Levine et al. 2001 Using one or more research studies, explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.

Method What type of method do you think they used?

Aim – Levine et al. 2001 To see if there was a difference in Cross Cultural helping of strangers. NB – The studies were conducted in the late 1990s and the results published in 2001.

Method Levine used the following 3 scenarios to measure pro-social behaviour: 1 The Pen Would a dropped pen in the street be retrieved by a passing pedestrian? 2 The Plaster Cast Would a pedestrian with a broken leg be given assistance picking up the magazine he dropped? 3 The blind person Would a blind person be helped across a very busy road?

Method The original study was carried out in 23 cities around the world. Students of Levine who were going home for the summer / on holiday were used to carry out the research. To control for gender all researchers were male.

Which cities do you think came out on top – pick 3? Mexico City – Mexico Bangkok – Thailand Rome – Italy San Jose – Costa Rica New York – United States Singapore – Singapore Bucharest – Romania Lilongwe – Malawi Calcutta – India San Salvador – El Salvador Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia Amsterdam – Netherlands Copenhagen – Denmark Taipei – Taiwan Vienna – Austria Madrid – Spain Prague – Czech Republic Shanghai – China Tel Aviv – Israel Budapest – Hungary Stockholm – Sweden Rio de Janeiro - Brazil Sofia – Bulgaria

R E S U L T Were your predictions accurate? Rio de Janeiro - Brazil 1 93% San Jose – Costa Rica 2 91% Lilongwe – Malawi 3 86% Calcutta – India 4 82% Vienna – Austria 5 81% Madrid – Spain 6 79% Copenhagen – Denmark 7 77% Shanghai – China 8 76% Mexico City – Mexico 9 75% San Salvador – El Salvador 10 74% Prague – Czech Republic 11 Stockholm – Sweden 12 72% Budapest – Hungary 13 71% Bucharest – Romania 14 68% Tel Aviv – Israel 15 Rome – Italy 16 63% Bangkok – Thailand 17 61% Taipei – Taiwan 18 59% Sofia – Bulgaria 19 57% Amsterdam – Netherlands 20 53% Singapore – Singapore 21 48% New York – United States 22 44% Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia 23 40% R E S U L T Were your predictions accurate? Why did you think the way you did? Are you surprised by any of the results?

Results Levine et al found a lot of differences in helping behaviour across the cities. In Rio de Janeiro & Madrid – the blind man was helped every time, where as in Kuala Lumpur & Bangkok help was offered less than 50% of the time. If you drop your pen in Rio de Janeiro, you are 3 times more likely to see it again than if you dropped it in New York.

Conclusions Levine found 3 correlations in the results: 1- Population density - in cities which has less people in them, prosocial behaviour was more likely 2- Economic Productivity – cities with lower GDP per capita were more likely to help 3 – Pace of Life – in cities with a slower pace of life (measured by walking speeds) people were more likely to help. Thoughts: Does this apply to China?

Evaluation – some points to get your ideas going How does a researcher measure pro-social behaviour? Can we really translate behaviour across cultures? Can we really make generalisations about an entire culture? Can we attribute meaning to an individuals refusal to help? Ecological validity?

Discussion Economic Productivity correlation was the only significant correlation Hypothesize that lower economy is usually accompanied by a more traditional value system (helping others being part of it) Latin American Cities had high helping – could be explained by concept of simpatia (Range of helping behaviors encouraged in culture) could be because of a strong Roman Catholic value system of helping (through religion) Other tendencies Individualism vs Collectivism – no correlation was found Individualism vs collectivism - Given the diffuseness of the collectivism-individualism construct, particularly because it does not make clear predictions about behaviors toward one’s outgroup (and whether pedes- trians would be categorized as such by individualists and collectivists), it is not surprising to see a low correlation for this variable with helping.

Cultural Differences In helping Behaviour

Culture & Prosocial Behavior Are there differences in prosocial/helping behavior? Within a culture e.g. urban versus rural areas Between cultures e.g. individualist versus collectivist cultures VS VS

Intra-Cultural Variations Urban Overload Hypothesis (Milgram, 1970) People who live in cities are exposed to high levels of environmental stimulation They develop strategies to cut out excessive stimulation One such strategy is to avoid interactions with strangers – this leads to a reduction in helping behavior in some situations

Types of Culture Individualistic (e.g. UK / USA - Western) Based on values of independence, competition, achievement and self-interest Prosocial concerns likely to be limited to immediate family/close relationships Collectivistic (e.g. Africa / India - Eastern) Based on values of mutual interdependence, loyalty and group membership Prosocial concerns likely to be extended beyond family, at least to members of same social group

Research Likely that individualist and collectivist cultures help others for different reasons Individualist – helping motivated by personal rewards e.g. feeling good about yourself Collectivist – helping motivated by continued survival of group, possible future reciprocation

Other studies Whiting 1979 Katz 1981 Found that cross-cultural differences in pro-social behavior is correlated with the children’s involvement in family responsibilities Used the Social Identity Theory We seem to provide help to those who we consider similar to us (in-group)

One key statement to remember: “…it is important to remember that individualism and collectivism are on a dimension that describes cultures, rather than being dichotomous concepts; it is not clear that they cause differences in helping.” ~ Pearson pg 258