Levine Et Al Flashcards
Background on Levine et al (2001) on cross cultural altruism
Research on helping behaviour. Research has looked at whether people are more helpful in some environments than others. E.g. urban versus rural communities or large versus smaller cities.
Aims on Levine et al (2001) on cross cultural altruism
To investigate
-Culturally meaningful characteristics of helping
-Cultural differences in helping.
-Community characteristics associated with helping strangers, economic, cultural and cognitive
Design method of Levine et al (2001) on cross cultural altruism
Quasi experiment, independent measures design cross, cultural, full
Community variables were measured in the following ways
-Population size-United Nations demographic yearbook.
-Economic productivity-purchasing power parity
-Cultural values-6 expert rated individualism/collectivism
-Pace of life/walking speed between two markers.
Sample of Levine et al (2001) on cross cultural altruism
Largest city in 23 countries, testing average of 50 people in each city.
selection criteria= over 17, not physically disabled, not very old or carrying heavy objects
Materials/apparatus of Levine et al (2001) on cross cultural altruism.
In different scenarios, researchers needed a pen, a set of magazines, a leg brace, or some dark glasses and a white cane
Procedure of Levine et al (2001) on cross cultural altruism.
Data collected in cities on summer weekdays
Applied selection criteria to approach pedestrians
Participants were the second pedestrian to across an imaginary line on a pavement
Three. Measures of helping behaviour
Dropped pen/experimental accidentally dropped pen, 10 feet from solitary participant/pedestrian
- Participants were approached classed as helping, if participant told experimenter that experimental dropped the pen, or if participant returned the pen.
Hurt leg -experimenter Walked with limp and wore a leg brace, dropped and tried to pick up magazines
- Participants were approached “class is helping if participants offered to pick up magazines or picked them up.
Helping blind person across the street – experimenter had dark glasses and white cane, waiting to cross road
- Participants were approached classed as helping if participants told experimenter that light was green or helped experiment cross.
Results of Levine et al (2001) on cross cultural altruism.
Some consistency across the measures of helping e.g. between dropped pen and blind person school and between hurt leg and dropped pen scores.
There were no gender differences,
standard score calculated for each country/city for each measure of helping e.g. Brazil, = 1.66
Relationship of community variables to helping
+ economic productivity a significant negative correlation between economic productivity and overall helping P <0.15
 City cities with lower economic productivity when more helpful.
Peace of life – a positive correlation not significant between walking speed and overall helping people in faster cities were less likely to offer help such as New York.
Cultural values, individualist countries, or slightly less helpfulness
Simpatia cultures such as Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico and Spain was significantly more helpful than non-Simpatia, P <0 .02
Population size had No correlation with helpfulness
Conclusion of Levine et al (2001) on cross cultural altruism.
The data provides some support for the view that big cities do not have a personality, and some cities may have more of a helping personality than others to gain further understanding.
A multitude of variables need to be tracked.
The results of biological view of altruism as they indicate that cultural variables may be significant..
Research methods and techniques
Each of the three measures dropped pen, hurt leg, helping a blind person could be clearly operationalised and standardised so that it was clear that a person needed help and whether or not help has been given.
The study was only looking at one kind of rather superficial, healthfulness, and everyday favour, results could not be generalised to that kind of altruism that would enhance survival .
Validity
Study took place in a natural environment where pedestrians were walking. Therefore it captured real helping behaviour.
However, extraneous variables were not well controlled e.g. different experimental was used in each location so individual characteristics may explain different helping rates.
Reliability
Different, helping measures were scripted and standardised experimenters were trained for consistency
However, the experimenter was a different person in each country, so may have performed each scenario slightly differently.
Sampling bias
Several cultures are compared so more useful conclusions can be drawn about cultural differences in helping
Areas in each city were chosen, so they were comparable
Sample of 23 countries considered by the research is to be small with many cultures, not included most were from individualist cultures.
A small sample also makes it more difficult to detect trends in the behaviour.
Types of data
Quantitative data provided a simple figure, e.g. Costa Rica, 1.52 and USA -1.74 to compare helpfulness in different cultures.
Gains no insight into why people helped or did not help. This could’ve been gathered through a debrief after the participants/pedestrian had passed the experimental.
Ethical considerations
As this quasi experiment was conducted in the field informed consent was not possible. However, this matter is less when amount of distress is minimal as in the study, although mild distress may have been experienced.
