Levine- response to people in need

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

-To see if tendency of people in a city to help is sustainable across cultures
- To identify characteristics of communities where you’re more likely to be helped.

Question 2

Sample

Answer 2

P’s from 23 countries
1198 participants
children, older, disabled was excluded from the selection
-p’s chosen by being 2nd to cross a pre determined line on pavement

Question 3

Method

Answer 3

• confederates where collage age, was all dressed neatly and casually and where all male
• 2 situations had difficulties and couldn’t be used, asking for change and mislaid letters
• 3 helping behaviours during main hours on clear days between 1992-1997:
  Dropped pen condition- confederate dropped pen behind, helping= called back/ picked it up for him
  Hurt leg condition- walking with a heavy limp, with a visible brace , reached for magazines, helping =offering or helping
  Blind man condition-dark glasses, carrying a white cane, waiting at a pedestrian crossing , help out cane until someone offered to help, helping=informing confederate that the light was green

Question 4

Results

Answer 4

most helpful-Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)=93.33%
least helpful-Kuala Lamour (Malaysia) = 40.33%
- New York was 2nd to least helpful
-poorer counties often more helpful
- helpful countries commonly Simpatia- Spanish heritage

Question 5

conclusions

Answer 5

-Helping behaviour in non- emergency situations varies between cities
- variations in help
-no link between cultures other than Simpatia cultures
-poorer counties more helpful
- not related to size of pace of city

Question 6

Evaluation

Answer 6

weaknesses
-Ethical issues, p’s didn’t give consent and no right to withdraw
-Quantitative data, numerical, no reasons
Strengths
-high ecological validity, p’s natural environment
High in reliability, standardised procedures