bucad landingin chap 5(comments in between sentences

Chapter V
PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

This section of this paper incorporates the data gathered during the survey. The presentation of data is partitioned into four parts (comma) each of which answers a specific sub problem presented in the first chapter. The first part of this chapter discusses the different dating and courtship styles of the respondents. The second part explains the preferred dating and courtship styles of the male and female students. The third part of this chapter tackles the factors that could affect the preferred dating choice of the students. Moreover, possible factors are further divided into four components namely, technology driven society, parental influence, economic condition and religious affiliation. The last part relates the factors to the dating and/or courtship preference of respondents.

I. Dating and Courtship Styles
Dating styles are methods of pairing off to experience the kind of one-on-one association with the hope to get to know a person better and finding out if it could turn into a permanent relationship (wikipedia.com). On the other hand (punctuation) courtship styles are methods where one tries to win the heart of another person or convince another person to commit with him/her into a permanent romantic relationship (Cammack, 2009). However, dating and courtship styles today are relative to people’s perception. The dating or courtship style one may (faulty) not be considered a dating or courtship style to another. Table 5.1 in the next page shows the different dating and courtship styles known to the respondents.
The table above shows that 94% are affirmative on the style of constantly hanging out, 78% confirmed the style of dinner engagements, 92% said yes to frequent exchange of calls or romantic messages, 84% showed a positive response to gift giving, 72% responded yes to serenading with romantic songs, 80% verified the method of constant company, and 68% said yes to the style of looking for mediators. The results show that all of the presented methods were considered to be dating or courtship styles to (by) the majority of the respondents. Moreover, it (what?the result? The styles?) coincides Simpson’s (2009) assertion that hanging constantly hanging out is the most common way of dating and that the term “hanging out” becomes interchangeable with “dating”. Also, the results verified that looking for mediators is a style that does not work for most men as suggested by Guillermo (2010) since 32% has a negative response to it.
Table 5.1
Frequency and percentage of the different
dating and courtship styles of the respondents




II. Dating and Courtship Style Preferences
Gender differences between males and females are obviously manifested in the society. These differences may be noticed in different aspects such as physical, social, psychological and other aspects. However, social and psychological differences are not as apparent as the physical differences. Yet, these differences can profoundly influence one’s personality, behavior and the way one maintains relationship with others (Wyndzen, 2008). Likewise, the researchers hypothesized that the said differences are also manifested in the preferred dating or courtship styles of the male and female respondents. This part of this chapter would verify the researcher’s hypothesis.

Table 5.2 presents the data gathered regarding the preferred dating and style of the respondents. The dating and courtship styles are derived from the dating and courtship styles that earned a positive response from Table 5.1. The respondents ranked the following dating and courtship styles according to their preference. Moreover, Table 5.2 presents the preferred dating styles of both the male and female respondents in a comparative manner.

Table 5.2
Average rank of the different dating and courtship styles of the male and female students according to preference

Based on table 5.2, the general order of the preferred dating styles of the male respondents is lead (led) by the method of “frequent exchange of calls and/or of romantic messages” with an average of 2.96, followed by “gift giving” with an average of 3.28, then “constant company” with an average of 3.48, next is “constantly hanging out” with an average of 4.12, followed by “serenading with romantic songs” with an average of 4.16, then “dinner engagements” with an average of 4.72 and the least is the method of “looking for mediators” with an average of 5.28.
The results show that male respondents would rather court or date using the aid of technology rather than personal dating. This confirms the proposition of Griffin (2007) that men seem it easier to talk online rather face to face because one can review what he could say and it also lessens the fear of rejection. Furthermore, the so-called “banats” also become widespread as a form of romantic messages both between couples and non-couples (Melecio, 2011). Similarly, gift giving, despite of (despite, in spite of) its costly appearance, ranked second coinciding with Barrett and Hanzi’s (2001) assertion that gift-giving is common in the “animal kingdom” as a tactic males use to encourage females to mate with them. The courtship style of looking for mediators is indeed the least preferred style for the males which verifies results from table 5.1.
The table also shows the overall order of the preferred dating styles of the female respondents. Among the different dating and courtship styles, the most preferred style of the female respondents is “constantly hanging out with an average ranking” of 1.96, followed by “dinner engagements” with an average of 3.52, then the method of “frequent exchange of calls and/or romantic messages” with an average of 3.72, next is “gift giving” with an average of 4.04, followed by the style “serenading with romantic songs” with an average of 4.72, then “constant company” with an average of 4.76 and the least is the method of “looking for mediators” with an average of 5.28.
The results show that female preferred constantly hanging out (place in quotes) the most. This proves Bao’s (2011) affirmation that expensive dates usually don’t impress women and it also coincides a survey reported by news.com.au that woman feel unfomfortable if men spend too much on a date. (so what is the relation of sentences?) However, constantly hanging out is followed by dinner engagements which shows that women are naturally craving for romance and this substantiates Cramer’s (2001) claim that in these modern days where media is everywhere, women view an extremely exaggerated scene of dating and courtship where most of these “needs” to be like a “Hollowood blockbuster” of dinner engagements. Also, the courtship style of looking for mediators the least preferred style for the females which again verifies results from table 5.3.
Figure 5.3
Comparison of the average ranks of the preferred dating and courtship styles of male and female students

The line graph compares the preferred dating and courtship styles of the male respondents and female respondents. The line graph shows the differences of the average ranks of the different dating and courtship styles. As seen in the graph, the blue line, representing the ranks of the preferred dating and courtship styles of the male respondents, has its lowest point in the dating and courtship style which corresponds to frequent exchange of calls and/or romantic messages while the red line, representing the ranks of the preferred dating and courtship styles of the female respondents, has its lowest point in the dating and courtship style which corresponds to constantly hanging out. This denotes that there is a difference between the most preferred dating and courtship style of the male and female respondents. (try to trim the sentence, wordy)
Male respondents preferred the style of frequent exchange of calls and/or of romantic messages while female respondents preferred (synonym for preferred.don don’t repeat) the style of constantly hanging out. Comparing a face to face dating to online and mobile dating leads to to the conjectures that women tends to be more outspoken than men which also is usually interpreted that men are shyer than women (Macrae, 2006) (trim). The style of gift giving is the second preference of the male respondents while the style of dinner engagements is the second preference of the female respondents. Both dating styles are signs romanticism (faulty) but men’s way of gift giving shows that men does (faulty) not want to look inferior to women especially in locales with a traditionally patriarchal society (Cooper, 1993). Moreover, comparisons show that the third most preferred of the male respondents is constant company while the third most preferred of the female respondents is frequent exchange of calls and /or romantic messages. Constantly hanging out is the male respondent’s fourth choice while gift giving is the female respondent’s fourth most preferred dating and courtship style. The sixth most preferred of the male respondents is dinner engagement while the sixth most preferred of the female respondents is constant company. (trim.shorten.dont always repeat the sixth…ex. While male res preferred dinner engagement, female on the the other hand chose constant company..) On the other hand serenading with romantic songs is the fifth most preferred dating and courtship style by both the male and female respondents. Although women craves (check) for romance, serenading sounds old fashioned and gradually becomes non-existent nowadays. Also, both male and female respondents least preferred the method of looking for mediators and at the same scale (5.28). Looking for mediators is indeed a ineffective style (Guillermo, 2010) since it sounds more of a bribery and lessens the objective of real courtship and dating. (always italicize or place in quotation the choices/items so they wont confuse the flow)
Additionally, the line representing the ranks of the preferred dating and courtship styles of the male respondents is observed to be less stretched out. Each blue point is in close proximity to each other compared to the red points. This signifies that male respondents’ preferred dating and courtship preference is not as firm as of the female respondents’ preference.


III. External Factors
External factors refer to the things that may affect the preferred dating styles of the students. The researchers recognize the fact that there are other factors that could affect the preferred dating styles of students. These factors are expected to generate from external circumstances such as the people and other influential things surrounding an individual. In particular, the researchers projected that factors may include the following: technology driven society, parental influence, economic condition and religious affiliation. Thus, this section is divided into four parts each of which corresponds to a specific factor.

a. Technology Driven Society
A world without e-mails, Facebook, eBay or the internet as a whole is difficult to imagine. The internet has turned into one of the basic necessities today. Modern age has brought people to a point where it’s possible to find virtually anything on the internet, even love. Online dating has become the new revolutionary way of finding romantic partners (Houran, 2006). This led the researchers to include the technological society as one of the factors that could affect the dating and courtship preferences of the students.
Table 5.4 presents the data collected as concerned with the effect of technology to the dating and courtship preference of the respondents.
Table 5.4
Frequency of respondents’ response on the effect of
technology on dating and courtship preferences

The table shows the frequency of responses of the respondents for each item in the survey. The respondents have four choices namely SA (strongly agree), A (agree), U (undecided), D (disagree), and SD (strongly disagree). There are 5 questions and 50 respondents which generated a total of 250 responses. As shown in the table, there are 81 responses for strongly agree, 91 agree, 5 are undecided while there are 38 responses for disagree and 35 strongly disagree. Results show that most respondents are on the affirmative side compared to the negative side (awkward.state directly the idea.join two sentencs). Majority of them agreed that technology driven society did affect their dating style preference. Also, this coincides the results shown beforehand where male students preferred the dating style of frequent exchange of calls and romantic messages the most. (trim)
Table 5.5 shows the weighted value of each frequency that was generated from the responses of the students.
Table 5.5
Effect of technological society on dating and courtship preferences to the respondents

The table above shows that out of 250 responses, 91 of it responded agree (italize) followed by 81 for strongly agree, 38 for disagree, 35 responses for strongly disagree and 5 responses for undecided. Weight values are assigned to each of the choices. The summation of the weighted frequency is 605. Given that the mean is 2.0, this implies that there is a positive response from the respondents. The weighted value of 2 implies that the respondents collectively agreed that technology driven society did affect their dating style preference. Specifically, they consent that “online dating is very preferable since distance is not a barrier and one can date anyone from any part of the world”, comma splice) “online dating is the cheapest way to date because one don’t have to spend anything; just have be online”, “mobile dating is the most convenient way of dating since it has no constraining factor that one can date any time they like, night or day”, “mobile courting is an easy way of courting since it takes away the awkwardness and uncomfortable feeling that are normally part of a face-to-face courting”, and that “whether one is on the giving or receiving end, rejection is much less messy, hurtful, or embarrassing when transacted online”. (very awkward! Why lump them in one sentence.get one or two and explain these answers.)


b. Parental Influence
Filipinos are recognized for having close family ties. Life shared experiences occurs exclusively in the family. There is a very serious sense of respect and reverence of Filipinos to the elderly members of their family, especially the parents. Parents offer initial learning of social roles and social togetherness which is the matrix of affectional bond towards others (Bates, 1942). Lines of studies also revealed that perceived parental attitudes (Edmond, 2006) and perceived parental influence (Mok, 1999) can affect children’s attitude toward dating as well as their involvement in romantic relationships. Moreover, a typical Christian family values the importance of parental influence in different aspect of life. Thus, the researchers proposed that this may affect one’s preferred dating and courtship style.
Table 5.6 presents the data collected regarding the effect of parental influences to the dating and courtship preference of the respondents.
Table 5.6
Frequency of respondents’ response on the effect of parental influence on dating and
courtship preferences

The table above shows the frequency of responses of the respondents for each item in the survey. There are 5 questions and 50 respondents which generated a total of 250 responses. Based on the table, 59 of the total responses are strongly agree, 82 agree, 16 are undecided while there are 63 responses for disagree and 30 strongly disagree. Results show that most respondents are on the positive side than the negative. (choppy) Majority of them agreed that parental did affect their dating style preference. However, there is only a small difference between those that disagree.
Table 5.7 shows the weighted value of each frequency that was generated from the responses of the students regarding the influence of parental influence on the preferred dating and courtship styles of the respondent.
Table 5.7
Effect of parental influence on the dating and courtship style preferences of the respondents

The table above shows that out of 250 responses, 82 of it responded “agree” followed by 63 for “disagree”, 59 for strongly “agree”, 30 responses for “strongly disagree” and 15 responses for “undecided”. Weight values are assigned to each of the choices. The summation of the weighted frequency is 673. Given that the mean is 3.0, this implies that there is a neutral response from the respondents and that the preferred dating and courtship styles of the respondents are not affected by the parental influence. The results shows that it does not totally confirms (check) Kim’s (2005) study where parents can exert control over their children’s romantic relationship and convey their norms and expectations by setting up rules and restrictions that limit their children’s ability to go out on dates. Also, this implies that some respondents are rather more independent to their own initiatives in terms of romantic relationships.


c. Economic Condition
Money is part of everything, even dating. It is imposable to date without money (Belk & Coon, 1991). Not that money can buy love, but rather money is an essential part of the dating process. American dating, mating, and courtship activities employ money and tangible gifts as key custom elements (Wallendor, 1990). Today's crisis illustrates that money could be problematic issue in dating. Thus, the researchers suggest that this may affect the dating preference of an individual.
Table 5.8 presents the data collected regarding the effect of one’s economic condition to the dating and courtship preference of the respondents.

Table 5.8
Frequency of respondents’ response on the effect of one’s
economic condition on dating and courtship preferences


Table 5.8 shows the frequency of responses of the respondents for each item in the survey. Like other factors, there are 5 questions and 50 respondents which generated a total of 250 responses. From the table, 33 of the total responses “strongly agree”, 78 “agree”, 26 are “undecided” while there are 70 responses for “disagree” and 43 “strongly disagree”. The result confirms that there is almost an even distribution of responds (response) from the students and that not a few responses fall under “undecided”. This shows respondents have a split view regarding the effect of economic condition to their dating style preferences.
Table 5.9 shows the weighted value of each frequency that was generated from the responses of the students regarding the influence of economic condition on the preferred dating and courtship styles of the respondent.


Table 5.9
Effect of one’s economic condition on the dating and
courtship style preferences of the respondents



d. Religious Affiliation
Religions set out (vague) to be idealistic and to achieve common good and encourage their members to be better people. However, different religions have different ideology which gives rise to different practices and beliefs. And thus, religions have the societal effect of dividing people into "us" and "them". The place of religion in society has become increasingly contentious in recent years (Howe, 2001). Though a person’s faith-life is personal, some religions have practices and orders that affect a person’s lifestyle and perception including dating. Dating for Muslims is only supposed to occur between spouses (Morse, 2010), Jehovah’s witnesses discourage casual dating (thejehovahswitnesses.org), Catholics encourage to date co-Catholics (McCloskey, 2011), Mormons are discouraged to date before the age of 16 (Bruner, 2008). These pushed the researchers to consider religious affiliation as a factor affecting one’s dating preference.
Table 5.10 at the next page presents the data collected regarding the effect of religious affiliation to the dating and courtship preference of the respondents.
Table 5.10
Frequency of respondents’ response on the effect of one’s religious affiliation on dating and courtship preferences

The table above shows the frequency of responses of the respondents for each item in the survey. There are 5 questions and 50 respondents which generated a total of 250 responses. From the table, 41 of the total responses are “strongly agree”, 113 “agree”, 19 are “undecided” while there are 54 responses for “disagree” and 23 “strongly disagree”. The result confirms that majority of the respondents believed that religious affiliation has an effect on their dating style preference. Specifically, majority agreed that dating someone of the same faith has appositive effect towards relationships.
Table 5.11 shows the weighted value of each frequency that was generated from the responses of the students regarding the influence of religious affiliation on the preferred dating and courtship styles of the respondent.
Table 5.11
Effect of one’s religious affiliation on the dating and courtship style preferences of the respondents

The table shows that out of 250 responses, 113 of it responded agree followed by 54 for disagree, 41 for strongly agree, 23 responses for strongly disagree and 19 responses for undecided. Weight values are assigned to each of the choices. The summation of the weighted frequency is 655. Given that the mean is 3.0, this implies that there is a neutral response from the respondents and that the preferred dating and courtship styles of the respondents are not affected by the religious affiliation. (so?implication?)

IV. Relationship of Factors to Dating and/or Courtship Preferences
Dating and courtship preferences may vary with every individual in relation to other factors that may influence their preference. Table 5.12 shows the relationship between the dating and/or courtship style preferences of the respondents and the factors that may affect their choice.
Table 5.12
Frequency of respondents who agreed that specific factors affected their dating style preference


Based from (on) Table 5.12, there are 22 respondents who preferred “constantly hanging out” the most, 3 preferred “dinner engagements”, 4 “preferred frequent exchange of calls and/or romantic messages”, 11 preferred “gift giving”, 6 preferred “serenading with romantic songs”, 4 preferred “constant company”, while only 1 preferred “looking for mediators” the most. Also, there are five questions that intend to measure the effect external factors to the respondents’ preference.
Results show that 76% of the answers responded by the students who preferred “constantly hanging out” the most says that the technology driven society have affected their dating preference; 72% of the responses tells that parental influence has affected their dating preference; 46% of the responses notifies that economic has affected their dating preference; and 74% of the responses reports that religious affiliation. (faulty.difficult to follow.simplify)This implies that among the factors, economic condition has the least effect on the respondents that preferred constantly hanging out the most and that the technology driven society, parental influence and religious affiliation has an almost equal effect of the respondents’ preference. ( I don’t understand)
Moreover, Table 5.12 shows that 27% of the answers responded by the students who preferred “dinner engagements” the most says(who says? The 27% answers?) that the technology driven society have affected their dating preference; 67% of the responses tells that parental influence has affected their dating preference; 80% of the responses notifies that economic has affected their dating preference; and 60% of the responses reports that religious affiliation. This means that economic condition has the major effect on the respondents that preferred “dinner engagements” which supports Belk and Coon’s (1991) allegation that it is difficult to engage into dinner dates when a “man” is not financially stable. Also, the technology driven society appears to have a minimal effect on the respondents’ who preferred dinner engagements the most. (mangled.simplify)
Table 5.12 also shows that 90% of the answers responded by the students who preferred “frequent exchange of calls and/or romantic messages” the most says that the technology driven society have affected their dating preference; 40% of the responses tells that parental influence has affected their dating preference; 45% of the responses notifies that economic has affected their dating preference; and 30% of the responses reports that religious affiliation. This denotes that the technology driven society has extremely affected their dating and/or courtship style preference since technology is the key medium of this dating style. Also, other factors have a little effect on the students that preferred “frequent exchange of calls and/or romantic messages” the most. (same issue.faulty.simplify.)
Table 5.12 furthermore signifies that 55% of the answers responded by the students who preferred “gift giving” the most says that the technology driven society have affected their dating preference; 73% of the responses tells that parental influence has affected their dating preference; 76% of the responses notifies that economic has affected their dating preference; and 80% of the responses reports that religious affiliation. This denotes that among the factors, the technology driven society has the least effect on their preference while other factors have far more effect on their choice. Specifically, religious affiliation has unexpectedly the greatest effect followed by economic condition which is a necessity for the dating and/or courtship style “gift giving” and then followed by parental influence. (same issue)
Results additionally shows that 40% of the answers responded by the students who preferred “serenading with romantic songs” the most says that the technology driven society have affected their dating preference; 70% of the responses tells that parental influence has affected their dating preference; 60% of the responses notifies that economic has affected their dating preference; and 60% of the responses reports that religious affiliation. This implies that parental influence is the factor that has affected their dating and/or courtship style preference (trim)the most. Also, this may mean that parents of respondents who preferred serenading with romantic song the most have influenced the respondents with the old fashioned way of courtship and dating. Economic condition and religious affiliation has an equal effect on the respondents’ preference while the technology driven society has the minimal effect.
Table 5.12 as well as shows that 45% of the answers responded by the students who preferred “constant company” the most says that the technology driven society have affected their dating preference; 60% of the responses tells that parental influence has affected their dating preference; 50% of the responses notifies that economic has affected their dating preference; and 80% of the responses reports that religious affiliation. This denotes that the religious affiliation of the respondent have the greatest influence in having the most preferred dating and/or courtship style preference. in addition, the technology driven society has the least effect while parental influence and economic condition has a average effect of the respondents that preferred constant company the most. (same issue)
Results moreover (faulty. Moreover,…results,,,,)shows that 80% of the answers responded by the students who preferred “serenading with romantic songs” the most says that the technology driven society have affected their dating preference; 100% of the responses tells that parental influence has affected their dating preference; 40% of the responses notifies that economic has affected their dating preference; and 80% of the responses reports that religious affiliation. This implies that parental influence is the factor that has completely affected their dating and/or courtship style preference. This may further mean this respondent preferred that his/her parents will be well acquainted with his/her date. Also, economic condition and religious affiliation has an equal effect on the respondents’ preference while technology driven society has a minimal effect. (same issue)

Notes:
Check every sentence.read many times and spot the errors. Items/choices should always be italicized or place in quoatation)
Make the presentation clear and smooth.