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

2. Method
What type of method do you think they used?

3. 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.

4. 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?

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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?

8. 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.

9. 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?

10. 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?

11. 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.

12. Cultural Differences In helping Behaviour

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)