Levine (2001) summary

Question 1

Theories on which Levine’s study is based?

Answer 1

helping = prosocial

Hoffman (1981) - kin selection theory

Trivers (1971) - reciprocal alturism

Staub (2003) - responsibility-prosocial value orientation

Foa & Foa (1975) - social exchange theory

Milgram (1970) - people in urban areas less helpful than those in rural areas

Question 2

Background to Levine’s study?

Answer 2

Hedge & Yousif (1992) - urban areas less helpful

Yousif & Korte (1995) - urban areas less helpful

Previous studies only variable = population size e.g. Steblay (1987)

Triandis (1995) - collectivists more likely to help in-group members, not strangers

Question 3

Aims of Levine’s study?

Answer 3

investigate helping behaviour in relation to 4 variables

investigate if helping behaviour = same in diff situations + cross-culturally

gather data on helping behaviour across cultures + using identical procedures

identify country-level variables relating to increased / decreased helping behaviour

Question 4

4 variables in Levine’s study?

Answer 4

population

economic well-being

cultural values (collectivism, individualism, simpatia)

pace of life (walking speed)

Question 5

Research method of levite’s study?

Answer 5

field experiment - 23 large cities

Question 6

Levine’s study design?

Answer 6

independent measures

Question 7

Levine’s study IVs?

Answer 7

1) victim dropped pen
2) victim had injured leg
3) victim blind trying to cross street

Question 8

Levine’s study DV?

Answer 8

helping rate in 23 cities

Question 9

Sampling method in Levine’s study?

Answer 9

opportunity sample - participants selected = 2nd potential who crossed predetermined line

Question 10

Sample in Levine’s study?

Answer 10

individuals in 23 cities when experiment conducted

dropped pen + hurt leg conditions - only people walking alone selected

children, disabled, elderly, carrying packages etc excluded

Question 11

Experimenters in Levine’s study?

Answer 11

interested, responsible students

cross-cultural psychologists + their students

dressed neatly + casually

men - control gender effects

Question 12

How was the procedure in Levine’s study standardised?

Answer 12

detailed instruction sheet + on-site training

practiced together

no verbal communication

Question 13

3 helping measures in Levine’s study - dropped pen?

Answer 13

10 - 15 feet from ppt

full view of ppt + not appearing to notice
continued walking

214 men + 210 women approached

Question 14

3 helping measures in Levine’s study - hurt leg?

Answer 14

heavy limp + leg brace

dropped pile of magazines, unsuccessfully struggled to pick them up - 20 feet of ppt

253 men + 240 women

Question 15

3 helping measures in Levine’s study - blind person needing help to cross the street?

Answer 15

dark glasses + white cane

stepped up to corner just before light turned green, held out cane, waited for help

terminated after 60 secs or when light turned red

218 trials

Question 16

Key findings in Levine’s study?

Answer 16

no significant gender differences in helping behaviour

most helpful city = Rio de Janeiro (93%)

least helpful city = Kuala Lumpur (40%)

low economic productivity more helpful

faster cities less helpful - statistically insignificant

individualistic cities less helpful - statistically insignificant

no relationship between population size and helping behaviour

economic productivity, individualism-collectivism + walking speed = highly intercorrelated

simpatia countries e.g. Brazil more helpful

helping relatively sable across 3 helping measures

Question 17

Possible conclusions of Levine’s study?

Answer 17

helping =stable in diff places - cross-culturally meaningful

large cross-cultural variation in helping

lower economic productivity, higher helping

simpatia more helpful

faster less helpful, however link between economic wealth + helping not by-product of this

collectivism-individualism unrelated to helping