levine

• What was the aim?


  To look at helping behaviour in a range of different cultures in large cities in relation to 4 community variables:

  1. Culture

  2. Economic indicator

  3. Population size

  4. Pace of life
• What was the sample?


  Opportunity sample

  23 large cities

  In dropped pen and hurt leg condition only solitary individuals were approached

  Children, disabled ppl, the elderly, those carrying packages were excluded
• What was the method?


  Cross cultural quasi-experiment

  independent measures design in the filed

  
  

  Helping behaviour was measured in 3 conditions:

  1. Dropped pen

  2. Hurt leg

  3. Blind person trying to cross the street

  The DV was the helping rate of the 23 countries (given an overall helping index)
• What was the procedure? (Experimenters)


  All experimenters were either students or psychologists

  they were dressed neatly and casually

  They were given instructions on what to do, trained for their roles and got to practice with each other- experiment was standardised
• What was the procedure (3 conditions)


  1. Dropped pen condition:

  The experimenter walked at a moderate, practiced pace towards a pedestrian walking in the opposite direction

  When the expmerimenter was 10 to 15 feet from the pppnt he reached into his pocket and dropped a pen, seeming to not notice he continued walking

  
  

  2. Hurt leg condition

  The experimenter walked with a heavy limp and wore a large visible leg brace

  When in 20 feet from the ppnt he dropped a pile of magazines and unsuccessfully struggled to bend down and ppick it up

  
  

  3. Blind crossing the street condition:

  The experimenter wore dark glasses and carried a white cane

  The experimenter was trained in this role by a blind centre

  The experimenter walked at a normal pedestrian flow and reached the crossing just before the green light, he put his cane out and waited for someone to help

  The trial ended after 60 seconds or at the next red light, whichever came first
• What were the Results?


  The most helpful citiies were: 1. Rio (Brazil), 2. San Jose (Costa Rica), 3. Lilongwe (Malawi)

  The least helpful cities were: 23. Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), 22. N.Y (USA), 21. Singapore (singapore)

  1. Population size: no relationship between pop size and helping behaviour

  2. Economic indicator: negative correlation between economic well-being and helping behaviour- countries with lower PPP were more helpful

  3. Culture: Simpatia culture countries more helpful than non

  4. Pace of life: small relationship between high walking speed and lower helping rate

  
  

  Countries with a higher economic productivity had lower helping rates
• What were the conclusions?

  Helping strangers is a cross-culturally meaningful characteristic to the place

  Those with simpatia cultures are more likely to help

  Helping strangers is inversely linked to a countries economic productivity

  Although faster cities are less helpful, the link between economic well-being and helping isn't because of this in affluent societies