Waiting for Good JoeDo coffee shops discriminate against women?
By Tim HarfordPosted Saturday, Nov. 10, 2007, at 6:58 AM ET
I'm a real cappuccino lover myself, but many of my female colleagues don't seem to go for the stuff. I'd never thought too much about it until recently. I suppose I carelessly assumed that men and women have different tastes, probably as a result of different social influences. Now I know better: My female colleagues don't go to coffee shops because they're shabbily treated when they get there.
That's the conclusion of American economist Caitlin Knowles Myers. She, with her students as research assistants, staked out eight coffee shops (PDF) in the Boston area and watched how long it took men and women to be served. Her conclusion: Men get their coffee 20 seconds earlier than do women. (There is also evidence that blacks wait longer than whites, the young wait longer than the old, and the ugly wait longer than the beautiful. But these effects are statistically not as persuasive.)
Related in Slate
Previously, Tim Harford
solved the mystery of Starbucks' elusive "short" cappuccino. Michael Idov
detailed his brief and bitter stint as the owner of an independent coffee shop. Michael Agger
revealed how to "hack" into the secret world of Starbucks.
Perhaps, says the skeptic, this is because women order froufrou drinks? Up to a point. The researchers found that men are more likely to order simpler drinks. Yet comparing fancy-drink-ordering men with fancy-drink-ordering women, the longer wait for women remained.
It is also hard to attribute the following finding to a female preference for wet-skinny-soy-macchiato with low-carb marshmallows: The delays facing women were larger when the coffee shop staff was all-male and almost vanished when the servers were all-female.
It is not clear whether women were held up by male staff because the men viewed them with contempt or because the male staff members were flirting furiously. The "contempt" explanation seems more likely, as the extra time that women have to wait seems to increase when the coffee shop is busy. Who would take extra time out to flirt just when the lines are longer?
This is an intriguing piece of research because coffee shops appear to be a competitive business, and one thing we economists think we know about discrimination is that competition should tend to erode it.
The idea comes from an article published 50 years ago by economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker. The reasoning is simple enough: A business that deliberately offers shoddy service or uncompetitive prices to some customers, or that turns down smart minority applicants in favor of less-qualified white male applicants, is throwing money away. If it is a government bureaucracy or a powerful monopolist, that's a loathsome but sustainable choice. But racist or sexist businesses with many competitors are likely to be shut down by the bankruptcy courts long before the human rights lawyers get to them.
Becker's theory is powerful, and there is evidence to back it up. Economists Sandra Black and Elizabeth Brainerd found that the surge in international trade, which has increased competitive pressures in many markets, has reduced the ability of firms to discriminate against women.
But what Becker cannot say is how reliable the competition mechanism is at crushing discrimination, nor how quick. (In fairness to him, economics in general has a real blind spot when it comes to the question "when?") The research on coffee shops is an interesting curiosity: Coffee retailing seems to be fiercely competitive. How can discrimination continue?
One answer, perhaps, is that a rival coffee shop would have to be very close indeed to justify a trip aimed at avoiding a 20-second wait. Even coffee retailing isn't that competitive.
But an alternative explanation is that the market is still working on the problem. Over time, we've moved from gentlemen's clubs to male-dominated pubs to coffee shops, which are far more female-friendly. Perhaps it is just a matter of time before some entrepreneur decides to set up a big chain of coffee shops with "no men allowed" on the door.
Tim Harford is a Financial Times
columnist. His latest book, The Logic of Life, will be published in paperback on Feb. 10. Photograph of cappuccino on the Slate home page by Johnn Foxx/Stockbyte. Illustration by Robert Weinstock.
Remarks from the Fray:
I read the original article that tries to draw this conclusion, and I'm more than a little disappointed in the quality of the methodology. This was a pilot study at best. There are problems with sample selection, sample size, data collection, and data analysis -- basically all aspects of the study. [...]
I'm deeply disappointed in this study. I'm even more deeply disappointed in Mr. Harford for taking it this seriously. It's an interesting pilot study at best, it could easily be used to design a much, much better study, but it in no way warrants this kind of attention.
--flora8
(To reply, click here.)
Assuming the study is dead on the money... I'm not sure what we should be doing with it or learning from it. In this context, discrimination in my mind means "deliberately served poorly". It seems a reach to say this wait time is "deliberate". Does every man who takes a job at a coffee shop instantly acquire a contempt of women? What are we supposed to do with this information?
--DBuss
(To reply, click here.)
As a coffee shop manager, I agree that men tip better and because of this I am more likely to fast-track their drink. However, I would never hold up a non-tipper's drink.
But another, more likely, explanation is that men always order the same thing. So, if they are a regular customer, I don't have to wait to take their order. Normally I have it waiting for them by the time they get up to the counter.
--tlgentile
(To reply, click here.)
In my personal experience (which certainly is not statistically significant), the male baristas are chattier with the female customers - even at times with long lines and high waits. I hope that doesn't count as "discrimination" these days. There's plenty of discrimination in the world, with important consequences for female under-representation, but I don't think it's at the coffee house.
--acp101010
(To reply, click here.)
Discrimination can make businesses more profitable rather than less. In a racist society, serving blacks will reduce a restaurant's revenues; black employees, however talented and conscientious, will be less productive than white ones because co-workers will be uncooperative, and customers will often prefer to deal with whites. And so on.
There's a lot more evidence for this than for Becker's idea. (Why did it take a half-century for baseball to have its first black player, and decades longer to really integrate?) Discrimination of all sorts has a very long and nasty history. Nobel or not, cute theories don't make it disappear.
--byomtov
(To reply, click here.)
There is an obvious psychological explanation for these results, so obvious that it would be shocking if this preliminary study had shown anything different.
That explanation is that men fear the disapprobation of other men far more than they fear it of women, while women fear the disapprobation of everyone equally. So the male baristas are not discriminating against the women so much as they're discriminating in favor of the men, to minimize the chance of any unpleasantness from male customers. The psychological "cost" of ignoring a woman is lower than for ignoring a man. That's why the discrimination gets worse with busier stores and male staffs. In a busier store, the chances of customer dissatisfaction grows, so the effort to prevent it in the male customers increases. It also explains the less pronounced age discrimination--older customers are less patient and more outspoken.
--Outrager
(To reply, click here.)
I've found that the same thing happens at crowded bars. Granted I haven't done any formal study, but over the years it has become pretty obvious.
I just assume that the bartender looked out at the crowd and instead of patrons saw potential tips writ on our alcoholic foreheads and selected his next customer based on the odds of getting a good tip. I also assume most people believe women tip lower. So, I sigh and wait a little longer for my Dewars.
The conundrum I then face is in deciding how much I should tip. Do I tip low or nothing because I was ignored, thus perpetuating the myth that woman are niggardly tippers? Or do I tip high, thus rewarding the bartender's bad service?
Honestly I haven't taken any one tack consistently. I generally always tip because I did at one time work in the service industry. And sometimes, depending on my mood, I tip high hoping that perhaps the bartender will think twice when the next woman approaches.
--Holly Paradise
(To reply, click here.)
(11/12)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Kaus: The Winners and Losers of Election '09
How Do I Get the President To Give My Disease an Awareness Month?
How To Win a War on Terror, Sri Lankan-Style
Will Joe Lieberman Filibuster Health Care Reform, or Won't He?
So Did We Save the Amazon Rain Forest or What?
The New V Series Is Not About Obama—It's Just About Alien Iguanas
Remarks from the Fray:
I read the original article that tries to draw this conclusion, and I'm more than a little disappointed in the quality of the methodology. This was a pilot study at best. There are problems with sample selection, sample size, data collection, and data analysis -- basically all aspects of the study. [...]
I'm deeply disappointed in this study. I'm even more deeply disappointed in Mr. Harford for taking it this seriously. It's an interesting pilot study at best, it could easily be used to design a much, much better study, but it in no way warrants this kind of attention.
--flora8
(To reply, click here.)
Assuming the study is dead on the money... I'm not sure what we should be doing with it or learning from it. In this context, discrimination in my mind means "deliberately served poorly". It seems a reach to say this wait time is "deliberate". Does every man who takes a job at a coffee shop instantly acquire a contempt of women? What are we supposed to do with this information?
--DBuss
(To reply, click here.)
As a coffee shop manager, I agree that men tip better and because of this I am more likely to fast-track their drink. However, I would never hold up a non-tipper's drink.
But another, more likely, explanation is that men always order the same thing. So, if they are a regular customer, I don't have to wait to take their order. Normally I have it waiting for them by the time they get up to the counter.
--tlgentile
(To reply, click here.)
In my personal experience (which certainly is not statistically significant), the male baristas are chattier with the female customers - even at times with long lines and high waits. I hope that doesn't count as "discrimination" these days. There's plenty of discrimination in the world, with important consequences for female under-representation, but I don't think it's at the coffee house.
--acp101010
(To reply, click here.)
Discrimination can make businesses more profitable rather than less. In a racist society, serving blacks will reduce a restaurant's revenues; black employees, however talented and conscientious, will be less productive than white ones because co-workers will be uncooperative, and customers will often prefer to deal with whites. And so on.
There's a lot more evidence for this than for Becker's idea. (Why did it take a half-century for baseball to have its first black player, and decades longer to really integrate?) Discrimination of all sorts has a very long and nasty history. Nobel or not, cute theories don't make it disappear.
--byomtov
(To reply, click here.)
There is an obvious psychological explanation for these results, so obvious that it would be shocking if this preliminary study had shown anything different.
That explanation is that men fear the disapprobation of other men far more than they fear it of women, while women fear the disapprobation of everyone equally. So the male baristas are not discriminating against the women so much as they're discriminating in favor of the men, to minimize the chance of any unpleasantness from male customers. The psychological "cost" of ignoring a woman is lower than for ignoring a man. That's why the discrimination gets worse with busier stores and male staffs. In a busier store, the chances of customer dissatisfaction grows, so the effort to prevent it in the male customers increases. It also explains the less pronounced age discrimination--older customers are less patient and more outspoken.
--Outrager
(To reply, click here.)
I've found that the same thing happens at crowded bars. Granted I haven't done any formal study, but over the years it has become pretty obvious.
I just assume that the bartender looked out at the crowd and instead of patrons saw potential tips writ on our alcoholic foreheads and selected his next customer based on the odds of getting a good tip. I also assume most people believe women tip lower. So, I sigh and wait a little longer for my Dewars.
The conundrum I then face is in deciding how much I should tip. Do I tip low or nothing because I was ignored, thus perpetuating the myth that woman are niggardly tippers? Or do I tip high, thus rewarding the bartender's bad service?
Honestly I haven't taken any one tack consistently. I generally always tip because I did at one time work in the service industry. And sometimes, depending on my mood, I tip high hoping that perhaps the bartender will think twice when the next woman approaches.
--Holly Paradise
(To reply, click here.)
(11/12)