Levine Flashcards
What year did Piliavin conduct his research into helping behavior in NYC?
1969
What was the setting of Piliavin’s research on helping behavior?
NY subway
What did Piliavin find about the rate of immediate help to strangers in NYC?
A high rate of immediate help was given by passengers.
What does some evidence suggest about the rate of helping in different cities?
The rate of helping differs from city to city.
What characteristics are associated with a higher rate of helping in cities?
‘Simpatico’ characteristics
What was one of the study questions of Levine’s Study?
Do strangers in non-emergency situations receive more help in some cities than others?
What is a second study question of Levine’s Study?
How does the ‘personality’ of a city relate to helping behavior?
What is a third study question of Levine’s Study?
Does helping strangers vary cross culturally?
How many field experiments were conducted in the study?
23
What is one type of spontaneous non-emergency helping observed in the study?
Alerting a pedestrian who dropped a pen
What is another type of spontaneous non-emergency helping observed in the study?
Offering help to a pedestrian with a hurt leg trying to reach a pile of dropped magazines
What is a third type of spontaneous non-emergency helping observed in the study?
Assisting a blind person to cross the street
What was the sample?
-opportunity sample of adults in 23 cities: Vienna, Rio de janeiro, Sofia, Shanghai, San jose, Prague, Copenhagen, San Salvador, Budapest, alcutta, Tel Aviv, Rome, Lilongwe, Kuala Lumpur, Mexico city, Amsterdam, Bucharest, Singapore, Madrid, Stockholm, Taipei, Banok, New York
Who collected data in most cities for the research?
A local individual, usually a student.
What was the age group of the experimenters?
College age.
What was the dress code for the experimenters?
Neatly and casually dressed.
What gender were all the experimenters?
Men.
What was the first scenario tested in the study?
Dropping a pen.
How was helping defined in the ‘Dropped Pen’ scenario?
If a pedestrian alerted the researcher or picked up and handed over the pen.
What was the second scenario tested in the study?
Hurt leg.
What did the experimenters simulate in the ‘Hurt Leg’ scenario?
Walking with a heavy limp and wearing a visible leg brace.
How many men and women were approached in the ‘Hurt Leg’ scenario?
253 men and 240 women.
What was the definition of helping in the ‘Hurt Leg’ scenario?
Offering to help and/or beginning to help.
What was the third scenario tested in the study?
Helping a blind person across the street.
What props did the researchers use in the ‘Helping a Blind Person’ scenario?
Dark glasses and a white cane.
How many trials were carried out in the ‘Helping a Blind Person’ scenario?
281 trials.
What was the minimum requirement for helping in the ‘Helping a Blind Person’ scenario?
Pedestrians had to tell the researcher when the light was green.
What happened if no one helped within 60 seconds in the ‘Helping a Blind Person’ scenario?
The researcher walked away from the corner.
Which city is the most helpful according to the results?
Rio (93%)
What is the second most helpful city according to the results?
San Jose (91.3%)
What is the third most helpful city according to the results?
Lilongwe (86%)
Which city is the least helpful according to the results?
New York (44.7%)
What is the second least helpful city according to the results?
Singapore (48%)
What is the third least helpful city according to the results?
Amsterdam (53.6%)
Are richer countries or cities more helpful?
No, richer countries/cities are less helpful.
What type of cultures are more helpful?
Cities with simpatico cultures are more helpful.
How do fast-paced cities compare in terms of helpfulness?
Fast-paced cities are less helpful.
