Prosocial Behavior in the Cyber Context
Michelle F. Wright, Ph.D.
Masaryk University

The Beginnings
•What are some activities we can do through the cyber context?
•What are prosocial behavior?
•Forms of prosocial behavior in the cyber context
http://myincrediblewebsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Dalai-Lama-on-Helping-Others1.jpg

The cyber context includes a lot of opportunities, some good, and some bad. The opportunities are
pretty much limitedless. We are only limited by our imagination. Many times individuals are more
concerned with the opportunities via the cyber context that are considered antisocial, such as
cyberbullying, addiction, identity theft, and/or predation. Less attention has been given to the
positive aspects of technology usage. Today I will discuss the origins of prosocial behavior
through information and communication technologies. I will identify the various types of prosocial
acts available through ICTs, highlight the importance of this area of research, and discussion
future directions in this area. The interest in prosocial behavior through ICTs is growing but the
amount of literature is no where near that on the risks of ICTs.
What do I mean by prosocial behavior? What is considered prosocial?
Prosocial behavior are defined as purposeful and voluntary acts direct toward other people or
society as a whole. It may include helping, sharing, donating, and volunteering. What are some ways
that people can engage in prosocial behavior via ICTs?
Prosocial behavior through ICTs can include donating time and attention to electronic discussion
boards or technical support groups, helping among employees at the corporate level, voluntarily
helping players in computer games, online mentoring, sharing open source software, virtual
voluntarism, and making charitable donations to organizations online.
The rest of this lecture will focus on both the giving and receipt of prosocial behavior as it is
tough to consider one without the other. Just as people are giving help via the cyber context, they
are also receiving help.
What makes prosocial behavior in the cyber context unique?

What makes prosocial behavior via the cyber context unique?
•Ease of access
•Not limited by one’s physical appearance or characteristics
•Ability to use a fake name or screen name
•Great flexibility in wanting or giving help
•Ability to control when to help
•Ability to choose when the giver wants help
•

As we discussed, prosocial behavior via the cyber context have some specific features that set them
apart from the same behaviors face-to-face.
One common thing that many individuals do is “Google” something they want to look up. With search
engines, it’s very easy to find opportunities to help or find help. All one must do is type in what
he or she is looking for in Google or another search engine and “wah-la” they have various
opportunities at their finger tips.
Next, imagine that I’m self-conscious about my appearance or race. Because of the ability to “mask”
or hide one’s identity online, one’s physical appearance or characteristics do not influence
other’s opinions or them. Therefore, some characteristics that influence others’ intentions about
helping do not matter much in the cyber context.
Looking for help to clear up a rash in an unmentionable place? Too nervous to go and ask for crème
at the drug store? Well, you don’t have to be nervous through ICTs. Individuals are able to use
screen names and hide their identity. This ability reduces potential stigmas for help-seeking.
Do you want to help or need help but you work nights? Therefore, volunteering or requesting
services may not be an option during the day as you may be resting. The cyber context is not
constrained by schedules. There is more flexibility to the individuals wanting or giving help when
compared to the face-to-face context. Despite your restrictive schedule, you can still receive help
through the cyber context.
Some individuals worry that if they offer someone help it will be a constant request. Through the
cyber context, individuals do not have to worry much about additional request for helps as one has
the ability to control when or if she or he helps again. Likewise, the giver can also choose when
he or she wants help.

Who helps? Who is helped? Is it even rewarding?
•The people we help may include a range of individuals
•Prosocial behavior are rewarding for both givers and receivers
•No formal organizations are necessary
•Direct reciprocity isn’t expected
http://www.funkyfirefly.co.za/uploads/images/Helping%20others.JPG

Think about the people you interact with online. Some of them are well known to us, like if we are
interacting with friends via Facebook or taking the chance of posting to an online news article.
Therefore, sometimes we do interact with strangers.
Therefore, it’s no surprise that the relationship between the giver-receiver can include friends,
strangers, family members, workplace colleagues, students…
Some of these relationships are more formal but prosocial behavior can occur through information
organizational institutions as well. For instance, your friend may ask for advice on where to go
for holiday via his or her Facebook page. In this example, your friend would be the receiver of
prosocial behavior and everyone that helps him or her is the giver. Because Facebook isn’t designed
for the sole purpose of prosocial behavior, this is an informal organization for such behavior.
Usually, there is no expectation to receive the behavior back in return if someone helps another.
However, there is some evidence that receivers may be more inclined to also provide help. This is a
characteristic of both the face-to-face and cyber contexts of prosocial behavior.
Now that we have some background information about prosocial behavior in the cyber context, we can
begin a more formal discussion of such behavior by first discussing the potential orgins of these
behaviors. I find the origins of prosocial behavior to be extremely fascinating.
Does anyone want to guess on which type of activity potential marks the first inclination to
prosocial behavior through the cyber context?

Benefits of Prosocial Behavior through the Cyber Context
•Receivers:
–Health benefits
–Reduce stress
–Career advantages
•Givers:
–Higher personal satisfaction
–Health benefit
–Learning and reputational benefits
http://www.healthyselfonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/helping.jpg

Research has demonstrated many benefits of online prosocial behaviors to the receiver. For example,
receivers report health benefits from their participation in online support groups (Brennan et al.,
1992), feel stress relief after receiving online gifts through Facebook games (Sudzina et al.,
2011), and receive support from online mentors in careers underrepresented by women (Bennett et
al., 1998; Loureiro-Koechlin & Allan, 2010). Furthermore, receivers also benefit through the
creation of relationships with users in the online community (Brennan et al., 1992; Cummings et
al., 2002; Kendall, 2002). Such online relationships offer receivers social support and advice.
Additionally, there is also evidence that shows that online prosocial behaviors benefit the helper
as well. For instance, helpers tend to have higher personal satisfaction and support within their
offline communities (Barsion, 2002; Butler et al., 2007; McAleer & Bangert, 2008) and gain health
benefit through participating virtual voluntarism (Mukherjee,2010). In another example, helpers in
open source software support groups reported both learning and reputational benefits after helping
others with questions (Hertel et al., 2003; Lakhani & Hippel, 2003).

The Origins
•The original Internet!
•The release of open source software guided the origins of prosocial behavior through the cyber
context
•Projects: Linux, Mozilla, StarOffice, Apache Webserver, BSD operating system
•What is the motivation for sharing open source software?

Prosocial behavior can be traced back to the beginnings of the internet when it was more or less
like a message board. The release of coding source by IBM and the SHARE user group guided the
beginnings of prosocial behavior through the cyber context. The SHARE user group is a volunteer run
association providing enterprise technological professionals with education and training.
Therefore, the opportunity for both receiver and giver begin. Individuals could provide their code
and/or ask for help with new code. Technical support could also be offered. A more recent open
source software sharing project was Linux. The origins of Linux were primarily voluntary and it
remains one of the most active open source software. The origins of sharing software have led to
other source code information being shared such as for Mozilla, Star Office, etc.
What is the motivation for sharing open source software? People do this when they believe that
their contributions are highly valuable and that they value the goals of the particular project.
Each of these factors greater increase their hours spent on the project.

Online Support Groups
•We discussed characteristics which transformed the desire to seek help or give help
•Stigmas and geographical boundaries were no longer hindrances to giving or providing help
•Many forms: corporate employees,  caregivers, disabled individuals, sexual abuse survivors, people
living with ADHD, etc.

With the increasing popularity of the internet and recognition of some unique characteristics, some
of which we discussed before, like the abilty to hide one’s identity or to receive help without
being worried that one’s phsycial appearance my hinder individual’s decision to help, clinicians
began to recgonize the promise of this technology.
Stigmas and boundaries associated with help-seeking offline were not longer a problem in the cyber
context. Individuals could receive help without fearing being judged. Someone could finally ask for
a cure for the rash they have in the unmistakable place. Or someone could seek help for something
that society maybe deemed as unacceptable bheavior.
One of the first studies to examine helping via ICTS ROle of a computer-based support group
designed to help adults to quit smoking. Although this study did not examine the human to human
interaction in prosocial behaivor, it did begin many studies aimed as examining help through online
support groups. I know many individuals in my life who have sought help or some type of social
support via discussion boards. Some of these activities can be among cooperate employees who ask
for help at work and outside of work. The conclusion of Finholt and Sproull is that electronic
grousp can help organization behaviors.
There were also analzyes conducted on caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Such a
study was highly important as many times caregivers may feel the strain of being a caregiver for a
relative but also still caring for their own families. In this study, caregivers liked interacting
with other caregivers as they felt that these people were others “who really understood” what they
were going through. Follow-up of the long-term benefits of the Alzheimer’s diease support service
verified it’s effectiveness at providing support one year and two years later.
This study was repljicated with disabled individuals. Again there are many benefits of the online
support group for disabled indivdiauls. Worries about one’s physical appearance are just about
removed with the cyber contexst. Next, in the event of a rare disability, it may be tough to
develop as upprot group of georgraphically similar individausl. Therefore, such barries are
removed. In these support groups, disabled indivdiuals feel a strong sense of community and their
interactions with similar others increases their satisfaction.
Support groups have proven successful for a variety of individuals. There are just too many to list
on this slide and to talk about. Additionally, there may be aevne more that are not mentioned.

Online Mentoring
•Importance: expertise and assistance may not be available in the mentees’ school or community,
interactions can occur frequently and at convenient times, greater privacy and anonymity
•Types: college students, teachers learning about classroom discipline, women entering management
positions, adjunct faculty, and mental health professionals

Next, researchers became interested in the cyber context for mentoring underrepresented
populations. Many times this mentoring involves pairing individuals with a similar background.
Sometimes it may  be tough to find such individuals in the same geographical locations, which
thereby hinders their ability to meet face-to-face. Thus, the cyber context allows these
individuals to meet often. Also, sometimes individauls are very busy and the cyber context allows
for flexibility in communication and meeting times.
One of the earliest studies to investigate online montoring examine women in technology related
fields. In this program, benefits were felt for both mentor and mentee.
The mentor’s communication really shapes the the mentee’s perceptions of their professional growth.
Therefore, encouraging someone to continue in a field in which they may be underrepreseted, can
influence their perceptions of that field and their professional growth.

Electronic Fundraising/Donating
•What does this mean? What are the statistics? What happened?
•Each of these combine to highlight the importance of harnessing the power of the internet for
fundraising and donating
•Motivations: knowledgeable of the organization, use of the organization at one time

I find electronic fundraising and donating to be one of the most fascinating behaviors through the
cyber context.
I’ll present some statistics first. During September 11 attacks, 110 million dollars were raised to
help victims. 3 years later, the Asian Tsunami relifer funds marked the first time that donations
raised online exceeded t hose raised through traditional methods. Therefore, in 2004, donations
online were grrerater than those in which individuals called and pledged money. When this happened,
a whole new area of electronic fundraising and donating begin.
For the 2010 Haiti earthquake, donations raised exceeded $30 million by the end of the first month.
Therefore, nonprofit organizations are wise to utilize the power of the internet for fundraising
and donating. To be successful, organizations need to express how to the donors how their gifts
will help specific people. Using a too technical website will scare people a way and lead to less
success at helping to raise funds.
Interesting, individuals knowledge of the organization leads to their ability to help. This is a
bit of a no-brainer. This was found for people who donated to hospice. These individuals had more
knowledge of hospices and had previously donated. Furthermore, having a role in the organization at
one point was also related to the motivation to donate. As was using the services of the
organization.

Virtual Voluntarism
•Googling “Online Voluntarism” yielded 313,000 results in .25 seconds
•Many opportunities to volunteer in the virtual world
•Unique characteristics of volunteers
•How to keep volunteers engaged?

For this lecture, I googled “online voluntarism.” This yield 313 results in .25 seconds! It may
have been more if I kept looking and maybe updated my search criterion.
Thus it’s no surprise that there are many websites dedicated to volunteering online.
Volunteers are typically well educated, watched less TV, and engaged in an active lifestyle.
However, such findings may be inherent in individuals who volunteer face-to-face as well.
Thus, other researchers have examined the ways to keep volunteers active through the online
voluntarism website. Content of the website should be easily accessible. If not, the volunteer will
not be able to perform their duties, inhibiting the organization’s functionionality. This is an
important characteristic. Too hard to navigate their system makes it tough. For instance, I knew
someone who volunteered online for an online risks team. Their system was very odd to this
individual and they quickly stopped volunteering. IT was no surprise to hear that the organization
was continuously looking for volunteers.
Organization sneed to also make their opportunities more fulfilling ot volunteers in order to
prevent burnout.

Other Types of Mediums
•Online gaming
–MMOs, action games, Facebook games
•Social networking sites
•Chat programs
•Email
•Text messages
http://www.educationnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/college_community_service.jpg

Much less attention has been given to prosocial behavior through other technologies. For instance,
much more is known about the role of discussion boards for helping giving and seeking, but not much
is known about helping through online games. In fact, much of the attention on online gaming has
been focused on problematic gaming, rather than on the positive aspects of gaming, like prosocial
behaivor.
In one of the few studies to examine online gaming, Wang and Wang found that altriustic gamers,
concerned with the welfare of others, were more likely to offer help to other gamers. This is not
surprising as altruism is linked to providing help offline. In another study, Ferguson and Garza
found that playing action games was linked to more online prosocial behaviors and civic engagement
offline.
Thus considering each of these findings, it is clear that prosocial behaviors are engaged in by
individuals who play online games.
Do you get requests to play Facebook games? I personally find it a bit annoying, but a set of
researchers examined whether playing such games help individuals through Facebook. The findings of
the researchers reveaeld that individuals felt that their experience of daily stress was relieved
when they received help through Facebook games, like Farmville or CafeWorld! These are indeed some
interesting findings! Maybe I should consider helping someone fertilize their farm if it makes them
feel better!
Less attention has been given to helping through other technologies. In one of these few studies,
face-t-face prosocial behavior was associated with prosocial behavior through social networking
sites, chat programs, email, and text messages, after controlling for ht etime spent using these
technologies. What is interesting is that increases in time spent u sing these technologies related
to higher prosocial behavior through these technologies.

Theories
•Social cognitive theory
–Helping through the cyber context is learned
•Co-construction theory
–Helping through the cyber context is an extension of how someone is face-to-face
•
http://seasonsonlineblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/istock_000020446751xsmall.jpg

The social cognitive theory suggests that prosocial behaviors in the cyber context are learned by
observing other people (Bandura, 1977). Prosocial behaviors learned through electronic discussion
groups may serve as an example of this perspective (Sproull et al., 2005). For example, newcomers
may visit a discussion group for awhile before posting. This allows newcomers to get an idea about
what messages are viewed as helpful. The newcomers then utilize this information when posting their
own message. If their post is rewarded with praise, this may increase the chance that the newcomers
further contribute to the community. Supporting this idea, McKenna and Bargh (1998) found that a
positively evaluated response increased the likelihood that newcomers maintained active involvement
in the electronic discussion group. The positive reinforcement encourages individuals to make
valuable contributions to the electronic community. Think about it this way, I know someone who is
an active discussion board user and he had been “lurking” on t he site for years before posting! In
fact, his member date was 2 years before his post. He viewed all the messages, learned about the
website and hwo people interacted before posting. And now he’s viewed as one of the most popular
individuals on the message board.
The co-construction theory was originally proposed to explain how adolescents construct their
offline and online identifies (Subrahmanyam, Smahel, & Greenfield, 2006). Based on analyses of
adolescents’ communications through online chatrooms, researchers (e.g., Smahel & Subrahmanyam,
2007; Subrahmanyam et al., 2006; Tynes, Reynolds, & Greenfield, 2004) found that adolescents
portrayed their identity in similar ways online as they did offline. Additional support for the
co-construction of identity has been found in the realms of instant messaging (e.g., Boneva, Quinn,
Kraut, Kiesler, & Shlovski, 2006; Gross, Juvonen, & Gable, 2002), electronic support groups (e.g.,
Suzuki & Calzo, 2004; Whitlock, Powers, & Eckenrode, 2006), and weblogs (e.g., Huffaker & Calvert,
2005; Subrahmanyam, Garcia, Harsono, Li, & Lipana, 2009). The co-construction theory has also been
used to explain prosocial behaviors in the cyber context. For example, regarding the positive
associations between face-to-face prosocial behaviors and online prosocial behaviors, Wright and Li
(2011) explained that prosocial behaviors occur in the cyber context because people generalize
their face-to-face prosocial disposition to the digital environment. Taken together the available
findings, both the social cognitive and co-construction theories explain why individuals engage in
prosocial behaviors in the cyber context. The social cognitive theory provides a valuable framework
for understanding the continued involvement in prosocial behaviors, whereas the co-construction
theory may explain both the initial engagement and the continued involvement in prosocial acts
through electronic technologies.

Future Directions
•A ripe area for future research!!!
•But what needs to be done:
–Examine the quality of help
–Recipients of the behaviors
–Longitudinal designs
–Individual differences
http://saintcityproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/how-to-start-a-business-where-i-can-make-a-d
ifference-helping-people-21457152.jpg

The quality of help received online is an important next step for future studies. The quality of
the help determines the value to the helper and receiver. Bad advice clearly does not benefit the
receiver but it can also ruin the helper’s reputation through the electronic discussion board.
Therefore, receiving good advice may directly relate to an individual’s desire to seek help again
as well as determine whether an individual will give advice at another time. Thus, future
investigations should focus on the quality of the help received and how the quality relates to the
desire to ask for help or give help at another time.
   Another important future direction involves examining the recipients of prosocial behaviors.
Previous findings indicated that individuals donated more money to charity when they were familiar
with the receiving population (Bennett, 2006; Eller, 2008). Such investigations may be extended to
other types of prosocial behaviors and other electronic mediums, such as online gaming, social
networking sites, email, and chat programs, to fully understand how the recipient factor affects
individuals’ prosocial behaviors. This future direction may also be relevant for the person needing
help as well. The help-seeker may ask for help from certain givers through electronic technologies,
such as user they already know.
   Many of the studies previously reviewed are cross-sectional. Consequently, the changes in
prosocial behaviors over time in the cyber context are not well understood. It is possible that
motivations may change as individuals continue their involvement in electronic discussion groups,
donating to charity, or online mentoring. Additionally, understanding the attributional patterns of
both the helper and receiver is another important direction as attributional patterns relate to
future behaviors (e.g., Grusec & Redler, 1980; Krieglmeyer, Wittstadt, & Strack, 2009;
Mackinnon-Lewis, Lamb, Hattie, & Baradaran, 2001). Understanding attributional patterns may allow
researchers to predict when individuals will ask for help as well as when individuals will give
help online.
   Individual differences are also important to consider in regard to prosocial behaviors in the
cyber context. For example, understanding certain personality characteristics, such as altruism,
may help explain why some people help online. Other individual differences such as those in social
and emotional competence, empathetic concerns, self-esteem, and the desire to be part of the group
may also help to explain why individuals act prosocially online. Furthermore, cultural values may
also be important to consider as well. Collectivistic individuals may act more prosocially online
to maintain cooperation among the group, whereas individuals with an individualistic orientation
may use prosocial behaviors as a way to achieve personal goals. Thus, both cross-cultural
investigations and intra-cultural examinations linking cultural values to cyber prosocial behaviors
may shed light on the contribution of cultural values to individuals’ prosocial behaviors in the
cyber context.