Component 2: Levine et al (Social)

Question 1

What is kin selection (Hoffman)?

Answer 1

This is helping to increase chnaces of survival of people of a similar genetic base.

Question 2

What is recipricol altruism (Trivers)?

Answer 2

This is helping as we expect to recieve help in the furture.

Question 3

What are individualistic (Western) cultures?

Answer 3

They value independance, self achievement and promote self interest. E.g. Uk, Usa

Question 4

What are collectivist cultures?

Answer 4

They value co-dependance, grou success and group interest. E.g. Asia, Africa

Question 5

What are simpatia cultures?

Answer 5

(Hispanic/Latino) They value concern for the well being of others with obligation to help, politeness & friendliness, compassion and community.

Question 6

What were the aims of Levine et al.s study into cross-cultural differences in helping strangers?

Answer 6

1. To investigate whether help given is stable/consistent across different helping situations (concurrent validity)
2. To investogate if helping strangers varies cross-culturally.
3. To identify community variables that might relate to differences in helping. (e.g. population size, economic productivity, cultural values and pace of life)

Question 7

What was the research method of Levine at al.s study?

Answer 7

Cross-cultural quasi experiment with a correlation analysis.

Question 8

What was the research design of Levine et als study?

Answer 8

Independant measures design.

Question 9

What was the IV of Levine et al.s study?

Answer 9

The people in each city (naturally occuring)

Question 10

What were the co-variables of Levine et al.s study?

Answer 10

Victim dropped pen, victim with an injured leg dropping magazines and a blind person crossing the road.

Question 11

Describe the sample of Levine et al.s study?

Answer 11

Over 1000 people across 23 large cities. Children under 17, people who were physically disabled, people who were very old or people who had their hands full were excluded.

Question 12

What were the standardised procedures of Levine et al.s study?

Answer 12

1. The experimenters were Levine’s own students or fellow lecturers. They were travelling to foreign countries or returning home for the summer.
2. All experimenters were male to control gender effects, they were all of college age and they were dress neatly & casually.
3. All experimenters recieved both detailed instruction alongside on-site field training for the acting roles where they learned how to select participants and score helping behaviour. All experimenters practiced together and they were required to make no verbal communication during the experiment.

Question 13

What was the procedure for the dropped pen condition of Levine et al.s study?

Answer 13

1. The experimenter reached into his pocket, ‘accidentally’ drops his pen behind him in full view of the participants (10-15 feet) and continues to walk past.
2. Both males and females were appraoched. They were scored as helpful if they called the experimenter back or picked up the pen to return it themselves.

Question 14

What was the procedure of the hurt leg condition in Levine et al.s study?

Answer 14

1. The experimenter walked with a heavy limp, wearing a visible leg brace. They ‘drop’ the magazines and struggle to pick them up within 20 feet of a passing participant.
2. Both males and females were approached and they were considered helpful if they offered to help or helped without asking.

Question 15

What was the procedure of the blind person condition in Levine et al.s study?

Answer 15

1. They wore dark glasses and had a white can that was provided by the Fresno Friendship Cntre for the Blind.
2. They would wait at the traffic lights in a moderately steady pedestrian flow, step up to the lights just before they turn green, then hold out their can and wait for help.
3. The trail terminated after 60 secondsor when the light turned red.
4. Considered helpful if the participant informed the experimenter that it was safe to cross.

Question 16

What were the results of Levine et al.s study?

Answer 16

1. There were significant positive correlations between different helping situations within idividual cities (aim 1)
2. There were significant differences in overall helping across the 23 countries - Brazil 93%, Malyasia 40% (aim 2)
3. Average helping in Simpatia countries was 82.87% compared to non-simpatia countries at 65.87%

Question 17

What were the conclusions of Levine et al.s study?

Answer 17

1. The helping of strangers is a cross-culturally meaningful characteristic of a place.
2. If you live in a city whewre people are likely to help a blind person, you are also likely to be helped if you drop a pen and cities where people are less likely to help a blind person are less likely to help you if you drop a pen.
3. There are large cross-cultural variations in helping rates (aim 2)
4. Simpatia cultures are more helpful than countires without this tradition.