Levine

Question 1

Research method?

Answer 1

A field experiment that used an independent measures design.
Field setting was 23 large cities around the world.
The DV was the helping rate of the 23 individual cities.

Question 2

Sampling?

Answer 2

Opportunity sampling from each of the 23 cities. Over 200 men and women were tested.

Question 3

Procedure?

Answer 3

There was standardised procedures. The three helping measures were taken and coded as helping or no help.

Dropped pen. Walking at a moderate pace (15 paces/10 seconds), experimenters walked toward a solitary pedestrian passing in the opposite direction. When 10 to 15 feet from the participant, the experimenter reached into his pocket and accidentally, dropped his pen behind him, in full view of the participant, and continued walking past the participant.

Hurt leg. Walking with a heavy limp and wearing a large and clearly visible leg brace, experimenters accidentally dropped and unsuccessfully struggled to reach down for a pile of magazines as they came within 20 feet of a passing pedestrian.

Helping a blind person across the street. Experimenters, dressed in dark glasses and carrying white canes, acted the role of a blind person needing help getting across the street. They stepped up to the corner just before the light turned green, held out their cane, and waited until someone offered help. A trial was terminated after 60 seconds or when the light turned red, whichever occurred first, after which the experimenter walked away from the corner.

Question 4

Findings?

Answer 4

Most helpful countries:

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Least helpful countries:

Singapore, Malaysia

Significant Negative correlation:
Lower economic productivity
Higher overall helping

Insignificant Negative correlation:
Greater walking speed
Less likely to offer help.

Economic productivity was negatively correlated with walking speed i.e. faster pace had stronger economic productivity

Individualism was also negatively correlated with walking speed i.e. faster pace were more individualistic.

Correlations between economic status and overall helping showed that Simpatia countries (Latin American countries and Spain) are more likely to help than non-simpatia.

Question 5

Conclusions?

Answer 5

Helping across cultures is inversely related to a country’s economic productivity. Countries with the cultural tradition of simpatia are, on average, more helpful than countries with no such tradition