Levine

• Background

  Helping behaviour refers to voluntary actions intended to help others and is a form of prosocial behaviour.
• Aims

  Levine's study aimed to look at helping behaviour in a variety of cultures in large cities, focusing on the 4 community characteristics:

  • Population size
  • Economic success
  • Cultural Values
  • Walking Speed
• Aims- Population Size

  • The selected cities tended to be large (each with a population of over 230 000) but there were still some differences.
  • Population size for the metropolitan area was taken from the most current United Nations Demographic Yearbook.
• Aims- Economic Success

  • Estimates of what is called per capita gross domestic product with purchasing power parity (PPP) were extracted for the year 1994 as an indicator of the economic well-being experienced by the average citizen.
  • It is an indicator of how much the average citizen's income is capable of purchasing.
• Aims- Cultural Values

  • 6 internationally expert cross- cultural psychologists were asked to rate the 23 countries in the sample on the dimension of individualism- collectivism.
  • Countries were rated on a 10 point scale (1 = most collectivist, 10 = most individualist).
  • All 6 ratings were averaged to produce as overall individualism- collectivism score for each country.
• Aims- Cultural Values

  • Spain and all Latin American countries in the sample were considered 'simpatia' cultures.
  • Their average helping rate was compared with 'non-simpatia' cultures.
  • 'Simpatia' - having a concern for the wellbeing of others, with an obligation to be friendly, polite and helpful.
• Aims- Walking Speed

  • Male and female walking speed, an indicator of the pace of life (referred to as 'cognitive factor' by Levine), was measured over a distance of 60 feet in the same downtown locations as the helping measures.
  • Measurements were taken on clear summer days. All locations were flat and unobstructed and sufficiently uncrowded.
  • Only pedestrians walking alone were selected. Children, window shoppers and people with obvious disabilities not selected.
  • 35 men and 35 women timed in most cities.
• Aims

  • To determine if helping strangers is a cross-culturally meaningful characteristic of a place.
  • To determine if helping strangers varies cross-culturally.
  • To identify the community characteristics that are related to helping strangers across cultures.
• Sample

  • 23 large cities across 23 different countries.
  • In most cases, the city was the largest in the country.
  • The people who were measured on helping behaviour were individuals in these cities at the time of the experiment- therefore opportunity sampling.
• Research Method

  • A field study as conducted in the centres of 23 large cities.
• Research Method

  There were 3 helping scenarios:

  1. Whether the victim dropped a pen
  2. Whether the victim had a hurt/injured leg and dropped magazines
  3. Whether the victim was blind and trying to cross the street.
• Research Method

  • Each city gained an overall helping index score
  • The 3 measures of helping were correlated with the 4 community variables (so can be considered a piece of correlational research).
• Research Method

  • Can be considered as a quasi experiment- investigating a naturally occurring IV (23 different cultures/ cities) and its effect on the helping behaviour of the citizens of the city.
• Procedure

  Data was gathered by either:

  • Interested, responsible students who were travelling to foreign countries or returning to their home countries for the summer
  • Cross- cultural psychologists and their students in other countries, who volunteered to assist the authors.
• Procedure

  All experimenters were:

  • College age
  • Dressed neatly and casually
  • Male (to control for experimenter gender effects and avoid potential problems in some cities)
• Procedure

  To ensure standardisation in scoring and to minimise experimenter effects:

  • All experimenters received both a detailed instruction sheet and on-site field training for acting their roles, learning the procedure for participant selection and scoring of participants.
• Procedure

  To ensure standardisation in scoring and to minimise experimenter effects:

  • All experimenters practiced together
• Procedure

  To ensure standardisation in scoring and to minimise experimenter effects:

  • No verbal communication was required for the experimenter
• Procedure

  The three helping measures were; dropped pen, hurt leg and helping a blind person condition.
• Dropped Pen

  • Experimenters Walked at a carefully practiced pace of 15 paces/ 10 seconds
  • Experimenters walked towards a solitary pedestrian, passing in the opposite direction
  • When 10 - 15 feet away from the pedestrian, they dropped a pen behind them
  • This was done in full view of the participant.
• Dropped Pen

  Participants were scored as helping if they called back to the experimenter that they had dropped their pen and/or picked up the pen and brought it back to them.
• Hurt Leg and Dropped Magazines

  • The experimenter walked with a heavy limp, wearing a large and clearly visible leg brace
  • The experimenter accidentally dropped and unsuccessfully reached down for a pile of magazines.
  • They did this as they came within 20 feet of the pedestrian.
• Hurt Leg and Dropped Magazines

  Helping was defined as offering to help and/or beginning to help without offering.
• Helping a Blind Person Cross

  • Experimenters were dressed in dark glasses carrying white canes, acting the role of a blind person.
  • They attempted to locate downtown corners with crosswalks, traffic signals and moderate, steady pedestrian flow.
  • They stepped up to the corner just as the light turned green, held out their cane and waited until someone offered to help.
  • A trial was terminated after 60 seconds or when the light turned red.
• Helping a Blind Person Cross

  Helping was scored if participants, at a minimum, informed the experimenter the light was green.
• Procedure

  Each of the three helping measures (and the walking speed measure) were administered in 2 or more locations in main downtown areas, during main business hours.
• Procedure

  For the dropped pen and hurt leg situations, only individuals walking alone were selected.
• Procedure

  Children (younger than 17) and people who were physically disabled, very old, carrying packages (people deemed not fully capable or expected to help) were fully excluded.
• Procedure

  Participants were selected by approaching the second potential person who crossed a predetermined line.
• Results

  Rio, Brazil- 94 %
• Results

  San Jose, Costa Rica- 91 %
• Results

  New York City, USA- 44 %
• Results

  Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia- 40 %
• Results

  All three inter- correlations of helping measures were in the positive direction (if a city helped a person in one condition, they would help in another condition).
• Results

  People in 'Simpatia' countries were considered significantly more helpful than non Simpatia countries.
• Population Size

  • No significant relationship was found between population size and overall helping score.
  • Having a relatively large or small amount of people living in a city has no effect on the overall helping score.
  • The least helpful cities New York and Kuala Lumpur have significantly different population sizes.
  • Overall helping = -0.03
• Economic Success

  • There is a significant (weak) negative correlation between economic success and overall helping score.
  • This means that people in countries with overall lower average incomes are more likely to help strangers in situations like in the study.
  • Overall Helping= -0.43
• Pace of Life

  • There is a weak positive correlation between walking speed and overall helping score. This means that taking longer to walk (having a slower pace of life) increases the overall helping score.
  • Overall helping= +0.26
• Cultural Values

  • There is no significant relationship between collectivist and individualist cultures and helping score.
  • Overall helping= -0.17
• Cultural Values

  Helping score for:

  • 'Simpatia' countries= 83%
  • 'Non- Simpatia'= 66%