Levine (2001)

Question 1

(Levine) What was the aim of this study regarding culture?

Answer 1

To see if helping of strangers varies per culture.

Question 2

(Levine) What was the aim of this study regarding situations?

Answer 2

To see if helping of strangers is consistent across different situations.

Question 3

(Levine) What was the aim of this study regarding characteristics?

Answer 3

To investigate if characteristics of communities are related to helping of strangers.

Question 4

(Levine) Describe the sample and data collection in this study.

Answer 4

• Data collected from 23 different countries
• Selection of countries was down to convenience
• Data was collected from either the largest city or another major city
• Data collected during summer months of 1 or more years between 1992 and 1997

Question 5

(Levine) Describe the procedure for a ‘dropped pen’.

Answer 5

Help was if a participant either returned the pen or told the experimenter they dropped it.

Question 6

(Levine) Describe the procedure for a ‘hurt leg’.

Answer 6

Help was if a participant offered or actually picked up magazines dropped by the experimenter.

Question 7

(Levine) Describe the procedure for ‘helping a blind person across the street’.

Answer 7

Help was if a participant either took the experimenter across the street or told them when the light was green.

Question 8

(Levine) State who procedures were not carried out in front of.

Answer 8

• Children (<17)
• Physically disabled
• Very old
• Carrying heavy packages

Question 9

(Levine) What times of the day and conditions were experiments carried out?

Answer 9

During main business hours, on clear days.

Question 10

(Levine) Describe the experimenters.

Answer 10

• Male
• College age
• Dressed neatly/causally

Question 11

(Levine) Results: What was the most helpful culture?

Answer 11

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 93%

Question 12

(Levine) Results: What was the least helpful culture?

Answer 12

Kuala Lampur, Malaysia - 40%

Question 13

(Levine) Define the community variable: population size.

Answer 13

How many people were within the city investigated.

Question 14

(Levine) Define the community variable: purchasing parity.

Answer 14

How much the average income of the country could buy (PPP).

Question 15

(Levine) Define the community variable: individualist vs collectivist.

Answer 15

Where the country sits on a scale of 1-10 (where 1 is most collectivistic and 10 is most individualistic).

Question 16

(Levine) Define the community variable: pace of life.

Answer 16

Measured by walking speed of those in the city centre.

Question 17

(Levine) Results - Community Variables: Population size.

Answer 17

No significant correlation.

Question 18

(Levine) Results - Community Variables: Purchasing parity.

Answer 18

Significant negative correlation (higher purchasing power in cities with lower levels of help offered).

Question 19

(Levine) Results - Community Variables: Individualist vs Collectivist.

Answer 19

No significant correlation.

Question 20

(Levine) Results - Community Variables: Pace of Life.

Answer 20

Slight negative correlation (less help offered in cities with a faster pace of life) but this wasn’t significant.

Question 21

(Levine) Define the term ‘simpatia culture’.

Answer 21

Sees being friendly, nice, agreeable and good-natured as more important than achievement and productivity.

Question 22

(Levine) Which 5 countries were said to have a simpatia culture?

Answer 22

Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, El Salvador, and Spain.

Question 23

(Levine) State the results regarding gender differences.

Answer 23

There was no significant difference found between help offered by male and female participants.

Question 24

(Levine) Evaluate the reliability of this study regarding it being standardised.

Answer 24

The experimenters were trained to carry out the trials in exactly the same way (e.g when to drop the pen, how fast to walk etc).

Question 25

(Levine) Evaluate the reliability of this study regarding sample size.

Answer 25

The sample included people from 23 cities and lots of trials (over 1200 trials altogether) so can establish a consistent effect.

Question 26

(Levine) Evaluate the reliability of this study regarding multiple measures.

Answer 26

Levine measures ‘helping of strangers’ using 3 measures and found relatively consistent results across all 3.

Question 27

(Levine) Evaluative the ecological validity of this study.

Answer 27

The scenarios were somewhat realistic in that they could have occurred naturally within the busy streets of that city.

Question 28

(Levine) Evaluative the construct validity of this study.

Answer 28

People had the choice of leaving the scenario if they wished by just walking by. This was unlike Piliavin’s study where participants were trapped within the train.

Question 29

(Levine) How can this study be considered as ethnocentric?

Answer 29

Some cultures are still under-represented or not represented.

Question 30

(Levine) How can this study not be considered as ethnocentric?

Answer 30

The study was cross cultural and therefore took many cultures into account.

Question 31

(Levine) How can this study be considered scientific?

Answer 31

Levine’s procedure was very standardised which enables it to be replicated and proven wrong (falsifiable). It also has very objective data (e.g population size).

Question 32

(Levine) How can this study be considered holistic?

Answer 32

Levine’s study considered multiple different factors that influence helping of strangers. Different scenarios, gender differences, culture and community variables were all considered.