Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start 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

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Levine Cross-cultural altruism

No description

amie smith

on 18 June 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Levine Cross-cultural altruism

Cross-Cultural Differences in Helping Strangers
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.
Hurt leg
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.
Vienna, Austria
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Sofia, Bulgaria
Shanghai, China
San Jose, Costa Rica
Prague, Czech Republic
Copenhagen, Denmark
San Salvador, El Salvador
Budapest, Hungary
Calcutta, India
Tel Aviv, Israel
Rome, Italy
Lilongwe, Malawi
Kuala Lampur, Malaysia
Mexico City, Mexico
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Bucharest, Romania
Singapore, Singapore
Madrid, Spain
Stockholm, Sweden
Taipei, Taiwan
Bangkok, Thailand
New York City, United States
College students; dressed casually
All male
They were all trained using a detailed instruction sheet for each role of the IV
No verbal communication

Economic indicator:
Average income earned
Cultural values:
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.

Most Helpful
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Lilongwe, Malawi
Calcutta, India
Vienna, Austria
Least Helpful
New York City, United States of America
Kuala Lampur, Malaysia
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Sofia, Bulgaria
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:

Economic explanations:
Cultural Values:
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.
Correlational results
Think of at least 1 similarity and 1 difference between Piliavin and Levine.

Consider MESSED when making comparisons:

Sampling method
Experimental design

Evaluate Levine
Important questions
1. Explain why a field experiment was used in Piliavin [2]
2. Suggest why Piliavin did not provide evidence for diffusion of responsibility [2]
3. From Piliavins study, outline one way in which the procedure may be considered reliable [3]
4. To what extent does the study by Levine et al. change our
understanding of responses to people in need?[3]
5. Suggest one strength and one weakness of the cross-cultural technique in this Levines study [4]
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. [2]
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
Homework Discussion
Collating results
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 [8]

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 [8]
Full transcript