Effect of Prosocial Video Games: Do Prosocial Video Games Promote
Prosocial Behavior of Players?
Ji Soo Lim
International Christian University, Japan
g146003e@yamata.icu.ac.jp

Abstract: As effects of popular media are studied, effects of video games are also studied. Many studies
focus on negative effects, especially of violent video games on players’ aggression. It has been shown inempirical studies that video game violence does have negative effect on players based on General
Aggression Model. It describes how video game violence can be learned and reflected on players’ actions.
Studies on prosocial video game suggest that prosocial behavior is similar to aggression. Studies on
prosocial video games use the General Learning Model, which expanded from the GAM to fit into moregeneral situations. The idea is that anything can be learned in the similar way as violence is learned.
Compared to video game violence, prosocial effect of video games is a field that is shallow in theoreticalbackground with methodologies yet to be developed. In many studies, the definitions of prosocial are notconcrete. Since the definition of prosocial behavior is not clear, it is questionable the validity of theinstruments for the assessment and the prosocial-ness of games used. In this study, it aims to make thedefinition of prosocial behavior clear to conduct a valid study on the effect of prosocial video games.

Keywords: Video Games, Prosocial Behavior, General Learning ModelVideo games are popular among young people in different countries. According to Entertainment
Software Association (ESA 2012), 49% of U.S. households own an average of 2 game consoles. As effects ofpopular media are studied, effects of video games are also studied. However, many of video game effect studies tend
to focus on negative aspects of video games such as shooting incidents and youth crimes. Negative effects, especiallystudies on effects of violent video games on players’ aggression are being conducted actively.
It has been shown in many empirical studies that video game violence does have negative effect onplayers. Many violent video game studies have adopted General Aggression Model (GAM; Anderson & Bushman2002) as their theoretical framework. It describes how video game violence can be learned and reflected on players’actions (Figure 1). There are some criticisms on GAM for its assumption that violence is cognitively learned and for
not considering nature aspect of aggression (Ferguson & Dyck 2012). However, Anderson and Bushman (2002) areaware that although GAM only focuses on the present internal state of one episode of learning, the past and thefuture are also important.
When studies on video game violence look at prosocial behavior, prosocial behavior and aggression areoften considered to be the conflicting elements. Many studies on video game violence assume and show that violencein video games increase the aggression and decrease prosocial behaviors of players. Anderson et al. (2010), in theirmeta-analytic review of violent video game effects, consider prosocial behavior and empathy as part of outcome
variables, together with aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and physiological arousal. Theyshow that video game violence decreases prosocial behavior and empathy regardless of research design, while it
increases the level of other outcome variables. In many studies, aggression and prosocial behavior are treated as
mutually exclusive outcomes of video game violence.
However, it is questionable the view of studies on video game violence on prosocial behavior. From thetheoretical perspective, studies on prosocial video game suggest that prosocial behavior is not as different fromaggression but they are rather similar. They also adopt a view that prosocial behavior can be learned from prosocial
video games. Many of studies on prosocial video games use the General Learning Model as their theoreticalframeworks (e.g., Gentile et al. 2009). Buckley and Anderson (2006) developed the General Aggression Model toexpand the model to fit into more general situations. The idea is that anything can be learned in the similar way as
violence is learned. The model indeed is effective in explaining prosocial effects of video games as well (Gentile etal., 2009). This suggests that the mechanism behind both the effect of video game violence and the effects ofprosocial video games are similar.
The history of prosocial effect studies goes back to Chambers and Ascione (1987). They set up anexperiment to look at the difference in the effects of prosocial and aggressive video games on donating and helping
behaviors of children. Since then, a number of studies similar to this have been conducted to suggest the prosocial
effects of video games (e.g., Gentile et al. 2009). However, compared to rigorously studied video game violence,
prosocial effect of video games is a field that is shallow in theoretical background and their methodologies are yet to
be developed.

Figure 1. The General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002)
In many prosocial video game studies, the definitions of prosocial are not concrete. Many researchershave misunderstanding of prosocial behavior as a unidimensional concept. It seems that the definition of prosocial
behavior adopted in many studies is the assumed commonsense interpretation of the term “helping behavior,” andoften the concept is not defined or defined only briefly (e.g. Gentile et al. 2009). However, if the definition of
prosocial behavior is not clear, it becomes questionable the validity of the instruments for the assessment. Also it
become questionable whether the study is in fact looking at prosocial video games. Therefore, it is necessary to makethe definition of prosocial behavior clear to conduct a valid study on the effect of prosocial video games.
Among many, the following three that are considered to be missing in prosocial video game studies
compared to video game violence studies need to be urgently addressed.
First, the definition of prosocial behavior is not clear. Many studies define prosocial behavior as helping
behavior. When I played a game used in Greitemeyer and Osswald (2010), I never realized that the object of thegame was to help someone. The game was about cleaning a house, but it was not clear for whom. It can be formyself. For the assessment of the effect, the experimenter drops a pencil to see if the participant picks it up for him.
Although the study brings out the desirable results, it is questionable that if this task really corresponds to helping
behavior. It may be cleaning behavior. Unless the definition is clear, it is difficult to generalize the findings, forpeople may have different interpretations.
Another problem is that there are not many studies on prosocial effects other than of games with explicit
presence of prosocial behaviors. For many games used in those studies, the content is purely about prosocial
behaviors, saving citizens from disasters, for instance. Many video games are not as prosocial as those games,
although there are games containing some prosocial behaviors. The Legend of Zelda, a popular game from Nintendo,
is not a purely prosocial game since it depicts violence. However, the hero helps village people doing chores. Like
violent act in game is studied to see the effect it has on player’s aggression, the helping act may be studied to see if it
can affect player’s helping behavior.
The last point to look at is the effect of different contexts of prosocial behaviors in video games. There
are numerous studies on effects of different contexts of the violence depiction. Shibuya and Sakamoto (2005) listeddifferent contexts violence may be depicted in video games; justified or unjustified, rewarded or punished, to name afew. Some studies suggest that rewarded violence in video games is more likely to promote aggressive behavior thanpunished violence. Regarding this, it would be reckless to say that all prosocial video games promote prosocialbehaviors.

ReferencesAnderson, C. A., & Bushman B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.
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 consequences (pp. 363-378). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Chambers, J. H., & Ascione, F. R. (1987). The effects of prosocial and aggressive videogames on children’s donating and helping.
The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 148(4), 499-505.
Ferguson, C. J., & Dyck, D. (2012). Paradigm change in aggression research: The time has come to retire the General Aggression
Model. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 220-228.
Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M., Lim Kam Ming, Shibuya, A., Liau, A. K., Khoo, A.,
Bushman, B. J., Huesmann, L. R., & Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors:
International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
35(6), 752-763. doi: 10.1177/0146167209333045
Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2010). Effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98(2), 211-221.
Shibuya, A., & Sakamoto, A. (2005). The quantity and context of video game violence in japan: Toward creating an ethicalstandard. In R. Shiratori, K. Arai & F. Kato (Eds.), (pp. 111-120) Springer Tokyo. doi: 10.1007/4-431-26797-2_12