Levine et al (2001) Flashcards
Background of the study
-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
Aims
-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
Sample
-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
Procedure
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)
Controls for the procedure
-All experimenters were male, college age, and dressed neatly but casually
-Same tasks done
Who were the helping scenarios not done in front of?
-Children younger than 17
-People who might not be capable of helping
-Physically disabled, very old, carrying heavy packages etc
What were the community variables that were looked at? (and how they affected results)
-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)
Findings/conclusions
-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
Define simpatia culture
Sees being nice, friendly and agreeable as more important than achievement and productivity
How did simpatia culture affect results?
-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%
How did gender impact results?
-No statistical differences were found between males and females in the proportion of individuals offering to help
-This contradicts Pilliavin
What were the top three helping countries?
-Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (93%)
-San Jose, Costa Rica (91%)
-Lilongwe, Malawi (86%)
What were the bottom three helping countries?
-Singapore, Singapore (48%)
-New York, America (45%)
-Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (40%)
What were the two unsuccessful measures of helping?
-Asking for change
-‘Lost letter’-dropping letters in the city centre that has an address and stamp to see if they would be posted
Why did asking for change not work?
-People might not be carrying change
-People may not be financially able to help
Why did ‘lost letters’ not work?
-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
Explain how this was a standardised procedure
-Can be replicated easily
-Experimenters were trained to carry out the trials in the exact same way
Explain how the sample size made the study reliable
Included people from 23 cities and over 1200 trials altogether, so can establish a consistent effect
Explain how the measuring the same construct in multiple ways made the study reliable
Levine used three measures and found relatively consistent results across all three
How was the study ecologically valid?
-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
What gave the study a higher construct validity compared to Piliavin?
-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
How was the study not ethnocentric?
-The study was done in 23 different countries, so generalisable across many cultures
-Cross-cultural as studied in many cultures
How could the study still be considered ethnocentric?
Some countries aren’t represented, suggesting the study may be ethnocentric
How could the study be an example of scientific research?
-It is replicable and falsifiable
-Results are objective as people either did or didn’t help
-Population size objective
