Levine Et Al

Question 1

What does helping behaviour refer to?

Answer 1

To voluntary actions intended to help others and is a form of prosocial behavior

Question 2

What are the two theories of helping behaviour?

Answer 2

Kin selection theory

Reciprocal Theory

Question 3

What are the 3 class factors?

Answer 3

Economic
Cultural
Cognitive

Question 4

What is the kin selection theory?

Answer 4

This refers to the tendency to perform behaviors that may favor the chance of survival of people with similar genetic bases

Question 5

What is Reciprocal theory?

Answer 5

This holds the incentive for an individual to help in the presence based on the expectation of the potential recipient in the future

Question 6

What was the cultural part of the 3 classes of factors?

Answer 6

Collectivist vs Individualistic

Question 7

What is the simpatia part of the 3 classes of factors?

Answer 7

The cultural value of concern for others

Question 8

What is the cognitive part of the 3 classes of factors?

Answer 8

Pace of life

Question 9

How did Milgram deal with the fact that there could be a sensory overload in the cities with a rapid pace?

Answer 9

To cope with this they may filter out non essential info and may notice when someone needs help

Question 10

What is the aim?

Answer 10

To investigate tendency of people in non emergency situations in the largest cities of each 23 countries to help strangers in

Question 11

Aim 2

Universal Dependent

Answer 11

To establish if the tendency of people to help strangers is universal or dependent on characteristics of a city

Question 12

Aim 3

Culture

Answer 12

To test whether the helping of strangers differs between cultures

Question 13

Aim 4

Community

Answer 13

To investigate whether particular characteristics of a community are associated with the tendency to help strangers

Question 14

How many participants are there?

Answer 14

Participants were in large cities in 23 countries

1198, excluding children, older and people with physical disabilities were excluded.

Question 15

How were participants selected?

Answer 15

Selected simply by being the second person to cross the line on the pavement

Question 16

What is the research method?

Answer 16

Field Experiment- a cross-cultural study

Quasi-experiment

Question 17

Where was the procedure carried out and when?

Answer 17

Two or more locations in city centres during office hours in the summer holidays

Question 18

How did they control extraneous variables?

Answer 18

All experimenters were male
None spoke
All were trained how to carry out the procedure

Question 19

What were the three non emergency situations?

Answer 19

Dropped pen
Hurt leg
Blind person crossing the road

Question 20

Procedure 1

Dropped pen

Answer 20

Walking at a moderate pace of (15 paces/10seconds)
Experimenter walks towards a solitary pedestrian passing
When 10 to 15 feet away from participant, experimenter drops his pen making sure it was behind him and was in full view to the participant
Total of 214 men and 210 women were approached
Participants called back to experimenter that he had dropped his pen and brought it back to experimenter

Question 21

Procedure 2

Hurt leg

Answer 21

Experimenter walked with a heavy limp and is wearing a leg brace
Experimenter drops a pile of magazine, and unsuccessfully tries to pick them up as they came within 20 feet from the experimenter
Total of 253 men and 240 women were approached.

Question 22

Procedure 3

Blind person crossing road

Answer 22

Experimenters, dressed in dark glasses and carrying a white cane
Acted that he needed help to cross the street
Helping was informed if participants, told him that the light was green

Question 23

What was the cultural values?

Answer 23

Six independent cross cultural psychologists rated each country from 1 (very collectivist) to 10 (very individualistic) and average ratings were used.

Question 24

What countries were grouped as simpatia

Answer 24

Spanish and Latin american

Question 25

What were grouped as non-simpatia countries?

Answer 25

All other countries

Question 26

Where was the population size take from?

Answer 26

United nations Demographic Yearbook

Question 27

Where was the economic prosperity taken from?

Answer 27

Purchasing power parity statistics published by the world bank

Question 28

How was the pace of life measured?

Answer 28

Measured by average walking speed. Speed was measured according to the time take to walk 60 feet between two markers

Question 29

How was this standardized?

Answer 29

All experimenters were given detailed instructions sheet and on site field training for acting their roles The experimenters practiced together Non verbal communications was required by the experimenter

Question 30

What were the results?

Answer 30

There were substantial differences in the likelihood of non emergency helping Help most likely: Rio de Janeiro (94%) Help least likely: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (40%)

Question 31

What were the results in New York city?

Answer 31

75% - the blind man | 28 % 28%

Question 32

What were the results in Mexico City?

Answer 32

92% - Blind man 80% - Bad Leg 55% - Dropped pen

Question 33

Which cities were more helpful in the dropped pen procedure?

Answer 33

Vienna Budapest Copenhagen

Question 34

What correlations were calculated?

Answer 34

Between helping behaviour and population variables (size,prosperity,collectivism)

Question 35

What correlation does economic prosperity have?

Answer 35

Only economic prosperity was found to a negatively correlated significantly with helping of -0.43

Question 36

What was helping not related to?

Answer 36

Population size or collectivism

Question 37

What are the least helpful countries and what were their features?

Answer 37

Kuala Lumpur and New York differed substantially in both size and collectivism and individualism. Proving that helping is not related to population size or collectivism

Question 38

What does simpatia mean?

Answer 38

Concern for other

Question 39

What was the mean rate of helping in simpatia countries?

Answer 39

82.87% | Standard deviation: 8.84

Question 40

What was the mean rate of helping in non-simpatia countries?

Answer 40

65.87% | Standard deviation:13.41

Question 41

What are the conclusions?

Answer 41

Helping behaviour in non emergency situations is not universal but varies between countries

Question 42

Conclusions 2

Answer 42

There are large variations in the likelihood of receiving help in non emergency situations in different cultural contexts- there was however no relationship between helping on collectivist and and individualist, though there was a significant difference between simpatia and non simpatia cultures

Question 43

Conclusion 3

Answer 43

The only characteristics of cities measured on the study correlates with helping economic prosperity: poorer cities tended to have a higher rate of helping. Helping was not related to city size or pace