Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
LEVINE - Coggle Diagram
LEVINE
BACKGROUND
Cross cultural study in 23 countries investigating simpatia (important in latino culture)
METHOD AND DESIGN
Field experiment and the variables of each city were measured by:
Population size – over 230,000.
Economic indicator – how much the average income earned in each country is capable of purchasing.
Individualism-collectivism rating
Downtown walking speed – as an informal measure of the “pace of life.”
High eco val as natural environment, standardised experimenters acted the same
Extraneous variables easily occur in field experiments
PROCEDURE
Field experiment with 3 measures of helping sampled in 23 countries
Experimenters were seemingly blind and would walk to a busy pedestrian crossing and hold up their cane until someone offered help. Participants were recorded as having helped if, at a minimum, they informed the confederate that the light was green.
Experimenter would walk with a heavy limp and wear a visible leg brace, then “accidentally” drop a pile of magazines when passing a pedestrian and struggling to pick them up.
Accidentally dropping a pen in
pedestrian whilst reaching for something else in their pocket.
RESULTS
Rio de Janerio, Brazil scored highest for overall percentage helped with 93%
Lowest scoring was Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia with 40%
New York was second lowest with 45%
Only cultural variable was economic productivity - meaning higher GDP is less likely to help
CONCLUSIONS
There are large cross-cultural variations in helping rates
Helping across cultures is related to a country’s economic productivity
Countries with simpatia are more likely to help
Collectivism or individualism is not related to its helping behaviours.
No relationship with population size and behaviour
VALIDITY
High external val because exp in natural enviroment with normal task
Low validity as someone may have seen it happen more than once
RELIABILITY
Similar experiences across cities with lots of trials - high inter-rater reliability
Could be experimenter bias and low internal reliability because can't establish cause and effect
DATA TYPE
No qual data so dont know why people helped but quan data was easily analyse and compare
SAMPLE
23 countries with 1198 participants
SAMPLING BIAS
Tried to match sample in different countries however was
time consuming
ETHNOCENTRISM
Not ethnocentric as took place in 23 cities
ETHICS
Didn’t give consent and had to participate
Deceived by actions of experimenter and weren’t told they were an actor
Withdrawal - couldn’t withdraw as didn’t know they were taking par
Were not debriefed but were unlikely to feel distressed