Gentle Reader,

Before I write the next post, before I reply to your invigorating comments and emails, please let me explain my absence.

I’ve been busy — buzzingly, boundingly busy. Five lovely hours spent being the witness at my friend’s wedding followed by an Italian lunch on India Street, four visits to an ailing uncle in a nursing home, three weeks of a blessed dissertation stride (and almost done — insert happy holler here!!), two out of town guests, one fun Saturday brunch, zero midnight confrontations with nocturnal prowlers (turned out to be a possum), and negative one blog posts. Meaning that I wrote and lost a bunch of files.

Yeah. About that…

For weeks I have been working on a soon-to-be new and improved Daily Asker site. I’ve done it mostly in the background, grabbing spare minutes and occasional afternoons to put together a format that would preserve the daily asking component and add a few new features I’m really excited about. Well, several days ago, with a few key keyboard strokes, I managed to make it disappear. Everything. The whole blog. All the new material. In its place came this horrific message:

I put everything else on hold. I started learning PHP and SQL, and ventured to the cold and damp corners of my server.

It wasn’t pretty.

It was time to get professional help.

So I asked. I asked for advice and instructions and merciful enlightenment from various computer programming gurus.

Between writing to a forum, calling my hosting company, posting on craigslist to hire a code debugger for a reasonable fee, and asking Mr. A and his highly technical cousin if there’s any hope, it finally dawned on me that maybe the simplest solution is to just restore the site to where it was, just before that fatal error.

That’s where I am now. I’ve begged the hosting company to do that. We’ll see if they have the data from August 2.

If that works, I’ll be thrilled to unveil to you the new Daily Asker. If not… well, I guess I’ve learned my lesson. BACKUP UP NIGHTLY OR PREPARE TO GET ROYALLY F*CKED!!!!!!

Now, off to sleep. To dream of recovered blog posts, fluffy fat free cheesecake and other modern miracles.

And when I awake, I hope you’ll join me for the end of ask-o-logy. “Who taketh away: A look at altruism and attitude.”

Ever thine,

La Roxy

La Roxy walks into a bar.

She’s stranded in a distant land and in dire need of:

1) the antidote to the venom of the snake that just bit her
2) an emergency loan to buy a tire because she has a flat and only 47.50 foofis (about $18) to her name
3) honest input, because she’s really aching to find out if she has lettuce in her teeth but lacks a reflective surface to investigate

Who should she ask? The woman in the black v-neck smiling into her phone, the avuncular man downing ouzo in the back corner, or the teenage couple with matching mullets nuzzling by the pool table? Or, should La Roxy bring Mr. A in from the car and ask together, if that would help her chances?

A dilemma otherwise known as:

1) Who should I ask when I am alone versus accompanied?

The results of my year of asking show that the druncle wins, hands down. Men were much more willing to respond well when I asked alone, and mixed groups were much more willing to respond well when I was asked with a friend or family member. Women were most consistent (i.e. reacted most similarly when I was accompanied and alone).

Of course there are other factors at play here — different people respond differently to different motives. So it would be unwise to draw conclusions. Instead, let’s delve deeper into how people of each gender responded and see what that yields.

***

When it came to how people reacted to my tone or attitude (explained and analyzed here), many of the results made sense — people were a lot nicer when I was nice and meaner when I was mean. (By that I mean they gave in more or less to my requests.)

Wowzer.

What I found baffling was that people resisted when I used a tone I considered to be “direct.” I didn’t bark the requests. But I didn’t incant them in lyric verse either. My attitude was straightforward, competent, efficient, brisk. Neutral. I just approached the individual or made the phone call, said hello, asked, and waited for a result. I asked this way when I was pressed for time and seeking something straightforward. Likewise, when I was sorting out logistical/administrative/practical issues: Would you mind moving your car over so we can both fit into this space? Can you extend my hold on these library books over the weekend, since I can’t make it today?

Turns out that people rather disliked this approach. Of the six attitudes, I was more successful being really nice — but also hostile!! — than neutral. (67% success rate for the neutral approach, compared to 71% for hostility.)

Now, it could be that my “neutral” is most people’s “rude.” If so, that would explain these results. But if not, if my “neutral” really is what most people would consider “neutral,” then what gives??

Maybe it’s the Virgo in me, but I just don’t get it. Why would people not appreciate my direct, practical and to-the-point approach for simple questions?

Actually, it turns out that some people do: women.

2) Which approach did men, women and mixed groups prefer?

(Click to magnify)

Women were least inclined to give in to hostility. Instead, they preferred me to be direct (more than 80% success rate). They were least impressed when I was wimpy. Finally, of the three gender groups, women were most willing to say yes when I was acting commercial or businesslike (W ‘n’ D).

Men were most easily swayed when I was sweet or extra sweet and, like women, least impressed when I was wimpy. Of the three groups, men were most likely to appreciate aggression, as in when I stuck up for myself or demanded better treatment or results (”hostile”). But that was by a small margin.

Now this is interesting: While women were quite ready to say yes when I was nice, the success rate drops a bit for “extra nice.” Could it be that my extra friendliness was judged by women as fake? Could it be that women interpreted it as BS or were more skeptical? For whatever reason, women were around 22% less likely to give in to extreme friendliness than men were.

3) Can we be sure gender is the reason for these differences?

When the values are close together, it’s really hard to know if those tiny variations are meaningful or just random. Plus, even for wider variations, since I’ve only isolated for gender and approach, it’s hard to know if gender is the cause. It could also be that when I was nice I tended to ask people in the restaurant industry, who happened to be men, who very often tried to accommodate me. Maybe it’s just a correlation, even a coincidence.

However, looking at the biggest spreads between how genders reacted (when I was direct, extra nice, and meek) does offer some potentially valuable insights.

a) Groups Dislike Bluntness

Men and women were almost equally likely to say yes when I was “direct.” Women more so, but it’s not a massive difference. Groups, on the other hand, were least likely to appreciate that approach, by far. Perhaps when I was direct with an individual, it was seen as efficient, but with people who were socializing, that came across as rude? The data do suggest that groups would have preferred more banter, since their success rate jumps up for “Nice.”

I also think it’s significant that of the six approaches, directness was the favored approach of women. They were most inclined to say yes when I got to the point and just asked. Yes, men and women preferred it about the same — around 80% — but this value is more relevant if we compare it within the gender category: men preferred nice or very nice, while women preferred practical. This is backed up by the next graph, which shows that women weren’t fans of extreme friendliness, while men were.

b) Men Love Sprinkles

While men seemed inclined to give in to my extra friendliness (ok, fine, flirting), women and groups were far less charmed when I laid it on thick. What’s interesting is that groups were eager to say yes when I was simply nice (see the very top wavy graph) — but that rate falls for extra nice.

If we start to put these results together, it seems that groups were less keen on interrupting their discussions or activities to help someone who seemed to be “working it.” It’s also possible that the dynamics of those mixed groups resisted the interjection of an extremely friendly outsider seeking help. Maybe I was bothering one member, or seemed threatening or suspicious, or who knows what.

These are my vague interpretations, but if you have any other ideas, I’d be curious to hear them.

c) Groups Pity the Meek

If mixed groups resisted my efforts at being very friendly, they were total suckers for my most pathetic requests for help. Men and women were almost equally put off by my meekness, but that was by far the most effective method for asking mixed groups, both by gender and by approach.

And now to tie it all together:

4) So what can we posit with any confidence about the responses of each gender to my various approaches?

This is too limited a data sample to support any generalizations, and that wasn’t my goal in the first place. It is, however, to ask questions — and figure out how and what to start asking, in the future!

What I do know: requesting help, a favor or a discount requires the giver to like you — or be persuaded by you. Even a little bit. So when I didn’t try to be pleasant (i.e. I was merely neutral or “direct”) people responded coldly. But I have to wonder if my gender had anything to do with it. Did people assume that being curt and direct is not “ladylike”? Was being nice rewarded because women are expected to be that way? If Mr. A had asked for the same things I did, in the same way, to the same people, would the results have been different?

While groups responded well to my meekness, would people be less willing to help out a solo man? And what factors lead groups to react well to a shy woman, men to react well to a friendly or single woman, and women to react negatively to a hostile woman? Can we attribute these reactions to latent and explicit beliefs about assertiveness, competency, competition, and/or collective and individual responsibility toward who one perceives as weak or empowered? Are the results due to trained behaviors and reactions from those who interacted — or are their interpretations due to trained ways of seeing data and patterns? Where does coincidence stop, and where does meaning start?

What do you think?? Leave a comment below — any reaction is welcome!

As far as gender is concerned, one limitation of this experiment is that it’s one sided. I can’t turn myself into a man and see how people react, and I didn’t collaborate with a man to ask the same question, in the same way, to the same person, and see if the results were different. That’s what would constitute a more controlled experiment.

The only thing I could compare and contrast was how different people react to a woman asking. And since I’m the same woman, at least a few things are constant: my nice was always the same kind of nice, my pushiness was the same kind of pushy, for example.

That is what scientists call a “longitudinal” study, where you examine one element in a bunch of different contexts. The benefit is that it offers a very narrow but ideally deeper insight into a broader topic. Of course, most longitudinal studies involve more than one subject, but who wants to read that many versions of the same blog?

And now, to the numbers.

Recap from yesterday: Did I have more success asking men or women?

Yesterday I reported that men gave in to my requests 3 out of 4 times, while women slightly less. I am not sure if this is a significant difference, and even if it is, the results are pretty close.

But once we look at some narrower questions, the results get more interesting.

1) Gender and subject of request: Better to ask men or women about different topics?

I wanted to know if men or women gave in more to five types of requests: those related to my career, retail discounts, restaurant requests, random fun, and travel problems.

The other categories, like housing, entertainment, etc, didn’t really interest me from this perspective. Having a male or female cashier at the box office won’t make or break my day. And some categories, like housing, included more of one gender, so it wasn’t a fair comparison.

For career requests, men and women were similarly willing to say “yes.” Examining the data, I made the same kinds of requests to almost the same number men and women. In fact, men and women turned me down 4 times each, but I asked women two more times.

I’m not scared of bold statements, but I cannot say this means anything.

The only real difference is at restaurants, where men overwhelmingly said yes. 83% versus 72%. Considering I also asked men more there (which implies I encountered more male waiters, cashiers, baristas, etc, or exhibited an implicit preference for interacting with them in that context), looks like that’s a trend I can easily continue. Excellent.

Conclusion 1: I am relieved, based on this admittedly limited and totally unscientific experiment, to find that men and women treated me the same in the workplace.

2) Which goals were men and women more responsive to?

That is, was it better to ask men or women for financial benefits, time, permission to do strange things, information, or convenience?

Do all of these findings reflect stereotypes or defy them? A bit of both.

The smallest spread was for info, where both parties were remarkably willing to share their expertise. I do wonder if that 5% difference is due to gender or other factors. Looking at the data, women were extremely generous, explaining things in detail, giving me more advice than I even asked for.

Women were also far more likely to comfort me and have fun with me. Based on the data, this is not because I asked my female friends for hugs. Rather, I asked mostly women I didn’t know for help in the health care and travel industries — and they usually said yes.

Men were far more likely to give me access or permission to do stuff: park somewhere off limits, join a space or conversation where I wasn’t invited, etc.

Men were also significantly more likely to give me money. Meaning they either granted discounts or bonuses/perks/raises, or they handled transactions where I got money back.

3) The last result makes me wonder: are men more likely to give money? Are more men in positions where one would be likely to give money?

Let’s find out:

Strangely, and luckily, I asked exactly the same number of men and women for monetary benefits and discounts. I didn’t plan it this way, I swear!!

Men: 75
Women: 75

Of these, 56 men said yes, while 41 women did. That is, men were 37% more likely to say yes!

So it seems that, all things being truly equal — same asker, same number of askees — men are more willing to part with their money, or the money of their business, when this woman asks.

I saved the best for last, regarding gender. Check back tomorrow!

Five factoids:

1. When men earn more than their wives do, they’re happier. And it can’t just be a little more income — there has to be a big gap for a husband to feel “satisfaction.” (Source: Study cited in Tuesday’s WSJ.)

2. Women don’t receive promotions, opportunities, responsibilities, privileges, exceptions, perks and benefits because… they don’t ask for them. (Source: Women Don’t Ask)

3. Female supervisors are expected to be more supportive and nurturing than male ones are. Those who are not are considered to be bad bosses. (Source: Study cited in MSNBC)

4. Women lose millions of dollars of cumulative lifetime earnings because they fail to negotiate their starting salaries. That single lost opportunity, which would require a few hours of research and ten minutes of talking during a hiring meeting, translates into a different income threshold for life. (Source: WDA)

5. And if you search for “female boss” and “male boss” in Google images, the top page is disturbingly quick to propagate damaging gender stereotypes: three naked women, Paris Hilton, a frustrated looking chick at a computer and a bunch of silly cartoons, versus lots of men in suits, including two ordering around female employees. (My own finding.) Here’s one sample female boss:

(Cartoon from Woman Honor Thyself, about male versus female bosses.)

In broad strokes, this is one aspect of the professional landscape facing working women in America today. In other countries, too, I gather, but I’ll focus here on what I know firsthand. Of course there are exceptions. And speaking personally, I have been blessed for the most part to work with fair and enlightened employers.

But as a young professional about to start a full-time job search, this info deeply troubled me.

I had three concerns at the start of the project:

–Is it possible that I am being ripped off because of my gender, in professional or other contexts? What if I am, and I don’t even realize it?

–Is it possible that I am aiming lower — not asking, not seeking, not venturing — because I’m a woman? Because I am socialized to be kind and thoughtful, or because I haven’t developed the proper skills to identify opportunities?

–What would happen if I made a conscious effort to ask?

That last question led to many more: Would asking open doors? Would I be seen as pushy and bitchy? Would I be rewarded for my assertiveness? Would flirting be effective, and should I resort to that? Would my gender shape not only which methods I use to ask, but also how those methods are received? And how would people of each gender react to my asking?

Hence this project.

While gender wasn’t a conscious concern while I asked — I didn’t stop think, “Hmm, I’m a woman asking a woman for a discount, how should I interact?” or “A new study says male bosses are more likely to promote female employees with morose humor, so let’s see what depressing jokes I can make today!” — I did collect enough data to come to produce some interesting findings.

But why am I calling this a “squirmy” question? Not because it makes me squirm, but because I think it’s kind of slippery and elusive. Basically, these results raised a lot more questions than they answered.

In the next post, I’ll break down this data. But I wanted to outline these concerns here, so you understand a little more about my approach.