Levine et al Flashcards
Social Exchange Theory
says people calculate rewards and costs of helping others, aiming to maximise rewards and minimise costs
Background to Levine
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
Simpatia cultures
cultrual value associated with spanish & latin american societies
the concern for well-being of others with obligation to be more friendly & helpfu;
Aim of Levine
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)
Research method of Levine
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
Sample of Levine
1200 participants from 23 countries
Participants selected by approaching second potential person who crossed a predetermined line
How did experimenters collect data in Levine’s study
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
What were the variables in Levine’s study
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
Describe each condition in Levine
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.
How were the community variables measured
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
Results of Levine
= 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
Conclusions of Levine
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
Strength + Weakness of cross-cultural technqiue in Levine
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
Generalisability of Levine
Large sample of 1200 participants chosen randomly from wide-range of cultures
= representitve of wider population
Reliability of Levine
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
Applications of Levine
Practical applications for travellers
We need to be better prepared in certain cities as we may receive less help there
Validity of Levine
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
Ethics in Levine
No informed consent
Deceived
No opportunity to withdraw
Unlikely to be distressed by procedure
Levine relates to social area
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)
Levine fit into key theme of ‘responses to people in need’
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
Levine show individual, social, cultural diversity
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)
Levine change our understanding on they key theme
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
