levine et al

Question 1

Which study is Levine compared with?

Answer 1

Pilavin

Question 2

Aims
Investigating the stability of what? (kind of emergency, within what kind of areas?
See how what varies?
Identify what of the different communities

Answer 2

Investigate the stability of non emergency help offered to strangers in different situations within cities

See how helping behaviour varies across cultures

Identify characteristics of the communities in which strangers were more or less likely to be helped

Question 3

Research methods (2)
Relationship between?

Answer 3

Quasi experiment and correlation
Naturally occurring
A correlation anaylisis was used to establish whether there was any relationship between levels of helping behaviour in a country and their characteristics

Question 4

One strength of a correlation method in this study
What does a correlation study show?
Example: what was found to be related to helping behaviour?
Through correlation analysis what is show between the two?
Result from study

Answer 4

One strength of the correlation method in Levines’ study is that it identifies significant information by signifying what trends show. For example levels of helping behaviour were found to be related to purchasing power but through a correlation analysis it also shows the direction of the relationship (there is a negative relationship between them. As levels of helping behaviour increase the levels of purchasing power decrease

Question 5

One weakness of the correlation method in this study

Answer 5

Can not establish cause and effect
Can not be sure if having lower levels of purchasing power caused people to be more helpful, if the cities have lower purchasing power because the people are more concerned with helping others than with earning money, or if there is somw other factor that links both of these

Question 6

Results
2 of the most helpful cities?
2 of the least helpful cities?

Answer 6

Most helpful cities = Rio, Brazil
San Jose, Costa Rica

Least helpful cities
Singapore, Singapore
New York, USA

Question 7

Independent variable and dependent variable

Answer 7

IV- naturally occurring = country

DV- helping behaviour

Question 8

Collectivist culture
Who’s welfare is prioritised?
What culture is identified? definition? (What two things are not as important?
Example of a city?

Answer 8

Individuals look out for one another
Prioritise the welfare of the community as a whole
Identified to have a culture of simpatia: a culture where being friendly, nice, agreeable and good nature is prioritised over achievement and productivity
eg Rio, Brazil

Question 9

Individualist culture

Answer 9

Focus on the individual

Question 10

Purchasing power parity

What does it show?

Answer 10

Indicator of econmomic wellbeing

The ability of purchasing based on the average income

Question 11

Three helping behaviours

How were the helping behaviour measured?

Answer 11

Dropped pen ( seeing if anyone would call out or ick it up to return it)
Helping a blind person across the street
Hurt leg (if anyone would pick up the dropped magazines and help carry them)

Question 12

Experimenters
Gender?
age?
Blind condition? prop, training (2)
Hurt leg condition?
What did these lead people to believe?

Answer 12

Male college age
Trained for roles and had detailed instructions on how to act and score participants
Eg blind - given a cane and trained by the Fresno Friendship Centre for the blind - appear authentically blind to passers
Hurt leg - leg brace walked with heavy limp

Question 13

Where the procedures were carried out
How many locations were the helping behaviours tested out in?
District?
Time frame?
Season?

Answer 13

Each helping behaviour was tested in 2 or more locations in each city centre district during the main hours of the summer months ( 1 or more years between 1992 and 1997)

Question 14

How participants were selected
Who was ignored?
What kind of people were targeted?

Answer 14

Dropped pen and hurt leg = people walking alone
Those under 17 or appeared to be incapable of helping were ignored
Randomly selected

Question 15

Community variables (4)

Answer 15

Population size
Purchasing power parity
Collectivist or individualist
Pace of life

Question 16

How was the data gathered for:

• Population size
• Purchasing power parity
• Individualist or collectivist
• Pace of life

Answer 16

Population size
Most recent edition of the United Nations demographic yearbook

Purchasing power parity
How much the average income could purchase

Individualist or collectivist
Measured on a scale

Pace of life
Timing the speed at which it took to reach a desination

Question 17

Conclusions

Comparison in % of helping behaviour of simpatia counteries and non simpatia counteries

Answer 17

Levels of helping behaviour are inversely related to economic productivity
On average simpatia countries than other countries (Higher mean level of helping behaviour- 83% vs 66%

Question 18

Ethics
Upheld?
Broken?

Answer 18

Upheld
Confidentiality

Broken
Consent
withdraw
deception
harm
debrief

Question 19

Validity
Internal - extraneous variable?
External - settings, scenario

Answer 19

Internal validity
Procedure could have been measuring the impact of culture
Demand characteristics- if passers had seen them before

External population
Only urban settings tested but many different countries into the world

Ecological
Realistic scenarios in which people may need help

Question 20

Reliability
What did confederates receive (2)
therefore?
External?

Answer 20

Internal
Standardised procedure - all confederates received training and detailed instruction sheet for their roles - identify consistency

External- enough trials

Question 21

Ethnocentrism
No - how many countries were tested?
Yes - what is missed (2) example?

Answer 21

Not ethnocentric as data was collected from 23 different countries

Study is ethnocentric as many parts of the world were still missed and underrepresented such as arabic cultures

Question 22

Changes our understanding of individual, social or cultural diversity in relation to key theme of responses to people in need?
Change in cutural?
How many countries did Piliavin comduct in?(name)
Compare with levine (how many countries?
Therefore what kind of data did Levine collect
Data? comparison in % of brazil and malaysia
Therfore what can not be done with data, relate to helping behaviour

Answer 22

Change understanding in cultural diversity in regards to people in need- level of help offered around the world
Piliavin study only tested participants from one country ,the USA, whereas Levines study tested participants from 23 different countries
Levine’s study found for diverse data levels of help 93% in Brazil down to 40% in Malaysia = cannot generalise levels of help found in one country to other parts of the world

Question 23

How the study links to the social area
What does the social area state that behaviour is influenced by?
What key them do the studies in this area investigate? (same as Levine)
Link to Levine’s study (Helping scenarios, how many different countries was the experiment conducted in, what did researchers want to find out)

Answer 23

The social area states that behaviour is influenced by the presence of others. Many studies in the area investigate the key theme of responses to people in need, which Levines study focuses on.
In Levine’s study, the three helping scenarios were dropping a pen, having a hurt leg and dropping a pile of magazines, and a blind person wanting to cross a road.
The scenarios were conducted in 23 different countries as researchers want to investigate how differences in helping behaviour varied between countries