Predictors of Players' Decisions to Help Others in Video Games

Abstract

Little previous research has examined the in-play decision-making processes of multiplayer video game players related to both prosocial (helping others in general) and altruistic (helping with no expectation of reward) actions. The study used an established decision-making model, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and assessed additional constructs of prototypical images (favorability and similarity to a typical gamer who helps) and general levels of empathy. Participants completed two self-report online surveys. At Time 1, participants (N = 387) completed measures assessing the predictors of prosocial and altruistic intentions. The model accounted for 53 percent of variance in prosocial players' prosocial intentions and 60 percent of variance in players' altruistic intentions. Participants' reported prosocial and altruistic gameplay behaviors were assessed 4 weeks later (n = 107), with intention to help significantly predicting both types of helping behaviors. Given established links between helping and positive health and well-being outcomes, these findings are relevant to both game developers, as well as stakeholders concerned with the impact of video games on players.

Introduction

Playing video games has become increasingly popular, with the average player aged 34 years and almost half of video game players female.^1,2 While there is growing interest in examining positive aspects of gameplay,^3,4 there is a relative paucity of research on helping in gaming. Among studies analyzing prosocial gaming behavior, participants often play a prosocial game (i.e., games specifically encouraging prosocial gameplay) to examine the influence of prosocial gaming on behavior⁵ or participants' subsequent prosocial actions assessed outside of gameplay.⁶ Therefore, examining prosocial and altruistic behaviors regardless of whether the game itself promotes prosocial or altruistic behaviors has merit and may help gain insight into how to better optimize a positive gaming experience for multiplayer video game players. The current study will examine helping behaviors undertaken during multiplayer gameplay, given that engaging in helping behaviors in general can work as a barrier against aggressive and antisocial behaviors⁷ and is linked to higher levels of positive effect⁸ and social well-being.⁹

Helping behaviors are often conceptualized as either prosocial or altruistic.¹⁰ Prosocial behavior is helping behavior benefiting both the party extending the help, as well as those receiving the help. There may be an expectation from the person providing help that they may receive something in return from the person they help. However, not all prosocial acts are undertaken with this expectation.^10–12

A potentially more “pure” form of prosocial behavior is altruism.¹³ Altruistic behavior is voluntary helping behavior only benefiting those who receive help and not the person undertaking the altruistic act. The person doing the helping does not expect anything in return. In many cases, there is an element of self-sacrifice where the help giver is often placed at some sort of disadvantage for helping.^10–12

The present research will examine helping behavior undertaken by video game players during multiplayer gameplay through a well-validated decision-making model, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).¹⁴ The TPB states intention is the most proximal determinant of behavior. Three factors influence intention: attitude (positive/negative evaluations about performing the behavior), subjective norm (perceived approval from significant others), and perceived behavioral control (PBC; perceptions of control over behavioral performance, also believed to predict behavior directly). The TPB has support across numerous populations and behaviors, including online prosocial behaviors.¹⁵ Meta-analytic evidence¹⁶ found that the TPB explained 39 percent of the variance in intention and 27 percent of the variance in behavior.

As the predictive power of the TPB often improves when additional variables are included as long as they make theoretical sense and contribute to the explained variance,¹⁴ the current study will incorporate constructs from the Prototype Willingness Model (PWM)¹⁷ and a measure of empathy.¹⁸ Prototype favorability and prototype similarity, from the PWM, refer to how favorable and similar people feel about the stereotypical images the person has of someone who participates in the target behavior and have been shown to influence people's intentions.¹⁹ In gaming, people's “images” (e.g., avatars) are often publically displayed, likely providing exemplars that influence other players especially if they can relate to the other player. Empathy refers to an individual's ability to communicate their emotions, comprehend, and appropriately react to another person's emotions.¹⁸ Both prosocial behavior^20,21 and altruism²² have been linked to empathy. For instance, in the context of gaming it was found that playing prosocial video games was positively associated with empathy in school aged children.²³

While research has examined the effect of prosocial games on behavior outside of gameplay, research is yet to be conducted on in-game helping behaviors undertaken during gameplay in general. The aim of this study is to examine players' prosocial and altruistic behaviors using the TPB as the guiding theoretical framework. It is hypothesized:

H1: The TPB constructs of attitude, subjective norm, and PBC will predict player intention to engage in prosocial and altruistic behavior.

H2: The added constructs of prototype favorability, prototype similarity, and empathy will predict intention over and above the TPB constructs.

H3: Intention and PBC will predict behavior.

Methods

Participants and procedure

Following ethical approval, Phase 1 comprised a qualitative consultation (N = 8 postgraduate gaming students, 5 females), identifying user-friendly definitions and typical examples of prosocial and altruistic behaviors undertaken during multiplayer gameplay (Table 1) to inform the Phase 2 online surveys. In Phase 2, a quantitative survey was completed, with a followup survey sent to participants 4 weeks later.

Table 1.

Definitions and Examples of Multiplayer Helping Behaviors Obtained in Phase 1 Qualitative Consultation to Inform Phase 2 Surveys

Prosocial gameplay definition	Prosocial gameplay examples
Prosocial behavior refers to any sort of helping behavior that benefits both the person (or people) who are providing help, as well as those who are receiving the help. Sometimes there may be an expectation that those acting prosocially get something back in return from the person (or people) that they have helped. That being said, not all prosocial acts are undertaken with an expectation of getting something in return.	Giving another player you expect to see again items or coins. Healing another player that you expect to see or play with again. Distracting or killing enemies that are attacking your own teammates. Resurrecting another team member who has been killed. Helping coordinate your team members. Warning team members about possible dangerous situations in the game.

Prosocial gameplay definition

Prosocial gameplay examples

Prosocial behavior refers to any sort of helping behavior that benefits both the person (or people) who are providing help, as well as those who are receiving the help. Sometimes there may be an expectation that those acting prosocially get something back in return from the person (or people) that they have helped. That being said, not all prosocial acts are undertaken with an expectation of getting something in return.

Giving another player you expect to see again items or coins. Healing another player that you expect to see or play with again. Distracting or killing enemies that are attacking your own teammates. Resurrecting another team member who has been killed. Helping coordinate your team members. Warning team members about possible dangerous situations in the game.

Altruistic gameplay definition	Altruistic gameplay examples
Altruistic behavior refers to voluntarily helping someone (or a group of people) and not expecting anything in return for helping them. Those who act altruistically do not expect anything in return for their actions, and, in many cases, self-sacrifice may occur, where the help-giver is often placed in some sort of disadvantage for providing help to another.	Giving another player you do not expect to see again advice on how to play the game better. Giving another player you do not expect to see again your items instead of selling or dismantling them. Continuing to play a game even though you don't want to, because you don't want other players to suffer or lose the match. Giving away all your items before quitting the game permanently and closing your account. Letting another player win a match because you want them to have fun and enjoy the game. Playing with those who have less experience than you and helping level them up or carrying them through parts of the game.

Altruistic gameplay definition

Altruistic gameplay examples

Altruistic behavior refers to voluntarily helping someone (or a group of people) and not expecting anything in return for helping them. Those who act altruistically do not expect anything in return for their actions, and, in many cases, self-sacrifice may occur, where the help-giver is often placed in some sort of disadvantage for providing help to another.

Giving another player you do not expect to see again advice on how to play the game better. Giving another player you do not expect to see again your items instead of selling or dismantling them. Continuing to play a game even though you don't want to, because you don't want other players to suffer or lose the match. Giving away all your items before quitting the game permanently and closing your account. Letting another player win a match because you want them to have fun and enjoy the game. Playing with those who have less experience than you and helping level them up or carrying them through parts of the game.

In Phase 2, participants were recruited through online gaming forums and paid Facebook advertisements. Inclusion criteria were: aged 15 years or older and have played any multiplayer video game in the past month on a mobile phone, computer, or gaming console (e.g., PlayStation or Xbox). Players of single-player games were excluded as such games do not allow for interactions with other players during gameplay (precluding in-game prosocial and altruistic behavior). Those who completed both surveys were eligible to receive course credit or entry into a prize draw.

The Time One survey (N = 389) examined video game players' intentions to undertake helping behavior during gameplay. Participants were 15–54 years old (M = 22.37, standard deviation [SD] = 7.26), with 66.3 percent male, 32.1 percent female, and 1.5 percent identifying as other. The Time Two survey (n = 107) examined self-reported behavior in the previous 4 weeks. Participants at Time Two were 15–49 years old (M = 22.93, SD = 7.21), with 72.9 percent male, 26.2 percent female, and 0.9 percent identifying as other. A participant generated code identifier matched Time One (N = 387) and Time Two (n = 107) responses for those consenting to be recontacted for the followup survey.

Measures

Based on Ajzen,¹⁴ the TPB variables of attitude, subjective norm, PBC, and intention were measured for both target behaviors of prosocial and altruistic gaming behavior (with definitions and typical examples provided, informed by the Phase 1 qualitative consultation) at Time One. Prototype favorability and similarity items based on Gibbons and Gerrard¹⁷ were assessed, as was empathy using the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ).¹⁸ Followup behavior was assessed at Time Two (Table 2).

Table 2.

Survey Measures—Prosocial and Altruistic Multiplayer Video Gameplay Measures: Scale Items

	Items	Scoring or rating	Scale detail and reliability
Theory of Planned Behavior variables
Attitude	For me to play prosocially/altruistically when I play multiplayer videogames would be …	(1) Good to (7) bad (1) Favorable to (7) unfavorable	Scores were summed and averaged; score range = 1–7; higher scores reflected more positive attitudes toward the target behavior; prosocial r(389) = 0.81 (p < 0.001); altruistic r(389) = 0.66 (p < 0.001)
Subjective norm	In the next four weeks, most people who I play games with would approve of my playing prosocially/altruistically, when I play multiplayer videogames In the next four weeks, most people who I play games with will play prosocially/altruistically when they play multiplayer videogames	(1) Strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree (1) Strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree	Scores were summed and averaged; score range = 1–7; higher scores indicate greater endorsement of supportive subjective norms; prosocial r(389) = 0.54 (p < 0.001); altruistic r(389) = 0.39 (p < 0.001)
PBC	When I play multiplayer videogames over the next four weeks, I am confident that I can play prosocially/altruistically When I play multiplayer videogames over the next four weeks, I have control over whether I play prosocially/altruistically	(1) Strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree (1) Strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree	Scores were summed and averaged; score range = 1–7; higher scores indicate greater endorsement of perceived control; prosocial r(388) = 0.70 (p < 0.001); altruistic r(389) = 0.67 (p < 0.001)
Intention	When I play multiplayer videogames over the next four weeks, I intend to play prosocially/altruistically When I play multiplayer videogames over the next four weeks, I plan to play prosocially/altruistically	(1) Strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree (1) Strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree	Scores were summed and averaged; score range = 1–7; higher scores indicate greater intention to engage in the target behavior; prosocial r(389) = 0.84 (p < 0.001); altruistic r(389) = 0.83 (p < 0.001)
Followup behavior	In the last four weeks, how often did you play prosocially/altruistically when you played a multiplayer videogame? In the last four weeks, to what extent did you play prosocially/altruistically when you played a multiplayer videogame?	(1) Never to (7) always (1) Not at all to (7) to a large extent	Scores were summed and averaged; higher scores indicate greater levels of prosocial video game engagement; score range = 1–7; prosocial r(107) = 0.73 (p < 0.001); altruistic r(107) = 0.82 (p < 0.001)
Additional variables
Prototype favorability	How favorable is your impression of the type of person your age who plays prosocially/altruistically when they play multiplayer videogames?	(1) Unfavorable to (7) favorable	Score range = 1–7; higher scores reflected a more favorable perception of the type of person engaging in the target behavior
Prototype similarity	In general, how similar do you think you are to the type of person who plays prosocially/altruistically when they play multiplayer videogames?	(1) Not similar at all to (7) very similar	Score range = 1–7; higher scores indicated greater similarities between the prototype and the participant
Empathy	When someone else is excited, I tend to get excited too Other people's misfortunes do not disturb me a great deal It upsets me to see someone being treated disrespectfully I remain unaffected when someone close to me is happy I enjoy making other people feel better I have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me When a friends starts to talk about his/her problems, I try to steer the conversation toward something else I can tell when others are sad even when they do not say anything I find that I am “in tune” with other people's moods I do not feel sympathy for people who cause their own serious illnesses I become irritated when someone cries I am not really interested in how other people feel I get a strong urge to help when I see someone who is upset When I see someone being treated unfairly, I do not feel very much pity for them I find it silly for people to cry out of happiness When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward him/her	(1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always (1) Never to (5) always	Scores were summed; score range = 1–5; higher scores reflected higher levels of empathy; Cronbach's α = 0.89

Note: The first set of questions referred to prosocial gameplay, the second set referred to altruistic gameplay (for all scales except Empathy).

PBC, perceived behavioral control.

Results

Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicted players' intention to engage in prosocial and altruistic multiplayer gameplay, with two multiple regressions predicting behavior at Time Two. Table 3 shows the means, SDs, and correlations for the study variables. On average, players reported engaging in a moderate level of prosocial and altruistic gaming behaviors over the 4-week period.

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations for the Predictor Variables and Target Behaviors (N = 389)

Variable	M	SD	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Prosocial gameplay
(1) Intention	5.44	1.58	0.30^***	0.47^***	0.66^***	0.38^***	0.33^***	0.23^***	0.35^***
(2) Attitude	5.95	1.36		0.35^***	0.16^**	0.39^***	0.33^***	0.26^***	0.09
(3) Subjective norm	5.15	1.41			0.42^***	0.27^***	0.28^***	0.16^**	0.17
(4) PBC	5.70	1.54				0.20^***	0.25^***	0.17^**	0.31^**
(5) Prototype favorability	5.91	1.39					0.41^***	0.26^***	0.27^**
(6) Prototype similarity	5.01	1.38						0.24^***	0.19^*
(7) Empathy	44.82	9.49							0.15
(8) Followup behavior	5.60	1.17
Altruistic gameplay
(1) Intention	4.90	1.53	0.62^***	0.51^***	0.55^***	0.53^***	0.61^***	0.36^***	0.43^***
(2) Attitude	5.33	1.57		0.44^***	0.37^***	0.51^***	0.49^***	0.31^***	0.33^**
(3) Subjective norm	4.77	1.40			0.37^***	0.40^***	0.44^***	0.22^***	0.27^**
(4) PBC	5.72	1.39				0.33^***	0.41^***	0.20^***	0.31^**
(5) Prototype favorability	5.91	1.39					0.46^***	0.35^***	0.36^***
(6) Prototype similarity	4.58	1.58						0.34^***	0.41^***
(7) Empathy	44.82	9.49							0.16
(8) Followup behavior	5.08	1.24

Note: For followup behavior, n = 107.

p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

SD, standard deviation.

Predicting player intentions and behavior

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicted prosocial and altruistic gameplay intentions (Table 4). For prosocial intention, the TPB constructs of attitude, subjective norm, and PBC were entered at Step 1, with the additional variables of prototype favorability, prototype similarity, and empathy at Step 2. The TPB variables accounted for 50.5 percent (50.1 percent adjusted) of the variance in players' intentions to engage in prosocial helping, F(3, 368) = 125.130, p < 0.001. The additional Step 2 variables significantly increased prediction by 3.6 percent, Fchange(6, 365) = 9.558, p < 0.001. The overall model explained 54.1 percent (53.3 percent adjusted) of the variance in players' intentions to engage in prosocial helping, F(6, 365) = 71.708, p < 0.001. At the final step, the significant predictors were subjective norm, PBC, and prototype favorability.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Testing the Predictors of Players' Intention to Engage in Prosocial and Altruistic Multiplayer Gameplay (N = 389)

Step	Variable	B	β	95% CI	sr²	R²	ΔR²
Prosocial gameplay
(1)	Attitude	0.17	0.15^***	0.08 to 0.26	0.14	0.51^***
	Subjective norm	0.21	0.19^***	0.11 to 0.30	0.16
	PBC	0.57	0.56^***	0.49 to 0.66	0.51
(2)	Attitude	0.08	0.07	−0.02 to 0.17	0.06	0.54^***	0.04^***
	Subjective norm	0.18	0.16^***	0.08 to 0.27	0.13
	PBC	0.54	0.53^***	0.46 to 0.62	0.47
	Prototype favorability	0.20	0.18^***	0.11 to 0.29	0.15
	Prototype similarity	0.06	0.05	−0.04 to 0.15	0.04
	Empathy	0.01	0.04	−0.01 to 0.02	0.04
Altruistic gameplay
(1)	Attitude	0.38	0.39^***	0.31 to 0.46	0.34	0.53^***
	Subjective norm	0.25	0.23^***	0.16 to 0.34	0.20
	PBC	0.38	0.33^***	0.29 to 0.47	0.30
(2)	Attitude	0.24	0.25^***	0.16 to 0.32	0.20	0.60^***	0.07^***
	Subjective norm	0.16	0.15^***	0.08 to 0.24	0.12
	PBC	0.29	0.25^***	0.20 to 0.37	0.22
	Prototype favorability	0.13	0.12^**	0.04 to 0.22	0.09
	Prototype similarity	0.25	0.26^***	0.17 to 0.33	0.20
	Empathy	0.01	0.07^*	0.00 to 0.02	0.07

p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

CI, confidence interval.

For altruistic intention, the TPB constructs of attitude, subjective norm, and PBC were entered at Step 1, with prototype favorability, prototype similarity, and empathy at Step 2. The TPB variables accounted for 53.4 percent (53 percent adjusted) of the variance in players' intentions to help altruistically, F(3, 367) = 139.942, p < 0.001. The Step 2 variables significantly increased prediction by 7.3 percent, Fchange(6, 364) = 22.620, p < 0.001. The overall model explained 60.7 percent (60 percent adjusted) of the variance in players' intentions to help altruistically, F(6, 364) = 93.647, p < 0.001. The significant predictors in the final step were attitude, subjective norm, PBC, prototype favorability, prototype similarity, and empathy.

Standard multiple regression analyses predicted prosocial and altruistic behavior (Table 5). Consistent with the TPB, intention and PBC were entered together on Step 1 to assess their contribution to behavioral prediction. Intention and PBC together accounted for a significant amount of variance (13.2 percent, 11.5 percent adjusted) in prosocial gameplay, R² = 0.132, F(2, 104) = 7.885, p = 0.001 with intention the sole significant predictor. Intention and PBC together also accounted for a significant amount of variance (19.7 percent, 18.1 percent adjusted) in altruistic gameplay, R² = 0.197, F(2, 104) = 12.7215, p < 0.001, with intention the sole significant predictor.

Table 5.

Standard Multiple Regression Analyses Testing the Predictors of Players' Prosocial and Altruistic Multiplayer Gameplay Behaviors (n = 107)

Variable	B	β	95% CI	sr²	R²
Prosocial gameplay
Intention	0.20	0.26^*	0.01 to 0.39	0.19	0.13^**
PBC	0.10	0.14	−0.08 to 0.29	0.10
Altruistic gameplay
Intention	0.31	0.37^**	0.14 to 0.48	0.32	0.20^***
PBC	0.11	0.11	−0.09 to 0.30	0.10

p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

Discussion

In support of H1, the TPB constructs significantly predicted prosocial and altruistic intention. The more participants held positive attitudes toward helpful gameplay, internalized others' approval to be helpful, and thought it would be easy to act helpfully during gameplay, the stronger the intention to engage in helpful gameplay. The TPB constructs explained 51 percent in players' prosocial intentions and 53 percent of the variance in player's altruistic intentions, greater than the average (39 percent) of Armitage and Conner's¹⁶ meta-analysis.

Only partial support was found for H2, with the added variables explaining an additional 4 percent of variance in prosocial intentions and 7 percent of variance in altruistic intentions. Prototype favorability significantly predicted prosocial intention, while altruistic intention was also influenced by prototype similarity and empathy. The more participants evaluated typical prosocial or altruistic players favorably, the stronger their intention to assist other players. For altruistic intentions only, the more similar participants felt to the typical altruistic gamer, and the higher their empathy, the stronger their intention to help. It is possible that the self-sacrificial nature of altruistic behaviors requires a degree of empathy that prosocial (a potentially more reciprocal form of helping) behaviors need not have.

In partial support for H3, intention and PBC together explained a significant amount of variance in players' prosocial (13 percent) and altruistic (20 percent) gameplay behaviors. The lower proportions of variance explained compared to the average (27 percent) in Armitage and Conner's¹⁶ meta-analysis may relate to the often unpredictable nature of multiplayer gameplay where opportunities to assist others do not always arise or there are complex group-based factors impacting player decisions despite favorable intentions. Thus, the lower proportions of behavior explained may reflect that helping is often a more spontaneous (than considered) behavior in video games and that a full examination of the PWM¹⁷ assessing a player's openness to help, rather than set plans to, may be beneficial in this context.

For both behaviors, only intention (and not PBC) significantly predicted behavior, suggesting that players' plans to engage in helping behaviors (and not how easily they could engage in the target behaviors) influenced helping behavior. PBC as nonsignificant may reflect research showing that video games provide players with a strong sense of autonomy,^24,25 supported by the relatively high levels of control over helping behaviors reported in the current study.

The utility of the TPB in examining video game players' decision making for two distinct helping behaviors, prosocial and altruistic gameplay, was supported, adding to the growing body of research analyzing the positive aspects of video game play. Study limitations, however, include likely sampling bias as the recruitment advertising focus on helping behavior potentially attracted more helpful gamers. Further research could examine specific forms of helping behaviors (e.g., the sharing of in-game items, helping less experienced players complete tasks) or specific gaming contexts (e.g., massively multiplayer online role-playing games). A further limitation is that our findings are limited to participants' perceptions and reported behaviors. Future research should assess observed helping behavior through experiments and game analytics. Relatedly, it will be important to explore how helping behavior may differ between game genres. Understanding helping behaviors may inform efforts of designers to increase their prevalence, potentially creating a more harmonious gaming environment for players.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

No funding was received for this article.

References

Brand

, Todhunter

, Jervis

. (2017) Digital Australia report. 2018. Eveleigh, NSW: Interactive Games & Entertainment Association.

Entertainment Software Association. (2018) 2018 Sales, demographic, and usage data: essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Washington, DC: Entertainment Software Association.

Granic

, Lobel

, Engels

. The benefits of playing video games. The American Psychologist, 2013; 69:1–13.

Jones

, Scholes

, Johnson

, et al. Gaming well: existing links between videogames and flourishing mental health. Frontiers in Psychology, 2014; 5:260. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00260.

Greitemeyer

, Mügge

. Video games do affect social outcomes: a meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2014; 40:578–589.

Iten

, Bopp

, Steiner

, et al. Does a prosocial decision in video games lead to increased prosocial real-life behavior? The impact of reward and reasoning. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018; 89:163–172.

McGinley

, Carlo

. Two sides of the same coin? The relations between prosocial and physically aggressive behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2007; 36:337–349.

Alden

, Trew

. If it makes you happy: engaging in kind acts increases positive affect in socially anxious individuals. Emotion, 2013; 13:64–75.

Son

, Wilson

. Volunteer work and hedonic, eudemonic, and social well-being. Sociological Forum, 2012; 27:658–681.

10.

Toumbourou

. Beneficial action within altruistic and prosocial behavior. Review of General Psychology, 2016; 20:245–258.

11.

Eisenberg

, Miller

. The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 1987; 101:91–119.

12.

Swap

. When prosocial behavior becomes altruistic: an attributional analysis. Current Psychology, 1991; 10:49–64.

13.

Soosai-Nathan

, Negri

, Delle Fave

. Beyond pro-social behavior: an exploration of altruism in two cultures. Psychological Studies, 2013; 58:103–114.

14.

Ajzen

. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991; 50:179–211.

15.

Mackay

, White

, Obst

. Sign and share: what influences our participation in online microvolunteering. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2016; 19:257–263.

16.

Armitage

, Conner

. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2001; 40:471–499.

17.

Gibbons

, Gerrard

. Predicting young adults' health risk behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1995; 69:505–517.

18.

Spreng

, Mckinnon

, Mar

, et al. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 2009; 91:62–71.

19.

Todd

, Kothe

, Mullan

, et al. Reasoned versus reactive prediction of behaviour: a meta-analysis of the prototype willingness model. Health Psychology Review, 2016; 10:1–24.

20.

Carlo

, Mestre

, Mcginley

, et al. The interplay of emotional instability, empathy, and coping on prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 2012; 53:675–680.

21.

Johnson

. Transportation into a story increases empathy, prosocial behavior, and perceptual bias toward fearful expressions. Personality and Individual Differences, 2012; 52:150–155.

22.

Persson

, Kajonius

. Empathy and universal values explicated by the empathy-altruism hypothesis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2016; 156:610–619.

23.

Harrington

, O'Connell

. Video games as virtual teachers: prosocial video game use by children and adolescents from different socioeconomic groups is associated with increased empathy and prosocial behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 63:650–658.

24.

Johnson

, Gardner

. (2010) Personality, motivation and video games. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 276–279.

25.

Ryan

, Rigby

, Przybylski

. The motivational pull of video games: a self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 2006; 30:344–360.