levine

Question 1

aim

Answer 1

investigate differences in non - emergency helping behaviour towards strangers in a range of different cultural settings

Question 2

ppts

Answer 2

from large cities in 23 countries. 1198 total

Question 3

design

Answer 3

cross cultural study in a field, quasi experiment

Question 4

controls

Answer 4

all male, did not speak to ppts, trained in how to carry out experiment, reliability of experimenter behaviour and training procedures tested in previous study and found to be good

Question 5

procedure

Answer 5

helping behaviour was tested in three non - emergency situations:
- dropped pen
- hurt leg (walked with a limp and leg brace and dropped magazines and struggle to pick them up)
- blind person (dark glasses and a cane signalling the wanted help to cross the road)
ppts were not directly asked for help
rate of helping for each country was scored by averaging the rate of helping on the three measures
community variables assessed as follows:
- population size - UN demographic yearbook
- economic prosperity - PPP
- cultural values - independent cross cultural psychologists rated from 0 (very collectivist) - 10 (very individualist)
- pace of life - average observed walking speed

Question 6

results

Answer 6

most likely to help - rio de janerio (93%)
least - malaysia (40)
the better off the residents in the city are, the less likely they are to help

Question 7

conclusions

Answer 7

• helping behaviour in non - emergency situations is not universal and varies between cities
• large variations in the likelihood of receiving help in NE situations in different cultural contexts
• poorer cities tend to have a higher helping rate

Question 8

evaluation: research method

Answer 8

• natural environment, realistic setting (s)
• difficult control variables (w)
• highly trained experimenters for controls (s)

Question 9

data

Answer 9

quant

• appropriate (s)
• mathematical relationships with helping could be established (s)

Question 10

ethics

Answer 10

• no consent
• deceived
• no withdraw
• didn’t know they took part
• no debrief
• unlikely to have been distressed (s)

Question 11

validity

Answer 11

general strength
straightforward behavioural measure of helping
unaware taking part (no demand characteristics)
natural environment (high ecological validity) - true to life

Question 12

reliability

Answer 12

internal reliability = poor - natural setting (w)
not all had same experience of study due to time of day purpose of journey etc (w)
however, experimenters highly trained for control to give ppts same experience (s)

Question 13

sampling bias

Answer 13

general strength
large 
random - more representative 
district and time of day matched ppts
number of cultural contexts

Question 14

practical applications

Answer 14

helpful to know where you are most likely to receive help