Despite the popularity of investigations into prosocial and antisocial media content and effects in entertainment research, the essence and boundary conditions of these terms are not well-demarcated. In a preregistered scoping review, we explored how prosocial and antisocial have been defined in narrative entertainment literature according to a comprehensive scheme of moral values outlined by the model of intuitive-morality and exemplars (MIME). Examining all N = 346 studies investigating pro/antisocial content/effects published before 2021, we coded whether these terms were defined as the upholding/violation of care, fairness, loyalty, respect for authority, purity, or general-moral concerns. Results revealed pro/antisocial are mostly defined as the upholding/violation of care concerns, but many definitions also focused on fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity. Discussion centers on the MIME’s utility for (a) illuminating robust patterns possibly hidden in past research, (b) guiding future research attempting to distinguish pro/antisocial media content, and (c) explaining media’s influence on audiences across the lifespan.
AbelmanR. (1985). Sex differences in parental disciplinary practices: an antecedent of television’s impact on children. Women’s Studies in Communication, 8(2), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.1985.11089679
2.
AleyM.HahnL.TamboriniR.GobleH.ZhangL.GradyS. M.BaldwinJ. (2021). What does television teach children? Examining the altruistic and egoistic lessons in children’s educational television. Communication Reports, 34(2), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2021.1918738
3.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
4.
BryantJ.ZillmannD. (1994). Media effects: Advances in theory. Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
CarpenterC. J. (2020). Meta-analyzing apples and oranges: How to make applesauce instead of fruit salad. Human Communication Research, 46(2–3), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz018
6.
ChaffeeS. H. (1991). Communication concepts 1: Explication. Sage.
7.
CingelD. P.KrcmarM. (2020). Considering moral foundations theory and the model of intuitive morality and exemplars in the context of child and adolescent development. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(2), 120–138.
8.
ClarkS. S.GiacomantonioS. (2013). Music preferences and empathy: Toward predicting prosocial behavior. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 23(3), 177.
9.
ComstockJ.StrzyzewskiK. (1990). Interpersonal interaction on television: Family conflict and jealousy on primetime. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34(3), 263–282.
10.
CoyneS. M.Padilla-WalkerL. M.HolmgrenH. G.DavisE. J.CollierK. M.Memmott-ElisonM. K.HawkinsA. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of prosocial media on prosocial behavior, aggression, and empathic concern: A multidimensional approach. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 331–347. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dev0000412
11.
CoyneS. M.SmithN. J. (2014). Sweetness on the screen: A multidimensional view of prosocial behavior in media. In PadillaWalkerL. M.CarloG.Padilla-WalkerL. M.CarloG. (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 156–177). Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772.003.0008
12.
den HamerA. H.KonijnE. A.BushmanB. J. (2017). Measuring exposure to media with antisocial and prosocial content: An extended version of the Content-based Media Exposure scale (C-ME2). Communication Methods and Measures, 11(4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1375089
13.
den HamerA.KonijnE. A.KeijerM. G. (2014). Cyberbullying behavior and adolescents' use of media with antisocial content: A cyclic process model. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 17(2), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0307
14.
De SimoneJ. J. (2014). The possible prosocial and antisocial effects of playing video games frequently. Journal of Communications Research, 6(2), 79.
15.
EdenA.TamboriniR. (2017). Moral intuitions: Morality subcultures in disposition formation. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 29(4), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000173
16.
EisenbergN.FabesR. (1998). Prosocial development. In DamonW.EisenbergN. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91
17.
EisenbergN.MillerP. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119.
18.
ErreygersS.VandeboschH.VranjesI.BaillienE.De WitteH. (2017). Nice or naughty? The role of emotions and digital media use in explaining adolescents’ online prosocial and antisocial behavior. Media Psychology, 20(3), 374–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1200990
19.
FriedrichL. K.SteinA. H. (1973). Aggressive and prosocial television programs and the natural behavior of preschool children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1–64.
20.
FengY.ParkJ. (2015). Bad seed or good seed? A content analysis of the main antagonists in Walt Disney-and Studio Ghibli-Animated Films. Journal of Children and Media, 9(3), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.1058279
GentileD. A.AndersonC. A.YukawaS.IhoriN.SaleemM.MingL. K.ShibuyaA.LiauA. K.KhooA.BushmanB. J.HuesmannB. L.SakamotoA. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167209333045
23.
GonzalezA. J.CingelD. P.VandenboschL. (2024). A systematic content analysis of the moral foundations featured in celebrities’, influencers’, and athletes’ Instagram content. Mass Communication and Society, 27, 1–29.
24.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0015141
25.
GreitemeyerT.OsswaldS. (2011). Playing prosocial video games increases the accessibility of prosocial thoughts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365588
26.
GunterB.CharltonT.ColesD.PantingC. (2000). The impact of television on children's antisocial behavior in a novice television community. Child Study Journal, 30(2), 65–65.
27.
HahnL.TamboriniR.PrabhuS.GrallC.NovotnyE.KlebigB. (2022). Narrative media's emphasis on distinct moral intuitions alters early adolescents’ judgments. Journal of Media Psychology, 34(3), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000307
28.
HaidtJ.JosephC. (2007). The moral mind: How 5 sets of innate moral intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In CarruthersP.LaurenceS.StichS. (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367–391). Oxford University Press.
HempelC. G. (1952). Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. University of Chicago Press.
31.
HoppF. R.FisherJ. T.CornellD.HuskeyR.WeberR. (2021). The extended Moral Foundations Dictionary (eMFD): Development and applications of a crowd-sourced approach to extracting moral intuitions from text. Behavior Research Methods, 53(1), 232–246. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01433-0
32.
KelleyT. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. World Book Company. pp. 62–65.
33.
LewisR. J.MitchellN. (2014). Egoism versus altruism in television content for young audiences. Mass Communication and Society, 17(4), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.816747
34.
LewisR. J.TamboriniR.WeberR. (2014). Testing a dual-process model of media enjoyment and appreciation. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12101
35.
MaitlandC.GranichJ.BrahamR.ThorntonA.TealR.StrattonG.RosenbergM. (2018). Measuring the capacity of active video games for social interaction: The Social Interaction Potential Assessment tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 308–316.
36.
MaresM. L.PalmerE.SullivanT. (2008). Prosocial effects of media exposure. In The handbook of children, media, and development (pp. 268–289). Blackwell Publishing.
37.
MaresM. L.WoodardE. (2005). Positive effects of television on children's social interactions: A meta-analysis. Media Psychology, 7(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_4
38.
MillerG. R.NicholsonH. E. (1976). Communication inquiry: A perspective on a process. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
39.
NeuendorfK. A. (2010). Reliability for content analysis. In Media messages and public health (pp. 85–105). Routledge.
40.
OliverM. B.RaneyA. A.BryantJ. (2019). Media effects. Routledge.
41.
Padilla-WalkerL. M.CoyneS. M.FraserA. M.StockdaleL. A. (2013). Is Disney the nicest place on earth? A content analysis of prosocial behavior in animated Disney films. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 393–412.
42.
PfattheicherS.NielsenY. A.ThielmannI. (2022). Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021
43.
PotterW. J.WareW. (1987). An analysis of the contexts of antisocial acts on prime-time television. Communication Research, 14(6), 664–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365087014006003
44.
PrabhuS.HahnL.TamboriniR.GrizzardM. (2020). Do morals featured in media content correspond with moral intuitions in media users?: A test of the MIME in two cultures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1757364
45.
RoloffM. E.GreenbergB. S. (1979). Sex differences in choice of modes of conflict resolution in real-life and television. Communication Quarterly, 27(3), 3–12.
46.
RosenbergR. S.BaughmanS. L.BailensonJ. N. (2013). Virtual superheroes: Using superpowers in virtual reality to encourage prosocial behavior. PloS one, 8(1), e55003. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055003
47.
SanbornF. W.HarrisR. J. (2019). A cognitive psychology of mass communication. Routledge.
48.
TamboriniR. (2013). Model of intuitive morality and exemplars. In TamboriniR. (Ed), Media and the moral mind (pp. 43–74). Routledge.
49.
TamboriniR.EdenA.BowmanN. D.GrizzardM.LachlanK. A. (2012). The influence of morality subcultures on the acceptance and appeal of violence. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 136–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01620.x
50.
TamboriniR.HahnL.BaldwinJ.KlebigB.PrabhuS.AleyM.HoferM.NovotnyE.SethiN. (2024). Toward defining prosocial and antisocial media content in terms of intuitive motivations. Journal of Media Psychology, 36(4), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000435
51.
TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O'BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.MoherD.PetersM. D. J.HorsleyT.WeeksL.HempelS.AklE. A.ChangC.McGowanJ.StewartL.HatlingL.AldcroftA.WilsonM. G.GarrittyC.LewinS.StrausS. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
52.
ZhengW.CaoS.WangY.YangK.ChenY.SongG. (2021). The impact of social value orientation, game context and trust on cooperative behavior after cooperative video game play. Psychological Reports, 124(3), 1353–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120934705
53.
ZillmannD. (2013). The logic of suspense and mystery. In BryantJ.ZillmannD. (Eds.), Responding to the Screen (pp. 281–303). Routledge.
