INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSESEffects of Pros.docx

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES
Effects of Prosocial Video Games on Prosocial Behavior
Tobias Greitemeyer
University of Sussex
Silvia Osswald
Ludwig-Maximilians-University
Previous research has documented that playing violent video
games has various negative effects on social
behavior in that it causes an increase in aggressive behavior and
a decrease in prosocial behavior. In
contrast, there has been much less evidence on the effects of
prosocial video games. In the present
research, 4 experiments examined the hypothesis that playing a
prosocial (relative to a neutral) video
game increases helping behavior. In fact, participants who had
played a prosocial video game were more
likely to help after a mishap, were more willing (and devoted
more time) to assist in further experiments,
and intervened more often in a harassment situation. Results
further showed that exposure to prosocial
video games activated the accessibility of prosocial thoughts,
which in turn promoted prosocial behavior.
Thus, depending on the content of the video game, playing
video games not only has negative effects on
social behavior but has positive effects as well.
Keywords: prosocial behavior, video games, priming

Video games were first created in the 1970s and since then have
grown into a multibillion-dollar industry: The annual U.S. retail
sales of video games reached more than $9.9 billion in 2004
alone.
Recent large-scale surveys show that 70% of homes with
children
ages 2 to 17 years have computers and 68% have video game
equipment (Woodard & Gridina, 2000). Eighty-seven percent of
children play video games regularly (Walsh, Gentile, Gieske,
Walsh, & Chasco, 2003). Children ages 2 to 7 years spend an
average of 3 to 5 hr a week playing video games (Gentile &
Walsh,
2002), while 8th- and 9th-grade students average 9 hr per week
(Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004). Video games are
popular
not only among children but also among young and middle-aged
adults. As revealed by the November 2005 Nielsen Active
Gamer
study, the age group among players is expanding rapidly into
the
25–40 age group (Nielsen Entertainment, 2005).
Despite the widespread popularity of video games, psycholog-
ical studies on their effects are somewhat limited (Lee & Peng,
2006). In particular, studies on the positive effects of video
games
on social behavior are exceedingly rare as most of the existing
research has illuminated the negative effects of violent video
games. In fact, playing violent games (in which the predominant
goal is to injure or kill another game character) has been shown
to
lead to an increase in aggressive thoughts, feelings, and
behavior
(e.g., Anderson et al., 2004). However, are the social
consequences

of playing video games always negative? In the framework of
the
current research, we examine the possibility that playing video
games with prosocial content (in which the predominant goal is
to
benefit another game character) may promote prosocial
behavior.
We begin by reviewing the results of previous research into the
effects of violent video games on aggressive tendencies and
present two theoretical models that attempt to explain these
effects.
Next, we discuss some indirect evidence for our main
hypothesis
that prosocial tendencies might be fostered by playing prosocial
video games. We then present the results of four experiments
that
empirically tested this hypothesis.
Effects of Violent Video Games
The effects of violent video games on aggressive thoughts,
feelings, and behavior are well documented. For instance,
playing
violent video games leads to an increase in aggressive thoughts
(Anderson & Dill, 2000). Participants who had played a violent
(relative to a nonviolent) video game were also more likely to
produce a hostile expectation bias, which is the tendency to per-
ceive harmful actions by others as intentional rather than
acciden-
tal (Bushman & Anderson, 2002). Video games influence
aggres-
sive affect: Playing a violent video game increases state
hostility
and anxiety levels (Anderson & Ford, 1986). Finally, violent
video
games are positively associated with aggressive behavior.

Corre-
lational evidence (Gentile et al., 2004) indicated that playing
violent video games is positively related to arguing with
teachers
and getting involved in physical fights. A longitudinal study of
violent video game effects on aggression in children obtained
Tobias Greitemeyer, School of Psychology, University of
Sussex,
Falmer, England; Silvia Osswald, Department of Psychology,
Ludwig-
Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
We gratefully acknowledge the help of Ann-Kristin Adam, Nina
Fricke,
Anna-Maria Fuchs, Cornelia Gall, Eva-Maria Goblirsch, Sven
Hilbert,
Joseph Kambeitz, Magdalena Muckenthaler, Tristan Nakagawa,
and Kristin
Rolle in conducting the experiments.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Tobias
Greitemeyer, School of Psychology, University of Sussex,
Pevensey 1,
Falmer BN1 9QH, England. E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010, Vol. 98,
No. 2, 211–221
© 2010 American Psychological Association 0022-
3514/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016997
211
similar results: Children who played more violent video games

early in the school year became more aggressive (verbally and
physically) and less helpful later in the school year (Anderson,
Gentile, & Buckley, 2007). Also, experimental designs showed
the
positive association of violent video games and aggressive
behav-
ior: Participants who had played a violent video game set higher
levels of noise punishment than participants who had played a
neutral video game (Bartholow & Anderson, 2002). Meta-
analyses
have confirmed that violent video games cause an increase in
aggressive behavior in children and adults (Anderson &
Bushman,
2001; Sherry, 2001). Anderson and Bushman (2001) concluded
that playing violent video games significantly increases
aggression-related affect and thoughts, physiological arousal,
and
aggressive behavior. Sex, age, and type of research (survey vs.
experiment) did not moderate the negative effects of violent
video
games.
Playing violent video games not only causes an increase in
antisocial behavior but also leads to a decrease in prosocial be-
havior. For instance, participants who had played a violent
video
game donated less money to a charity (Chambers & Ascione,
1987). Subsequent research (Wiegman & van Schie, 1998) has
shown that children with a high preference for violent video
games
showed significantly less prosocial behavior than those with a
low
preference for violent video games. In addition, participants
who
had played a violent video game were less likely to reward a
confederate of the experimenter than participants who had

played
a nonviolent game (Ballard & Lineberger, 1999). Participants in
a
violent video game condition were also less likely to cooperate
than participants in a nonviolent control condition (Sheese &
Graziano, 2005). These findings were corroborated in the meta-
analysis by Anderson and Bushman (2001): Playing violent
video
games significantly decreases prosocial behavior.
Thus, there has been accumulating evidence that exposure to
violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior
while
decreasing prosocial behavior. Surprisingly, almost no
published
studies have examined whether playing prosocial video games
can
increase prosocial behavior. As Anderson et al. (2004) put it, “a
set
of questions concerns possible positive effects of games
designed
to promote prosocial behaviors. . . . Virtually no research exists
on
this topic” (p. 244). The aim of the present research was to
address
whether playing video games not only affects social behaviors
negatively (as previous research has shown) but may do so posi-
tively as well. More concretely, we tested the hypothesis that
exposure to prosocial video games promotes prosocial action.
The
hypothesis builds upon two theoretical models, which address
the
effects of video games on social behavior.
Theoretical Perspectives: The General Aggression
Model and the General Learning Model

Anderson and colleagues (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002)
proposed the general aggression model (GAM) to explain the
effects of violent video games on antisocial behavior.
According to
this model, aggressive contents of violent media instigate
aggres-
sive behavior through their impact on the person’s internal
states
(cognitive, affective, and arousal). These three routes are
interre-
lated and influence each other. The present internal states, in
turn,
affect how events are perceived and interpreted, as well as what
behavioral response is chosen. Thus, exposure to media violence
may evoke associations with aggressive cognitions, arousal, and
affect related to violence, which may instigate aggressive
actions.
Whereas there has been some evidence for the mediating effects
of aggressive thoughts on aggressive action, so far evidence for
the
affective and the arousal route of the GAM is missing. For in-
stance, Anderson and Dill (2000) found that participants who
had
played a violent (relative to a neutral) video game delivered
longer
noise blasts after they had been provoked. This effect was medi-
ated by differences in the accessibility of aggression-related
thoughts (see also Anderson et al., 2004). In contrast, because
the
video games were matched on arousal and aggressive affective
properties, neither arousal states nor state hostility were
differently
affected by playing the video games.

Recently, Buckley and Anderson (2006) expanded the GAM
into a general learning model (GLM) to explain how video
games
affect behavior. Like the GAM, the GLM proposes that input
variables (personal and situational) affect a person’s internal
states
(cognition, affect, and arousal) that guide the person’s
responses.
Most importantly for the present investigation, the GLM
proposes
that the kind of associations that are activated by a video game
depends on the content of the game played. As pointed out by
Buckley and Anderson (2006), “playing a prosocial game can
increase many forms of nonviolent outcome variables, such as
the
accessibility of prosocial thoughts” (p. 371), which may
promote
prosocial action.
However, whereas the predictive validity of the GAM for the
effects of playing violent video games on aggressive tendencies
is
well documented, evidence for the predictive validity of the
GLM
for the effects of playing prosocial games on prosocial
tendencies
has been sparse. In the present research, we examined the
hypoth-
esis that playing a prosocial (relative to a neutral) video game
promotes prosocial action. Because the effects of violent video
games on aggression seem to operate mainly through the
cognitive
route of the GAM (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson & Dill,
2000), we anticipated that exposure to a prosocial (relative to a
neutral) video game would activate the accessibility of

prosocial
thoughts, which then would instigate prosocial behavior.
However,
we also controlled for the affective and the arousal route of the
GLM. Before we present this research, some evidence for the
possibility that prosocial media might increase prosocial
behavior
is briefly reviewed in the following.
Positive Effects of Exposure to Media on Social
Behavior
Recent research (Greitemeyer, 2009a, 2009b) revealed that ex-
posure to prosocial songs is related to prosocial tendencies: Lis-
tening to music with prosocial (relative to neutral) lyrics
increased
the accessibility of prosocial thoughts, empathy, and prosocial
behavior. Similarly, there is evidence that television with
prosocial
content fosters prosocial behavior. For instance, in research by
Sprafkin, Liebert, and Poulos (1975), children were exposed to
films about the dog Lassie. In a prosocial condition, Lassie
saved
her puppies by barking for help. In the control condition, Lassie
exhibited no prosocial behavior. Children in the prosocial
condi-
tion were then more likely to help a puppy in need of help. This
finding was corroborated by an early meta-analysis (Hearold,
1986): People who watched prosocial television content
behaved
more positively and held more positive attitudes. This analysis
212 GREITEMEYER AND OSSWALD

even revealed that the effects of television with prosocial
content
on prosocial behavior were stronger and more enduring than the
effects of television with antisocial content on antisocial
behavior.
Although a more recent meta-analysis by Mares and Woodard
(2005) suggested that the effects of prosocial and antisocial
tele-
vision on social behavior are similarly strong (see also Paik &
Comstock, 1994), one can conclude that television exposure
may
not only promote antisocial behavior but may also lead to
prosocial
behavior. As Mares and Woodard (2005) put it, “it is as easy to
persuade viewers to be pleasant as it is to persuade them to be
violent” (p. 313).
Compared to television, video games may have an even greater
impact on social behavior. As suggested by Anderson and Dill
(2000), the effects of violent video games (relative to television
shows or movies) on antisocial behavior should be stronger as a
result of the player’s identification with the characters in the
game,
as a result of the addictive nature of video games, and because
video games allow people to actively participate instead of just
passively watching. Furthermore, the longitudinal study of
Ander-
son et al. (2007) suggested that video game effects on
aggression
are stronger than television and movie effects. Video games
offer
excellent conditions for learning to occur: They simultaneously
expose the player to modeling, rehearsal, and reinforcement of
the
social behavior that is involved in the game’s theme (Buckley &
Anderson, 2006).

Thus, there are good reasons to assume that playing video
games with prosocial content may foster prosocial behavior. So
far, however, empirical evidence for this hypothesis has been
relatively sparse. In one study (Chambers & Ascione, 1987),
children played a video game with either prosocial or aggres-
sive content. In a control condition, no video game was played.
Children who had played the aggressive video game donated
significantly less than children who had played the prosocial
video game. In contrast, relative to the control condition, play-
ing the prosocial video game had no effect on donating. How-
ever, according to the authors of the study, this finding could
have been due to the particular prosocial video game used: It
involved prosocial acts only to a small extent (it mainly in-
volved escaping danger). Thus, and because no manipulation
check has been reported, it is unclear whether the prosocial
video game employed was truly prosocial. Recently, Gentile
and colleagues (2009) tested and found support for the hypoth-
esis that playing prosocial (relative to neutral) video games is
related to prosocial behavior. However, although these results
are encouraging, assessed prosocial tendencies either relied on
participants’ self-report or were targeted toward a hypothetical
partner. Moreover, Gentile and colleagues did not address the
psychological mechanism by which playing prosocial video
games increases prosocial behavior. To address these limita-
tions, the present research (a) employed video games that
clearly differ in the extent to which other game characters are
supported, (b) assessed actual behavior toward real persons, and
(c) aimed to clarify why playing prosocial video games in-
creases prosocial behavior.
Overview of the Present Research
In four experiments, the effects of playing a prosocial video
game on prosocial tendencies were examined. To this end,
partic-

ipants played either a prosocial or a neutral video game (Experi-
ment 1 also included an aggressive video game). A pilot study
addressed the affective and arousal properties of the video
games
used in the main experiments. In Experiments 1–4, different
measures of helping were assessed. In addition, Experiment 4
tested the hypothesis that the effect of the type of video game
on
prosocial behavior is mediated by the cognitive route of the
GLM.
More specifically, we expected that playing a prosocial (relative
to
a neutral) video game would increase the accessibility of
prosocial
thoughts, which in turn would foster helping behavior. In all
experiments, participants were tested individually. Note that
only
the short-term effects of playing prosocial video games were
examined. This point is more thoroughly discussed in the
General
Discussion.
Pilot Study
A first goal of the pilot study was to make sure that the
prosocial, neutral, and aggressive video games used in the main
experiments indeed differed in the perceived content (how
proso-
cial and how antisocial) of the game. A second goal was to
match
the video games on affective and arousal dimensions. If
affective
and arousal properties of the video games used are relatively
similar, then possible effects of the video games on prosocial
behavior cannot work through the affective and the arousal

route
of the GLM.
To these ends, 54 participants (38 women, 16 men) were ran-
domly assigned to play one of four video games. Participants
were
from the same participant pool as in the main experiments (Ger-
man students, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Ger-
many). The age of the participants ranged from 19 to 58 years
(M � 26.15). For participation, they received €3 (approximately
$4.50). Participants were told that we were choosing video
games
for use in future research and that they would be asked a variety
of
questions about their game experience. The four video games
chosen were Lemmings, City Crisis, Tetris, and Lamers. Lem-
mings and City Crisis were chosen as prosocial video games,
Tetris was chosen as a neutral video game, and Lamers was
chosen
as an aggressive video game. In Lemmings, players must guide
groups of small beings through different worlds. The goal is to
take
care of the beings and to save them by leading them to the exit.
In
City Crisis, the goal of the game is to save lives and to promote
the
security of a city. The player acts as a helicopter pilot who has
to
rescue citizens from burning houses, support the police by
chasing
burglars, and so on. In Tetris, falling geometrical figures must
be
correctly positioned (Anderson & Dill, 2000, employed Tetrix,
which closely resembles Tetris as neutral video game). Lamers
is
the aggressive version of Lemmings: All beings must be killed,

and the goal is that no one reaches the exit.
After participants played the video game for 10 min, affective
and arousal data were assessed. Positive and negative emotions
were assessed by employing the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The Per-
ceived Arousal Scale (Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995) con-
tains 31 adjectives describing feelings of arousal (e.g., aroused)
or
lack of arousal (e.g., drowsy). Lack-of-arousal items were
reverse
scored. Then, participants completed a short questionnaire about
the video game. They indicated how exciting the game was, how
frustrating the game was, how prosocial the game was, and how
213VIDEO GAMES AND PROSOCIAL TENDENCIES
antisocial the game was (adopted from Anderson & Dill, 2000).
These items were assessed using a scale from 1 (low) to 7
(high).
Finally, they indicated how many of their actions during game
play
were prosocial and antisocial, respectively. These items were
as-
sessed using a percentage scale.
Mean ratings (and standard deviations) of the games are re-
ported in Table 1. As can be seen, mood and arousal properties
of
the video games used were relatively similar. In addition,
ratings
of excitement and frustration were also relatively equal. In con-
trast, ratings of the content of the game significantly differed:
As

intended, the content of the two prosocial video games was per-
ceived as being more prosocial than the content of the neutral
video game and the aggressive video game, whereas the content
of
the aggressive video game was perceived as being more
antisocial
than the content of the neutral video game and the two prosocial
video games. Moreover, participants in the prosocial video
game
conditions reported performing more prosocial acts than partici-
pants in the neutral video game condition and participants in the
aggressive video game condition, whereas participants in the
ag-
gressive video game condition reported performing more antiso-
cial acts than participants in the neutral video game condition
and
participants in the prosocial video game conditions.
In summary, as intended, the video games used clearly differed
in the extent to which they were perceived as being prosocial
and
antisocial, respectively. At the same time, however, they
matched
on affective and arousal dimensions. Thus, effects of prosocial
video games on prosocial behavior (if there are any) cannot be
due
to the affective and the arousal route of the GLM.
Experiment 1: Spontaneous Helping After a Mishap
Experiment 1 examined the influence of a prosocial, a neutral,
and an aggressive video game on spontaneous, unrequested
assis-
tance. A frequently used measure of spontaneous prosocial
behav-
ior was adopted as the dependant variable: The experimenter

accidentally spilled some pencils on the floor, and the
participants
could help him or her to pick them up (e.g., Macrae & Johnston,
1998). We expected that participants who had played a prosocial
(relative to a neutral or aggressive) video game would be more
likely to help. In addition, we expected that the aggressive
(relative
to the neutral) video game would lower the degree of helping
behavior.
Method
Participants and design. Fifty-four students (34 women, 20
men, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany) were
randomly assigned to one of the three video game conditions
(prosocial vs. neutral vs. aggressive). The age of the
participants
ranged from 19 to 43 years (M � 21.81). For participation,
partial
course credit was given. The experiment was run by two female
and two male experimenters.
Procedure and materials. When participants arrived at the
laboratory, they were told that the aim of the study was to
examine
the enjoyment factor of classic video games. The prosocial
game
was Lemmings, the aggressive game was Lamers, and the
neutral
game was Tetris.
After a short explanation of the video game, the participant
began playing the game. After 8 min, the experimenter
explained
that the game session was over and reached for the

questionnaires the
participant was required to fill out. By reaching for the ques-
tionnaires that were positioned on the table next to the
participant,
the experimenter knocked a cup of pencils off the table and onto
the floor. The experimenter said something under her or his
breath,
paused to see whether the participant would help to pick up the
scattered pencils, and then proceeded to pick them up. Whether
the
participant stood up and helped or not was recorded. Note that
the experimenter was aware of the participant’s experimental
condition and thus could have subtly influenced the partici-
pant’s behavior. We tried to avoid these experimenter effects by
thoroughly training experimenters prior to the main experiment.
The aim of this training was to keep the experimenters’ behav-
ior the same across conditions. For instance, experimenters
were trained to pause for exactly 5 s before they picked up the
pencils themselves (see van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, & van
Knippenberg, 2004).
Then, after the pencils were picked up, participants completed
the PANAS. Participants also responded to two questions
measur-
Table 1
Mean Ratings (Standard Deviations in Parentheses) of
Experienced Affect and Arousal and Video Game Ratings as a
Function of
Type of Video Game (Pilot Study)
Game rating
Video game
Fa �2

Lemmings
(prosocial)
City Crisis
(prosocial)
Tetris
(neutral)
Lamers
(aggressive)
Positive affect 2.76 (0.59) 2.76 (0.67) 2.64 (0.52) 2.42 (0.52)
1.10 .06
Negative affect 1.37 (0.47) 1.25 (0.24) 1.30 (0.39) 1.45 (0.50)
0.58 .03
Arousal 3.50 (0.53) 3.51 (0.69) 3.67 (0.56) 3.71 (0.42) 0.49 .03
Exciting 3.31 (1.32) 3.00 (1.68) 3.07 (1.54) 2.64 (1.50) 0.45 .03
Frustrating 1.92 (1.26) 2.77 (1.54) 2.21 (1.85) 2.14 (1.41) 0.72
.04
Prosocial 4.75 (1.82) 5.15 (1.52) 1.93 (1.14) 1.07 (0.47) 32.02�
.66
Antisocial 1.67 (0.98) 2.15 (1.14) 1.00 (0.00) 5.36 (1.14)
58.21� .78
Prosocial acts 68.30 (31.00) 72.30 (29.80) 6.40 (13.40) 3.10
(8.50) 36.73� .70
Antisocial acts 19.20 (23.10) 6.20 (13.90) 1.40 (5.30) 92.90
(12.70) 115.74� .88
a df � 3, 50.
� p � .001.

ing their liking of the video game on a 7-point Likert-type scale
(0 � not at all, 6 � absolutely). These two items were highly
correlated and were thus collapsed into one liking scale (� �
.86).
Finally, participants answered demographic questions, were
thanked, were probed for suspicion, and were thoroughly de-
briefed. In debriefing, none of the participants indicated any
sus-
picion of a relationship between playing the video game and the
spilling of the pencils. In addition, none of the participants sus-
pected playing the video game to have influenced the decision
to
help pick up the pencils.
Results and Discussion
As expected, participants who had played a prosocial video
game were more likely to pick up the pencils than were those
who
had played a neutral or an aggressive video game, �2(2, N �
54) �
6.51, p � .05, w � .35 (medium effect size; Cohen, 1988). Of
the
18 participants who had played the prosocial game, 12 helped to
pick up the pencils. Of the 18 participants who had played the
neutral game, 6 helped. Of the 18 participants who had played
the aggressive game, 5 helped. That is, 67% of the participants
in the prosocial video game condition helped, whereas 33% in
the
neutral video game condition and 28% in the aggressive video
game condition did so. In other words, most participants in the
prosocial video game condition helped, whereas most
participants
in the other conditions failed to do so.
No significant effects were found for mood, either on the pos-

itive affect scale (prosocial: M � 2.54, SD � 0.66; neutral: M �
2.73, SD � 0.61; aggressive: M � 2.52, SD � 0.59), F(2, 51) �
0.64, p � .53, �2 � .02, or on the negative affect scale
(prosocial:
M � 1.19, SD � 0.30; neutral: M � 1.40, SD � 0.45;
aggressive:
M � 1.53, SD � 0.57), F(2, 51) � 2.74, p � .09, �2 � .08.
Participants liked the aggressive game (M � 2.75, SD � 1.32)
less
than the prosocial (M � 4.00, SD � 1.21) and the neutral games
(M � 4.06, SD � 1.26), F(2, 51) � 6.14, p � .01, �2 � .19.
This
finding may account for the decreased likelihood of receiving
help
in the aggressive video game condition (relative to the prosocial
game condition). However, because liking did not differ
between
the prosocial and the neutral game conditions, it cannot account
for
the increased likelihood of receiving help in the prosocial video
game condition relative to the neutral game condition. In
addition,
liking was not significantly associated with picking up the
pencils,
r(54) � .01, p � .97. Finally, when we controlled for positive
and
negative mood, liking of the video game, participant sex, sex of
experimenter, and the interaction of the latter two, type of video
game still significantly predicted helping behavior (� � 1.61,
SE � 0.73, Wald � 4.84, p � .05).
In summary, these results offer an initial confirmation of our
assumption that prosocial video games may promote prosocial
behavior. Of particular significance is the fact that the
participants
in the prosocial game condition did help more not only in com-

parison to the participants in the aggressive condition but also
in
comparison to the participants who played the neutral game.
Un-
expectedly, participants in the aggressive condition were almost
equally likely to help as participants in the neutral condition.
Prior
research has shown that exposure to violent (relative to neutral)
video games decreases prosocial behavior (Anderson &
Bushman,
2001). Note, however, that participants in the present study
played
the video games for only 8 min, whereas most previous experi-
mental video game studies used considerably longer exposure
times. Thus, it is conceivable that longer exposure to the video
games would have yielded significant differences among the
neu-
tral and the aggressive video game condition.
Experiment 2: Assistance in Further Studies
As noted above, experimenters in Experiment 1 were aware of
the participants’ experimental condition, and thus, they might
have
subtly influenced the participants’ responses. Therefore, in
Exper-
iment 2, the experimenter who assessed the dependent measure
was unaware of the participants’ experimental condition. In
addi-
tion, a different measure of requested helping was assessed:
After
participants thought the study was over, they were asked if they
were willing to assist in further studies and how much time they
would devote. This measure was modified from Nelson and
Norton

(2005, Study 2). We expected that participants in the prosocial
video game condition would be more willing to take part in
further
experiments and would devote more time than participants in
the
neutral video game condition.
In Experiment 2 (and the following experiments), we did not
utilize an aggressive video game condition. Experiment 1
demon-
strated that the prosocial video game led to more helping than
the
aggressive video game. Because aggressive (relative to neutral)
video games usually lead to a decrease in prosocial behavior
(for
a review, see Anderson & Bushman, 2001), comparing the
effects
of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior with those of
neutral video games is the more conservative test.
Method
Participants and design. Forty students (20 women, 20 men,
Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany) ages 18 to
56
years (M � 26.28) were randomly assigned to one of the two
video
game conditions (prosocial game vs. neutral game). They
received
partial course credit for participation.
Procedure and materials. The procedure and materials were
similar to Experiment 1. The same prosocial and neutral video
games were employed (Lemmings and Tetris). After participants
played for 10 min, the experimenter stopped the game and
handed

the participants a short questionnaire that included demographic
questions and the two items of the liking scale (� � .94). Then,
participants were told that the experiment was over. At this
time,
the experimenter introduced a confederate who allegedly needed
participants for her master’s thesis. The confederate, who was
unaware of the participants’ experimental condition, asked the
participants to indicate whether they would be willing to take
part
in further experiments. For these experiments, however, no
com-
pensation would be provided. Participants indicated if they
would
be willing to take part (yes or no) and how much time (in
minutes)
they could devote. Finally, participants were probed for
suspicion,
debriefed, and thanked. None of the participants indicated any
relation between playing the video game and willingness to take
part in further studies.
Replicating Experiment 1, playing a prosocial (relative to a
neutral) video game fostered prosocial behavior: All 20 partici-
pants who played Lemmings were willing to assist in further
studies, whereas 13 out of 20 participants who played Tetris
offered their further assistance, �2(1, N � 40) � 8.43, p � .01,
w � .46 (medium effect size; Cohen, 1988). That is, 100% of
the
prosocial video game condition helped, whereas 68% in the

neutral
video game condition did so. In addition, participants who
played
Lemmings were willing to devote more time (M � 33.06, SD �
27.34) than participants who played Tetris (M � 14.74, SD �
16.20), t(35) � 2.50, p � .05, Cohen’s d � .82. (Some
participants
did not respond to this item. When these participants were
treated
as if they were not willing to further assist, the effect of type of
video game on prosocial behavior was very similar.)
As in Experiment 1, no difference on the liking scale for the
prosocial and the neutral games emerged, t(38) � 0.66, p � .51,
Cohen’s d � .21: Liking of Lemmings (M � 3.28, SD � 1.39)
was
similar to liking of Tetris (M � 2.90, SD � 2.11). Furthermore,
when we controlled for liking of the video game and participant
sex, the effect of type of video game on willingness to assist in
further experiments in minutes remained significant (� � .36, p
�
.05). Similar findings were obtained when we used the dichoto-
mous variable.
Experiment 3: Helping a Harassed Woman
A major limitation of Experiments 1–2 was that we used only
one prosocial video game. Thus, our findings may have been
due
to specific features of the particular game used and are not gen-
eralizable to other prosocial video games. Furthermore, the re-
quested prosocial behaviors in Experiments 1–2 were relatively
simple, with only a few action alternatives (picking up a pencil
or
not, being willing to assist in further studies or not), and did not
involve severe negative consequences. Previous research (e.g.,

Greitemeyer, Fischer, Kastenmüller, & Frey, 2006; Weyant,
1978)
has shown that the decision to help or not is affected differently
for low- and high-cost behaviors. For instance, the number of
bystanders affected helping with low potential costs for the
help-giver but did not affect helping with high potential costs
(Fischer, Greitemeyer, Pollozek, & Frey, 2006). Possibly,
prosocial video games promote relatively simple low-cost
prosocial behavior (as Experiments 1–2 suggest) but do not
affect high-cost helping activities. To test this notion, in Ex-
periment 3, participants played a different prosocial game, and
a complex prosocial behavior with high potential costs for the
help-giver was requested. As in Experiment 2, we made sure
that the experimenter who recorded the dependent measure was
masked to the participant’s experimental condition. As an ad-
ditional refinement, a manipulation check was included. This
was done (a) to make sure that the video games differed in the
extent to which they were perceived as being prosocial and (b)
to test whether perceived content would mediate the effect of
type of video game on helping behavior. If prosocial content
indeed is what distinguishes the video games used, this is
exactly what should occur (Bushman & Anderson, 2002).
Method
Participants and design. Thirty-six students (13 women, 23
men, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany) were
randomly assigned to one of the two video game conditions
(prosocial vs. neutral video game). For participation, they
received
€4 (approximately $6.00). Ages ranged from 19 to 43 years (M
�
23.64).
Procedure and materials. Participants arrived at the labora-

tory, where two female experimenters were waiting for them.
Tetris was used as the neutral video game; the prosocial video
game was City Crisis. One of the experimenters began the game,
while the other experimenter was not aware of the participant’s
experimental condition. After participants played the video
games for 8 min, the experimenter who started the game left the
room and informed a male confederate that he should enter the
laboratory in another 2 min. The confederate was also masked
to the experimental condition. He was instructed to play the role
of a lonesome ex-boyfriend who does not want to accept that his
girlfriend left him and who harasses his ex-girlfriend. When the
confederate entered the laboratory room, he completely ignored
the participant and approached the female experimenter with
the words “Ah, there you are! I was looking for you in the
whole building! Why do you ignore me like that? Why do you
do that to me? Now you have to talk to me!” The confederate
talked loudly, then shouted and kicked a trash can, and in the
end, he pulled the arm of the female experimenter to force her
to leave the room with him. The female experimenter was
instructed to react reservedly and passively. She always re-
peated the following sentences with a low voice: “Shush, be
quiet please. I have to work in here, I cannot talk to you. You
are disturbing the experiment. Please do not be so loud.”
As a measure of prosocial behavior, whether the participant
intervened or not was recorded. This was done by the
experimenter
and the confederate. There was perfect agreement. The
minimum
criterion was that the participant said something intended to
stop
the ex-boyfriend, either to the female experimenter (e.g., asking
if
she needed help or felt harassed) or to the male confederate
(e.g.,
saying that he should leave her alone). If the participant inter-

vened, the confederate was instructed to stop and to leave the
laboratory. If the participant did not intervene, the second
experimenter entered the room after 2 min, when the confed-
erate started pulling the female experimenter’s arm. In a loud
voice, she said to the confederate, “You again! Get lost or I will
call someone to kick you out!” After the confederate left, the
harassed experimenter apologized for the disturbance and asked
the participant to go on with the experiment. The participant
played the video game for another minute and filled out a short
questionnaire afterward. The questionnaire included the PA-
NAS, the two items of the liking scale (� � .83), and two
manipulation-check questions (“How prosocial was the content
of the video game?” and “How courageous was the content of
the video game?”) to answer on a 7-point scale (0 � not at all,
6 � absolutely). These were highly correlated (r � .68) and
thus combined into a prosocial index (� � .80). Because
experience of the harassment situation could have been a strain
for the participants, the debriefing was thorough and detailed to
make sure that participants did not feel any emotional harm. In
debriefing, none of the participants revealed suspicion about
any relatedness between playing the video game and the ha-
rassment situation. Moreover, none of them indicated any belief
that the harassed situation was not real.
The manipulation check was successful: The perceived content
of the prosocial game received a higher score on the prosocial
index (M � 3.91, SD � 1.45) than the perceived content of the
neutral game (prosocial: M � 1.62, SD � 1.43), t(32) � 4.64, p
�
.001, Cohen’s d � 1.59.

Most importantly, as in Experiments 1–2, playing a prosocial
video game fostered helping behavior. Ten out of 18
participants
who played City Crisis intervened, whereas 4 out of 18
participants
who played Tetris did so, �2(1, N � 36) � 4.21, p � .05, w �
.34
(medium effect size; Cohen, 1988). That is, 56% of the
participants
in the prosocial video game condition helped, whereas 22% in
the
neutral video game condition did so.
No difference on the liking scale for the prosocial and the
neutral
games emerged, t(34) � 0.53, p � .60, Cohen’s d � .18: The
degree
of liking of City Crisis (M � 2.53, SD � 1.51) was similar to
that of
Tetris (M � 2.78, SD � 1.33). There were also no significant
effects
on mood, either on the positive (prosocial: M � 2.45, SD �
0.77;
neutral: M � 2.58, SD � 0.66), t(34) � 0.54, p � .60, Cohen’s
d �
.18, or on the negative affect scale (prosocial: M � 1.53, SD �
0.59;
neutral: M � 1.67, SD � 0.61), t(34) � 0.71, p � .49, Cohen’s
d �
.23. Finally, when we controlled for positive and negative
mood,
liking of the game, and participant sex, the effect of type of
video
game on helping remained significant (� � 1.89, SE � 0.89,
Wald �

4.51, p � .05).
In contrast, when the prosocial index was used as a covariate,
the effect of type of video game on helping disappeared (� �
0.80, SE � 0.94, Wald � 0.72, p � .40).1 Thus, one can have
confidence that, indeed, the extent to which the video games are
prosocial in content (and not any other game features) accounts
for the effect of type of video game on helping behavior.
The results of this experiment replicate and expand upon
Experi-
ments 1–2. Playing a prosocial video game not only fostered
low-cost
prosocial behavior (as Experiments 1–2 revealed) but also
fostered
high-cost prosocial behavior. Research has shown that prosocial
be-
havior is less likely when the consequences are higher (Piliavin,
Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark, 1981). In this regard, Schwartz and
Howard (1981) argued that people anticipate (more or less con-
sciously) positive and negative consequences and integrate this
weighing into their decision to help or not. If the negative
conse-
quences clearly surmount the positive consequences, helping is
rather
unlikely. Participants in this experiment had to anticipate severe
negative consequences if they decided to intervene. They might
have
been insulted or even attacked by the (allegedly) furious ex-
boyfriend.
Accordingly, only about 1 out of 5 participants who had played
a
neutral video game intervened. In stark contrast, almost 3 out of
5
participants who had played a prosocial video game intervened.
Thus,

it seems that playing a prosocial video game could instigate
prosocial
behavior even when the participant feared severe negative
conse-
quences. Note, however, that it is conceivable that some
participants
who intervened did not do so to benefit the harassed
experimenter but
rather to harm the offender. To disentangle these different
motives,
future research is needed.
To summarize Experiments 1–3, we feel it safe to conclude that
playing a prosocial (relative to a neutral) video game fosters
prosocial
behavior. In Experiment 1, participants who had played a
prosocial
video game were twice as likely to help. Experiment 2 showed
that
participants who had played a prosocial game would have
devoted
more than twice the time to assist in further experiments.
Finally,
Experiment 3 demonstrated that participants who had played a
proso-
cial video game were almost three times as likely to intervene.
Experiment 4: Accessibility of Prosocial Thoughts as a
Mediating Mechanism
In Experiment 4, we sought to examine why playing prosocial
video games fosters prosocial behavior. Past research into the
effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior has
demon-
strated that these effects operate primarily through the cognitive

route of the GAM: Exposure to violent media increases the
acces-
sibility of aggressive thoughts (e.g., Bushman, 1998; Bushman
&
Anderson, 2002; Bushman & Geen, 1990), which in turn
instigates
aggressive behavior (Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson & Dill,
2000). Likewise, Experiment 4 tested the idea that playing a
prosocial video game primes prosocial knowledge structures,
which in turn increase prosocial behavior.
To measure accessibility of prosocial constructs, we adopted a
procedure used by Bushman and Geen (1990). In their research,
participants watched videotapes that varied in violent content
and
were then asked to list those ideas that they were thinking about
while watching the videotapes. As expected, participants who
had
been exposed to televised violence formed more aggressive
thoughts. Building upon this finding, the mediating qualities of
violent cognitions on aggressive behavior were demonstrated in
several studies (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson & Dill,
2000).
Experiment 4 also addressed a limitation of Experiment 1 in
which the experimenter was aware of the participant’s
experimen-
tal condition and thus could have subtly influenced the partici-
pant’s behavior. Thus, Experiment 4 assessed the same
dependent
measure as in Experiment 1 (i.e., picking up spilled pencils);
however, the experimenter who spilled the pencils and recorded
the number of pencils picked up was not aware of the
participant’s
experimental condition.

Method
Participants and design. Thirty-seven students (27 women,
10 men, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany)
were randomly assigned to one of the two video game
conditions
(prosocial vs. neutral). The age of the participants ranged from
19
to 30 years (M � 21.78). For participation, they received partial
course credit.
Procedure and materials. When participants arrived at the
laboratory, they were greeted by two experimenters. They were
told by the first experimenter that the aim of the study was to
examine the enjoyment factor of classic video games. The
proso-
cial video game was Lemmings, and the neutral video game was
Tetris. After a short explanation of the video game, participants
began playing the games (the second experimenter was waiting
in
an adjoining room and was unaware of the video game the
partic-
ipant played). After 10 min, the first experimenter explained
that
1 An unpublished study (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2008) using
Lem-
mings as the prosocial video game revealed that the effect of
type of video
game on prosocial behavior also disappears when controlling for
perceived
content of the video game.

the game session was over. Participants were then asked to
write
down all ideas that they were thinking about while playing the
video game (Bushman & Geen, 1990). Three min were allowed
for
this procedure. In the meantime, the first experimenter said that
she had to leave to look after another participant. While the
participants filled out the thought questionnaire, the second
exper-
imenter arrived. After participants had finished the thought
task,
the second experimenter reached for the next questionnaires the
participants were asked to fill out. As in Experiment 1, the
exper-
imenter knocked a cup of pencils off the table and onto the
floor.
Whether the participants stood up and helped or not and how
many
pencils they picked up were recorded. After the pencils were
picked up, the participants completed the PANAS and
responded
to the two questions of the liking scale (� � .97). Furthermore,
they indicated how difficult they perceived the game to be (on a
7-point scale, 0 � not at all, 6 � absolutely). Finally,
participants
answered demographic questions, were thanked, were probed for
suspicion, and were thoroughly debriefed. In debriefing, none of
the participants indicated any suspicion of a relationship
between
playing the video game and the spilling of the pencils. In
addition,
none of the participants indicated that their thoughts after
playing
the video game had affected their decision to help pick up the
pencils.

Accessibility of prosocial thoughts. Two independent raters
who were masked to the experimental condition and to the hy-
pothesis of the study rated all written thoughts reported by the
participants. Each thought was coded: (a) number of prosocial
thoughts and (b) number of neutral thoughts (none of the
partici-
pants listed any aggressive thoughts). Examples of prosocial
thoughts included “I thought about how to save as many Lem-
mings as possible” (participant in the prosocial condition) and
“I
should do more voluntary tasks in my dormitory” (participant in
the neutral condition). Examples of neutral thoughts included “I
thought that I liked how the game was animated” (participant in
the prosocial condition) and “It was important to me not to
make
any mistakes” (participant in the neutral condition). Interrater
agreement was high (Cohen’s � � .80). Disagreements were
resolved through discussion.
As expected, participants who had played the prosocial video
game reported more prosocial thoughts (M � 1.26, SD � 1.15)
than participants in the neutral condition (M � 0.06, SD �
0.24),
t(35) � 4.38, p � .001, d � 1.44. In contrast, there were no
significant differences with regard to the number of reported
neutral thoughts (prosocial condition: M � 3.26, SD � 1.73;
neutral condition: M � 3.89, SD � 1.57), t(35) � 1.15, p � .26,
d � 0.38.
Picking up the pencils. As in Experiment 1, participants who
had played a prosocial video game were more likely to pick up
the
pencils than were those who had played a neutral video game,

�2(2, N � 37) � 6.31, p � .05, w � .41 (medium effect size;
Cohen, 1988): Sixty-three percent of the participants in the
proso-
cial video game condition helped to pick up the pencils,
whereas
only 22% of those in the neutral video game condition did so.
Furthermore, participants in the prosocial condition picked up
more pencils (M � 5.11, SD � 5.09) than participants who had
played a neutral video game (M � 1.44, SD � 2.87), t(35) �
2.67,
p � .05, Cohen’s d � .89. Number of picked-up pencils was
significantly related to the number of reported prosocial
thoughts,
r(37) � .56, p � .001, but not to the number of reported neutral
thoughts, r(37) � �.11, p � .53.
The degree of liking of Lemmings (M � 3.18, SD � 1.91) was
relatively similar to that of Tetris (M � 4.22, SD � 1.70), t(35)
�
1.74, p � .09, Cohen’s d � .57. The two games were also seen
as
equally difficult (Lemmings: M � 1.00, SD � 1.49; Tetris: M �
1.39, SD �1.61), t(35) � 0.76, p � .45, Cohen’s d � .25.
Furthermore, there were no significant effects on mood, either
on
the positive (prosocial: M � 2.52, SD � 0.90; neutral: M �
2.56,
SD � 0.57), t(35) � 0.19, p � .86, Cohen’s d � .05, or on the
negative affect scale (prosocial: M � 1.30, SD � 0.36; neutral:
M � 1.24, SD � 0.29), t(35) � 0.59, p � .58, Cohen’s d � .18.
When we controlled for positive and negative mood, liking of
the
video game, difficulty of the video game, and participant sex,
the
effect of type of video game on helping remained significant (�

�
.39, p � .05). Similar findings were obtained when we used the
dichotomous variable.
Mediational analysis. Next, we tested the hypothesis that the
accessibility of prosocial thoughts (number of reported
prosocial
thoughts) mediates the effect of playing a prosocial (relative to
a
neutral) video game on helping behavior (number of pencils
picked up). In fact, when type of video game and accessibility
of
prosocial thoughts were entered simultaneously, the regression
equation accounted for substantial variance in helping behavior,
R2 � .33, F(2, 34) � 8.23, p � .01. Moreover, accessibility of
prosocial thoughts received a significant regression weight,
t(34) � 2.81, � � .49, p � .01, whereas type of video game did
not, t(34) � 0.68, � � .12, p � .50. This mediation pattern is
shown in Figure 1. To test whether the indirect effect of type of
game on helping behavior was due to the accessibility of
prosocial
thoughts, we used a bootstrapping analysis (with 1,000
iterations)
recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2004) for small samples.
This analysis revealed that the indirect effect was significantly
different from zero ( p � .05, 95% confidence interval [0.40,
4.80]). Similar results were obtained for the dichotomous
helping
variable.
To summarize, Experiment 4 had two major aims. First, it
addressed a shortcoming of Experiment 1 where the
experimenter
who elicited and recorded the dependent measure was aware of
the
participant’s experimental condition. Thus, because the effect of

playing a prosocial (relative to a neutral) video game on helping
behavior was reliable (and similar to the effect in Experiment
1),
Experiment 4 further provides evidence that it is unlikely that
our
findings were due to experimenter effects. Second and more im-
portant, Experiment 4 illuminated a mediating mechanism. Fol-
Type of video game Number of picked up pencils
β = .60 β = .49
β = .41
β* = .12
Number of reported
prosocial thoughts
Figure 1. Mediation of the effect of type of video game on
number of
picked-up pencils by number of reported prosocial thoughts.
lowing previous research (Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson &
Dill,
2000) revealing that the effects of violent media on aggressive
behavior are mediated by differences in the accessibility of
aggressive thoughts, Experiment 4 shows that the activation of
prosocial thoughts elicits prosocial behavior. Thus, it appears
that—as for the negative effects of violent video games on
aggressive behavior—the effect of playing prosocial video
games on prosocial behavior works primarily through the cog-
nitive route of the GLM.

General Discussion
The present research shows that playing video games with
prosocial content is positively related to increases in different
kinds of prosocial behavior. Participants who had played a
proso-
cial video game were more likely to help the experimenter pick
up
spilled pencils (Experiments 1 and 4), were more willing to
assist
in further experiments (Experiment 2), and were more likely to
help a harassed experimenter (Experiment 3). By using these
different types of prosocial behavior, we verified that playing
prosocial video games increases unrequested and requested
help-
ing as well as low-cost and high-cost helping. It should be also
noted that these effects were recorded even though participants
played the video games for a relatively brief time period (8–10
min). Previous research has cogently shown that exposure to
violent video games increases aggressive behavior and
decreases
prosocial behavior (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2001). The
present
research complements these findings by showing that playing
video games could also positively affect social behavior.
We also sought to shed some light on the underlying mecha-
nisms. According to the GLM, the effects of exposure to
prosocial
video games on prosocial behavior may materialize by affecting
the player’s internal state (consisting of cognitive, affective,
and
arousal variables). In our pilot study, we examined the affective
and the arousal properties of the video games used. Because the
prosocial and the neutral video games were relatively similar in

these respects, the effect of type of video game on prosocial
behavior cannot have been due to the affective and the arousal
route of the GLM. In contrast, Experiment 4 offered some evi-
dence for the mediating properties of the cognitive route:
Partici-
pants who had played the prosocial (relative to the neutral)
game
displayed more prosocial thoughts, which in turn instigated
proso-
cial behavior. Admittedly, other measures might also account
for
this finding. For instance, in our studies, we controlled for
global
positive and negative affect but not for specific prosocial
feelings.
An unpublished study (Osswald & Greitemeyer, 2008) revealed
that the effect of type of video game on helping behavior was
not
mediated by differences in experienced empathy. Thus, although
we cannot definitely rule out that not only the cognitive but also
the affective route of the GLM can account for the effects of
prosocial video games on prosocial behavior, we think it rather
unlikely.
Note also that our findings closely resemble studies of the
effects of playing or watching violent media on aggressive
behav-
ior. For instance, Anderson and Dill (2000) found that the effect
of
playing violent video games on aggressive behavior was
mediated
by differences in accessibility of aggression-related thoughts
(whereas aggressive affect could not account for this effect).
Likewise, whereas accessibility of prosocial thoughts instigated
prosocial action in Experiment 4 of the present research, in

none of
our experiments could affective measures account for the effect
of
playing a prosocial video game on prosocial behavior. In sum, it
appears that the effect of playing video games on social
behavior
works primarily through the cognitive route, and this can be
applied to negative effects of violent video games as well as to
positive effects of prosocial video games.
On a more general level, our results (in tandem with previous
research into the effects of violent video games on aggressive
thoughts and behavior) appear to suggest that the effects of
proso-
cial and antisocial video games on prosocial and antisocial
behav-
ior can be incorporated within the same theoretical system. The
GLM could provide such a useful framework for explaining the
effects of video games on interpersonal behavior. According to
this
model, “video games teach whatever concepts are repeatedly re-
hearsed within them” (Buckley & Anderson, 2006, p. 366).
What
concepts are being rehearsed depends on the content of the
video
game: The content of the video games played affects the
player’s
internal state, and these internal states in turn affect whether
someone responds prosocially or antisocially. For example,
whereas playing a prosocial video game increases the
accessibility
of prosocial cognitions that instigate prosocial behavior,
playing an
antisocial video game increases the accessibility of antisocial
cognitions that instigates antisocial behavior. We believe that
bringing the effects of video games on helping and aggression

together within a common theoretical framework is definitely a
valuable endeavor. The present research that tested (and sup-
ported) some of the predictions of the GLM is a promising
starting
point. Nevertheless, future research that more thoroughly ad-
dresses the whole model (such as by including personality vari-
ables) is definitely needed. This leads us to the next issue we
want
to consider here, namely, limitations of the present research and
future research.
Limitations and Future Research
As noted above, we assessed only the short-term effects of
playing prosocial video games. Meta-analyzing more than 400
studies on the effects of media violence on aggressive and
proso-
cial behavior, Bushman and Huesmann (2006) argued that media
effects on short-term social behavior are mostly due to the
priming
of existing well-encoded cognitions. In contrast, long-term
effects
of media exposure on social behavior seem to depend more on
the
learning of scripts, beliefs, and schemas. Note that the present
research examined the effects of playing prosocial video games
on
immediate, subsequent behavior and thus may have been
affected
by priming. Long-term effects of playing prosocial video games
on
prosocial behavior (if there are any) might be mediated by other
constructs.
Repeated exposure to media may affect long-term behavior
(Huesmann & Miller, 1994). The meta-analysis conducted by

Bushman and Huesmann (2006) showed indeed significant long-
term effects of exposure to violent media on aggressive
behavior;
however, short-term effects were even stronger. Thus,
additional
research on the long-term effects of prosocial video games on
prosocial behavior is clearly needed. Longitudinal studies
exam-
ining whether repeated exposure to prosocial video games may
produce a helping personality would be informative in this
regard.
It would also be interesting to vary testing lag between exper-
imental exposure and time of testing. However, the correlation
between testing lag and effect size was not significant in the
meta-analysis of the positive effects of television (Mares &
Woodard, 2005).
In none of the present studies did participant gender signifi-
cantly affect our main findings: both female and male
participants
alike were positively affected by playing a prosocial video game
to
an equal degree. Similarly, exposure to prosocial television
content
increased prosocial behavior in both female and male
participants
(Mares & Woodard, 2005), whereas violent video games led to
increased aggression in both genders (Anderson & Bushman,
2001). Thus, it appears that the gender of participants does not
influence the effects of media exposure on social behavior. In
contrast, effects of violent media on aggression are moderated

by
age: Whereas the short-term effects of exposure to violent
media
are greater for adults than for children, the long-term effects are
greater for children than for adults (Bushman & Huesmann,
2006).
As noted above, whereas short-term effects of exposure are
mostly
due to priming of existing well-encoded cognitions, long-term
effects require learning of scripts, beliefs, and schemas.
Because
adults are more likely to possess well-elaborated networks of
associations, they should be affected by priming to a greater
extent. Children, in contrast, are more likely to have minds that
are
modifiable and are thus more susceptible to learning. The
present
research using an adult sample suggests that the (short-term)
effects of playing a prosocial video game on prosocial behavior
may be mediated by the accessibility of prosocial constructs.
Hence, one might expect that our findings would have been less
pronounced for children. However, empirical evidence for this
speculation awaits future investigation.
Finally, exposure to violent video games increases aggression
and decreases prosocial behavior. Here, we have presented evi-
dence that exposure to prosocial video games increases
prosocial
behavior. Whether prosocial video games also decrease
aggression
is an additional question left to future research (see also Greite-
meyer & Osswald, 2009).
Practical Implications and Conclusions
Exposure to media with violent content has serious conse-

quences, such as criminal actions (Anderson & Dill, 2000) or
physical violence (Gentile et al., 2004). This has led to the sug-
gestion that children should be prevented from viewing such
content. In fact, reducing children’s exposure to media violence
leads to a reduction in aggressive tendencies (Robinson, Wilde,
Navracruz, Haydel, & Varady, 2001). Yet the media also have
the
potential to be part of the solution. As pointed out by Mares and
Woodard (2005), television with prosocial content increases
proso-
cial behavior, reduces aggression, and encourages viewers to be
more tolerant. In schools, educational video games have been
effectively used to teach a variety of skills, such as algebra and
geometry (Corbett, Koedinger, & Hadley, 2001). Likewise, as
the
present research suggests, video games with prosocial content
could be used to improve social interactions.
However, content analyses of video games revealed that 70%–
85% of video games involve some type of violence (Dietz,
1998),
and most children prefer to play violent video games (Buchman
&
Funk, 1996). Accordingly, the frequency of playing video
games is
negatively related to measures of prosocial behavior (van Schie
&
Wiegman, 1997). Hence, there is clearly a need for prosocial
video
games that are highly attractive to consumers. Convincing the
video game industry to create such games would be an
important
first step.
References

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent
video games
on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect,
physi-
ological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic
review of the
scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353–359.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression.
Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.
Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A.
J., Eubanks,
J., & Valentine, J. (2004). Violent video games: Specific effects
of
violent content on aggressive thoughts and behavior. Advances
in Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 36, 199–249.
Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E., & DeNeve, K. (1995). Hot
temperatures,
hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general
model of
affective aggression. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21,
434–448.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and
aggressive
thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772–790.
Anderson, C. A., & Ford, C. M. (1986). Affect of the game

player:
Short-term effects of highly and mildly aggressive video games.
Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 390–402.
Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007).
Violent video
game effects on children and adolescents: Theory, research, and
public
policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ballard, M. E., & Lineberger, R. (1999). Video game violence
and con-
federate gender: Effects on reward and punishment given by
college
males. Sex Roles, 41, 541–558.
Bartholow, B. D., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Effects of violent
video
games on aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychol-
ogy, 38, 283–290.
Buchman, D. D., & Funk, J. B. (1996). Video and computer
games in
the ’90s: Children’s time commitment and game preference.
Children
Today, 24, 12–16.
Buckley, K. E., & Anderson, C. A. (2006). A theoretical model
of the
effects and consequences of playing video games. In P.
Vorderer & J.
Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and
conse-
quences (pp. 363–378). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bushman, B. J. (1998). Priming effects of media violence on the
accessi-
bility of aggressive constructs in memory. Personality and
Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 24, 537–545.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games
and
hostile expectations: A test of the general aggression model.
Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679–1686.
Bushman, B. J., & Geen, R. G. (1990). Role of cognitive-
emotional
mediators and individual differences in the effects of media
violence on
aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
156–163.
Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2006). Short-term and
long-term
effects of violent media on aggression in children and adults.
Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 348–352.
Chambers, J. H., & Ascione, F. R. (1987). The effects of
prosocial and
aggressive video games on children’s donating and helping.
Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 148, 499–505.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Hadley, W. H. (2001).
Cognitive
tutors: From the research classroom to all classrooms. In P. S.
Goodman
(Ed.), Technology enhanced learning: Opportunities for change
(pp.
235–263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dietz, T. L. (1998). An examination of violence and gender role
portrayals
in video games: Implications for gender socialization and
aggressive
behavior. Sex Roles, 38, 425–442.
Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Pollozek, F., & Frey, D. (2006).
The unre-
sponsive bystander: Are bystanders more responsive in
dangerous emer-
gencies? European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 267–278.
Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem,
M., Ming,
L. K. . . . Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects of prosocial video
games on
prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational,
longitu-
dinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social
Psychology
Bulletin, 35, 752–763.
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A.
(2004). The

effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility,
aggressive
behaviors, and school performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27,
5–22.
Gentile, D. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2002). A normative study of
family media
habits. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 157–
178.
Greitemeyer, T. (2009a). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics
on prosocial
behavior: Further evidence and a mediating mechanism.
Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1500–1511.
Greitemeyer, T. (2009b). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics
on prosocial
thoughts, affect, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychol-
ogy, 45, 186–190.
Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., Kastenmüller, A., & Frey, D.
(2006). Civil
courage and helping behaviour: Differences and similarities.
European
Psychologist, 11, 90–98.
Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2008). Playing prosocial video
games
increases donations to charities. Unpublished manuscript.
University of
Sussex, Brighton, England.
Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2009). Prosocial video games
reduce

aggressive cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45,
896–900.
Hearold, S. (1986). A synthesis of 1043 effects of television on
social
behavior. In G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communication of
behavior (pp.
65–133). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Huesmann, L. R., & Miller, L. S. (1994). Long-term effects of
repeated
exposure to media violence in childhood. In L. R. Huesmann
(Ed.),
Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 153–186). New
York,
NY: Plenum Press.
Lee, K. M., & Peng, W. (2006). What do we know about social
and
psychological effects of computer games? A comprehensive
review of
the current literature. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing
video
games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 327–345).
Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Macrae, C. N., & Johnston, L. (1998). Help, I need somebody:
Automatic
action and inaction. Social Cognition, 16, 400–417.
Mares, M. L., & Woodard, E. (2005). Positive effects of
television on
children’s social interactions: A meta-analysis. Media
Psychology, 7,

301–322.
Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2005). From student to
superhero: Situa-
tional primes can shape future helping. Journal of Experimental
Social
Psychology, 41, 423–430.
Nielsen Entertainment. (2005). Active gamer report. Retrieved
from http://
www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2005/id20051122_
489515.htm
Osswald, S., & Greitemeyer, T. (2008). Prosocial video games
increase
prosocial affect. Unpublished manuscript. Ludwig-Maximilians-
University, Munich, Germany.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television
violence on
antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research,
21,
516–546.
Piliavin, J., Dovidio, J., Gaertner, S., & Clark, R. (1981).
Emergency
intervention. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS
procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.
Behavior Re-
search Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.
Robinson, T. N., Wilde, M. L., Navracruz, L. C., Haydel, K. F.,
& Varady,

A. (2001). Effects of reducing children’s television and video
game use
on aggressive behavior: A randomized controlled trial. Archives
Pedi-
atrics and Adolescent Medicine, 155, 17–23.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision-
making
model of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Serentino (Eds.),
Altruism
and helping behavior (pp. 189–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sheese, B. E., & Graziano, W. G. (2005). Deciding to defect.
The effects
of video-game violence on cooperative behavior. Psychological
Science,
16, 354–357.
Sherry, J. L. (2001). The effects of violent video games on
aggression: A
meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 27, 409–431.
Sprafkin, J. N., Liebert, R. M., & Poulos, R. W. (1975). Effects
of a
prosocial televised example on children’s helping. Journal of
Experi-
mental Child Psychology, 20, 119–126.
van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & van
Knippenberg, A.
(2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science,
15,
71–74.
van Schie, E. G., & Wiegman, O. (1997). Children and
videogames:

Leisure activities, aggression, social integration and school
performance.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1175–1194.
Walsh, D., Gentile, D., Gieske, J., Walsh, M., & Chasco, E.
(2003). Eighth
annual video game report card. Minneapolis, MN: National
Institute on
Media and the Family.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development
and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–
1070.
Weyant, J. M. (1978). Effects of mood states, costs, and
benefits on
helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,
1169–1176.
Wiegman, O., & van Schie, E. G. (1998). Video game playing
and its
relation with aggressive and prosocial behavior. British Journal
of Social
Psychology, 37, 367–378.
Woodard, E. H., IV, & Gridina, N. (2000). Media in the home
2000: The
fifth annual survey of parents and children (Survey Series No.
7).
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg Public
Policy
Center.

Received February 20, 2008
Revision received January 15, 2009
Accepted February 19, 2009 �
ANALYSIS – 30 points possible (15 points each)
The authors of the article you have selected for this assignment
used a particular research design, group of participants, and set
of study methods to investigate a research question (sometimes
referred to in scholarly articles as the “hypothesis tested”). As
you know from early assigned readings in the course textbook,
research questions can be investigated using a variety of
methods.
1. Write a succinct and thorough paragraph in the space below
either justifying or challenging the use of your selected article’s
research methods used to examine its research question.NOTE:
You must base your writing on the course textbook information
about which research methods are best suited for which types of
studies, not on personal opinion or preference, and choose just
one position here. A paragraph that both justifies and
challenges the use of an article’s research methods or that states
why one position cannot be chosen cannot not be assigned
points. Include in the body of your writing appropriately placed
and formatted source citations for both the article and the
course textbook.2. Write a succinct and thorough paragraph in
the space below describing a research method other than the one
noted in your selected article that the article author(s) could
have used to conduct the same study and explain why it would
be suitable as an alternative method.NOTE: The alternative
research method you select must be suited for the article’s study
so you will want to review the assigned course readings on the
various types of methods. Include in the body of your writing

appropriately placed and formatted source citations for both the
article and the course textbook.
CONNECTION – 50 points possible (25 points each)
1. In the space below, write a succinct and thorough paragraph
(250 words minimum)describing three concepts, theories or
principles from the course textbook that can be related the focus
of your selected article. NOTE: Research methods and
statistical analyses have already been addressed earlier in this
assignment and cannot be used as textbook concepts here.
Include in the body of your writing appropriately placed and
formatted source citations for both the article and the course
textbook.
2. One of the most interesting aspects of the field of psychology
is the application of its concepts, theories, and principles to
everyday life. In the space below, write a succinct and
thorough paragraph (250 words minimum)describing at least 3
different ways that the research conducted by your selected
article’s author(s) can impact the “real world”. Include in the
body of your writing appropriately placed and formatted source
citations for the article and the course textbook (if you use the
latter in the construction of this paragraph).
REFLECTION – 50 points possible (25 points each)
1. Although the author(s) of your selected article addressed
many aspects of its focus of study, it is inevitable that
components were not discussed that might also be interesting.
In the space below, write a succinct and thorough paragraph
(250 words minimum)explaining one aspect of your selected
article’s focus that the researchers did not mention that you
would like to know more about. Include in the body of your

writing appropriately placed and formatted source citations for
the article and the course textbook (if you use the latter in the
construction of this paragraph).
2. Combined, the Week 3 and Week 6 portions of this
assignment provided several opportunities, to identify the key
components of a published scholarly journal article, to
demonstrate knowledge of research methods use in studying
psychological phenomena, (Week 3); and second, to develop
and hone article summary and analysis skills (Week 6). With
the second opportunity in mind, in the space below, write a
succinct and thorough paragraph (250 words
minimum)describing three aspects of summarizing and
reviewing a published scholarly journal article that you now
understand that you didn’t know about before starting the
assignment. NOTE: You are reflecting on your learning
experience here, not summarizing or evaluating the selected
article. This is the only part of the assignment to be written
personal reflection style. It is expected that you would have few
or perhaps no source citations here, using them only for
portions of your reflective work that are directly based on either
your selected article or the course textbook.
===============================================
==================================
SPELLING, GRAMMAR, AND CITATIONS – 10 points
possible(Nothing to type here. This is an alert to go back and
proofread your writing and make any needed corrections before
submitting this assignment to avoid the loss of these 10
important points. Tip: Look for basic grammar errors [ex:
using “their” when you are talking about one person),
misspellings and typos, correctly spelled but incorrectly used
words that SpellCheck won’t catch, sentence fragments that

don’t state complete thoughts, run-on sentences that should be
split into smaller ones or sentences that read awkwardly or
don’t make sense when you read them aloud, etc.).
===============================================
===================================
After you have completed your work, save and attach this
document, with your name as part of the document file name, to
the Journal Article Review Assignment Part 2 Assignment page.

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSESEffects of Pros.docx

More Related Content

Similar to INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSESEffects of Pros.docx (20)

More from mariuse18nolet (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSESEffects of Pros.docx