Levine et al 2001 Flashcards
(22 cards)
What defines the helpfulness in a city according to Levine et al?
Population size is one of the many qualities which defines the helpfulness in a city.
What are the three aims of Levine et al’s study?
- To see if helping of strangers varies per culture.
- To see if helping of strangers is consistent across different situations.
- To investigate characteristics of communities related to helping of strangers.
How many countries were included in Levine et al’s sample?
Data of helping of strangers was collected from 23 countries.
From where was data collected in the countries studied by Levine et al?
Data was collected from either the largest city or a major city.
When was data collected for Levine et al’s study?
Data was collected during the summer months of 1+ years between 1992 and 1997.
What were the three helping scenarios in Levine et al’s study?
- Dropped pen: help = if someone told the experimenter they dropped it OR returned the pen.
- Hurt leg: help = if a participant offered to or picked up magazines dropped by the experimenter.
- Helping a blind person cross the street: help = if a participant either took the experimenter across the street or told them when the light was green.
What were the results of Levine et al’s study regarding helpfulness?
Most helpful = Rio De Janeiro, Brazil (93% helped).
Least helpful = Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (40% helped).
A city’s helpfulness was relatively stable across the three scenarios.
What community variables were investigated in Levine et al’s study?
- Population size.
- Purchasing power (PPP).
- Individualist vs collectivist scale.
- Pace of life.
What were the results based on community variables in Levine et al’s study?
Population size = no significant correlation.
Purchasing power = significant negative correlation (higher PPP = lower helping levels).
Individualist vs collectivist = no correlation.
Walking speed = slight negative correlation, not significant.
What gender results were found in Levine et al’s study?
No significant difference found.
What is Simpatia Culture according to Levine et al?
Simpatia Culture sees being friendly, nice, agreeable, and good-natured as more important than achievement and productivity.
What were the helping levels in countries with and without Simpatia Culture?
Countries with Simpatia Culture (Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, El Salvador, Spain) had a mean helping level of 83%.
Countries without Simpatia Culture had a mean helping level of 66%.
What are the top 3 most helpful countries according to Levine et al?
- Rio De Janeiro (Brazil).
- San Jose (Costa Rica).
- Lilongwe (Malawi).
What are the 3 least helpful countries according to Levine et al?
- Singapore.
- New York (America).
- Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia).
What were the strengths of Levine et al’s study?
- Scientific (falsifiable, objective data, standardized).
- Holistic.
- Cross-cultural (not ethnocentric).
What were the weaknesses of Levine et al’s study?
Some cultures were still underrepresented or not represented at all, which may be ethnocentric.
What are the similarities between Piliavin et al and Levine et al?
Both studies involved requesting help from a male victim and were conducted in urban settings.
What are the differences between Piliavin et al and Levine et al?
- Location of study: Piliavin in NYC subway, Levine in 23 cities worldwide.
- Timing: Piliavin over 3 months in 1968, Levine over 1+ summers between 1992 and 1997.
How did Levine et al’s study contradict Piliavin’s study?
Levine et al’s study contradicted Piliavin et al’s study by indicating that there are no gender differences in helping of strangers.
What was the reliability of Levine et al’s study?
- Standardized (experimenters were trained).
- Sample size (over 1200 people from 23 countries).
- Multiple measures (consistent results across three measures).
What was the validity of Levine et al’s study?
High ecological validity and high construct validity (people could leave the scenario if they wished).
How does Levine et al’s construct validity compare to Piliavin et al’s?
Piliavin’s participants couldn’t leave the train if they didn’t want to help, while Levine’s allowed participants to leave.
