Few evaluated classroom exercises to date have addressed one of the most cited and compelling explanations of gender formation over the life course: interactionist gender theory. This theory posits that people actively “do” or “perform” their gender in every interaction, and as such, they often subconsciously reshape their public gendered personas based on the degree to which they find social acceptance within a given social context. This paper presents a highly engaging and temporally compact classroom exercise utilizing simulated speed dating to illustrate and generate discussion about interactionist gender theory among undergraduate social sciences and gender studies students. An evaluation study indicates that the exercise improves students’ perceived understanding of interactionist gender theory and that it is both highly helpful and enjoyable.
AsendorpfJens B.PenkeLarsBackMitja D.2011. “From Dating to Mating and Relating: Predictors of Initial and Long Term Outcomes of Speed Dating in a Community Sample.” European Journal of Personality25(1):16–30.
2.
BelotMichèleFrancesconiMarco. 2006. “Can Anyone Be ‘the’ One? Evidence on Mate Selection from Speed Dating.” Discussion Paper No. 2377, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany.
3.
BerkowitzDanaManoharNamita N.TinklerJustine E.2010. “Walk Like a Man, Talk Like a Woman: Teaching the Social Construction of Gender.” Teaching Sociology38(2):132–43.
4.
BrooksDwight E.HébertLisa P.2006. “Gender, Race, and Media Representation.” Pp. 297–317 in Handbook of Gender and Communication, edited by DowJ. B.WoodJ. T.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
ButlerJudith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
6.
ChafetzJanet S.ed. 2006. Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. New York: Springer.
7.
CookDavid A.BahnRebecca S.MenakerRonald. 2010. “Speed Mentoring: An Innovative Method to Facilitate Mentoring Relationships.” Medical Teacher32(8):692–94.
8.
CorrellShelley J.BenardStephenPaikIn. 2007. “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology112(5):1297–1339.
9.
CraneBetsyTowneAngelaCrane-SeeberJesse P.2013. “The Four Boxes of Gendered Sexuality: A Lesson Plan for Teaching about the History and Effects of Gendered Sexuality.” American Journal of Sexuality Education8(4):274–305.
10.
EdwardsNelta M.2010. “Using Nail Polish to Teach about Gender and Homophobia.” Teaching Sociology38(4):362–72.
11.
FinkelEli J.EastwickPaul W.2009. “Arbitrary Social Norms Influence Sex Differences in Romantic Selectivity.” Psychological Science20(10):1290–95.
12.
FinkelEli J.EastwickPaul W.MatthewsJacob. 2007. “Speed-dating as an Invaluable Tool for Studying Romantic Attraction: A Methodological Primer.” Personal Relationships14(1):149–66.
13.
FismanRaymondIyengarSheena S.KamenicaEmirSimonsonItamar. 2006. “Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence from a Speed Dating Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics121(2):673–97.
14.
GiuffrePattiAndersonCynthiaBirdSharon. 2008. “Teaching the Sociology of Gender and Work.” Teaching Sociology36(1):66–78.
15.
GoodJessica J.Moss-RacusinCorinne A.2010. “‘But, That Doesn’t Apply to Me’: Teaching College Students to Think about Gender.” Psychology of Women Quarterly34(3):418–21.
16.
HitschGünter J.HortaçsuAliArielyDan. 2010. “What Makes You Click? Mate Preferences in Online Dating.” Quantitative Marketing and Economics8(4):393–427.
17.
KolbDeborah M.2000. “More Than Just a Footnote: Constructing a Theoretical Framework for Teaching about Gender in Negotiation.” Negotiation Journal16(4):347–56.
18.
KorobovNeill. 2011a. “Gendering Desire in Speed-dating Interactions.” Discourse Studies13(4):461–85.
19.
KorobovNeill. 2011b. “Mate-preference Talk in Speed-dating Conversations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction44(2):186–209.
20.
KurzbanRobertWeedenJason. 2005. “HurryDate: Mate Preferences in Action.” Evolution and Human Behavior26(3):227–44.
21.
LapriseRéjeanThiviergeRobert L.2012. “Using Speed Dating Sessions to Foster Collaboration in Continuing Interdisciplinary Education.” Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions32(1):24–30.
22.
LarsonJeff A.TsitsosWilliam. 2013. “Speed Dating and the Presentation of Self: A Teaching Exercise in Impression Management and Formation.” Teaching Sociology41(3):307–13.
23.
LoewenJames W.SampsonSamuel F.1986. “Getting Gender on Their Minds: A Classroom Exercise on Sex Roles.” Teaching Sociology14(3):185–87.
24.
LorberJudith.1994. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
MaidmentJaneCrispBeth. 2007. “Not Just for Romance: Applications of Speed Dating in Social Work Education.” Groupwork17(2):13–27.
26.
MarcianoTeresa D.1986. “‘How Do You Know I’m a Woman?’: Freeing Up Role Constraints in Sexual Diversity.” Teaching Sociology14(3):191–92.
27.
McCarrollMichele L.Pohle-KrauzaRachael J.MartinJennifer L.2009. “Active Learning in the Classroom: A Muscle Identification Game in a Kinesiology Course.” Advances in Physiology Education33(4):319–22.
28.
McKinneyKathleenHeylBarbara S.2009. Sociology through Active Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
29.
SasslerSharonMillerAmanda J.2011. “Waiting to Be Asked: Gender, Power, and Relationship Progression among Cohabiting Couples.” Journal of Family Issues32(4):482–506.
30.
SchachtSteven P.2004. “Beyond the boundaries of the classroom: Teaching about gender and sexuality at a drag show.” Journal of Homosexuality46(3/4):225–40.
31.
TaylorFrank. 2003. “Content Analysis and Gender Stereotypes in Children’s Books.” Teaching Sociology31(3):300–11.
32.
TomaCatalina L.HancockJeffrey T.2010. “Looks and Lies: The Role of Physical Attractiveness in Online Dating Self-presentation and Deception.” Communication Research37(3):335–51.
YurchisinJenniferWatchravesringkanKittichaiMcCabeDeborah B.2005. “An Exploration of Identity Re-creation in the Context of Internet Dating.” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal33(8):735–50.
