People are fundamentally social creatures, seeking connectedness driven by a need to belong. Belonging is a subjective feeling that helps us recognize our connection to people, social groups, culture, places, and experiences. In turn, belongingness can support mental well-being through positive interpersonal interactions and encouragement in both face-to-face and online environments. Advancements in technologies and social media platforms have created spaces for people to connect virtually; however, little is known about users’ online prosocial behaviors. Hence, this scoping review aimed to identify (a) how online prosocial behavior is defined; (b) explore the types of online prosocial behavior people are engaging in; and (c) explore what motivates people to engage in online prosocial behavior. Utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute’s nine-step framework methodology, a review of the Scopus and PubMed databases was undertaken. From 755 retrieved articles, 43 were included. Various online prosocial behavioral definitions were identified, related to an individual’s attitudes, values, and beliefs, underpinned by the motives driving behavioral intent and action. Two categories of online prosocial behavior were identified: (1) intrinsic with two subcategories: (1.1) altruism and (1.2) reciprocity; and (2) extrinsic with one subcategory of (2.1) social connectedness. Two categories of motivators of online prosocial behavior were identified: (1) intrinsic with subcategories of (1.1) altruism, (1.2) empathy, (1.3) self-efficacy, (1.4) reciprocity, and (1.5) safety and trust; and (2) extrinsic with subcategories of (2.1) ease of use/practicality, (2.2) reputation, (2.3) personal gain, and (2.4) social connectedness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenKA, KernML, RozekCS, et al.Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research. Aust J Psychol, 2021; 73(1):87–102; doi: 10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409
2.
BaumeisterRF, LearyMR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull, 1995; 117(3):497–529; doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
3.
Australian Communication and Media Authority. Trends in online behaviour and technology usage report. Trends in online behaviour and technology usage | ACMA; 2020. [Last accessed: May2, 2025].
4.
KrossE, VerduynP, SheppesG, et al.Social media and well-being: Pitfalls, progress, and next steps. Trends Cogn Sci, 2021; 25(1):55–66; doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.005
5.
RounsefellK, GibsonS, McLeanS, et al.Social media, body image and food choices in healthy young adults: A mixed methods systematic review. Nutr Diet, 2020; 77(1):19–40; doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12581
6.
AbelS, MachinT, BrownlowC. Social media, rituals, and long-distance family relationship maintenance: A mixed-methods systematic review. New Media Soc, 2021; 23(3):632–654; doi: 10.1177/1461444820958717
7.
HewKF, HaraN. An online listserv for nurse practitioners: A viable venue for continuous nursing professional development? Nurse Educ Today, 2008; 28(4):450–457; doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2007.07.009
8.
MachinT. From ‘likes’ to unfriending: The need to belong and relational information on Facebook. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Southern Queensland; 2016.
9.
StehrP. The benefits of supporting others online—How online communication shapes the provision of support and its relationship with wellbeing. Comput Human Behav, 2023; 140:107568; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107568
10.
McLoughlinLT, SpearsBA, TaddeoCM, et al.Remaining connected in the face of cyberbullying: Why social connectedness is important for mental health. Psychol Sch, 2019; 56(6):945–958; doi: 10.1002/pits.22232
11.
WickramaratnePJ, YangchenT, LepowL, et al.Social connectedness as a determinant of mental health: A scoping review. PLoS One, 2022; 17(10):e0275004; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275004
SilkeC, BradyB, BoylanC, et al.Factors influencing the development of empathy and pro-social behaviour among adolescents: A systematic review. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2018; 94:421–436; doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.027
14.
BlakeyKH, MasonE, CristeaM, et al.Does kindness always pay? The influence of recipient affection and generosity on young children’s allocation decisions in a resource distribution task. Curr Psychol, 2019; 38(4):939–949; doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00260-7
15.
HallerE, LubenkoJ, PrestiG, et al.To help or not to help? Prosocial behavior, its association with well-being, and predictors of prosocial behavior during the coronavirus disease pandemic. Front Psychol, 2021; 12:775032; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.775032
16.
BhogalMS, FarrellyD, GalbraithN. The role of prosocial behaviors in mate choice: A critical review of the literature. Curr Psychol, 2019; 38(4):1062–1075; doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00308-8
17.
PaluckEL, BallL. Social norms marketing to reduce gender based violence. IRC Policy Briefcase, 2010.
18.
DavidovM, VaishA, Knafo‐NoamA, et al.The motivational foundations of prosocial behavior from a developmental perspective–evolutionary roots and key psychological mechanisms: Introduction to the special section. Child Dev, 2016; 87(6):1655–1667; doi: 10.1111/cdev.12639
19.
AnlıG. Adaptation of the prosocial behavioral intentions scale for use with Turkish participants: Assessments of validity and reliability. Curr Psychol, 2019; 38(4):950–958; doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00277-y
20.
ChenY. An investigation of the influencing factors of Chinese WeChat users’ environmental information-sharing behavior based on an integrated model of UGT, NAM, and TPB. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2020; 12(7):2710; doi: 10.3390/su12072710
21.
MaWWK, ChanA. Knowledge sharing and social media: Altruism, perceived online attachment motivation, and perceived online relationship commitment. Comput Human Behav, 2014; 39:51–58; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.015
22.
SproullL. Prosocial behavior on the net. Daedalus, 2011; 140(4):140–153; doi: 10.1162/DAED_a_00120
23.
ZhengX, WangY, XuL. Internet altruistic behavior and subjective well-being: Self-efficacy as a mediator. Soc Behav Pers, 2016; 44(9):1575–1583; doi: 10.2224/sbp.2016.44.9.1575
24.
PennerLA, DovidioJF, PiliavinJA, et al.Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annu Rev Psychol, 2005; 56(1):365–392; doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141
25.
RyanRM, DeciEL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol, 2000; 25(1):54–67; doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
26.
KayeLK, RousakiA, JoynerLC, et al.The Online Behaviour Taxonomy: A conceptual framework to understand behaviour in computer-mediated communication. Comput Human Behav, 2022; 137:107443; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107443
27.
LengJ, GuoQ, MaB, et al.Bridging personality and online prosocial behavior: The roles of empathy, moral identity, and social self-efficacy. Front Psychol, 2020; 11:575053; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575053
28.
PetersMDJ, GodfreyC, McInerneyP, et al.Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth, 2022; 20(4):953–968; doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242
29.
TriccoAC, LillieE, ZarinW, et al.PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018; 169(7):467–473; doi: 10.7326/M18-0850
30.
MunnZ, AromatarisE, TufanaruC, et al.The development of software to support multiple systematic review types. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2019; 17(1):36–43; doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000152
31.
PageMJ, McKenzieJE, BossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021; 372:n71; doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
32.
WangCC, WangCH. Helping others in online games: Prosocial behavior in cyberspace. Cyberpsychol Behav, 2008; 11(3):344–346; doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0045
33.
DickertS, SlovicP. Attentional mechanisms in the generation of sympathy. Judgm Decis Mak, 2009; 4(4):297–306; doi: 10.1017/S1930297500003879
34.
PrasarnphanichP, WagnerC. The role of Wiki technology and altruism in collaborative knowledge creation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2009; 49(4):33–41; doi: 10.1080/08874417.2009.11645338
35.
AntinJ, EarpM. With a little help from my friends: Self-interested and prosocial behavior on MySpace Music. J Am Soc Inf Sci, 2010; 61(5):952–963; doi: 10.1002/asi.21294
36.
OumS, HanD. An empirical study of the determinants of the intention to participate in user-created contents (UCC) services. Expert Syst Appl, 2011; 38(12):15110–15121; doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.05.098
37.
FugelstadP, DwyerP, Filson MosesJ, KimJ, ManninoCA, TerveenL, et al.What makes users rate (share, tag, edit…)? Predicting patterns of participation in online communities. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW. ACM; 2012; pp. 969–978; doi: 10.1145/2145204.2145349
38.
LeeM, KimH, KimO. Why do people retweet a tweet?: Altruistic, egoistic, and reciprocity motivations for retweeting. An International Journal of Psychological Sciences, 2015; 58(4):189–201; doi: 10.2117/psysoc.2015.189
39.
WangK, TaiJCF, LiuLT, et al.Altruism or benefit seeking? Examining the effects of personal characteristics and behavioral beliefs on online shopper’s attitude and intention to be an online group buying initiator. In: Proceedings—Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, PACIS 2014. PACIS; 2014. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/104/
40.
LinTC, LaiMC, YangSW. Factors influencing physicians’ knowledge sharing on web medical forums. Health Informatics J, 2016; 22(3):594–607; doi: 10.1177/1460458215576229
41.
YuanL, LiuW. The influence of contextual support on persistent sharing willingness of QQ group members: Mediating effect of autonomous motivations. Oir, 2017; 41(2):185–201; doi: 10.1108/OIR-01-2016-0009
42.
ZhangX, LiuS, DengZ, et al.Knowledge sharing motivations in online health communities: A comparative study of health professionals and normal users. Comput Human Behav, 2017; 75:797–810; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.028
43.
SohaibM, HuiP, AkramU, et al.How non-economic motivations affect electronic word-of-mouth: Evidence from Chinese social media. Ijiscm, 2018; 10(4):311–332; doi: 10.1504/IJISCM.2018.098392
44.
Vilnai-YavetzI, LevinaO. Motivating social sharing of e-business content: Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, or crowding-out effect? Comput Human Behav, 2018; 79:181–191; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.034
45.
ChenY, LiangC, CaiD. Understanding WeChat users’ behavior of sharing social crisis information. Int J Hum Comput Interact, 2018; 34(4):356–366; doi: 10.1080/10447318.2018.1427826
46.
SilvaF, ProençaT, FerreiraMR. Volunteers’ perspective on online volunteering—A qualitative approach. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark, 2018; 15(4):531–552; doi: 10.1007/s12208-018-0212-8
47.
QinM, LiangS. User recognition mechanism and user contribution behavior in enterprise-hosted online product innovation communities: Based on prosocial behavior theory. NBRI, 2019; 10(1):17–41; doi: 10.1108/NBRI-01-2018-0008
48.
LeeJ, OhS, DongH, et al.Motivations for self-archiving on an academic social networking site: A study on researchgate. Asso for Info Science & Tech, 2019; 70(6):563–574; doi: 10.1002/asi.24138
49.
JingD, JinY, LiuJ. The impact of monetary incentives on physician prosocial behavior in online medical consulting platforms: Evidence from China. J Med Internet Res, 2019; 21(7):e14685; doi: 10.2196/14685
50.
PuspitasariFI, SoebandhiS, SubagyoDH, NugrohoA. Altruism and Egoism in e-WOM: The moderating effect of Facebook perceived ease of use. In: Proceedings—2019 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication: Industry 40: Retrospect, Prospect, and Challenges, iSemantic; 2019; pp. 536–541; doi: 10.1109/ISEMANTIC.2019.8884276
LeeG, SuzukiA. Motivation for information exchange in a virtual community of practice: Evidence from a Facebook group for shrimp farmers. World Dev, 2020; 125:104698; doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104698
53.
WickramasingheV, WhiteKM, JohnsonD. Predictors of players’ decisions to help others in video games. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2020; 23(4):264–270; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2019.0552
54.
ImlawiJ, GreggD. Understanding the satisfaction and continuance intention of knowledge contribution by health professionals in online health communities. Inform Health Soc Care, 2020; 45(2):151–167; doi: 10.1080/17538157.2019.1625053
55.
LavertuL, MarderB, ErzA, et al.The extended warming effect of social media: Examining whether the cognition of online audiences offline drives prosocial behavior in ‘real life. Comput Human Behav, 2020; 110:106389; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106389
56.
IslamT, MahmoodK, SadiqM, et al.Understanding knowledgeable workers’ behavior toward COVID-19 information sharing through WhatsApp in Pakistan. Front Psychol, 2020; 11:572526; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.572526
57.
SlatteryP, VidgenR, FinneganP. Winning heads and hearts? How websites encourage prosocial behaviour. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2021; 40(9):933–961; doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2020.1736156
58.
XiaJ, WuT, ZhouL. Sharing of verified information about COVID-19 on social network sites: A social exchange theory perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021; 18(3):1–12; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18031260
59.
LuH, YuanS. What motivates information sharing about disaster victims on social media? Exploring the role of compassion, sadness, expectancy violation, and enjoyment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2021; 63:102431; doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102431
60.
BrestovanskýM, SekerešováD. Parasocial interaction does not function as a relationship mediator between the influencer’s online content and the adolescent’s prosocial moral reasoning and behaviour. Communication Today, 2022; 13(1):130–144.
61.
TangZ, MillerAS, ZhouZ, et al.Understanding rumor combating behavior on social media. J Comput Information Syst, 2022; 62(6):1112–1124; doi: 10.1080/08874417.2021.1983486
62.
MalikA, IslamT, MahmoodK. Factors affecting misinformation combating intention in Pakistan during COVID-19. Kybernetes, 2023; 52(12):5753–5775; doi: 10.1108/K-02-2022-0263
63.
TsengHT, IbrahimF, HajliN, et al.Effect of privacy concerns and engagement on social support behaviour in online health community platforms. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2022; 178:121592; doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121592
64.
LvH, CaoX, ChenS, et al.Public and private information sharing under “New Normal” of COVID-19: Understanding the roles of habit and outcome expectation. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022; 19(9); doi: 10.3390/ijerph19095552
65.
AshrafMH, ZhangJ, ÖzpolatK. Antecedents of blatant benevolence on social media. Behav Information Technol, 2023; 42(8):1230–1252; doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2069595
66.
Delgado-BallesterE, López-LópezI, BernalA. Online firestorms: An act of civic engagement or a narcissistic boost? The role of brand misconduct appraisals. JPBM, 2023; 32(2):257–272; doi: 10.1108/JPBM-08-2021-3627
67.
MarshallTC, ChavanovanichJ, HuangL, et al.Online prosocial behaviour predicts well-being in different cultures: A daily diary study of Facebook users. Cross-Cultural Research, 2023; 57(5):472–498; doi: 10.1177/10693971231187470
68.
RakoczN, ErnalaS, NirI, et al.The heterogeneous effects of social support on the adoption of Facebook’s vaccine profile frames feature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 2023; 10(1); doi: 10.1057/s41599-023-01692-0
69.
SunCT, LinH, HoCN. Sharing tips with strangers: Exploiting gift culture in computer gaming. Cyberpsychol Behav, 2006; 9(5):560–570; doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.560
70.
AbuhusseinT, MagatefS. Social marketing, social media and eudaimonic well-being: A qualitative exploration. APJBA, 2023; 15(4):527–552; doi: 10.1108/APJBA-08-2021-0393
71.
LevittM. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour. Life Sci Soc Policy, 2013; 9(1):13; doi: 10.1186/2195-7819-9-13
72.
BrownSL, BrownRM. Connecting prosocial behavior to improved physical health: Contributions from the neurobiology of parenting. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2015; 55:1–17; doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.04.004
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
