Levine Flashcards
Key theme + area
Key theme = responses to people in need
Area = social area
Background
Helping rates differ between communities, few studies to explain, most focused on population, tested economic explanations, cultural values + pace of life
Aim
To investigate differences in non-emergency helping behaviour towards strangers in a range of cultures + to understand differences in terms of cultural traditions + economic productivity
dropped pen condition
walking towards ppt, at 10-15 ft drops pen and walks away
helped = called back / returned pen
trials ; 214 men + 210 women
hurt leg condition
wore an obvious leg brace / walked with a limp
approx 20 ft away dropped a pile of magazines + struggled
helped = tried to / helped pick up magazines
trials = 253 men + 240 women
blind condition
wore dark glasses / carried a cane / waited at crossing + waited at green light (max 30s)
helped = told light was green / given more direct help
trials = 281
method
a total of 1198 ppts in 23 countries were given opportunity to help in one of the 3 situations. only lone individuals
standardisation
all experimenters received detailed instructions + on-site training
all practiced together
no verbal communication required
results
most helpful;
1. Rio de Janeiro = 93%
2. San Jose = 91%
3. Lilongwe = 86%
least helpful;
21. Singapore = 48%
22. New York = 45%
23. Kuala Lumpur = 40%
conclusion
significant differences in non-emergency helping behaviour. associated with both economic + cultural factors
similarities + differences between Piliavin + Levine
+ both social studies + considered bystander effect
+ Both field settings
+ Both look at cultural differences that factor into helping behavior
- piliavin used emergency, Levine used non-emergency
- piliavin only studied one city, levine studied 23
- piliavin = field experiment, levine = quasi experiment
- levine used larger scale with trained examiners, piliavin didn’t
