Levine

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

compare helping behaviour in largest city of 23 diff countries in non-emergency situation

Question 2

Research method

Answer 2

cross cultural field study
+ : high ecological validity
- : lower control lvl

(collected data by analysing correlation)

Question 3

Sample

Answer 3

• from large city in 23 countries
• 1198 ppts
  > children, elderly, ppl w visual/physical disabilities excluded

Question 4

Procedure

Answer 4

• experimenters: student dressed neatly, given training for role
• in 2 or more locations in city centres
• office hours
• summer days

Question 5

Procedure 2

Answer 5

1) dropped pen - helped if said smth or picked it up
2) hurt leg, heavy limp, visible leg brace, dropped smth - helped if offered to help or helped w out saying anything
3) helped blind person across street or informed light was green

Question 6

Results 1

Answer 6

• most helpful (simpatico), approx;
  > Rio de Janeiro, Brazil : 94%
  > San Jose, Costa Rica : 91%
• least helpful (not simpatico), approx;
  > New York City, USA : 45%
  > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia : 40%

Question 7

Overall helping measure correlation impacted by…

Answer 7

Community characteristics
- PPP (Purchasing Power Parity): -.43
> wealthier/higher PPP = less helpful
- individualism/collectivism: -.17
> i less helpful but not sig diff
> simpatico mean help rate 83% + non-simpatico = 66%

Question 8

Anomalies

Answer 8

• New York: 75% helped blind man but 28% hurt leg man
• Mexico City: high helping lvls for blind 92% + hurt leg 80% but pen 55%
• minority of cities, most help for dropped pen eg. Vienna

Question 9

Type of data

Answer 9

• quantitative:
  > easier to analyse, make comparisons, see correlation, objective, work out % BUT no human insight

Question 10

Correlational data

Answer 10

• ✓ allows research to be carried out when variables can be measured but can’t be manipulated
• ✕ can’t be sure that the cause is the only thing that impacts the effect (not cause + effect)

Question 11

Conclusions

Answer 11

• large cross-cultural variation in helping rates
• helping inversely related to country’s economic productivity
• simpatico countries more helpful on average than those w no such traditions
• collectivism/individualism value = unrelated to helping behaviours

Question 12

Sampling bias/Ethnocentrism

Answer 12

NO : looked at diff countries

Question 13

Ethics

Answer 13

• ✕ informed consent, right to withdraw, debrief
• ✓ deception

Question 14

Practical applications

Answer 14

• explains why some cities more helpful than others
• which countries are better to go to

Question 15

Reliability

Answer 15

• low ; not same researcher
• “neat + casual + male student” - vague, subjective
• ~ everyone’s experience ✕ same even if they had same training ; extraneous variables present

Question 16

Validity

Answer 16

• high ecological validity: everyday task, naturalistic event ~ no demand characteristic
• high internal validity: successfully tested out what it was set out to test