Levine (2001) Flashcards
(Levine) What was the aim of this study regarding culture?
To see if helping of strangers varies per culture.
(Levine) What was the aim of this study regarding situations?
To see if helping of strangers is consistent across different situations.
(Levine) What was the aim of this study regarding characteristics?
To investigate if characteristics of communities are related to helping of strangers.
(Levine) Describe the sample and data collection in this study.
- Data collected from 23 different countries
- Selection of countries was down to convenience
- Data was collected from either the largest city or another major city
- Data collected during summer months of 1 or more years between 1992 and 1997
(Levine) Describe the procedure for a ‘dropped pen’.
Help was if a participant either returned the pen or told the experimenter they dropped it.
(Levine) Describe the procedure for a ‘hurt leg’.
Help was if a participant offered or actually picked up magazines dropped by the experimenter.
(Levine) Describe the procedure for ‘helping a blind person across the street’.
Help was if a participant either took the experimenter across the street or told them when the light was green.
(Levine) State who procedures were not carried out in front of.
- Children (<17)
- Physically disabled
- Very old
- Carrying heavy packages
(Levine) What times of the day and conditions were experiments carried out?
During main business hours, on clear days.
(Levine) Describe the experimenters.
- Male
- College age
- Dressed neatly/causally
(Levine) Results: What was the most helpful culture?
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 93%
(Levine) Results: What was the least helpful culture?
Kuala Lampur, Malaysia - 40%
(Levine) Define the community variable: population size.
How many people were within the city investigated.
(Levine) Define the community variable: purchasing parity.
How much the average income of the country could buy (PPP).
(Levine) Define the community variable: individualist vs collectivist.
Where the country sits on a scale of 1-10 (where 1 is most collectivistic and 10 is most individualistic).
(Levine) Define the community variable: pace of life.
Measured by walking speed of those in the city centre.
(Levine) Results - Community Variables: Population size.
No significant correlation.
(Levine) Results - Community Variables: Purchasing parity.
Significant negative correlation (higher purchasing power in cities with lower levels of help offered).
(Levine) Results - Community Variables: Individualist vs Collectivist.
No significant correlation.
(Levine) Results - Community Variables: Pace of Life.
Slight negative correlation (less help offered in cities with a faster pace of life) but this wasn’t significant.
(Levine) Define the term ‘simpatia culture’.
Sees being friendly, nice, agreeable and good-natured as more important than achievement and productivity.
(Levine) Which 5 countries were said to have a simpatia culture?
Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, El Salvador, and Spain.
(Levine) State the results regarding gender differences.
There was no significant difference found between help offered by male and female participants.
(Levine) Evaluate the reliability of this study regarding it being standardised.
The experimenters were trained to carry out the trials in exactly the same way (e.g when to drop the pen, how fast to walk etc).
(Levine) Evaluate the reliability of this study regarding sample size.
The sample included people from 23 cities and lots of trials (over 1200 trials altogether) so can establish a consistent effect.
(Levine) Evaluate the reliability of this study regarding multiple measures.
Levine measures ‘helping of strangers’ using 3 measures and found relatively consistent results across all 3.
(Levine) Evaluative the ecological validity of this study.
The scenarios were somewhat realistic in that they could have occurred naturally within the busy streets of that city.
(Levine) Evaluative the construct validity of this study.
People had the choice of leaving the scenario if they wished by just walking by. This was unlike Piliavin’s study where participants were trapped within the train.
(Levine) How can this study be considered as ethnocentric?
Some cultures are still under-represented or not represented.
(Levine) How can this study not be considered as ethnocentric?
The study was cross cultural and therefore took many cultures into account.
(Levine) How can this study be considered scientific?
Levine’s procedure was very standardised which enables it to be replicated and proven wrong (falsifiable). It also has very objective data (e.g population size).
(Levine) How can this study be considered holistic?
Levine’s study considered multiple different factors that influence helping of strangers. Different scenarios, gender differences, culture and community variables were all considered.
