Levine Flashcards
Levine et al. study (2001) carried out a study into
responses to people in need.
Give two results from this study. [2]
No relationship between helping behaviour and population size
No significant gender differences
Explain why this study can be described as a quasi
experiment. [2]
Because the experiment used a naturally occurring
IV as a person’s place of residence is predetermined and not in the control of the
researchers.
In Levine et al.’s study into cross cultural altruism, four
community variables were recorded: Describe how two of the
community variables were measured. [4]
Cultural values. Rating of the 23 countries in the sample on the
dimension of individualism-collectivism/ Countries were rated on a 10-point scale
Pace of Life measured by walking speed (over 60 feet).
Aim
To investigate differences in non-emergency helping behaviour towards strangers in a range of cultures to understand differences in terms of cultural traditions and economic productivity
Sample
1198
23 countries
children, elderly people and those with physical disabilities were excluded
Research Method
Quasi Exp
IV
Comparison of culture
DV
helping behaviour, tested using 3 non-emergency situations, scored according to whether they helped or not
Name the 3 non - emergency situations
Dropped pen
Hurt leg
Blind person crossing a road
Name the community variables
Population size
Economic Prosperity
Cultural Values
Pace of life based on walking speed
Findings
Rio was the most helpful city at 93%
Kuala Lumpur was the least helpful at 40%
Economic prosperity correlated negatively with helping, the better off the country the less likely they were to help
mean rate for simpatia countries was 82.7%, mean for non simpatia countries was 65.9%
Conclusion
Helping behaviour in non-emergency situations is not universal but varies between cities
To what extent does Levine change our understanding of helping behaviour?
Piliavin = NY only
Levine = cross cultural
demonstrated the impact of culture, also showing how unhelpful NY is so leads to questions about the generalisability of Piliavin’s research
To what extent does Levine change our understanding of helping behaviour (Individual)?
P=90% of first helpers male
L= No gender differences
To what extent does Levine change our understanding of helping behaviour (Social)?
P= effect of model
Levine adds little to this as this was not manipulated within their research
Link to social area
Defining principle - Assumes that people’s behaviour is affected by the situation that they are in so social psychologists are interested in the effects of social context and environment on behaviour
Interested in how a person would respond in a non emergency situation where someone required help. It was found that there was little difference in the type of emergency but that there was large differences between cultures - simpatia countries helped 83% of the time compared to no simpatia at 65.7%
Link to key theme
Interested in testing helping behaviour in non-emergency situations, these were tested across a range of different cultures.
Explain theme
Explain what Levine did
Finding
Ethnocentrism
No
Cross cultural - 23 countries
However, could be
only cities used
and mainly Europe, Asia and America
Ecological Validity
High
Scenarios plausible
Internal validity
Low
other factors could have influenced results such as personality
Internal reliability
standardised procedure, experimenters were trained so that they all did the situations in the same way
Ethical guidelines broken
no consent
no right to withdraw
deception
Simpatia meaning
being friendly, nice and good natured.
How was pace of life measured
35 males and 35 females were timed covering a distance of 60 feet
