Of 405 letters “lost” in Florida, 167 were returned in the mail (the altruistic response). Addressees' affhations were significantly associated with return rates; fewer highly deviant “Communist” and “FLAB” addressees were returned. The associations of urban size and addressees' affiliations with altruistic responses in 31 cities and 10 suburbs were substantially greater than in 5 small towns but only moderately so if the addressee was highly deviant. Small town residents returned only 7 letters to highly deviant addressees compared to 31 for nonrural residents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ForbesG. B., & GromollH. F. (1971) The lost letter technique as a measure of social variables: some exploratory findings. Social forces, 50, 113–115.
2.
HanssonR. O., & SladeK. M. (1977) Altruism toward a deviant in city and small town. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 272–279.
3.
MilgramS. (1970) The experience of living in cities. Science, 167, 1461–1468.
4.
MilgramS.MannL., & HarterS. (1965) The lost-letter technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 437–438.
5.
RushtonP. (1978) Urban density and altruism: helping strangers in a Canadian city, suburb, and small town. Psychological Reports, 43, 987–990.
6.
RushtonP. (1980) Altruism, socialization, and society.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
WhiteheadG. T., & MetzgerS. C. (1981) Helping behavior in urban and nonurban settings. The Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 295–296.
