To look at helping behaviour in a wide range of cultures in realtion to 4 specific community variables
1 of 25
What were the 4 main community variables?
Population size, economic well-being, cultural value (individualim/collectivism, simpatia) and pace of life (walking speed)
2 of 25
What was a main goal?
Is helping stangers stable/ a cross-culturally meanigful place characteristic
3 of 25
What was the type of study?
Quasi experiment, cross-cultural, Independant measures
4 of 25
Where did it take place?
23 large cities around the world
5 of 25
What was the IV?
The people in each city (naturally occuring)
6 of 25
What was the DV?
Helping rate of the cities (calculated to give an Overall Helping Index to each city)
7 of 25
What were the 3 non-emergency helping situations?
1. Dropping a pen. 2. Victim with a hurt/injured leg dropping magazines 3. Blind person crossing the street
8 of 25
Where did it take place?
2 or more locations in main downtown areas during main business hours on clear summer days between 1992 and 1997
9 of 25
What was the sample and how was it collected?
The people in each of the cities selected by the 2nd person who crossed a predetermined line
10 of 25
What exceptions were there in the sample?
Pen and hurt leg: only people walking alone. Children, elderly, disabled people and people carrying packages were excluded.
11 of 25
Who was the data collected by?
Students who were travelling home or toforeign countries for the summer or by cross-cultural psychologists and their students who volunteered
12 of 25
Who were the experimenters?
Men who were all dressed neatly/casually
13 of 25
How was the scoring standardised and the experimenter effects reduced?
Detailed instructions, field training togther, no verbal communication
14 of 25
Was there any gender differences in helping behaviour found?
No significant gender differences
15 of 25
What were the most helpful cities?
1. Rio de Janeiro (93%) 2.San Jose, Costa Rica (91%) 3. Lilongwe, Malawi (86%)
16 of 25
What were the least helpful cities?
23. Kuala Lampur, Malaysia (40%) 22. NYC (45%) 21. Singapore (48%)
17 of 25
What relationship was found with purchasing power parity?
Cities with lower PPP tended to be more helpful
18 of 25
What realtionship was found with pace of life?
Small relationship between walking speed and overall help (faster=less likely to help)
19 of 25
Was there a relationship found between individualim/collecivism or population size?
No significant correlations between indvidualistic/collectivist countries and helping behaviour. No relationship between poulation size and helping behaviour
20 of 25
What was found with simpatia countries (Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador)
Simpatia countires were on average more helpful than non simpatia countires
21 of 25
What was found with the stability of the helping rates?
A city's helping rate was stable across all 3 measures
22 of 25
What is the key theme of the study?
Responses to people in need
23 of 25
What debates relate to this study?
Situational and Science
24 of 25
What area does this study fall into?
Social
25 of 25
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
What were the 4 main community variables?
Back
Population size, economic well-being, cultural value (individualim/collectivism, simpatia) and pace of life (walking speed)
Comments
No comments have yet been made