SEARCH
You are in browse mode. You must login to use MEMORY

   Log in to start

level: Levine (S)

Questions and Answers List

level questions: Levine (S)

QuestionAnswer
+ Background to the study-
Aims- If helping behaviour within a city was stable across all the situations - If helping behaviour ranged across cultures - To identify characteristics of communities with more helping behaviours
Helping behaviour- Voluntary actions taken to help others - Form of pro social behaviour
Social exchange theory- People help people because they want to gain from helping others - Aiming to maximise the rewards and minimise costs
The community variables measured in each city- Population size - PPP - Cultural values (individualism/collectivism, simpatia (fondness) - Walking speed (pace of life)
The theoretical explanations for community differences in helping behaviour- Economic explanations - Cultural values - Cognitive explanations place of life
Purchasing power parity (PPP)- Measure of the spending power of individuals in a country - The higher the purchasing power parity the wealthier the country
Research method- Cross cultural - Quasi + field experiment - Independent measures design
Sample- 23 large cities from around the world - Populations more than 230,000 - One student went to each county to collect data - People not capable of help, children, were excluded
Helping situations (IVs)- Dropping pen - Hurt leg, drop magazines - Helping a blind person cross street
Standardisation- Experimenters had detailed instructions sheet + on-site field training for their acting role - The experimenters practised together - No verbal communication was required
How was pace of life measured- The walking speed was measured over a distance of 60 feet in the same locations as the helping measures - 35 men and 35 women were timed in most cities
How Individualism-collectivism was judged- Six international expert cross-cultural psychologists rated the 23 countries in sample - Countries were rated on a 10- point scale (1 = the most collectivistic, 10 = the most individualistic) - Ratings were averaged to make overall score for each country
Helping situations that didn't work- Originally 5 helping behaviours, 2 did not work (asking for spare change and dropping letters)
Simpatia (Spanish) or simpatico (Portuguese)- In Spanish + Latin American countries have a proactive concern with the social well-being of others
How was simpatia judged ?- Spain + Latin American are simpatia cultures - Their average helping rates was compared with non-simpatia cultures in the sample
Findings- No significant gender difference - Most helpful city was Rio de Janeior (Brazil) - Least helpful country Kuala Lampur (Malaysia - The lower the PPP the more helpful behaviour shown, - correlation - Simpatia countries more helpful than non simpatia countries - Helping behaviour ranges across cultures
Conclusions- Helping behaviour is affected by many variables - Individualism-collectivism dimension is not a good predictor of helping behaviour, but PPP is - Provides information about helping behaviour across the world
Evaluations- Helping behaviour changes during different time periods - Helping strangers risky in many cities - Field study, confounding variables - High external validity - Findings similar to Pepitone (1999)
Ethical issues- Deception - No consent so no right to withdraw - No debrief
Validity- People might have known what the data collectors were doing, affects behaviour - High ecological validity
Evaluation of the research methods- Correlational study - Observational data
Advantages + disadvantages to correlational studies- Calculates the strength of a relationship between variables - Only uncovers relationships - Won't determine what variables have the most influence
Data- Quantitative data
Reliability- Standardised, has detailed instruction sheet, on site field training for acting roles - Measuring helping behaviour in 3 ways allowed to see if consistent responses were given - Many trials
Sample bias- Cross-cultural study - Very large sample
Ethnocentrism- Not all cultures + countries are represented - Some people in the samples may have not been from that city
What what extent does Levine research support psychology as a science?- Scientific, replicated across 23 different cities - It is falsifiable
Usefulness- Has few applications - It might be useful when deciding where to go on holiday
Individual vs situational debate (INDIVIDUAL)- Each individual made a choice to help - Some may have felt the blind man needed more help
Individual vs situational debate (SITUATIONAL)- Varied levels of helping behaviour, culture affects behaviour - More helping behaviour in blind man condition - people more likely to help in this situation
Link to social area- Reveals what extend behaviour is influenced by others
Link to individual differences area- Investigating the rates of helping behaviour in different cities
Link to behaviourist perspective- People helped in order to make themselves feel better - reward
Similarities between Levine and Piliavin- Field study - Participants were naïve - Data collected in urban settings - Person in need of help was a young male
PILIAVIN (Differences between Levine and Piliavin)- Data collected from only 1 country - 1968 - Subway - 2 scenarios
LEVINE (Differences between Levine and Piliavin)- Data collected it from 23 different countries - 1997 - On the street - 3 scenarios
Reductionism meaning- Taking complex behaviour + reducing it to single variables - Allows for experimentation
Holism meaning- Looks at whole picture
ETIC approach meaning- Cross-cultural
EMIC approach meaning- Within one's culture
Generalisation- Tendency to respond in the same way to different but similar stimuli
The principle of Parsimony- When 2 theories compete to explain the same phenomena but simpler explanation is preferred
Nomothetic- Drawing conclusions that can be applied to everyone
Idiographic- Drawing conclusions that can only apply to certain people
How does the contemporary study of improve our understanding of the key theme?- L shows that different cultures in different countries change people’s responses to those in need - Gives Ps study context as it is cross cultural, evidence NY people are less helpful - No significance in gender - Gives reasons why they are unhelpful (economic prosperity, not a simpatia country) - It also showed what doesn’t make a difference to helping (e.g. pace of life)
How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? INDIVIDUAL DIVERSITY- Found that individual’s responses to people in need do vary - Judgments of an individual in need + cultural factors effect helping behaviour
How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? SOCIAL DIVERSITY- P S suggests individuals use a cost-reward analysis to decide whether to help those in need e.g. people were more likely to help someone of the same race + this issue needs to be tackled - However L didn't focus on race - L found a shift in the helping behaviour of females + contrasted Ps research that showed helpers were predominantly males
How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? CULTURAL DIVERSITY- L cross-cultural, found helping behaviour affected by more than just situation as countries that practice simpatia more likely to help - Shows that cultural practices can be embedded to improve helping behaviour