Levine

Question 1

Key theme + area

Answer 1

Key theme = responses to people in need
Area = social area

Question 2

Background

Answer 2

Helping rates differ between communities, few studies to explain, most focused on population, tested economic explanations, cultural values + pace of life

Question 3

Aim

Answer 3

To investigate differences in non-emergency helping behaviour towards strangers in a range of cultures + to understand differences in terms of cultural traditions + economic productivity

Question 4

dropped pen condition

Answer 4

walking towards ppt, at 10-15 ft drops pen and walks away
helped = called back / returned pen
trials ; 214 men + 210 women

Question 5

hurt leg condition

Answer 5

wore an obvious leg brace / walked with a limp
approx 20 ft away dropped a pile of magazines + struggled
helped = tried to / helped pick up magazines
trials = 253 men + 240 women

Question 6

blind condition

Answer 6

wore dark glasses / carried a cane / waited at crossing + waited at green light (max 30s)
helped = told light was green / given more direct help
trials = 281

Question 7

method

Answer 7

a total of 1198 ppts in 23 countries were given opportunity to help in one of the 3 situations. only lone individuals

Question 8

standardisation

Answer 8

all experimenters received detailed instructions + on-site training
all practiced together
no verbal communication required

Question 9

results

Answer 9

most helpful;
1. Rio de Janeiro = 93%
2. San Jose = 91%
3. Lilongwe = 86%
least helpful;
21. Singapore = 48%
22. New York = 45%
23. Kuala Lumpur = 40%

Question 10

conclusion

Answer 10

significant differences in non-emergency helping behaviour. associated with both economic + cultural factors

Question 11

evaluation
ethnocentrism

Answer 11

to an extent high as it is cross-cultural however it only looks at 1 country in Africa, one in the middle east, no Arabic countries

Question 12

evaluation
validity

Answer 12

high in ecological validity
some control, used externally validated measures

Question 13

evaluation
reliability

Answer 13

some standardisation
not completely controllable but all researchers trained together with same protocols
standardised distances + time

Question 14

evaluation
research method

Answer 14

correlation study; able to find a relation between helping behavior + economic wellbeing
cat establish cause + effect

Question 15

evaluation
ethics

Answer 15

details kept confidential
no consent given

Question 16

evaluation
data

Answer 16

quantitative; lack of understanding of motives behind people’s helping behavior - should have recorded any comments made

Question 17

individual vs situational

Question 18

psychology as a science

Question 19

usefulness of research

Question 20

links to areas / perspectives

Question 21

links to key theme

Question 22

similarities + differences between Piliavin + Levine

Answer 22

+ both social studies + considered bystander effect
+ Both field settings
+ Both look at cultural differences that factor into helping behavior
- piliavin used emergency, Levine used non-emergency
- piliavin only studied one city, levine studied 23
- piliavin = field experiment, levine = quasi experiment
- levine used larger scale with trained examiners, piliavin didn’t