Levine et al (2001)

Question 1

Background of the study

Answer 1

-Most studies investigating helpfulness in communities have focused on population size
-Previous studies investigating helping behaviours had been done in a max. of three studies

Question 2

Aims

Answer 2

-To see if helping strangers varies between cultures
-To see if helping strangers is a characteristic of a culture that is stable across different helping situations
-To investigate characteristics of communities that might be related to helping strangers

Question 3

Sample

Answer 3

-Data was collected from 23 countries
-Selection was based on convenience-student’s home countries/holiday destinations/Levine had academic contacts there
-Collected in summer months of 1+ years between 1992-1997

Question 4

Procedure

Answer 4

The student researcher would do one of these things:
-Drop a pen whilst walking (done 400 times)
-Drop a pile of magazines whilst walking with a heavy limp and wearing a visible leg brace (500)
-Wore dark glasses and carried a white cane to look like a blind person needing help crossing the road (300)

Question 5

Controls for the procedure

Answer 5

-All experimenters were male, college age, and dressed neatly but casually
-Same tasks done

Question 6

Who were the helping scenarios not done in front of?

Answer 6

-Children younger than 17
-People who might not be capable of helping
-Physically disabled, very old, carrying heavy packages etc

Question 7

What were the community variables that were looked at? (and how they affected results)

Answer 7

-Population size (no significant correlation)
-Average income (negative correlation-lower income were more likely to help)
-Whether the country was collectivist or individualistic (no significant correlation)
-Pace of life (slight negative correlation-faster pace were slightly less likely to help)

Question 8

Findings/conclusions

Answer 8

-High variation between cultures
-Rio de Janeiro most helpful at 93% of the time
-Kuala Lumpur least helpful at 40% of the time
-A city’s helping rate was relatively stable across the three scenarios

Question 9

Define simpatia culture

Answer 9

Sees being nice, friendly and agreeable as more important than achievement and productivity

Question 10

How did simpatia culture affect results?

Answer 10

-The top 5 helping countries had this culture, and the mean level of helping was 83%
-In the other 18 non-simpatia countries the mean level was 66%

Question 11

How did gender impact results?

Answer 11

-No statistical differences were found between males and females in the proportion of individuals offering to help
-This contradicts Pilliavin

Question 12

What were the top three helping countries?

Answer 12

-Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (93%)
-San Jose, Costa Rica (91%)
-Lilongwe, Malawi (86%)

Question 13

What were the bottom three helping countries?

Answer 13

-Singapore, Singapore (48%)
-New York, America (45%)
-Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (40%)

Question 14

What were the two unsuccessful measures of helping?

Answer 14

-Asking for change
-‘Lost letter’-dropping letters in the city centre that has an address and stamp to see if they would be posted

Question 15

Why did asking for change not work?

Answer 15

-People might not be carrying change
-People may not be financially able to help

Question 16

Why did ‘lost letters’ not work?

Answer 16

-In Tel Aviv people didn’t want to touch them incase they contained explosives
-In less developed cities there was a lack of postboxes
-Not everyone knows where the nearest post box is/has the time

Question 17

Explain how this was a standardised procedure

Answer 17

-Can be replicated easily
-Experimenters were trained to carry out the trials in the exact same way

Question 18

Explain how the sample size made the study reliable

Answer 18

Included people from 23 cities and over 1200 trials altogether, so can establish a consistent effect

Question 19

Explain how the measuring the same construct in multiple ways made the study reliable

Answer 19

Levine used three measures and found relatively consistent results across all three

Question 20

How was the study ecologically valid?

Answer 20

-Field experiment which is more ecologically valid
-All of the tasks were normal situations that would occur in everyday life, especially in a big city

Question 21

What gave the study a higher construct validity compared to Piliavin?

Answer 21

-Levine’s study gave people the opportunity to leave the situation by just walking past
-In Piliavin’s study participants were stuck on the train

Question 22

How was the study not ethnocentric?

Answer 22

-The study was done in 23 different countries, so generalisable across many cultures
-Cross-cultural as studied in many cultures

Question 23

How could the study still be considered ethnocentric?

Answer 23

Some countries aren’t represented, suggesting the study may be ethnocentric

Question 24

How could the study be an example of scientific research?

Answer 24

-It is replicable and falsifiable
-Results are objective as people either did or didn’t help
-Population size objective

Question 25

How could the study link to holism?

Answer 25

-Looked at multiple factors that could influence helpfulness
-Including: population size, average income, collectivist/individualistic society, and pace of life

Question 26

Give two similarities between the studies by Levine and Pilliavin

Answer 26

-They both requested help of a male victim
-They both took place in urban settings

Question 27

Explain the similarity ‘they both requested the help of a male victim’

Answer 27

-Piliavin-a male victim fell to the floor for 70 seconds and waited on the floor until helped
-Levine-male experimenters acted out on of the four tasks to see if they were helped

Question 28

Explain the similarity ‘they were both done in urban settings’

Answer 28

-Piliavin-the study took place on the NYC subway
-Levine-the study was done in city centres, most often the largest city in that country

Question 29

Give two differences between the studies between Levine and Piliavin

Answer 29

-Where the studies took place
-How look the studies were carried out over

Question 30

Explain the difference ‘where the studies took place’

Answer 30

-Piliavin-completed on the NYC subway (America)
-Levine-completed in 23 cities around world, including Rio and Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)

Question 31

How has the study changed our understanding of the key theme ‘responses to people in need’

Answer 31

-Contradicts Piliavin by saying there aren’t gender differences in helping strangers
-Also adds to our understanding by showing there are cultural differences in helping behaviour

Question 32

How has the study changed our understanding in social diversity?

Answer 32

Found no significant difference in helping behaviour between males and females

Question 33

How has the study changed our understanding in cultural diversity?

Answer 33

Found that culture influences helping behaviour