An eye-catching new study shows just how different the experience of walking home at night is for women versus men.
The study, led by Brigham Young University public health professor Robbie Chaney, provides clear visual evidence of the constant environmental scanning women conduct as they walk in the dark, a safety consideration the study shows is unique to their experience.
Interesting.
I’m certain there are very real differences between men and women in this regard, but the methodology feels like it reduces the quality of the data.
It would have been nice if the researchers could have used eye tracking to see where people were actually looking, rather than asking them to click on what drew their attention. There’s surely at least some difference between what people are actually doing, versus what they self-report as doing when asked about it.
I felt the same. Or better yet, why don’t they film participants in real life walking outside at night and tracking eyeballs and heartbeats and other metrics.
I thought that too, but being at night and unsociable hours makes it a more difficult study to perform, and also difficult to control the conditions. So I can accept the desire to simulate it in a lab setting.
Perhaps ideal would have been a VR experience of walking in a nighttime location, which could have done the eye tracking (VR headsets can do that) and also would be identical every time.
The methodology also allows lots of people to participate (600 in the study). If they had to actually walk outside then it would almost certainly reduce the number of participants they were able to have.
A VR type thing could be good
While it increases the N of the study, I’d say it severely cripples the quality of those results. Sometimes less is actually more.
I second that. Fear has a lot to do with subconscious and fast reactions without actually thinking about that. Having them point and click basically burns all that spontaneous part of the equation.
Just from looking at the result pictures, one could also derive that women can’t focus on goals ;-)
Yeah there are some great eye movement tracking studies for people watching scenes from films, they should have made this more like that.
Hey you’re that cockroach-milk dude(tte)!
Would also have been great if they included visual stimuli with daylight scenes as controls.
@ohitsbreadley omg cockroach milk, not what I want to be known for lol!
Daylight scenes would be good. I guess given enough funding we would want to control with “safe” environments too eg subject’s own home.
The eye movement/film studies were fascinating because there’s a ton of theory in film (and art/photography) about where the viewer looks and what the eye is drawn to. And of course the movement studies debunked it.
The first time I realized something like this exists is when I told one of my female friends that I like to walk around my neighborhood at night, with music in my earbuds, often high. She thought I was crazy for doing this and at first I had no idea why.
This was pretty eye opening for me. I think most men have no idea how different world can look to women sometimes.
What would really interest me is the alignment of perceived and actual threat. This is of course anecdotal and highly localized, but in my bubble men walk home carelessly, while women often express fear. At the same time I know quite a few cases of men getting into trouble, but hardly any women who had anything worse than catcalling happen to them.
Of course it’s hard to operationalize mugging and rape into a point scale, but maybe there are other ways for comparison.
You seem to be suggesting that
-
in your experience careless walkers get into trouble more than careful walkers
-
therefore careful walkers do not face as much of a threat
Do you see the problem with that line of reasoning? It’s a bit like saying locked cars get stolen less therefore they didn’t need to be locked.
That’s not what I’m suggesting, and I think you know that.
I think you know that.
Nope. Check my comment history, it should be pretty obvious I’m not a troll or a keyboard warrior.
I was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning in good faith; not trying to start some kind of debate. Take it or leave it.
You’re implying that “care” is something you can actually take. You can’t be careful at walking home. You either go home, or you don’t. Being afraid while doing so does not change your likelihood of being attacked in any form.
The only difference one could argue exists is the willingness to walk certain paths, but that’s something that absolutely can be controlled for.
No I’m sorry, this is a ridiculous line of reasoning. If you injure your knee, you can walk down stairs like you normally do, or you can go down them slowly and carefully to lessen the risk of injury. The same goes for this situation of being careful while walking home. As you said, assessing a particular path and then taking another is one option. Only walking through a dark alley when other people are moving that way is another. Looking into a dark corner and moving to the far side so that you can’t be grabbed without a chance to run is another. Making careful choices may not save you if someone is after you in particular, but to say it has no effect on the likelihood of the average woman being attacked is absurd.
Just wanted to add my agreement with you here since the general Lemmy public doesn’t seem to be on the same page. And I think your message is unequivocally proven by their response to this message of yours.
general Lemmy public
Ah, that’s interesting to know. I’m on Kbin, which doesn’t federate downvotes (meaning, I can only see downvotes from kbin, and our downvotes don’t register on Lemmy).
So from my interface their top-level comment is sitting on +7 upvotes and -3 downvotes. And my reply is on +12 upvotes and no downvotes.
I gather from your comment that from your interface, it’s nothing like that.
This has happened a few times now, I get the impression kbin is maybe a bit more progressive and lemmy.world is a bit more conservative-leaning.
Very interesting. You’re right, mine is different from that. And I’ve definitely felt like I’ve been screaming into the wind around here sometimes. Maybe it’s about time I give kbin a shot before I shout myself hoarse, so to speak. Here’s my view, fwiw:
@adj16 hit me up if you do, I’ll add you to my follow list.
Kbin’s pretty chill tbh, the interface takes some getting used to but it has a thing like multireddits (“collections”) and can also interact with mastodon as well as the lemmys.
Another option is you could go full curated/no downvotes on Beehaw.
-
In most Western countries, men are statistically more likely to become victims of violence than women. That’s probably also true for crimes at night in public.
What if women just look around at more stuff than their goal in general and not just walking home?
Fortunately, studies have been done on this! They give images to participants and track their eye movements. It is an exercise for you to find these studies and see if they validate or challenge your viewpoint.
I’ve actually heard about it before. That’s why I brought it up.
Well I had heard of it before, which is why I brought it up.
I wasn’t aware of the science of this, but I know to not let a woman walk home at night by herself, regardless of what she is to me.
Oh it’s unique to their experience huh? Ever met a combat veteran?
No, but the fact that women have to operate with the same level of constant vigilance associated with PTSD in combat veterans is perhaps not exactly a good thing.
I’m not a combat vet but I typically scan my surroundings if walking at night and don’t use phones/headphones specifically so as not to appear as “distracted and therefore a target.”
Guess I should start shopping for estrogen, funny way to find this out about myself, who knew all it takes to be a woman is situational awareness and men are physically incapable of it.
