Although it is tempting to draw conclusions from the research in this chapter, it is important to think critically about how the research is done.  This includes methodological considerations that look at the research method that was chosen, the way that variables are operationalized, and the way that the dependent variable is measured.  It also includes ethical considerations with regard to any undue stress, the rights to informed consent and privacy, and the right to withdraw.  Finally, there are cultural considerations - that is, whether the studies can be universally generalized or whether the results may be specific to the culture being studied.

With regard to the study by Levine et al (2001), we have to consider how variables are operationalized. How does a researcher define and measure prosocial behaviour? It is important to identify which behaviours would be valid indicators of prosocial behaviour. Do all three of the tasks that Levine and his team set up really reflect prosocial behaviour? 

Levine et al used an etic approach to the study of culture and helping behaviour; the researchers assumed that these three helping scenarios would be valid in all of the cultures studied.  However, some of the examples of people in need of help may not have been as relevant in some cultures.  For example, dropping a pen to see if someone would pick it up is a scam used in some countries to then pickpocket someone. On the other hand, in the Czech Republic children are trained from a young age to give up their seat for an older passenger and to help them onto public transportation.  This training may have a direct effect on the likelihood of helping the man with the injured leg or the blind person trying to cross the street.

Second, researchers make use of both lab studies and field studies. Lab studies have the problem that they are highly controlled and may not predict what would happen in a real-life situation. They are often artificial  - for example, Latané’s research where people listened to someone having a seizure over an intercom. Although we can draw some conclusions about human behaviour from such a study, we have to wonder what would happen in a real emergency.  It could be argued, however, that although it was in a lab situation, the participants still perceived it as a real emergency, and therefore it may not be as artificial as we might think.

Researchers such as Piliavin and Levine used field studies. This increases the ecological validity of the research. However, it is not possible to control for confounding variables.  It is also difficult to replicate the sample that is being studied. 

Researchers are also reliant on the feedback that participants give in debriefing interviews about why they either chose to help or not help.  This assumes that the participants actually know why they made this choice. In the case where a participant does not help, cognitive dissonance may lead to the participant rationalizing that the person did not appear to really need help.  In the case where the individual does help, they may embellish their response to increase their sense of self-esteem. For example, it is questionable whether anyone would say, “I helped because I was hoping for a financial reward.”

Prosocial behaviour is the result of a complex interaction of individual, environmental and social factors. It is not possible to isolate specific variables to determine which play the most significant role in whether an individual helps or not. It is also clear that cross-cultural research on helping behaviour is difficult because of the biases of the researchers in defining, observing, and interpreting helping behaviour. 

Ethics in studying prosocial behaviour

In order to make sure that authentic behaviour is observed, field experiments are often carried out. Some of the studies are rather harmless – such as the studies done by Levine et al. The studies were done in a public space so consent was not actually required. However, some of the field experiments involved deception – such as the study by Piliavin. In this case, the question of consent and debriefing is more complicated. Even though the study was done in a public space, the deception that was used could cause undue stress to those that were in the train. The fact that they were not debriefed because of the nature of the study meant that they would not know that the emergency that they had witnessed was only staged. This also meant that the participants were not able to withdraw "at any time" from the experiment.

Deception was also used in several of the laboratory experiments that were done. For example, the studies by Latané used confederates to see whether this would influence the likelihood of helping of the participants.  In order to make sure that the participants would not act as they thought they were expected to act, the participants were not told the true aim of the study. They were also deceived by the confederates, who acted as directed by the researcher. It was important at the end of study to debrief the participants.  In addition to finding out how they perceived the situation and what they thought about their own behaviour, it was important to reveal how they were deceived and why this was necessary. It also gave the participants the chance to withdraw their data if they felt that the deception was in appropriate.

 Teacher only box

Each community will have its own answers - so it is important that students are able to justify their responses.  Below is a sample of responses to a potential discussion about Prague.

1. What would be an appropriate helping behaviour to consider? Justify your decision.

As people in Prague use public transportation quite regularly, it would make sense to do something on a tram. For example, someone who is struggling on crutches to get to a seat as the tram starts to move forward.

2. What cultural factors do you think would affect the results of your study?

There are special seats for people on the tram who have disabilities.  If the person is moving toward one of those specific seats, the people on the tram may be more willing to help.  There is also a cultural norm of giving up one's seat, especially for those who are older.  The age of the person may play a role in whether people help or not. Czechs are, however, a very private culture.  They may not choose to help unless they are asked to do so, fearing that they are interfering unnecessarily.

3. How would you overcome some of the problems discussed in this chapter?

It would be difficult to overcome ethical concerns. The person could thank the person that helped and then reveal that they are actually part of an experiment, but they may also feel that they were deceived and have a negative reaction. The situation is highly authentic to the Czech Republic, so this would increase the ecological validity of the study. However, there is a lack of internal validity as there are many variables that could influence the study - e.g. the number of people on the tram, the part of the city that the study takes place in (for example, a highly residential vs a tourist district), or the age of the person in need of help.  Having different actors play the role of the person in need of help would be one way to address these issues - and the study should be replicated at different times and at different places to see if these variables play a role in the decision to help. It would also be important to have a member of the research team document how many people were on the tram so that the role of diffusion of responsibility could potentially be measured.

Checking for understanding

Interpersonal relationships