Aim
compare helping behaviour in largest city of 23 diff countries in non-emergency situation
Research method
cross cultural field study
+ : high ecological validity
- : lower control lvl
(collected data by analysing correlation)
Sample
- from large city in 23 countries
- 1198 ppts
> children, elderly, ppl w visual/physical disabilities excluded
Procedure
- experimenters: student dressed neatly, given training for role
- in 2 or more locations in city centres
- office hours
- summer days
Procedure 2
1) dropped pen - helped if said smth or picked it up
2) hurt leg, heavy limp, visible leg brace, dropped smth - helped if offered to help or helped w out saying anything
3) helped blind person across street or informed light was green
Results 1
- most helpful (simpatico), approx;
> Rio de Janeiro, Brazil : 94%
> San Jose, Costa Rica : 91% - least helpful (not simpatico), approx;
> New York City, USA : 45%
> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia : 40%
Overall helping measure correlation impacted by…
Community characteristics
- PPP (Purchasing Power Parity): -.43
> wealthier/higher PPP = less helpful
- individualism/collectivism: -.17
> i less helpful but not sig diff
> simpatico mean help rate 83% + non-simpatico = 66%
Anomalies
- New York: 75% helped blind man but 28% hurt leg man
- Mexico City: high helping lvls for blind 92% + hurt leg 80% but pen 55%
- minority of cities, most help for dropped pen eg. Vienna
Type of data
- quantitative:
> easier to analyse, make comparisons, see correlation, objective, work out % BUT no human insight
Correlational data
- ✓ allows research to be carried out when variables can be measured but can’t be manipulated
- ✕ can’t be sure that the cause is the only thing that impacts the effect (not cause + effect)
Conclusions
- large cross-cultural variation in helping rates
- helping inversely related to country’s economic productivity
- simpatico countries more helpful on average than those w no such traditions
- collectivism/individualism value = unrelated to helping behaviours
Sampling bias/Ethnocentrism
NO : looked at diff countries
Ethics
- ✕ informed consent, right to withdraw, debrief
- ✓ deception
Practical applications
- explains why some cities more helpful than others
- which countries are better to go to
Reliability
- low ; not same researcher
- “neat + casual + male student” - vague, subjective
- ~ everyone’s experience ✕ same even if they had same training ; extraneous variables present
Validity
- high ecological validity: everyday task, naturalistic event ~ no demand characteristic
- high internal validity: successfully tested out what it was set out to test
