Levine Flashcards
What was the aim of Levine’s study?
To see if the tendency of people within a city to offer non-emergency help to stangers is stable across different situations in which people need help.To see if helping strangers varies across cultures. To identify characteristics of these communities in which strangers are more or less likely to help.
What was the method, design, IV and DV used in Levine’s study?
method- Field experiment
Design- Independent measures design
IV- 23 different countries
DV% measure of repsonse to 3 helping behaviours (dropped pen, hurt leg, blind person.)
What was the sample used in Levine’s study?
23 countries, 1198 ps in total. Chosen by the 2nd person to cross a cartain line on the pavement. (population size= more than 230,000.
What extraneous variables were controlled in Levine’s study?
-All experimenters were male and of college age
- No speaking to ps
- All experimenters were trained
-Conducted during office hours
-In summer
-2+ locations in each city
- Between 1992-1997
What was the procedure in Levine’s study?
Helping behaviour was tested in 3 non-emergency conditions:
Dropped pen: Experiemnters dropped a pen and appeared not to notice as they approached a ps.
Hurt leg: Experimenters waling with a limp and a leg brace dropped a pile of magazine’s and appeared to be struggling to pick them up.
Blind person crossing a road: Experimenters wearing dark glasses and with a white cane stepped up to a crossing and held out their cane, signalling that they wanted help crossing the road.
In each case helpoing was measured if a p chose to intervene in any way. The rate of helping for each country was obtained by averaging the rate of helping on three measures. Community variables were also assessed as followed: Population size, Economic prosperity, cultural values and pace of life.
What results were given in Levine’s study?
Rio de janeiro-93%, Kuala Lumpur, malysia-40%.
Most of the time those who helped in one situation were also people who tended to help in another. however there were anomalies such as NYC and Mexico. In minority cities (Vienna, Budapest, Copenhagen) people were most helpful in dropped pen
the only sig finding was that countries with simpatia as a cultural value were sig more helpful (Simpatia mean- 82.87%, non-simpatia-65.87%)
What conclusions were gievn in Levine’s study?
-Helping behaviour in non-emergency situations is no universal but varies between cities.
-There are large variations in the likelihood of recieving help in non-emergency situations in different cultural contexts. But no relationship between helping and collectivism/individualism, althouigh there was a sig difference in simpatia and non-simpatia cultures.
-economic prosperity: Poorer cities tended to have higher rates of helping. helping was not related to city size or pace.
What were the community characteristics measured in Levine’s study?
Population size, purchasing power parity, walking speed, individualism/collectivism.
Evaluate the ethics of Levine’s study
Consent: No consent, nor were they free to choose not to participate.
Deception-People were decieved by the actions of the experimenters. Not informed later on.
Withdrawal- Could not ask to remove data if they didnt know they took part.
Debriefing: Ps had no opportunity to be debriefed. Unlikelt to be distressed.
What is the key theme for Levine’s study?
Responses to people in need
What does simpatia mean?
Simpatia is a Spanish term for a culture that has a proactive socioemotional orientation and concern with the social well-being of others. This includes being more friendly and helpful to strangers, not just to
their own community. They are more homogenous and actively friendly.
How were these 23 countries chosen in Levine’s study?
The selection of countries and cities was influenced by available opportunities; the experimenters who volunteered were intrested in cross-cultural psychologists or travelling students
Evaluate the reliability of Levine’s study
Because the procedure was carried out in a natural setting the internal reliability of the study was poor. Not all ps had the same experience of the study because of factors such as time of day and the purpose of their journey. On the other hand the experimenters were highly trained to make sure they gave all the ps a consistent experience as possible.
