Levine

• Outline the Background of Levine's study of helping behaviour (4)

  1.Difference in helping rates between those living in urban vs. rural areas2.Further research to support this eg. Steblay- Population size3.Difference between collectivism vs. individualism4.Lack of cross cultural research previously conducted, therefore inspiring LevineLevine was interested in the cultural differences in helping behaviour. Population size has been suggested as one of the reasons for this. Research suggests that people living inurban areas are less helpfulthan those in rural areasand this is supported bySteblaywho found that urban environments of 300,000 people or more were some of the worst places if someone was looking for help.In addition to this, cultural values are also thought to influence helping behaviour.Individualisticcultures focus on independence and the needs of their own in comparison tocollectivistcultures that focus on the needs of the group and community.Much of the research into helping behaviour has focussed on single communities or countries, therefore, Levine wanted to investigatecross-cultural differencesin helping behaviour, focussing on a number of factors which could affect helping rates.
• What is a Simpatia culture?

  cultures that value friendliness, where there are a community spirit particularly Hispanic communities
• What were the 3 main goals for Levine's study?

  1. To see I helping behaviour is consistent in a culture regardless of the situation

  
  

  2.to see if helping behaviour is different across cultures

  
  

  3.To see if any variables impacted helping behaviour
• What were the 4 community variables in Levine's study?

  -Population sizefor each of the 23 countries-Economic well-being– wealth of the city/purchasing power parity (PPP)-Cultural values- Rating of the 23 countries in the sample on the dimension of individualism/collectivism/simpatia countries were rated on a 10-point scale-Pace of lifemeasured by walking speed (over 60 feet)
• What was the research method in Levine's study? (3)

  Cross cultural study,quasi-experiment, conducted in a field setting
• What was the experimental design in Levine's study?

  Independent measures
• List 4 examples out of the 23 countries studied in Levine's study

  Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Rome (Italy), Kuala Lumpur(Malaysia), New York (USA)
• What were the three emergency situations?

  -victim dropped a pen

  -victim had a hurt leg drops a pile of magazines

  -blind victim needing help to cross the street
• What was the naturally occurring IV in Levine's study?


  The cities themselves
• What was the DV in Levine's study?

  helping rate of the 23 individual cities, given each an overall helping index
• What was correlated in Levine's study?

  The helping behaviour in the three conditions was correlated with the 4 community variables
• What was the sample used in Levine's study? (2)

  large cities in each of 23 countries, only individuals walking alone
• Apparatus used in Levine's study (4)


  Dark glasses, white cane, magazines and pen
• Who was excluded from the sample in Levine's study? (4)

  children under 17, people who were physically disabled , very old , carrying other things
• Who collected the data in Levine's study (2)

  -Data collected by students that were either travelling to these countries or retiring home fro the summer

  -also collected by cross cultural psychologists and their students
• Properties of the experimenters in Levine's study (2)

  -university age,dressed neatly and causally

  -all men
• Why did

  allexperimenters dress neatly and casually in Levine's study?To control for any issues related to gender
• What was done to ensure standardisation and minimise experimenter effects in Levine's study (3)

  -all experimenters received a detailed instruction sheet and on site field training for their roles,learning the procedure for participant selection and scoring of participants

  -experimenters practiced together

  -no verbal communication was required
• What happened in the Dropped pen helping measure in Levine's study (2)

  -walking practiced moderate pace, towards a pedestrian on their own in the opposite direction

  -experimenter reaches into his pocket, without appearing to notice drops his pen in full view of participant and continues to walk past
• How were participants scored in the dropped pen emergency in Levine's study?

  If they called back to the experimenter that he had dropped a pen and/or brought it to him
• What happened in the Hurt leg helping measure in Levine's study(3)

  -Heavy limp and large clearly visible leg brace

  -experimenter dropped and unsuccessfully struggled to reach down for a pile of magazines

  -as participants were within 20 feet of experimenter
• How were participants scored in the hurt leg emergency in Levine's study?


  Having helped by offering help and/ or beginning to help without offering
• How were participants scored in the blind person crossing the street emergency in Levine's study?

  Scored if they helped to inform the experimenter that light was green
• What happened in the Helping a blind person across the street helping measure in Levine's study (3)

  -experimenter dressed in dark glasses and carrying a white cane

  -experimenter locates downtown corners with cross walk and traffic signs

  -stepped up to the corner before the light turned green, held out a cane and waited
• Finding 1 - goal 1 in Levine's study

  -Statistical analysis of the results found a modest degree of consistency across the three measures of helping behaviour
• Finding 2 - goal 2 in Levine's study (2)

  -Countries differed greatly in the amount of help offered to a stranger

  -93% in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil compared to low 40% in Kuala Lumpur
• What does finding 2- goal 2 what does it suggest in Levine's study (2)

  -cultural behaviour of being simpatia or simpatico emphasise prioritising amiable social behaviours and being friendly

  -this could explain the helpfulness if cities from Latin America and Spain ímpares to countries with no such tradition
• Finding 3 - Goal 3 in Levine's study (3)

  -There was a significant negative correlation between countries helping behaviour and their economic productivity.

  -countries where residents has higher PPP tended to be less helpful

  -none of the other relationships were statistically significant.Helping was not correlated at all with population size or collectivism
• Conclusions in Levine's study (3)

  1. The Helping of strangers is a cross-culturally meaningful characteristic of a place

  
  

  2.There are large cross-cultural variations in helping rates. Countries with the cultural tradition of simpatia are,on average more helpful than countries with no such tradition

  
  

  3. Helping across cultures is inversely related to a country's economic productivity
• Evaluate the use of a quasi experiment in Levine's study

  high ecological validity but reduced controls over extraneous variables
• Weakness of the use of a correctional method in Levine's study

  Cannot establish cause and effect regarding the helping behaviours of strangers. They are able to find that there is a negative correlation between levels of helping behaviour and PPP but they don't know if people in these cities lack purchasing power because they are too busy helping each other, if they help each other because they are unemployed (3rd variable)
• Strength of the sample in Levine's study

  •Large! Very impressive that Levine managed to collect data from 23 cities across the world so their study genuinely is a cross cultural study of the differences in helping behaviour of strangers
• Weakness of sample in Levine's study

  However, the sample is more representative of certain continents North/South America, Europe and Asia.
• Sampling technique in Levine's study

  It seems as if Levine chose cities on an opportunity basis, in accordance with the cities were students where visiting or where they knew people
• Strengths of the quantitative data collected in Levine's study

  All quantitative data so good for analysis, consistency, objectivity.
• Weaknesses of the quantitative data collected in Levine's study

  not so great for understanding the motives behind peoples behaviour- why people helped

  
  

  •If they had recorded the comments made by bystanders then we may have seen this and the results would be more useful
• How does Levine's study have low validity? (2)

  •As we can't infer causation, it is difficult to state the reason why the significant negative correlation was seen regarding PPP and increased helping of a stranger. Helping behaviour may not actually have anything to do with the lower average income earned which increases helping behaviour but more to do with the traditional values within such cities.

  
  

  •Demand characteristics may have been displayed by participants as seeing someone repeatedly dropping pens or magazines with broken leg may have made them suspicious and allows them to guess what the researcher is doing.
• How does Levine's study have high validity?

  High in ecological validity, data collected in the field rather than a lab and the scenarios were realistic. Levine also went as far as getting the Frenso Friendship Centre for the Blind to lend them white canes and to train their experimenters for the 'helping a blind person across the street' measure.
• How does Levine's study have high reliability? (3)

  •All measure were extremely standardised as all experimenters received a detailed instruction sheet and on site field training for acting their roles learning the procedures for subject selection and scoring of subjects. (All of this ensures a consistent measure of behaviour)

  
  

  •The three research aims shows how Levine attempted to measure helping behaviour In 3 ways which allows us to see how helping behaviour is consistent across different helping measures

  
  

  •Levine ran large numbers of trials in relation to all 3 helping situations (424 dropped pen, 493 hurt leg, 281 blind person) enabling data that shows a consistent settled trend rather than data that could be distorted by fluke data)
• How does Levine's study have low reliability?

  •Possible they all were not measuring in a precise way as Levine acknowledges its is difficult to measure standardisation between experimenters acting their parts and scoring subjects as they were not present