Levine

• Background

  1. research has found individuals living in urban areas tend to be less helpful than those living in rural areas -> population size is a suggested reason
  2. Stably found urban environments of 300,000 or more + rural environments of 5,000 or less were the worst places if looking for help
  3. individualists = focus on own needs rather than needs of the group, collectivists = focus on needs + goals of group they belong to
  4. no systematic cross-cultural research of helping behaviour been conducted, inspired Levine to investigate this
• What to include in a background question

  1. difference in helping rates between those living in urban vs rural areas
  2. further research to support this e.g Stably - population size
  3. differences between collectivism vs individualism
  4. lack of cross cultural research previously conducted, inspiring Levine
• Example background question

  
• Aim

  to investigate helping behaviour in a wide range of cultures, in large cities across the world in relation to four specific community variables: population size, cultural values (individualism-collectivism, simpatia), economic wellbeing and pace of life
• What was the first main goal and how was it measured

  to see if helping behaviour is consistent in a culture regardless of the situation (i.e if a person helps in one situation will they help in all)

  measured using 3 emergency situations with diff severity:

  1. victim dropped a pen
  2. victim had a hurt/injured leg
  3. victim was blind + trying to cross the street
• What was the second main goal + how was it measured

  to see if helping behaviour is different across cultures

  measured by comparing 23 big cities across the world
• What was the third goal + how was it measured

  to see if any community variables impacted helping behaviour

  measured as the helping behaviour in the 3 emergency situations (helping index) was correlated with the 4 community variables

  
• Research method

  • cross-cultural Quasi experiment (can research things that can't be manipulated, can't control for indv diffs)
  • independent measures design
  • field setting (high ecological validity, low control over possible EVs - situational) of 23 large cities around the world incl Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and New York (USA)
  • naturally occurring IV is the people in the city
• The dependent variable

  the helping rate of the 23 individual cities (each city is given an Overall Helping Index)
• Features of the sample

  • Ps were the people in large cities in each of 23 countries
  • for dropped pen + hurt leg situations only individuals walking alone were selected
  • children (under 17), people who were very old, physically disabled, carrying packages etc were excluded as they may not have been able to help (controls for indv diffs)
  • the 3 helping measures + the walking speed measure were conducted 2 or more locations in main downtown areas, during business hours, on clear days, during summer months
• Strengths of the sample

  + culturally diverse - 23 cities across world (examples)= population validity, can generalise helping behaviour

  +excluding children, elderly + physically disabled controls for indv diffs = high IV
• Weaknesses of the sample

  -only 23 cities in world - excludes North Africa or Australia/NZ = can't generalise

  -bias as excludes children, physically disabled + elderly

  -summer months = may be measuring helping behaviour of tourists so can't generalise to people who actually live in the cities

  -only cities = can't generalise to rural areas

  -business hours = excludes people at work
• Procedure

  • data collected by students either travelling to these countries or returning home to these countries
  • all experimenters = University age, dressed neatly + casually (control = high IV). to control any gender related issues, all experimenters = men (may be diff gender norms in diff cities so gender doesn't affect helping rate)
• Procedure: standardisation

  to ensure standardisation + minimise researcher effects:

  • all experimenters received detailed instruction sheet + on-site field training for their roles, learning the procedure for participant selection + scoring Ps
  • experimenters practiced together (high IR)
  • no verbal communication was required by the experimenter = reduces researcher effects
• Description of the dropped pen helping measure + how the DV was measured

  experimenter walked toward a pedestrian on their own passing in opposite direction. when P was close, experimenter reached into pocket + accidentally dropped pen behind him w/o appearing to notice in full view of the P + continued walking past

  DV = Ps were scored as having helped if they called back to the experimenter that he'd dropped the pen +/or picked up the pen + brought it to experimenter
• Description of the hurt leg helping measure + how the DV was measured

  walking with a heavy limp + large, clearly visible leg brace, experimenter accidentally dropped + unsuccessfully struggled to reach down for a pile of magazines once they were within 20 feet of passing pedestrian

  DV = Ps were scored as having helped by offering to help +/or beginning to help w/o offering
• Description of helping a blind person across the street helping measure + how the DV was measured

  experimenter, dressed in dark glasses + carrying white canes, acted role of blind person needing help crossing the street. they attempted to locate downtown corners with crosswalks, traffic signals + moderate, steady pedestrian flow. they stepped up to the corner just b4 light turned green, held out cane + waited until someone offered help

  DV = Ps were scored for having helped if they informed the experimenter that the light was green to stop them from walking into the road
• Results

  • Rio de Janeiro, Brazil = blind 100%, dropped pen 100%, hurt leg 80%
  • Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia = blind 54%, dropped pen 26%, hurt leg 41%
• Finding + conclusion: to see if helping behaviour is consistent in a culture regardless of the situation

  FINDING = the findings show a moderate degree of consistency across the 3 measures of helping behaviour, where people tended to help in 1 situation, they tended to help in others

  CONCLUSION = the helping of strangers is a cross culturally meaningful characteristic of a place
• Finding: to see if helping behaviour is different across cultures

  countries differ greatly in the amount they offered help to a stranger. the overall helping rate ranged from 93% in Rio de Janeiro to 40% in Kuala Lumpur.

  Simpatia puts emphasis on friendliness which may explain the helpfulness of cities from Latin America/Spain compared to countries w/o simpatia
• Conclusion: to see if helping behaviour is different across cultures

  there are large cross cultural variations in helping rates. countries with Simpatia are on average more helpful than countries with no such tradition
• Finding + conclusion: to see if any community variable impacted helping behaviour

  FINDING: found a significant negative correlation between helping behaviour + economic well being. where residents were wealthier, the country tended to be less helpful overall

  CONCLUSION: helping across cultures is inversely related to a country's economic productivity
• Evaluation table

  
• Social approach question

  • social environment = studied cross cultural helping behaviour in 23 large cities across the world with varying wealth = significant negative correlation between helping behv + economic wellbeing = social context of country's wealth or lack influenced helping behv
  • presence of others = people who raise you - link to main finding of Rio vs Kuala Lumpur = simpatia values
• Theme question

  WHAT = aim

  WHO = people in 23 large cities (examples) during summer months, excluded elderly, children + physically disabled

  HOW = 3 emergency situations: list, correlated helping index of cities to each community variable

  FINDING = Brazil vs Kuala Lumpur

  LINK = Simpatia values = response is more likely to help as values friendliness, family values etc

  
• Goals

  
• What debates does Levine link to

  • holism = considers multiple factors that contribute to helping rates e.g community variables, population size, pace of life, cultural values etc
  • nurture = learn helping behv from our experiences in the culture we grow up in. it is learned/accquired e.g simpatia values promotes helping