Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Levine Cross-cultural altruism
Transcript of Levine Cross-cultural altruism
What was limiting about Piliavin’s research?
Experimental Results: combining results of all 3 helping measures
Method: Field experiment
Study 1: Dropped pen
Study 2; Hurt leg
study 3: Helping a blind person
Walked at moderate paces; when 15 feet away from subject the pen was dropped.
214 men and 210 women were approached.
DV: Results were taken on whether or not they picked up the pen and brought it back or if they called out to the experimenter.
dropped and struggled to reach for pile of magazines.
253 men and 240 women were approached.
DV: Results were taken if the subject offered to help or helped without offering.
Helping a blind person
Experimenters played the role of a blind person that needed help crossing the street.
They then walked up to a corner, held out their cane before the light turned green and waited for someone to help.
281 trials; trials were terminated after 60 seconds or when the light turned red; whichever came first.
DV: Results were taken if at least the subject told the experimenter that the light was green.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
San Jose, Costa Rica
Prague, Czech Republic
San Salvador, El Salvador
Tel Aviv, Israel
Kuala Lampur, Malaysia
Mexico City, Mexico
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
New York City, United States
EXPERIMENTERS, WHO COLLECTED THE DATA?
College students; dressed casually
They were all trained using a detailed instruction sheet for each role of the IV
No verbal communication
LOCATION VARIABLES USED FOR CORRELATION ANALYSIS :
Average income earned
rated on a 10 point scale 1= most collectivistic, 10= most individualistic. Mean average calculated. Latin American countries were simpatia (Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, Spain The rest of the countries classed as non-simpatia cultures.
Pace of life:
Measured by timing how long it took 35 men and 35 women in each country to cover a 60 feet distance. Mean average calculated.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
New York City, United States of America
Kuala Lampur, Malaysia
Significant negative correlation:
Lower economic productivity
Greater overall helping
Insignificant negative correlation:
Greater walking speed
less likely to offer help
Insignificant negative correlation:
More individualistic countries
less overall helping
Correlations between economic status and overall helping showed that Simpatia countries (Latin American countries and Spain) are more likely to help than non-simpatia
Simpatia v. Non-Simpatia
The helping of strangers is a cross-culturally meaningful characteristic
Helping across cultures is related to a countries economic productivity
The value of collectivism-individualism is unrelated to helping behaviour
Robert V. Levine, Ara Norenzayan and Karen Philbrick
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2001; 32; 543
Previous research by Steblay’s (1987) showed that people in large cities tend to help less than in smaller places. Little research has focused on cultural differences in helping behaviour
The study wants to find if a city’s tendency to offer non-emergency help to strangers is similar across a wide range of cultures.
What are some of the community characteristics that are related to helping of strangers across cultures
This study therefore investigated 3 theoretical explanations in helping behaviour that had never been considered in cross-cultural research:
Individualism = focus on own goals. Collectivism = focus on group goals. Simpatia = harmonious relationships
Pace of Life:
The countries level of busy lifestyles, average working hours and walking speed
Using the standardized instructions.
Carry out your own version of the study.
Some of you will be assigned to carry this out in different parts of the school. Some of you will be carrying it out in different parts of MK. You must record your results and bring them to lesson.
Think of at least 1 similarity and 1 difference between Piliavin and Levine.
Consider MESSED when making comparisons:
1. Explain why a field experiment was used in Piliavin 
2. Suggest why Piliavin did not provide evidence for diffusion of responsibility 
3. From Piliavins study, outline one way in which the procedure may be considered reliable 
4. To what extent does the study by Levine et al. change our
understanding of responses to people in need?
5. Suggest one strength and one weakness of the cross-cultural technique in this Levines study 
6. In Levine et al.’s study into cultural altruism, there were
three different conditions: Describe how helping behaviour was recorded in one of these conditions. 
Sperry’s study was a snapshot study whereas Casey’s was longitudinal
This means that Sperry's study is only representative of biological behaviour at one point in time whereas Casey's study shows how biological behaviour remains consistent over time
Sperry’s was a snapshot study with participants only being tested once on each of the tactile and visual tasks which assessed hemisphere lateralisation
Whereas Casey et al.’s study was a longitudinal study in which participants were tested at the age of 3-4 years old with a cookie delay of gratification task and then on several other occasions up until their 40's
What have we found?
What conclusions can be drawn from the results?
1. How does the study relate to the approach it falls under?
2. How does the study help us to understand individual, cultural and social diversity?
3. What change in behaviour has been highlighted i.e. compare with background research or old study?
4. What debates link into the study?
Application of psychological knowledge
Go online and find a news article of situation where someone helped, didn't help, or could have helped, maybe a hero story etc
The tweets below are in response to a ‘troll’ posing as Jon Venables, who in 1993 killed 2 year old James Bulger. This individual went so far as to tweet abuse to the mother of James: Denise Fergus. For the full article see here: Callum o'connor: That Jon Venables account is scum, the people retweeting and favouring the tweets are just as bas aswell. Steph West: Vile people making a Jon Venables account. Barry: I'm not going to publicise it, but someone has created a Jon Venables account. I'm speechless it's so sick. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2575539/Mother-murdered-toddler-Jamie-Bulger-subjected-vile-abuse-Twitter-troll- posing-killer-Jon-Venables.html
Sadly, incidents like this of Twitter trolls and others in social media seem to be on the increase, but why? What is the motivation behind these acts of bullying and abuse on such a public forum? How can we look to social psychology to explain individuals that carry out these acts?
Try to bring in or link 5 or more theories in to your given scenario.
1 student to put forward their news story to model this. Then set students to do the dame for homework
Compare the biological approach to the behaviourist approach 
The behaviourist approach supports the nurture debate whereas the biological approach supports the nature debate
This is because the behaviourist approach believes that we learn from reinforcement from our environment and the biological approach believes that our behaviour is the result of our genes, brain activity and brain structures.
For example Chaney found that children were far more likely to adhere to their asthmatic medication when they used a funhaler, as this acted as positive reinforcement and encouraged them to take their medication as they learned they would get a reward.
In Casey, he found that people who were low delayers had a higher amount of brain activity in their ventral striatum, and high delayers had higher activity in their inferior frontal gyrus, therefore supporting a biological explanation
Compare the biological approach to the social approach