Levine

• Background: What is kin selection theory?

  Kin Selection Theory – If we share the same genetic base we are more likely to help even if we put ourselves in danger 
• Background: What is reciprocal altruism theory?

  Reciprocal Altruism Theory – We help someone because we believe it may be reciprocated later for ourselves in future
• Background: what is prosocial value orientation?

  Pro-social Value Orientation – We feel responsibility to help because we are able to help
• Background: what is social exchange theory?

  Social Exchange Theory – People help because they want to gain rewards from the one being helped and we calculate costs and rewards of helping
• Background: what is system overload theory?

  System Overload Theory – People in urban areas are less helpful than rural areas as they experience greater sensory overload with sounds and lights etc meaning an individual isolates their attention to things that matter to them
• What was the aim?

  Levine was looking at:

  - Are there cultural differences 

  - Are people living in urban areas less helpful than rural areas

  - Previous research only focused on population density

  - Are collectivist cultures more helpful than individualistic cultures

  To investigate helping behaviours in a wide range of cultures in large cities around the world in relation to 4 community values
• What were the community values and how were they measured?

  1. Population size – measured by population size of each of the 23 cities

  2. Economic wellbeing – measured by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)

  3. Cultural values – measured by rating 23 countries on a 10 point scale on the dimension of individualism and collectivism

  4. Pace of life – measured by walking speed over 60 feet 
• What were the main questions?

  • To determine if a city’s tendency to offer non emergency help to strangers is stable across situations in which people need help (experiment) 
  • To investigate if helping strangers varies cross culturally (experiment) 
  • To identify if community variables might relate to different helping behaviours (correlation) 
• What was the method?

  • Quasi experiment (people living in the cities naturally occurring), independent measures design  
  • 23 large cities including Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), New York (USA), Madrid and Rome 
• What was the DV?

  Helping rates across 23 large cities with 3 measures of behaviour correlated with 4 community variables 
• What was IV 1?

  • IV 1 – Drop pen: Experimenter walked at a standardised pace of 15 paces per 10 seconds and walked towards a solitary person passing in the opposite direction. When 10 to 15ft from the person the experimenter dropped the pen behind and kept walking 

  DV – Scored as “helped” if individual called back to experimenter or returned pen back to experimenter 

  214 males 

  210 females 
• What was IV 2?

  IV 2 – Hurt leg: 

  • Experimenter walked with a heavy limp wearing large visible leg brace and dropped a pile of magazines and struggled to pick them up  

  DV – Helping behaviour if individual helped pick up magazines 

  253 male 

  240 male  
• What was IV 3?

  IV 3 – Helping a blind person: 

  • Experimenter in dark glasses and with a white cane came to crossing and held out cane to wait for help to cross. The trial stopped after 60 seconds if no one helped or the lights went red the experimenter walked away 

  DV – If the participant informed the experimenter that the lights are green it was helping behaviour  
• What were the findings of inter correlations (stability)?

  • All positive correlations however not significant but helping rate relatively stable across all 3 measures  
  • Countries differed greatly in the amount of help offered to a stranger
  • Population, individualism and collectivism and pace of life not significantly correlated with helping behaviour
  • No significant gender differences  
• What were the findings in regards to the community variables?

  • Low correlations between community variables and helping measures 
  • Only statistically reliable measure relationship was between Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and helping behaviours 
  • Cities that were more helpful tend to have a lower PPP – negative correlation  
  • Small positive relationship between walking speed and overall helping behaviours – faster cities less likely to help 
  • More individualistic countries showed less overall helping and less help in the hurt leg condition than collectivist 
• What were the findings in regards to sympatia?

  • Higher levels of helping behaviour in countries that have a culture of sympatia e.g. Rio in Brazil  
  • These countries encourage a culture of being nice, agreeable and good natured 
• What were the findings in regards to the system overload theory?

  • System overload links to busier cities being less likely to help because of the sensory overload in urban areas with sounds and lights, so people isolate their attention to things that matter to them 
• What were the conclusions?

  • Helping of strangers is a cross cultural characteristic of a city 
  • Large cross cultural variations in helping rates 
  • Helping across cultures is inversely related to a country’s economic productivity 
  • Countries with a tradition of sympatia are on average more helpful 
  • Values of a collectivist and individualistic cultures are unrelated to helping behaviours 
• What was the sample?

  • 1198 participants
  • From 23 large cities
  • Opportunity sample