Sexism at Starbucks

Women have to wait longer than men to get served in coffee shops, according to this new paper. It estimates that, even controlling for women's tendency to order fancier things, they have to wait an average of 20 seconds longer than men.
In shops with all male employees, the average wait is 37 seconds longer. But in all-women shops, it's an insignificant seven seconds.
This could be because male employees want to spend time flirting with female customers - though this is controverted by the fact that people of below average appearance also have to wait longer (albeit only slightly). Alternatively, it might be because women are thought (rightly) to tip less. Or it might be that staff think male customers have less time to wait.
Whatever, there's a serious point here. Discrimination can exist even in competitive markets, contrary to what Gary Becker predicted. There's more evidence here (pdf).

Comments

[claudio]

Is it possible that men are more quick at it (making up their mind, paying, etc) than women ?
If this can be considered a sexist comment, please note that faster does not equal to better.

[ajay]

This could be because male employees want to spend time flirting with female customers

Or, indeed, vice versa. Or don't women ever flirt?

[Matt Munro]

I had a similar debate with a town planner once about toilets. Her argument was that women have to wait longer for toilets because there aren't enough female toilets. Mine was that given equal numbers of toilets the problem was that women spend too long in them, chatting, doing make up etc, whereas men use toilets functionally. Women probably have to wait longer in starbucks for the same reason - too busy chatting with their mates or dithering over what to buy to catch the barristas attention.

[Planeshift]

"fact that people of below average appearance also have to wait longer"

How on earth did the researchers make judgements on this issue?

[Ruthie]

Matt:

"Women probably have to wait longer in starbucks for the same reason - too busy chatting with their mates or dithering over what to buy to catch the barristas attention."

It's telling (and it indicates a rather dim view of women) that the first thing that springs to mind is that women waiting in line are angling for the attention of men and "dithering."

In my (extensive) experience as a patron of various coffee shops, I have never found this to be the case.

The hypothesis that that staff think male customers have less time to wait seems far more likely to me.

I'm also curious about how the researchers measured "average" and "below average" appearance, since it's such a subjective thing.

[Pseudonymous]

"The hypothesis that that staff think male customers have less time to wait seems far more likely to me."

I don't see why that should affect all-male coffee shops more than all-female ones. Are male customers more likely to complain in all-male shops?

Or leave, if delayed?

[Mike Woodhouse]

Women are, in the Starbucks around Broadgate at least, and based on a thoroughly unscientific sample size at a biased set of times during the day, about 3 times as likely as men to pay for their tall skinny half-shot latte with a frickin' debit card. And Starbucks seem to have the slowest chip'n-pin equipment in the known universe. And that's all ignoring the undeniable fact that they won't even start to look for their card in the purse that they have to locate in their handbag until after they're told how much is needed.

Hmm. Looks like I got out of the grumpy side of the bed this morning (is there any other?).

Grande triple-shot semi-skimmed latte, please.

[Prentia Clove]

Oh good grief. You want the government to legislate guaranteed equal serving time or something?

Is it entirely possible (since you seem comfortable with sexual stereotypes) that it's because the women talk more and take their time, whereas men decide what they want before they get to the counter? Or how about this - women wait until the coffee is delivered before starting to look for the money to pay for it - an action which involves much digging in bags and purses, whereas men grab a note from their pocket or (unthinkable) actually have the money ready when the coffee is placed in front of them.

Now, wheres my next expresso.

[Recusant]

As in the supermarket check-out queue or the station ticket window, women seem to only start reaching for the means of payment when they are told the cost. Men, on the other hand, tend to have it at the ready so that it can be handed over immediately and the transaction concluded swiftly. What is all that fumbling in the handbag looking for the purse? It's as if the idea that they would have to pay has struck them as a complete surprise.

[Paulie]

Men are more pushy and impatient in my experience. Have you never watched a woman going up to the bar to get her round? Barstaff ignore people that aren't pushy and people who are too shy to catch their eyes. Maybe this is the explanation?

Now I know that queues probably reduce the impact of this, but people are concious if the next person in the queue is staring at them impatiently - they serve them quicker. I suspect men are more likely to do this?

[Matt Munro]

"fact that people of below average appearance also have to wait longer"

How on earth did the researchers make judgements on this issue?

Posted by: Planeshift | October 08, 2007 at 06:24 PM

Normally by asking the observers to make a rating of the subjects appearance (x/10). The ratings are averaged and those scoring below the mean are deemed below average. If controlled properly, attractiveness ratings are actually fairly consistent.

[Bruce]

I suspect the female take on this might be that it is rather like sex. For women, the queuing and ordering is part of the Starbucks experience. For men, it's something to get through before getting to the caffeine hit.

[Hilary Wade]

Plus, the service area behind a coffee bar is often raised a few inches above the main shop floor, making it difficult for short customers (who are more likely to be female) to make eye contact with the staff.

[Maynard Handley]

"I'm also curious about how the researchers measured "average" and "below average" appearance, since it's *such* a subjective thing."

Oh BS. SUCH a subjective thing implies extraodinarily low agreement among people regarding attractiveness. Any normal human being knows this is nonsense. Or, to put it numerically:
place the photos on hotornot.com and look at the histograms of the resulting scores. I wager that there will be precious little scatter in them.

[dave]

So much emphasis on correlation...

...so little effort (except guesswork) on causality.

No wonder it's called the 'dismal' science...