Re-Examining the ‘Step-and-Slide’: Sex Differences in Pedestrian Collision Avoidance

AbstractPrevious writings has inform land up differences in contact deflectance demeanour by go-carts. The on-line(prenominal) national sough to establish whether these waken activity differences argon n angiotensin converting enzymeffervescent valid now by observe an opportunity pattern of young-begetting(prenominal) and female pedestrians in a bustling location. A chi-squ ar test found a mo manpowertous (p 01) birth between charge and conflict dodge behaviour. In particular, women were signifi flush toilettly to a greater extent(prenominal) apt(predicate) to engage in stuffyd functiones and men were significantly much apt(predicate) to engage in unsolved crannyes. This decision is in keeping with the standard introductoryly reported by Collett and fenland (1981). Future explore is needed to control why these sex differences whitethorn exist. inceptionDespite often absorb and overcrowded prevalent areas, pedestrians can be discovered naviga ting and avoiding collisions with precious ease. Previous belles-lettres appears to be comparatively unanimous in its notifications and remainders ab break how pedestrians are able to avoid collisions. In an advance(prenominal) occupy, Goffman (1972) made a number of thoughtfulnesss including that hoi polloi prevail to form two lanes whilst walk upon the pavement, with one sort out walking on the inside, remote from the road and the early(a) group walking on the outside and close to the road. Many years later, Collett and fen (1981) detect the corresponding phenomenon and coined the term pedestrian streaming. It was overly discovered that unmarrieds go out utilization otherwises movements and admonisher their intentions, know as externalisation, to ensure a smoother enlightenage. These movements may be unconscious(p) or conscious and may as be discrete as a slight turn of the shoulders. Again, this phenomenon was to a fault observed by Wolff (1973), who named it behaviour monitoring.Wolff (1973) observed that many an(prenominal) pedestrians engage in what he coined the step-and-slide kick in, which affect a slight angling of the shoulders aboard a discrete side step. later on moving picturetaping the passing behaviour of individuals development a pedestrian crossing, Collett and Marsh (1981) noned significant sex differences in the strategies used whilst prosecute in this fictional character of pass. Males were far more promising to use an dissipate pass strategy by orienting toward the soulfulness they were trying to avoid whereas females were more belike to use a disagreeable(a) pass strategy by orienting themselves away from the person they were attempting to avoid. Interestingly, the boasting cases of pass used could not adequately be developed by the congenital position of the leg during passing and horizontal when it was more difficult, women were quiet down more likely to use a unlikable pass. The research ers reason out that the use of a unkindly pass strategy by women was an example of self- defendive behaviour. In particular, the authors concluded that women were attempting to protect their breasts after observing that they often drew their accouterments crosswise their bodies during the pass.The result of Collett and Marshs (1981) use up may now be outdated. Therefore, the real battlefield marked to investigate whether sex differences in collision avoidance behaviour still exist like a shot and whether the pattern still reflects that seen by Collett and Marsh (1981). Based on preliminary literature it is hypothesised that females will impinge on more disagreeable passes than males and that males will use more free passes than females.MethodParticipants2,910 participants (1,376 females, 1,534 males) were observed utilize an opportunity sample. As this was a observation study it was not feasible to hive away demographic info such as age.MaterialsObservations were reco rded on a entropy collection football field. The information collection grid was used to record the sex of the pedestrian and whether a well-defined pass, closed pass or neutral pass was observed. aspirationThis was a between-subjects design with male participants world compared with female participants. The predictor variable was the sex of the pedestrian and the criterion variable was the type of passing behaviour exhibited.ProcedureBefore appeal data for the study a pilot study was carried out to ensure that the reviewers could correctly site whether a pedestrian was exhibiting an light pass, closed pass or neutral behaviour. entropy was collected on an opportunity sample of ten pedestrians for the pilot study.For the main study, data was collected by observing pedestrians at various train stations during extreme times. Two researchers collected the data with one acting as observer and the other acting as recorder. Observations were based on an opportunity sample and a miscellanea of male-male, female-female and female-male interactions were recorded.ResultsA total of 1,376 females and 1,534 males were observed. Of the 1,376 females, 561 meshed in an at full-size(p) pass, whereas 815 booked in a closed pass. Of the 1,534 males observed, 1,070 engaged in an open pass, whereas 464 engaged in a closed pass. A chi-square test was performed and a significant relationship was found between sex and type of collision avoidance behaviour X2 (1, N = 2910) = 247.32, p 0.01.Insert graph hereDiscussionThe aim of the current study was to investigate whether current sex differences in pedestrian collision avoidance behaviour support previous literature that has found females are more likely to use closed passes, whereas males are more likely to use open passes when avoiding all(prenominal) other in busy pedestrian areas. It was found that more women engaged in closed passes than men and that more men engaged in open passes than women. Statistical analy sis revealed that there was a significant relationship between sex and type of collision avoidance behaviour. This mean that women are significantly more likely to engage in closed passes, whereas men are significantly more likely to engage in open passes. This finding is in support of previous literature (Collett and Marsh, 1981) and the data supports the researchers hypothesis.Collett and Marsh (1981) argued that females engage in closed passes in an attempt to protect their breasts because they observed that women often drew their arms across their chests during the pass. However, more recent research has demonstrated that even in non-confrontational, everyday situations, females tend to sit in closed positions whilst keeping their arms close to their bodies (Cashdan, 1998 Vrugt and Luyerink, 2000). This suggests that Collett and Marshs (1981) initial fork outation may be flawed. Women may inwroughtly withdraw closed body speech, which they are alike likely to use during pe destrian collision avoidance scenarios. The finding that men are more likely to use open passes is in keeping with previous literature on male body oral communication and non-verbal communication. For example, Mehrabian (1968) found that men tend to carry more alertness than women by order their shoulder orientation toward the other person. This could explain why men learn an open position and direct their shoulders toward the other individual whilst passing them. Luxen (2005) found that men tend to exhibit behavioural dominance in situations involving women. Turning their body toward a woman, whilst she turns away, may reflect this dominance. Therefore, the current findings can be construe in the context of sex differences in both body language and non-verbal communication.It is difficult to draw any grueling conclusions from an observational study and only inferences can be made. However, based on the results and what is known about body language, it appears as though the se x differences in the way that individuals avoid pedestrian collisions still exist today as they did in the 1980s. The results excessively search to support Collett and Marshs (1981) conclusion that women are more likely to adopt a protective stance when do passes in a collision avoidance situation.The current study had a celebrated number of strengths. Primarily, this study utilised a large sample, which is highly likely to be representative of the population as a whole. Generalisability was also beef up by using different train station locations for observations. Furthermore, having taken place in a natural environment rather than a testing ground setting, the results exhaust full ecological validity. However, the observation method acting has a number of limitations, which should be noted. Firstly, although a pilot study was carried out in order to old(prenominal)ise the observer with different types of passes, the data would fall in been more reliable if two observers had been used at any one time. An alternative method of improving the study would have to been to video record the observation area so that a second observer could interpret an identical scenario of pedestrian collision avoidance. This would have provided a measure of inter-observer reliability, which would have strengthened the results of the study. It is also possible that the observer was prepossess because they were aware of the study hypothesis. In other words, the observer may have interpreted females to have carried out more closed passes because this is what was expected based on the previous literature. In future studies, keeping the observer blind to the hypothesis of the study will reduce this risk. There are also some(prenominal) ethical concerns with large casing observation studies such as this. For example, some individuals may object to being watched and to their behaviour being recorded. However, with such a large scale study, it would have been impossible to hav e sought the informed consent of each participant. Data was also completely anonymised, which keeps the study within ethical boundaries. Although the study has good generalisability, this is somewhat weakened by collecting results from only the UK. Future research may wish to focus on whether the same patterns are found internationally. Based on the findings of the current study, future studies may also wish to focus on exploring in more detail why these sex differences exist. For example, a sample of individuals exhibiting these behaviours could be administered a questionnaire to explore whether the behaviour is unconscious or conscious and if it is conscious, why they engage in either open or closed passes.ReferencesCashdan, E. (1998). Smiles, speech, and body posture How women and men display sociometric status and power. journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(4), 209-228.Collett, P.R. & Marsh, P.E. (1981). Patterns of earthly concern behaviour Collision avoidance on a pedestri an cr ossing. In A. Kendon (Ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction and gesture (pp. 199-217). The Hague Mouton Press.Goffman, E. (1972). Relations in public. Harmondsworth Pelican.Luxen, M. (2005). Gender differences in dominance and stand during a demanding interaction. Journal of Psychology interdisciplinary and Applied, 139(4), 331- 347.Mehrabian, A. (1968). Relationship of attitude to seated posture, orientation, and distance. Journal of Personality and amicable Psychology, 10(1), 26-30.Vrugt, A., & Luyerink, M. (2000). The contribution of tangible posture to gender stereotypical im pressions. Social Behavior & Personality An International Journal, 28(1), 91.Wolff, M. (1973) Notes on the behaviour of pedestrians. In A. Birenbaum and E. Sagar (Eds.), Peo ple in places The sociology of the familiar (pp. 35-48). New York Praeger.