Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Levine et al - Evaluation - Coggle Diagram
Levine et al - Evaluation
Tell a Story
Background
Major cultural difference in helping behaviour is difference between collectivism and individualism
Aim of study to look at helping behaviours in wide range of cultures, large cities across the world, variables: population size, economic well-being, cultural values, pace of life
Method
Design: cross-cultural quasi experiment carried out. Field, independent measures. Included Rio, Calcutta, Madrid, Shanghai, Budapest, Rome, New York, Kuala Lumpur. Helping behaviours: dropped pen, hurt leg, blind crossing street. DV was helping rate
Sample: Participants in large cities in 23 countries, during summer months, clear days, main business hours of one or more years between 1992-97
Procedure: All experimenters were college age and dressed neatly and casually. All experimenters were men. Three helping measures were dropped pen, hurt leg, helping blind person cross street
Results
All three intercorrelations were in the positive direction
No significant gender differences in helping behaviour found
Most helpful: Rio (93%), San Jose (91%), Lilongwe (86%). Least helpful: Kuala Lumpur (40%), New York (45%), Singapore (48%)
Only statistically reliable relationship was between the economic productivity measure and overall helping
Simpatia countries were, on average, more helpful than non-simpatia countries
Conclusions
Helping of strangers is a cross-culturally meaningful characteristic of a place
Large cross-cultural variations in helping rates
Helping across cultures is inversely related to a country's economic productivity
How does the study relate to the area
A more recent study investigating helping behaviour, this can be seen as building on the Piliavin study by investigating it in non-confined settings and also by doing so cross-culturally, in 23 different countries. Results found cultural differences in altruism, this offering culture as an explanation
Core studies in their pairs
How does the contemporary study change our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity
Individual: This area of research has found that individual's responses to people in need do vary and factors such as the judgements of an individual in need and cultural factors do have an effect on helping behaviour
Social: The classic study suggests individuals use a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to help those in need; as this includes perceptions of costs and stereotypes of those in need society can improve helping behaviour by breaking down stereotypes. As an example in Piliavin's research people were more likely to help someone of the same race and this issue needs to be tackled however race was not focused on by Levine et al. The contemporary study found a shift in the helping behaviour of females and contrasted Piliavin's research that showed helpers were predominantly males
Cultural: Levine carried out research cross-culturally that suggests that helping behaviour and altruism are affected by more than just situational explanations with countries that practice simpatia found more likely to help. This furthers the research by Piliavin et al and shows that cultural practices can be embedded to improve helping behaviour
How the studies are similar
One way the studies are similar is that they both used opportunity sampling. This usually means that participants are approached and asked if they would like to participate in a study, but in these cases, sampling happened with whoever was in the study space during the study. In Piliavin's study, participants were anyone in the critical area during the study. Similarly, in Levine's study, participants were people walking along and were approached by the 'victim'
One similarity between the two studies is that they both are field experiments, meaning that they both took place in a natural environment. Milgram's study took place on the subway in New York. Similarly, Levine's study took place in public places in large cities across the world
How the studies differ
One difference between the studies is that Levine is cross-cultural and Piliavin is not. This meaning that Levine's study takes place across multiple cultures and compares these differences while Piliavin doesn't. Piliavin's study takes place exclusively in New York while Levine's study took place in 23 countries including Mexico, China, Spain and Italy
Research methods/techniques
One strength of using a quasi experiment is that they can be used when there are practical reasons why participants can't be randomised. This referring to the fact that the experiment is not only a quasi but also a field experiment. In Levine's study, the study took place in the streets of busy cities in 23 countries
One weakness of using a field experiment is that the environment cannot be controlled. This means that the experimenter is not able to control the environment the participants are in and have no control over extraneous variables. In Levine's study, the study took place in streets in 23 countries across the world, which cannot be controlled
Types of data
One strength of using quantitative data is that it is easier to compare and draw conclusions from. This way the data can be used to find out if results are significant or not. In Levine's study, Rio de Janeiro was found to be the most helpful at 93% and Kuala Lampur was the least helpful at 40%
One weakness of using quantitative data is that it does not give reason for people's behaviours. Quantitative data doesn't contain information needed to draw non-numerical conclusions from. In Levine's study, because all the data collected does not give reason for why these results came in
Reliability
Levine's study is low in internal reliability as participants experienced the study at different times during the day. This means that each experience would have been different. Levine's study took place during main business hours but some people would have been at the beginning or end which may differ greatly
Levine's study is high in external reliability as all the procedures were standardised. This means that everything has been controlled so the test can be replicated. In Levine's study, each helping measure was carefully thought out and everything happened after certain amount of seconds etc
Validity
Levine's study is high in ecological validity due to the natural setting of the study. This means that the study can apply to real life situations. Levine's study took place on the streets of busy cities in 23 countries across the world, where different commonly occurring conditions took place
Sampling bias
I believe there isn't sampling bias due to the fact that participants were those approached by 'victims'. This means opportunity sampling was used as they were still approached by the 'victim' rather than the experimenter. Levine's study's sample was very large (1200) and participants chosen randomly so more likely to be a representative sample
How study relates to theme
Levine investigated the key theme of response to people in need by using people that either: dropped a pen, hurt their leg, or was blind and needed help across the road. In Levine's study, for the dropped pen condition, a pen was dropped within 10-15 feet of participant. For hurt leg condition, the person dropped a pile of magazines within 20 feet of participant. The 'blind' person waited at a crossing. All of these were done to see if participants would help. It was found that Rio de Janeiro was the most helpful city at 93% and Kuala Lampur was the least at 40%