Exploring the Impact of Immersive Media on Prosociality: A Comprehensive Meta-Analytic Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52152/RCR.V13.S10Keywords:
Immersive Media, Virtual Reality, Prosociality, Empathy, Meta-AnalysisAbstract
Ten years after the popular claim that virtual reality is the “ultimate empathy machine,” this article examines the body of research exploring that relationship. By broadening the analytical scope to include additional influencing factors, we ask whether immersive media might instead be considered the “ultimate prosocial machine”. Accordingly, the study aims to understand how—and under what conditions—the consumption of immersive media may enhance prosociality. To this end, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analytic review, synthesizing and updating findings from six prior meta-analyses. Incorporating 85 studies, including 19 recent additions published up to 2024, and performing 68 separate meta-analyses, we examined the extent to which immersive media delivered through virtual reality (VR) headsets influences prosocial responses—namely empathy, attitudes, intentions, and prosocial behaviours—toward outgroup members vulnerable to exclusion, discrimination, or stigmatization. The studies were organized into five distinct sets of meta-analyses to examine potential moderating variables: (1) participant gender, background, and age; (2) the target groups and topics addressed by the immersive productions; (3) the type of prosocial response measured; (4) the type of immersive technology used and the type of immersive experience created; and (5) the modality of experimental design. We found a small-to-moderate statistically significant overall effect, aligning with prior meta-analyses in both effect size and heterogeneity. Given ongoing debates, particular attention was given to the interaction between the type of immersive experience and the specific dimension of empathy evaluated. Our findings suggest that emotional empathy is more responsive to immersive experiences than cognitive empathy, which appears to require more extended and embodied engagement.
References
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (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
Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297237008
Beilin, H., & Eisenberg, N. (1982). The development of prosocial behavior. Academic Press.
Bunn, W., & Terpstra, J. (2009). Cultivating empathy for the mentally ill using simulated auditory hallucinations. Academic Psychiatry, 33(6), 457–460. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.33.6.457
Canet, F., & Sánchez-Castillo, S. (2024). Understanding how immersive media enhance prosociality: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Communication Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241247534
Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P. F. (2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 46(Pt 4), 604–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001
Cohn, L. D. (1991). Sex differences in the course of personality development: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.252
Cummings, J. J., & Bailenson, J. 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
Cummings, J. J., Tsay-Vogel, M., Cahill, T. J., & Zhang, L. (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
Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. 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
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187
Deladisma, A. M., Cohen, M., Stevens, A., Wagner, P., Lok, B., Bernard, T., Oxendine, C., Schumacher, L., Johnsen, K., Dickerson, R., Raij, A., Wells, R., Duerson, M., Harper, J. G., Lind, D. S., & Association for Surgical Education. (2007). Do medical students respond empathetically to a virtual patient? American Journal of Surgery, 193(6), 756–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.01.021
Dolan, D., & Parets, M. (2016). Redefining the axiom of story: The VR and 360 video complex. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/14/redefining-the-axiom-of-story-the-vr-and-360-video-complex/
Dooley, K. (2024). Virtual reality narratives: Embodied encounters in space. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64965-3_8
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.
Fassone, R. (2017). Every game is an island: Endings and extremities in video games. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429
Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (2011). Empathy and education. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 85–97). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0008
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. 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
Groom, V., Bailenson, J. N., & Nass, C. (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
Hoffman, L. W. (1977). Changes in family roles, socialization, and sex differences. American Psychologist, 32(8), 644–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.8.644
Hojat, M., DeSantis, J., Shannon, S. C., Mortensen, L. H., Speicher, M. R., Bragan, L., LaNoue, M., & Calabrese, L. H. (2018). The Jefferson Scale of Empathy: A nationwide study of measurement properties, underlying components, latent variable structure, and national norms in medical students. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 23(5), 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9839-9
Hojat, M., Gonnella, J., & Maxwell, K. (2009). Jefferson Scales of Empathy (JSE) professional manual & user’s guide. Jefferson Medical College.
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2011). The identifiable victim effect: Causes and boundary conditions. In D. M. Oppenheimer & C. Y. Olivola (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 133–145). Psychology Press
Lee, Y., Shin, H., & Gil, Y. H. (2024). Measurement of empathy in virtual reality with head-mounted displays: A systematic review. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(5), 2485–2495. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3372076
Ma, Z., Ma, R., Chen, M., & Walter, N. (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
Martingano, A. A., Herrera, F., & Konrath, S. (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
Martingano, A. J. (2020). A dual process model of empathy (Doctoral dissertation, The New School for Social Research). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (28087130)
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & PRISMA-P Group. (2021). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Mussen, P., & Eisenberg, N. (1977). Roots of caring, sharing, and helping: The development of pro-social behavior in children. W. H. Freeman.
Nicolae, D. F. (2018). Spectator perspectives in virtual reality cinematography: The witness, the hero and the impersonator. Ekphrasis: Images, Cinema, Theory, Media, 20(2), 168–180.
Nikolaou, A., Schwabe, A., & Boomgaarden, H. (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
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Raij, A., Kotranza, A., Lind, D. S., et al. (2009). Virtual experiences for social perspective-taking. In IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (pp. 99–102). IEEE.
Rose, M. (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
Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (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
Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality: I. Social and personal influences. Academic Press.
Thompson, A. E., & Voyer, D. (2014). Sex differences in the ability to recognise non-verbal displays of emotion: A meta-analysis. Cognition & Emotion, 28(7), 1164–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.875889
Tucker, A. S., & Kiss, M. (2023). Autopoiesis through agency in virtual reality nonfiction. Studies in Documentary Film, 17(3), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503280.2023.2185922
Ventura, S., & Martingano, A. J. (2023). Roundtable: Raising empathy through virtual reality. In Empathy—Advanced Research and Applications. IntechOpen.
Ventura, S., Badenes-Ribera, L., Herrero, R., Cebolla, A., Galiana, L., & Baños, R. (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
Williams, E., Love, C., & Love, M. (2021). Virtual reality cinema: Narrative tips and techniques. Routledge.
Winston, B. (1988). The tradition of the victim in Griersonian documentary. In L. Gross, J. S. Stuart, & J. Ruby (Eds.), Image ethics: The moral rights of subjects in photographs, film, and television (pp. 34–57). Oxford University Press.
Yin, Y., & Wang, Y. (2023). Is empathy associated with more prosocial behaviour? A meta‐analysis. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 26(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12537
Yu, C. L., & Chou, T. L. (2018). A dual route model of empathy: A neurobiological prospective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2212. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02212
Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Younng, J. H. (1966). The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. Human Resources Center.
Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 675–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3085
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The philosophy of the journal is to be open and to make all articles accessible. It is our belief that open access is a must in the future of science.
Authors who publish with RCR accept a slightly modified Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
You, as author, retain the copyrights for your paper, but the Review of Communication Research is granted exclusivity for publication of the article. The agreement allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and publication in this journal. We do not want third parties to make a commercial use of the article, unless we agree it with authors.
The journal will run an open review process as well as a traditional peer review process.
When the manuscript is accepted for publication, it will get a doi number and get available online to facilitate early citation.
The journal will post the published article to many public repositories for further diffusion and permanence.
You, as author, are permitted and encouraged to post your work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on your website), as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
If you have any doubts, please, contact the editor: editor@rcommunication.org
Many thanks for submitting your work to this journal.
