Levine et al

Question 1

Social Exchange Theory

Answer 1

says people calculate rewards and costs of helping others, aiming to maximise rewards and minimise costs

Question 2

Background to Levine

Answer 2

Previous research showed people in large cities tend to help less than in smaller places

found that urban environments or more rural environments were worst if someone was looking for help

Levine wanted to see if population size affects helping behaviour

Question 3

Simpatia cultures

Answer 3

cultrual value associated with spanish & latin american societies

the concern for well-being of others with obligation to be more friendly & helpfu;

Question 4

Aim of Levine

Answer 4

to see whether there are differences in helping behaviour in different cultures.

to see whether four community variables affect helping behaviour
i) population size
ii) economic well-being
iii) cultural values (individualism/collectivism/ simpatia)
iv) walking speed (pace of life)

Question 5

Research method of Levine

Answer 5

Quasi experiment in the field / cross cultural study

field = 23 large cities around world eg. Rio (Brazil), Madrid (Spain), Shanghai (China), Rome (Italy), New Yprk (USA)

quasi = allocation of participants not controlled by researchers. people in city was naturally occuring variable

Question 6

Sample of Levine

Answer 6

1200 participants from 23 countries

Participants selected by approaching second potential person who crossed a predetermined line

Question 7

How did experimenters collect data in Levine’s study

Answer 7

University students + some psychologists who dressed casually played role of victim

All experiments male to control experimenter gender effects + potential problems in some cities

Well trained = lots of experiments and wanted a standardised procedure so comparisons were fair

Question 8

What were the variables in Levine’s study

Answer 8

Helping behaviour in three non-emergency situations

1) whether the victim dropped a pen
DV = whether or not they picked up pen & brought it back to experimenter

2)whether the victim had hurt / injured leg
DV = if person offered to help/helped pick up magazines

3)whether the victim was blind and trying to cross the street
DV = if person told experimenter the light was green at least

Question 9

Describe each condition in Levine

Answer 9

Dropped pen
Walked at moderate pace and when 15ft away from person they dropped pen

Hurt Leg
Experimenter had leg brace and dropped + struggle to reach for magazines

Blind Person
Walked up to corner and held out cane before light turned green, waited for someone to help.

Question 10

How were the community variables measured

Answer 10

Pace of life
= average walking speed of 35 men and 35 women

Collectivist/Individualist
= rated on 10 point scale 1=most collectivist 10+most individualist

Simpatia- oriented cultures
= latin american countries + spain classed as simpatia (Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, Spain)

Economic well being
= purchasing power parity - how much purchasing power people had relative to their average income

correlational analysis calculated between helping behaviour and community variables

Question 11

Results of Levine

Answer 11

= significant negative correlation between purchasing power parity and no. of helping behaviour (rich cities had lower rates of helping)

= cities with faster pace of life were less likely to help

= individualistic countries less likely to help

= no relationship between population size & helping behaviour

= no gender differences in helping behaviour

= simpatia countries showed more helping behaviours

Question 12

Conclusions of Levine

Answer 12

large cross-cultural variations in helping rates

helping across cultures inversely related to how rich a country is

simpatia cultures more likely to help than non-simpatia

Question 13

Strength + Weakness of cross-cultural technqiue in Levine

Answer 13

S = show whether helping behaviour is universal across all cultures or whether there are differences

W = researchers may judge behaviour of other cultures through standards of their own culture (ethnocentrism)
= view culture as norm + others as inferior
= language difficulties so misinterpretation of what has been said

Question 14

Generalisability of Levine

Answer 14

Large sample of 1200 participants chosen randomly from wide-range of cultures
= representitve of wider population

Question 15

Reliability of Levine

Answer 15

Quasi experiment in the field
= extraneous variables eg. weather/mugging on street could have affected peoples helping behaviour

Standardised Procedure
= researchers followed the same instructions in each country, in dropped pen condition they dropped it 15ft away, each researcher approached second person who crossed predetermined line

Question 16

Applications of Levine

Answer 16

Practical applications for travellers

We need to be better prepared in certain cities as we may receive less help there

Question 17

Validity of Levine

Answer 17

Quasi Experiment in the field
= natural environment (participants home cities)

Mundane Realism
= situation of seeing a person drop pen/struggle picking up magazines was true to life

Question 18

Ethics in Levine

Answer 18

No informed consent

Deceived

No opportunity to withdraw

Unlikely to be distressed by procedure

Question 19

Levine relates to social area

Answer 19

the social area looks at how our behaviour is affected by the social groups we belong to and the social context we are in

looks at how helping behaviour is affected by the social context and culture we are in + the values the people around us hold

people more likely to help in simpatia cultures eg. Brazil

people more likely to help if they were poorer cities (less purcahsing power)

Question 20

Levine fit into key theme of ‘responses to people in need’

Answer 20

looked at how culture affects how people respond to people in need

found helping behaviour can vary across the world (simpatia countries more helpful)

puts Piliavin’s study in context as it found New York is unhelpful city

Question 21

Levine show individual, social, cultural diversity

Answer 21

INDIVIDUAL - didn’t look at these

SOCIAL - Levine found no differences in helping behaviour between m+f but Pilivain found males were more likely to be first helpers.
Levine changes our understanding of social diversity in terms of how gender affects helping behaviour

CULTURAL - showed significant cultural differences in helping behaviour eg. people from simpatia cultures were more likely to be helpful
Improves understanding of cultural diversity in helping behaviour as Piliavin only looked at one culture (NY,USA)

Question 22

Levine change our understanding on they key theme

Answer 22

it shows how different cultures differ in terms of helping behaviour whereas Pilivan looked at helping behaviour in one culture

looked at helping behaviour is 23 countries + found countries with simpatia cultures + less purchasing power were more helpful

it helps put pilivan’s result into context as NY is relatively unhelpful