Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Levine et al. 2001 Cultural helping behaviour (Procedure (Data was…
Levine et al. 2001 Cultural helping behaviour
Background
Studies suggest people living in urban areas tend to be less helpful than those in rural settings
Major cultural difference in helping behaviour is collectivism vs individualism - collectivists focus on the needs and goals of the group whereas individualists focus on their own goals and needs
This study aims to looking at helping behaviour in a wide range of cultures in relation to 4 specific variables: population size, economic well-being, cultural values (individualism vs collectivism) and walking speed (pace of life)
Research method
Field experiment - 23 large cities around the world e.g. New York, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro
Independent measures
3 IV's - whether the victim dropped a pen, had an injured leg or were blind and trying to cross the street
DV was the helping rate of the 23 cities
3 measures of helping were correlated with statistics reflecting population size, economic well-being, cultural value and pace of life
Sample
Sample was individuals in each of the 23 cities at the time of the experiment
each of the 3 conditions were administered in 2 or more locations in main downtown areas during main business hours in the summer
For the dropped pen and hurt leg situations only individuals who were alone were selected those under 17 or physically incapable were excluded
Participants were selected by approaching the second potential person who crossed a pre-determined line
Procedure
Data was collected by students who were traveling to foreign countries or returning home for the summer
All experimenters were college age and dressed neatly and casually to avoid problems in some countries all experimenters were men
To ensure standardisation all experimenters received a detailed instruction sheet, training for acting their roles, learning the procedure for selecting participants and scoring participants
Dropped pen - experimenters walked towards a solitary person when 10-15 feet from them dropped a pen without appearing to notice in full view of the participant, participants were scored as having helped if they picked up the pen or called the person back
Hurt leg - walking with a limp and wearing a leg brace the experimenter dropped a stack of magazines as they came within 20 feet of a pedestrian, they helped if they picked up the magazines or offered to help
Blind person - experimenters in dark glasses carrying a white cane (professionally trained) stepped up to a corner just before the light turned green, held out their cane and waited until someone offered help, a trial was terminated after 60 seconds or when the light turned red. Helping was scored if they at least told the experimenter the light was green
Key findings
Most helpful cities/countries were Rio de Janeiro, San Jose (Costa Rica) and Lilongwe (Malawi)
Least helpful cities were Kuala Lampur (Malaysia), New York and Singapore
No significant gender differences in helping behaviour were found in the 2 conditions
Cities that were more helpful had lower Purchasing Power Parity, PPP (were less wealthy)
More individualistic countries showed less overall helping than collectivist countries
Simpatia countries (Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico and Spain were more helpful than non simpatia countries
Conclusions
There are large cross-cultural variations in helping rates
Helping across cultures is inversely related to a country's economic productivity
Countries with the cultural tradition of simpatia are more helpful than those without