Levine Flashcards
What was the aim of Levine et al.’s (2001) study on helping behavior?
To investigate whether levels of helping behavior differ across cultures and to identify community-level variables that might explain those differences
What inspired Levine et al.’s (2001) study on cross-cultural helping?
Prior studies showed variation in helping behavior, but few had explored it across so many different international cities using standardized methods
What is helping behavior as defined in Levine et al.’s (2001) study?
Helping behavior was defined as spontaneous assistance offered to a stranger in need, without any obvious reward
What were the key hypotheses in Levine et al.’s (2001) study?
They hypothesized that helping rates would differ across cultures and that factors like economic productivity, population size, walking speed, and individualism vs collectivism might correlate with helping levels
What type of study was conducted by Levine et al. (2001)?
A quasi-experiment and field study, using naturalistic observation in 23 large cities around the world
How many cities were included in Levine et al.’s (2001) study, and how were they selected?
23 cities across different countries were selected to provide a broad cultural and economic range, including Rio de Janeiro, New York, and Kuala Lumpur
What were the three helping scenarios used in Levine et al. (2001)?
Dropped pen
Blind person crossing the street
Injured leg (man struggling with a limp and a magazine)
Who were the participants in Levine et al.’s (2001) study?
Unaware pedestrians (opportunity sample) who were over 17, alone, and not visibly disabled or elderly
How did Levine et al. (2001) measure helping behavior?
By recording whether a passerby offered help in each scenario
E.g. picking up the pen, helping the blind person across, helping the man with the limp
What community variables did Levine et al. (2001) examine in relation to helping?
Population size
Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)
Walking speed
Cultural values (individualism/collectivism)
What were the overall findings of Levine et al.’s (2001) study?
There were significant cross-cultural differences in helping rates. Brazil and Costa Rica were among the most helpful, while Malaysia and the US were among the least
Which city was the most helpful in Levine et al.’s (2001) study?
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil had the highest helping rate across all three scenarios
Which city was the least helpful in Levine et al. (2001)?
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia showed the lowest levels of helping behavior
What correlations did Levine et al. (2001) find between helping behavior and community variables?
Negative correlation between helping and economic wealth (PPP)
Positive correlation with slower walking speeds
More collectivist cultures tended to help more
What did Levine et al. (2001) conclude about cultural influences on helping?
Helping behavior is not universal and is influenced by cultural and economic factors
Poorer cities often showed more helping behavior, possibly due to stronger communal values
What theory did Levine et al. (2001) challenge with their findings?
The assumption that people in wealthier or more developed nations are necessarily more prosocial, which the study found to be false
What is one strength of Levine et al.’s study?
High ecological validity - the helping situations were realistic, and participants were unaware they were being studied
How did Levine et al. (2001) ensure cross-cultural fairness?
The procedures were standardized across all cities, and researchers used local data collectors who spoke the native language
What is one limitation of Levine et al.’s (2001) study?
Ethical concerns - participants didn’t give consent, and deception was used (e.g. the blind scenario) though risk was minimal
What sampling issue limits generalizability in Levine et al. (2001)?
The sample included only people in urban areas, which may not reflect helping behavior in rural communities or different socioeconomic groups
How did Levine et al. (2001) control for experimenter effects across cultures?
Each city used local experimenters, male and college-aged, who were trained to act consistently in all helping scenarios
