Notes: Cross-Cultural Differences in Prosocial Behaviour
GLT: Using one or more research studies, explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial
behaviour.
Research Examples:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Levine at al. – everyday helping behaviour
Madsen – UK and SA students
Miller – US and Hindu Indians and moral values
Whiting – helping behaviour in children
Graves and Graves – child care by children and prosocial behaviour
Katz – SIT
What are the differences?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Helping behaviour in children
Helping behaviour in busy cities
Giving resources to family members
Attitudes towards obligations to help others
Why are there differences?
1. Childhood responsibilities : the more childhood responsibilities were given to children
(such as household chores, family farming, looking after family members), the more
likely children
2. Environment: (Levine) City size and pace of the city will affect levels of prosocial
behaviour.
3. Attitudes: (Miller) In India,
4. Economic status of the country (Levine):
5. Simpatia and simpatico (Levine):
6. SIT: (Bong and Leung): we’re more likely to help those in our in-group
Other possible explanations:
-
The frequency in which we meet people
Competition for resources
Social and cultural norms
Summaries of Research Examples:
1. Levine at al. – everyday helping behaviour:
Robert Levine conducted a study in 23 major countries around the world to try to see what the
differences in prosocial behaviour might be. Population size and individualism and collectivism
were factors that were taken in to consideration for the countries selected. He also wanted to
see how the Latin American notions of simpatia and simpatico were related to helping
behaviour.
There were three situations:
a) A pedestrian drops a pen and walks on
b) A pedestrian in a leg brace drops some magazines
c) A blind person with a cane waits at a traffic light for assistance crossing the street
Rio de Janeiro in Brazil was the highest rank city while New York and Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
were the lowest. There was a large difference in rates between the top and the bottom. There
was no correlation between cultural factors and helping. However, there was a correlation
between purchasing power (i.e. the economic state of the country) and helping. The richer the
country, the less likely people were to help. The researchers concluded that this could be
because the poorer countries had a more traditional value system. However there were outliers
in the results that contradict this.
Countries high in ‘simpatia’ were also above the mean. They happened to be Roman Catholic as
well.
It is not as straightforward as suggesting that individualistic cultures are less helping. It is useful
to incorporate elements of social identity theory in to the understanding of helping behaviour.
Collectivist cultures are less likely to help a complete stranger than they would be to help
someone in their family. However, this could be accounted for by the kin selection hypothesis.
2. Madsen – UK and SA students : shows that Zulu males helped people who were
biologically related to them, no matter how loosely related they were. UK participants
only stayed in the uncomfortable position in order to benefit more closely related family
members.
3. Miller – US and Hindu Indians and moral values: Hindus were more likely to help and
believed that they had a moral duty to help. Americans were more likely to help and
believe it was a moral duty if they liked the person. They viewed helping as personal
choice, as opposed to a social duty.
4. Whiting – helping behaviour in children: the children were aged between 3-11 from six
different countries (US, Kenya, Philippines, Mexico, ??). They found a correlation
between the responsibilities of the child in the family and the level of helping. Students
with more household chores were more helpful. They found helping was more common
in less industrialised countries.
5. Graves and Graves – child care by children and prosocial behaviour : they found
something similar to Whiting in that children with child care responsibilities can learn to
help.
6. Bond and Leung – SIT: found that Chinese and Japanese participants were more likely
(compared to Americans) to help someone from their in-group, they were less likely to
help someone perceived to be in an out-group. This has not been replicated enough to
determine if this is culture specific.
Summary of Differences in Prosocial Behaviour:
The empirical evidence suggests that helping behaviour is less dependent on the nature of the
local people, and is more influenced by the characteristics of the local environment. The local
environment therefore can be said to have some influence on the behaviour of its inhabitants.
Where the person lives is also a factor which influences prosocial behaviour moreso than where
they were raised. For example, a Brazilian person living in New York would be less likely to help
someone than a Brazilian person living in Rio de Janeiro.