Women vs. Men – who’s better at parking?

(this is the first in a series of blog entries on gender stereotypes. Future entries will tackle these provocative questions: Women vs. men – Who’s more cooperative? Who’s happier to hear the words ‘I love you’? Who has more self-esteem in youth, early adulthood? and Who’s more motivated by cute baby faces? But first, parking).

Last Friday night, on Craig’s porch, I posed this simple question to three of my (male) friends: “Gentlemen, who’s better at parking, men or women?” All three laughed, and with no evident pause quickly answered: “That’s easy, men.” Hmmm. Think again.

A major study conducted in Great Britain has given women the nod, rating their “parking coefficient” (based on six criteria) as higher than men (13.4 vs. 12.3 from a maximum score of 20). Women bested men in five of the six categories, but, interestingly, the survey found that women don’t believe it: when asked about their beliefs, only 18% thought they were better parkers than men and “just 28% of women believed they were better parkers than their partners,” according to the study.  Plus, in a sidelight (that might not surprise you) study analysts noticed that “men like to ‘pose park’ when accompanied by a female passenger by opting to squeeze into a small space when a bigger one is available.” Goodness, I’ve done that.

Perhaps the most interesting finding was that women bested men on parking in reverse – a method preferred by driving instructors.  This led some analysts to hypothesize that women’s spatial awareness has been vastly underrated or, perhaps, that males’ spatial awareness has been overrated.  But spatial props aside, women outscored men in virtually every category, save for “speed of parking.” The bottom line: women are more adept at maneuvering into a parking space and when they park they are more likely to leave their vehicles in the middle of a parking bay.

Some specific survey results:
• *Reversing in space – Women: 39%, Men: 28%
• Finishing in a central position – Women: 53%, Men: 25%
• Adhering to speed limits in parking lots – Women: 92%, Men: 64%
• Good or very good ‘pre-parking pose’ – Women: 77%, Men: 53%
• Parking speed – Women: 21 seconds, Men: 16 seconds.  

The month-long study was conducted by the National Car Parks, the UK’s largest private parking lot company – operating in more than 700 locations, with over 200,000 parking spots.  NCP also estimated that we park our cars 1,004 times a year, meaning that in a lifetime of driving, women spend 12 days carrying out a parking maneuver vs. nine for men.

* This morning, just for fun, I backed into my parking spot.  Roe probably would have done a better job.

Marriage vs. Cohabitation – which is healthier?

A Cornell professor, examining the relative benefits of marriage vs. cohabitation, compared four human characteristics across both populations – happiness, depression, health and self-esteem – and concluded that “the boundaries between marriage and cohabitation are blurring and . . . the experiences of marriage and cohabitation may be converging.”

Married couples earned higher marks for health, while cohabitating coupled experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. But the broad conclusion was clear, according to study author Dr. Kelly Musick: “The similarities between marriage and cohabitation [are] more striking than the differences.” Musick is associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University's College of Human Ecology.

For generations, research has aimed to establish a link between marriage and well-being, with advocates comparing marriage both to cohabitation and to being single.  But on both counts, said Musick, few substantial long-term benefits appear to accrue.  She explained: "Compared to most industrialized countries, America continues to value marriage above other family forms. . . . However our research shows that marriage is by no means unique in promoting well-being and that other forms of romantic relationships can provide many of the same benefits." Musick said that: “For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth.” She added: “[Marriage] is far from a blanket prescription for individual well-being.”

In evaluating marriage, Musick pointed out that the literature typically compares marriage to being single.  On this score, “the results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.”

Musick's study overview: “We hypothesized that union formation would provide benefits over being single, and that these would diminish over time; these expectations were largely supported in our analyses of psychological well-being and health, but not social ties. We offered two views on the relative benefits of marriage. One suggested that if the mechanisms linking marriage and well-being applied in part to cohabitation, the benefits of marriage would apply in part to cohabitation. The other posited that if the institutional supports of marriage were outweighed by its more structured expectations and obligations, cohabitation would confer advantages over marriage. We found evidence for each of these views.” 

Two cautionary notes were offered by Musick: a modest sample size and aging data (Musick relied upon the 1987-1992 National Survey of Families and Households of 2,737 single men and women, 896 of whom married or moved in with a partner over the course of six years).

Is your first guess your best guess?

For more than a generation, this notion has been popularized – when you’re taking a multiple choice test, it’s best to stick with your initial answer, your “first thought.”  But the data reports otherwise, yet the notion persists. 

In a recent blog entry (http://www.spring.org.uk), Jeremy Dean, a researcher at University College London, explains that study after study “shows that when you change your answer in a multiple-choice test, you are more likely to be changing it from wrong to right than right to wrong. So actually sticking with your first answer is, on average, the wrong strategy.” 

The most compelling analysis was a survey of 33 individual studies on answer-changing behavior, dating back to 1928.  According to the survey’s abstract: “The analysis showed that, generally, only a small percentage of test items were changed by Ss, most of the changes were from wrong to right answers, most test takers are answer changers, and most answer changers are point gainers.”

Despite the consistent findings, Dean pointed out, college students, and professors, still believe in first choice.  Dean cites a 2005 study (“Counterfactual Thinking and the First Instinct Fallacy,” by Justin Kruger, Derrick Wirtz and Dale T. Miller), which found that 75% of college students believe that changing their first choice would lower their score.  Added Dean: “Instructors believe it as well: in one study 55% believed it would lower students' scores while only 16% believed it would improve them.”

So why do people still do it?  Dean offers one hypothesis, drawing from the Kruger study: “It’s partly because it feels more painful to get an answer wrong because you changed it than wrong because you didn't change it.”

The bottom line: the fear of regret, it appears, keeps this fallacy alive. 

Do you know someone who is easily embarrassed?

If so, you probably trust them. Embarrassment, it seems, is a sign of virtue, according to researchers in California who established a firm link between embarrassment and trustworthiness.  So if you’re a person who is easily embarrassed, let it show, and know that those around will trust you all the more.

Explained researcher Matthew Feinberg, a University of California-Berkeley doctoral student in psychology: “Moderate levels of embarrassment are signs of virtue.”  He added: “Our data suggests embarrassment is a good thing, not something you should fight.” Feinberg’s paper, co-authored by UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer and Dacher Keltner, was recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and was titled “Flustered and Faithful: Embarrassment as a Signal of Prosociality.”

In a press release from UC Berkeley, Willer was quoted as saying that embarrassment was “part of the social glue that fosters trust and cooperation in everyday life.”  He described it as “an emotional signature of a person to whom you can entrust valuable resources.”  The authors explained that the moderate type of embarrassment that they analyzed is quite different from “shame” – an emotion often displayed when a person commits some type of moral transgression (e.g., cheating).

How can you tell the difference between embarrassment and shame?  Feinberg who said that people typically express embarrassment by gazing downwards to one side while partially covering their face (often accompanied by a smirk or grimace).  And shame? Feinberg said that people typically cover their whole face.

The researchers conducted three experiments in which participants watched an actor’s emotional reactions.  They accounted for variables, but each time arrived at the same conclusion: participants trusted the actor more if they observed him showing embarrassment, and they trusted him less if they saw him showing pride.

The bottom line: embarrassment signals people’s tendency to be pro-social. Said Feinberg, quoted in the article: “You want to affiliate with them more, you feel comfortable trusting them.”

So the next time you’re embarrassed, go with it. You just might wind up managing your friend’s financial portfolio.