improved upon using the information in this study would be the way business accommodate pregnant women. Companies such as Babies R Us© and Toys R Us© now have “mother’s only parking” much like handicap parking, these spaces are right next to the entrance of the store and keep expecting mothers from having to walk from a farther parking space. Much in the same way these stores have changed their way of thinking perhaps because of this study, other stores will follow suit, so to speak, and take into account that pregnant women have special circumstances for which they must make provisions for.
A much more true to life application for the results of this study would be for companies to use the information to write better advertising ads that promote their policies on women friendly services. Such as, “Check out our bigger isles for easier steering” or “We want to accessorize our team with you”. These kinds of adds while catering to women would make the men in said companies more aware of the plights of pregnant and non-pregnant women. In this way more people will think twice before giving a hostile or benevolent reaction to any woman, pregnant or not.

References
CDC - About Teen Pregnancy - Teen Pregnancy - Reproductive Health. (n.d.). Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/AboutTeenPreg.htm
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Glick, P., Singletary, S. L., & Kazama, S. (2007). Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: Complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1499- 1511. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1499

References: CDC - About Teen Pregnancy - Teen Pregnancy - Reproductive Health. (n.d.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/AboutTeenPreg.htm Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Glick, P., Singletary, S. L., & Kazama, S. (2007). Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: Complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1499- 1511. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1499