Levine

• Helping behaviour refers to voluntary actions intended to help others + is a form of prosocial behaviour
• Hoffman- kin selection theory- tendency to perform behaviours that may favour the chance of survival with a similar genetic base
• Trivers- reciprocal altruism- holds incentive for individual to help in present based on expectation of potential receipt in future
• Responsibility- prosocial value on orientation- holds a strong influence on helping behaviour is a feeling of and belief in one's responsibility to help- especially when combined with belief one can help the other person
• social exchange- people help to gain goods from one being helped- cost/benefit analysis
• Milgram- people in urban areas are overstimulated and less likely to help, strangers may go unnoticed
• Studies conducted in urban areas show people are less likely to help than rural areas- Steblay- tendency to help decreases when population size increases
• Triandis- cultural differences of collectivists and individualists

  collectivists- attend more to needs of the group + more likely to help in a group- individualists focus on selves
• no systematic cross- cultural research previously done
• AIM- look at helping behaviour in a wide range of countries with many variables- pop size/economic wellbeing/ pace of life

  -3 goals- see if helping strangers is a cross culturally meaningful characteristic of a place

  -rich data on different helping culture

  -identify country level variables that might relate to differences in helping
• 4 theoretical explanations that had not previously been tested were tested

  -economic explanations

  -cultural values

  -cognitive explanations

  -pace of life
• Cross cultural quasi experiment using independent measures design- field in 23 cities- Rio De Janeiro, Calcutta, Madrid, Shanghai, Budapest, Rome, NY, Kuala Lumpur
• IV- people in each city were naturally occurring

  -helping behaviour in correlations of co-variables- dropped pen- hurt/injured leg/ blind + trying to cross the street

  DV- helping rate of 23 individual cities- calculated to give overall helping index
• Three measures were correlated with stats reflecting- pop size/ economic wellbeing/ cultural values - individualism - collectivism -simpatia/ pace of life
• Sample- people who lived in 23 cities opportunity sample in downtown areas during business hours on clear days, during summer between 1992 - 97
• Dropped pen and leg conditions only counted people who were walking alone (under 17, physical disabilities very old or carrying packages excluded)
• Ppts selected by approaching second potential person who crossed a predetermined line
• Data collected by students travelling or returning home for the summer or cross- cultural psychologists and their students from countries who volunteered- all experimenters college age, dressed neat and casually- all men
• Experimenters received instruction sheet + onsite field training for ppt selection/ ppt scoring- experimenters practiced together - no verbal communication required of experimenter
• 1st helping measure:

  • dropped pen: walking at 15 paces a second towards a solitary pedestrian passing in the opposite direction- when 10-15 ft away experimenter reached into pocket and - without appearing to notice- dropped pen behind him in full view of ppt + continued walking- 214 men, 210 women approached
  • Helping measure defined as saying pen was dropped and/or picking it up
• 2nd helping measure:

  • Hurt leg: walking with a heavy limp and large leg brace- experimenters accidently dropped + struggled to reach for a pile of magazines within 20 ft of pedestrian
  • 253 men, 240 women
  • Helping defined as offering to help or helping without offer
• 3rd helping measure:

  • Blind crossing street- Experimenters had white canes and dark glasses- canes provided from blind centre- experimenters walked to crosswalks with a steady pedestrian flow, stepped to corner just before the light turned green.
  • Trial terminated after 60s or light turning red. 281 trials
  • Helping defined as minimum- someone telling them light was green
• No significant gender differences in helping behaviour
• Overall helping index calculated the most helpful cities- Rio 93%, San Jose 91%, Lilongwe 86%

  Least helpful- Kuala Lumpur 40%, NY 45%, Singapore 48%
• low correlations between community variables and helping measures
• Small relationship between walking speed and overall helping
• more individualistic countries less helping on leg situation than collectivist
• No relationship between pop size and helping behaviour
• Simpatia countries- Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, Spain- more helpful

  -Cities helping rate stable across all conditions
• Concluded- Simpatia countries are more helpful
• concluded: faster cities were less helpful

  -Link between economic health and helping is not product of a fast pace of life in affluent societies
• Concluded- value of collectivism/ individualism unrelated to helping behaviours