The aim of this article is to present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the relationship between immersive media and prosociality, specifically in the discipline of social issues. The search was conducted in January 2023 and included research published up to and including 2022. Both parts of the review consider 43 studies. For the meta-analysis, by combining these studies we obtained a total sample size of 5,390 participants. This systematic literature review mainly explores the types of immersive technology that have been used to create the immersive media stimuli considered in the studies and the types of mediated experiences elicited by these productions. Separate meta-analyses were also conducted to explore the moderating role of these variables. The results demonstrate that immersive media can have a significant positive impact on prosociality with a medium effect size. However, this effect can be moderated by the type of immersive experience elicited and by the prosocial outcome being evaluated.
AhnS. J.LeA. M. T.BailensonJ. N. (2013). The effect of embodied experiences on self-other merging, attitude, and helping behavior. Media Psychology, 16(1), 7–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.755877
2.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
3.
BailensonJ. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it can do. WW Norton & Company.
4.
BailensonJ. N.AharoniE.BeallA. C.GuadagnoR. E.DimovA.BlascovichJ. (2004). Comparing behavioral and self-report measures of embodied agents’ social presence in immersive virtual environments [Conference session]. Proceedings of the International Society for Presence Research Annual Conference, Valencia, Spain.
5.
BaileyP. E.EbnerN. C.Stine-MorrowE. A. L. (2021). Introduction to the special issue on prosociality in adult development and aging: Advancing theory within a multilevel framework. Psychology and Aging, 36(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000598
6.
BatsonC. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). Academic Press.
7.
*Behm-MorawitzE.PennellH.SpenoA. G. (2016). The effects of virtual racial embodiment in a gaming app on reducing prejudice. Communication Monographs, 83(3), 396–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1128556
8.
BioccaF. (2002). The evolution of interactive media: Toward “being there” in nonlinear narrative worlds. In GreenM. C.StrangeJ. J.BrockT. C. (Eds.), Narrative impact (pp. 97–130). Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
BioccaF.HarmsC.BurgoonJ. K. (2003). Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–480.
10.
*BrevesP. (2018). Reducing outgroup bias through intergroup contact with non-playable video game characters in VR. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 27(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00330
11.
*BrevesP. (2020). Bringing people closer: The prosocial effects of immersive media on users’ attitudes and behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(5), 1015–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020903101
12.
CanetF.Pérez-EscolarM. (2023). Research on prosocial screen and immersive media effects: A systematic literature review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 47(1), 20–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2130810
13.
CochranW.G. (1954). The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments. Biometrics, 10(1), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001666
14.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
15.
CummingsJ. J.BailensonJ. N. (2016). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 272–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740
16.
*CummingsJ. J.Tsay-VogelM.CahillT. J.ZhangL. (2021). Effects of immersive storytelling on affective, cognitive, and associative empathy: The mediating role of presence. New Media and Society, 24(9), 2003–2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820986816
17.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
18.
De la PeñaN.WeilP.LloberJ.SpanlangB.FriedmanD.Sanchez-VivesM. V.SlaterM. (2010). Immersive journalism: Immersive virtual reality for the first-person experience of news. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 19(4), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00005
19.
*D’ErricoF.LeoneG.SchmidM.D’AnnaC. (2020). Prosocial virtual reality, empathy, and EEG measures: A pilot study aimed at monitoring emotional processes in intergroup helping behaviors. Applied Sciences, 10(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10041196
20.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.StewartT. L.EssesV. M.ten VergertM.HodsonG. (2004). From intervention to outcome: Processes in the reduction of bias. In StephanW. G.VogtW. P. (Eds.), Education programs for improving intergroup relations; Theory, research and practice (pp. 243–265). Teachers College Press.
21.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical Research Edition), 315(7109), 629–634.
22.
EisenbergN.MillerP. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91
23.
GalinskyA. D.KuG.WangC. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205051060
24.
GalinskyA. D.MoskowitzG. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708
25.
GreenD. P.RoseM.BevanC.FarmerH.CaterK.FraserD. S. (2020). “You wouldn’t get that from watching TV!”: Exploring audience responses to virtual reality non-fiction in the home. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 27(3), 805–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520979966
26.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
27.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
28.
*GroomV.BailensonJ. N.NassC. (2009). The influence of racial embodiment on racial bias in immersive virtual environments. Social Influence, 4(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802643750
29.
GruenewaldT.WittebornS. (2020). Feeling good: Humanitarian virtual reality film, emotional style and global citizenship. Cultural Studies, 36(1), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2020.1761415
30.
GürerkÖ.KasulkeA. (2021). Does Virtual Reality Increase Charitable Giving? An Experimental Study. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3072002
31.
HansenA.MachinD. (2018). Media and communication research methods. Macmillan Education.
32.
*HassonY.Schori-EyalN.LandauD.HaslerB. S.LevyJ.FriedmanD.HalperinE. (2019). The enemy’s gaze: Immersive virtual environments enhance peace promoting attitudes and emotions in violent intergroup conflicts. PLoS One, 14(9), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222342
33.
HeeterC. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.2.262
34.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
35.
*KandaurovaM.LeeS. H. (2019). The effects of virtual reality (VR) on charitable giving: The role of empathy, guilt, responsibility, and social exclusion. Journal of Business Research, 100, 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.027
*LesurM. R.LynS.LenggenhagerB. (2020). How does embodying a transgender narrative influence social bias? An explorative study in an artistic context. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01861
LombardM.DittonT. B.WeinsteinL. (2009, November11–13). Measuring (tele)Presence: The temple presence inventory [Paper presentation]. Presented at the Twelfth International Workshop on Presence, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
41.
*MaZ. (2020). Effects of immersive stories on prosocial attitudes and willingness to help: testing psychological mechanisms. Media Psychology, 23(6), 865–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1651655
42.
MaZ.MaR.ChenM.WalterN. (2023). Present, empathetic, and persuaded: A meta-analytic comparison of storytelling in high versus low immersive mediated environments. Human Communication Research, 50(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad030
43.
MaisterL.SlaterM.Sanchez-VivesM. V.TsakirisM. (2015). Changing bodies changes minds: Owning another body affects social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.11.001
44.
Martínez-CanoF. J.LachmanR.CanetF. (2023). VR content and its prosocial impact: Predictors, moderators, and mediators of media effects. A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Communication, 8, 1–28, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1203242
45.
MartinganoA. J.HerreraF.KonrathS. (2021). Virtual reality improves emotional but not cognitive empathy: A meta-analysis. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000034
46.
*MartinganoA. J.KonrathS.HenritzeE.BrownA. D. (2022). The limited benefits of using virtual reality 360° videos to promote empathy and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52(5), 1434–1457. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221125804
47.
MeadG. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. University of Chicago Press.
48.
MinskyM. (1980). Telepresence. Omni, 2, 45–51.
49.
NakamuraL. (2020). Feeling good about feeling bad: virtuous virtual reality and the automation of racial empathy. Journal of Visual Culture, 19(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/147041292090625
50.
NikolaouA.SchwabeA.BoomgaardenH. (2022). Changing social attitudes with virtual reality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of the International Communication Association, 46(1), 30–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2064324
51.
NowakK. L.BioccaF. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761289
52.
NunesT.A.LeeH. (2019). Humanitarian Documentary: A Comparison Study between VR and Non-VR Productions. Journal of Multimedia Information System, 6(4), 309–316. http://doi.org/10.33851/JMIS.2019.6.4.309
53.
O’DonnellA. W.FriehsM. T.BracegirdleC.ZúñigaC.WattS. E.BarlowF. K. (2021). Technological and analytical advancements in intergroup contact research. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12424
54.
OliverM. B.RaneyA. A.BartschA.Janicke-BowlesS.AppelM.DaleK. (2021). Model of inspiring media. Journal of Media Psychology, 33(4), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000305
55.
OliverM. B.RaneyA. A.SlaterM. D.AppelM.HartmannT.BartschA.SchneiderF. M.Janicke-BowlesS. H.KrämerN.MaresM.-L.VordererP.RiegerD.DaleK. R.DasE. (2018). Self-transcendent media experiences: Taking meaningful media to a higher level. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx020
56.
*PataneI.LelgouarchA.BanakouD.VerdeletG.DesocheC.KounE.SalemmeR.SlaterM.FarneA. (2020). Exploring the effect of cooperation in reducing implicit racial bias and its relationship with dispositional empathy and political attitudes. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.510787
57.
*PeckT. C.SeinfeldS.AgliotiS. M.SlaterM. (2013). Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(3), 779–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.016
*PimentelD.KalyanaramanS.LeeY. H.HalanS. (2021). Voices of the unsung: The role of social presence and interactivity in building empathy in 360 video. New Media and Society, 23(8), 2230–2254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444821993124
60.
RoseM. (2018). The immersive turn: Hype and hope in the emergence of virtual reality as a nonfiction platform. Studies in Documentary Film, 12(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503280.2018.1496055
61.
Ryan BengtssonL.Van CouveringE. (2023). Stretching immersion in virtual reality: How glitches reveal aspects of presence, interactivity and plausibility. Convergence, 29(2), 432–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565221129530
62.
SchreierM. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage.
63.
SchroederR. (2002). The social life of avatars. Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments. Springer.
64.
*SchutteN. S.StilinovićE. J. (2017). Facilitating empathy through virtual reality. Motivation and Emotion, 41(6), 708–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9641-7
65.
*ShinD. (2018). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience?Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.012
SlaterM.UsohM. (1993). Representations systems, perceptual position, and presence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1993.2.3.221
68.
SlaterM.WilburS. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603
69.
SteedA.PanY.WatsonZ.SlaterM. (2018). “We Wait”-The Impact of Character Responsiveness and Self Embodiment on Presence and Interest in an Immersive News Experience. Frontiers in robotics and AI, 5, 112. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00112
70.
*SundarS. S.KangJ.OpreanD. (2017). Being there in the midst of the story: How immersive journalism affects our perceptions and cognitions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(11), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0271
71.
*TassinariM.AulbachM. B.Jasinskaja-LahtiI. (2022). Investigating the influence of intergroup contact in virtual reality on empathy: An exploratory study using AltspaceVR. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.815497
72.
ThielmannI.PfattheicherS. (2022). Editorial overview: Current and new directions in the study of prosociality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101355
73.
ToddA. R.BurgmerP. (2013). Perspective taking and automatic intergroup evaluation change: Testing an associative self-anchoring account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 786–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031999
74.
TukachinskyR.SteverG. (2019). Theorizing development of parasocial engagement. Communication Theory, 29(3), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qty032
75.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12024
76.
VenturaS.Badenes-RiberaL.HerreroR.CebollaA.GalianaL.BañosR. (2020). Virtual reality as a medium to elicit empathy: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(10), 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0681
77.
WinstonB. (1988). The tradition of the victim in Griersonian documentary. In GrossL.StuartJ. S.RubyJ. (Eds.), Image ethics: The moral rights of subjects in photographs, film, and television (pp. 34–57). Oxford University Press.
78.
WirthW.HartmannT.BöckingS.VordererP.KlimmtC.SchrammH.SaariT.LaarniJ.RavajaN.GouveiaF. R.BioccaF.SacauA.JänckeL.BaumgartnerT.JänckeP. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9(3), 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701283079
79.
WitmerB. G.SingerM. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7(3), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686
80.
*YoungG. W.O’DwyerN.SmolicA. (2021). Exploring virtual reality for quality immersive empathy building experiences. Behaviour and Information Technology, 41(16), 3415–3431. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1993336
81.
YukerH. E.BlockJ. R.YounngJ. H. (1966). The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. Human Resources Center.
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.
