Core study 4- Levine (S)

Question 1

What is altruism?

Answer 1

‘disinterested’ and selfless concern for the well-being of others

Bring advantage to others, even if it brings you disadvantage

Question 2

How did Levine say every city varies, apart from size?

Answer 2

Every city has it’s own personality (own culture)

Question 3

How does economics and wealth affect helpfulness?

correlation? selfishness?

Answer 3

Weak positive correlation between wealth and helpfulness
The more well off a country is= more selfish they are

Question 4

What is a collectivist society?

Answer 4

more concerned with the welfare of others- gives a group priority over each individual

they are more helpful- ‘put others first’

Question 5

What is an individualistic society?

Answer 5

less concerned with the welfare of others- priority is given to the individuals

they are less helpful- put themselves first or hesitate to help

Question 6

What is simpatia?

similar to a collectivist society

Answer 6

oriented societies- cultural value of concern in latin societies- there is great respect given to those who are likely to be more vulnerable (elders, children etc)

they are more helpful

Question 7

What was the main aim of Levine’s study?

Answer 7

To investigate the tendancy of people in the largest city of each of the 23 countries to help a stranger in a non-emergency situation

Question 8

What type of experiment was Levine’s study and what experimental design was used?

lab, field, quasi? independent, repeated measures, matched pairs?

Answer 8

(cross-cultural) quasi experiment carried out in a field (natural environment)- used an independent measures design

Question 9

Why was the study a field situation?

Which element gives this away?

Answer 9

The fact Levine used 23 largest cities around the world

Question 10

Why should the study be considered a quasi experiment?

Answer 10

The independent variable (people in each city/ where they lived) was naturally occurring

Question 11

What was the dependent variable of the study?

Answer 11

The helping rate of the 23 individual cities

participants were noted as helping if they intervened in any way at all

Question 12

What was the sample of the study?

What method of sampling was used?

Answer 12

Total of 1,198 participants from 23 largest cities in the world (1200) - they were selected from being the second person to cross a certain line on a pavement

The study uses opportunity sampling

Question 13

What 3 non-emergency situations did the study measure heping behaviour through?

Answer 13

-whether the victim dropped a pen
-whether victim had a hurt/ injured leg
-whether victim was blind and trying to cross the street

Question 14

What did the statistics correlating the 3 measures of help reflect?

Answer 14

-population size (individualism)
-economic well-being (collectivism)
-cultural values (simpatia)
-pace of life for each of 23 locations

Question 15

What groups of people were excluded from taking part in the dropped pen and hurt leg situations?

Answer 15

•Children younger than 17 years old
•People who were physically disabled/ very old/ carrying packages (those who might not be fully capable of assisting)

Question 16

Describe the experimenters- age, gender

Answer 16

•all men- controlled experimenter gender effects
•college age- dressed neatly and casually

Question 17

How were experimenter effects minimised/ score’s standardised?

Answer 17

•experimenters received on-site field training and a detailed instruction sheet on how to act their role
•practised together

Question 18

How were helping behaviours defined in the dropped pen situation?

Answer 18

Participants were considered as helping if they had:
•called back to experimenter that they’d dropped the pen
•picked the pen up and brought it back to experimenter

Question 19

How were helping behaviours defined in the hurt leg situation?

Answer 19

•experimenters wore a large, clear and visible leg brace and walked with a limp
•experimenters ‘accidentally’ dropped a pile of magazines
•help was defined as offering to help/ beginning to help without offering

Question 20

How were helping behaviours defined in the blind person situation?

Answer 20

•experimenters wore dark glasses and carried white canes- they held out their cane just before light turned green and waited until someone offered help
•considered helping if informed experimenter that light was on green (at a minimum)

Question 21

Which city/ country had the highest help rate?

Answer 21

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil- 93%

Question 22

Which city/ country had the lowest help rate?

Answer 22

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia- 40%

Question 23

What was the result of helping rate across the 3 measures?

How consistent?

Answer 23

Fairly consistent over the three

Question 24

What was the relationship/ correlation between economic prosperity and helping?

Answer 24

-0.43 (correlation coefficient- it’s negatively correlated)

Question 25

Was helping related to population size or collectivism?

Answer 25

No.

Question 26

What was the correlation between walking speed and helping behaviour?

Answer 26

0.26- weak positive correlation, however it is close to having no correlation

Question 27

Was simpatia found to be a contributing factor in helping?

Answer 27

Countries that valued simpatia were significantly more helpful (82.87) than countries who did not value it (62.87)

Question 28

How is help across cultures related to a country’s economic productivity?

In terms of correlation

Answer 28

Inversely related (negatively correlated)

Question 29

How was collectivism and individualism concluded in this study?

Answer 29

It is unrelated to helping behaviours