Levine

Question 1

key theme

Answer 1

responses to people in need

Question 2

anecdotal observation

Answer 2

suggests that strangers receive help in some cities in the world MORE than others.

Question 3

demographic indicators

Answer 3

population size, rate of population change

Question 4

sociocultural factors

Answer 4

cultural factors

Question 5

most studies have focused on population size explaining differences in helping rates

Answer 5

tests the hypothesis that the tendency to help strangers declines as population size increases.

Question 6

background

Answer 6

The authors were particularly interested in 3 classes of factors influencing helpfulness of people in a city towards strangers. (economic, cultural, cognitive)

Question 7

3 classes of factors influencing helpfulness of people in a city towards strangers

Answer 7

economic,
cultural
cognitive

Question 8

first class is economic factors

Answer 8

it has been suggested that within the USA there is a weak positive correlation between the economic wealth of a city and people’s behaviour.
On other hand, financially well-off societies require that individuals behave selfishly in order to generate wealth. (if true then this suggests people in prosperous,richer, cities may be less helpful)

Question 9

second class factor is cultural

Answer 9

Triandis (1995) suggested a distinction between collectivist societies and individualistic societies (independent). Collectivist societies are more concerned with welfare of others, more helpful.
On other hand, collectivist societies tend to be mostly concerned with other members of same community rather than strangers.
A second cultural factor is SIMPATIA

Question 10

Simpatia

Answer 10

A cultural value of concern for others. Simpatia orientated societies may be particularly helpful towards strangers.

Question 11

Third class of factor identified by Levine et al is cognitive

Answer 11

Milgram (1970) suggested the rapid pace of modern city life results in sensory overload. To cope with this, city-dwellers filter out non-essential info so they do not notice when someone needs help.
There was little evidence for or against this prior to this study.

Question 12

cross cultural research is needed for…

Answer 12

a richer understanding of the personality of cities.

Question 13

collectivist societies

Answer 13

include many in far east and Africa. Cultural values of collectivist societies centre on obligations to a group rather than to the self, individuals are obliged to put needs of family/community ahead of their own. Characteristics such as being; self sacrificing, dependable, generous, helpful.

Question 14

individualistic societies

Answer 14

such as Britain, USA and (to a varying extent) western european countries. These place more emphasis on the needs of an individual over the needs of a group. People are considered ‘goof’ if they’re; strong, self-reliant, assertive and independent.

Question 15

Simpatia definition

Answer 15

A cultural value particularly associated with spanish and latin american societies. It is defined by a concern for the well being of others, with an obligation to be friendly, polite & helpful.

Question 16

Aim

Answer 16

to investigate how the ‘personality’ of a city may be related to helping behaviour in non-emergency situations by looking at a broader range of cities than previously studied.

Question 17

3 specific aims were investigated:

Answer 17

1- To see if the tendency of people within a city to offer non-emergency help to strangers was stable across different situations.
2- To see if helping of strangers varies across cultures.
3- To identify the characteristics of those communities in which strangers are more or less likely to be helped.

Question 18

Method

Answer 18

Quasi experiment. (IV , the people in each city, was naturally occuring)

Question 19

Dependent variable

Answer 19

helping rate calculated for each of the 23 individual cities. It was also a cross cultural study, comparing people from different cultures.

Question 20

how many cities?

Answer 20

23

Question 21

Sample

Answer 21

ps were from 23 countries. Covered places in North & South america, Eastern & Western Europe, Africa and Asia.

Total no of ps was: 1,198

Question 22

who was excluded from sample selection?

Answer 22

children, elderly, visible physical disability

Question 23

how was the sample taken?

Answer 23

Ps were chosen by being the 2nd person to cross a certain line on a pavement (systematic sample)- every ‘nth’
(this was every 2nd)

Question 24

Procedure

Answer 24

*23 cities tested- aimed at obtaining widest possible sample of regions & cultures of world. However, subject selection was sometimes driven by convenience (driven by available experimenters)
*One local interested individual, usually student returning to home country for summer, collected data on helping behaviour.
*Confederates were college age, dressed neat & casual (ALL MALE to control for gender effects)
*Confederates tried to gain data from 5 different helping situations, but 2 of these ran into such difficulties that data couldn’t be used- ie, asking for change, mislaid letters, could not be used.
*3 helping behaviours were measured in 2 or more locations, in main city centre districts, during main business hours, on clear days, during summer months in years between 1992 & 1997.
*To further standardise conditions, experimenters were trained on exactly how to carry out procedure.
*reliability of experimenter behaviour was not tested in this study but it had been tested in a prev study using same training procedures, found to be good.

Question 25

Helping behaviour was tested in 3 non-emergency situations:

Answer 25

dropped pen condition,
hurt leg condition,
blind man condition.

Question 26

dropped pen condition

Answer 26

confederate walked at carefully practiced, moderate pace towards solitary pedestrian passing in opposite direction.
When 10-15ft away confederate would reach into pocket and ‘accidentally’ drop his pen behind him in full view of pedestrian, he would keep walking.
214 men, 210 women were approached.
Ps were recorded having helped in they called back to confederate and/or picked up pen and took over to him.

Question 27

hurt leg condition

Answer 27

walking with heavy limp and wearing large, very visible leg brace, confederate would drop pile of magazines and struggle to reach down for them as they came within 20ft of passing pedestrian.
253 men, 240 women were approached.
Helping was defined as offering help and/or beginning to help without offering.

Question 28

blind man condition

Answer 28

confederates dressed in dark glasses with white cane, locate in city centre intersections with pedestrian crossings, traffic signals and moderate, steady pedestrian flow. Just before light turned green they would step into corner, hold out cane and wait until someone offered help.
total of 281 trails were conducted.
Ps were recorded having helped if, at a minimum, they informed confederate the light was green.

Question 29

how was behaviour measured?
(making reference to community variables)

Answer 29

4 co-variables that were investigated in terms of their relationship to helping were:

1- POPULATION SIZE (taken from united nations demographic yearbook)

2- ECONOMIC INDICATOR (showing economic wellbeing of average citizen from per capita gross domestic product with purchasing power parity (PPP).

3- CULTURAL VALUES (6 experts rated each country on 10 point scale where 1 was most collectivist, 10 was most individualistic) There was a higher inter-rater reliability of 92. Spanish & Latin American countries were all coded as Simpatia and all other non-simpatia.

4- PACE OF LIFE (measured using walking speed as indicator, measurements were taken on clear day and flat pavement based on 35 men and 35 women)

Question 30

Results, highest ranking city

Answer 30

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ( 93.99% of helping behaviours)

Question 31

Results, lowest ranking city

Answer 31

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ( 40% helping behaviours)

Question 32

Results, the 3 measures of helping

Answer 32

-Helping was fairly consistent across the 3 measures; most of time those cities where people tended to help in 1 situation were also tended to help in the others.
-ANOMALIES; New York, 73% of ps helped the blind man across road, but only 28% helped hurt leg man pick up magazines.
-In Mexico people were helpful to both measures involving disability (92% for blind, 80% for hurt leg) but much LESS for dropped pen (55%)
-In minority of cities including; Vienna, Budapest & Copenhagen; people were most helpful in dropped pen situation?!

Question 33

Relationships between helping & population variables:

Answer 33

-Only economic prosperity was found to correlate significantly with helping
(correlation of -0.43) Less helpful in richer cities.
-Helping was NOT related to population size or collectivism.
-The 2 LEAST helpful cities (kuala lumpur % NYC) differed substantially in both size and collectivism/ individualism.
-Walking speed correlated WEAKLY with helping behaviour.
-Simpatia as cultural value countries were significantly MORE helpful than others
Mean rate of helping in simpatia countries
= 82.87%
non-simpatia= 65.87%

Question 34

Conclusions & explanations
(3 key conclusions)

Answer 34

1~ helping behaviour in non-emergency situations is not universal but varies between cities.
2~ there are large variations in likelihood of receiving help in non-emergency situations in diff cultural contexts.
(there was however NO relationship between helping and collectivism/individualism, although there was significant difference between helping in Simpatia & non-simpatia cultures.
3~ Economic prosperity is the only characteristic of cities measured that correlates with helping, poorer cities tended to have higher helping rates.

(helping was also NOT related to city size OR pace of life)