IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/han/dpaper/dp-692.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating a Gamified Bystander Program: Evidence from Two Randomized Online Field Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Ebers, Axel
  • Thomsen, Stephan L.

Abstract

Objective: Previous social-psychological research has demonstrated the positive effects of online bystander programs on various crime-related outcomes, while information systems research has demonstrated the ability of gamification to improve motivation, engagement, and learning. This study bridges the gap between social psychology and information systems research by evaluating a bystander program that combines the simulation of a dangerous situation in a virtual environment with the application of game principles and game design elements. Method: We developed three research hypotheses and tested them using two randomized online field experiments (RCTs). During the first experiment, we collected data from 4,188 users on Facebook and randomly assigned them to four treatment arms, including three different configurations of the treatment and one control group. During the second experiment, we collected data from a representative sample of the population and observed them across three waves. Results: The results from the first experiment support the hypotheses that the bystander program motivates people to intervene in violent situations and that gamification enhances the motivational effect. The results from the second experiment support the hypothesis that the program makes people feel more capable of intervening. They also show that the treatment effects persist over a long period of time and hold for the overall population. Conclusions: We conclude that the gamification approach offers great potential for bystander education and that social media are well suited for the dissemination and upscaling of bystander programs. Policymakers can use these findings to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of future bystander programs or similar prevention measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Ebers, Axel & Thomsen, Stephan L., 2022. "Evaluating a Gamified Bystander Program: Evidence from Two Randomized Online Field Experiments," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-692, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    • Handle: RePEc:han:dpaper:dp-692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://diskussionspapiere.wiwi.uni-hannover.de/pdf_bib/dp-692.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ebers, Axel & Thomsen, Stephan L., 2021. "Benefit–Cost Analysis of Social Media Facilitated Bystander Programs," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 367-393, July.
    2. Randy Yee Man Wong & Christy M. K. Cheung & Bo Xiao & Jason Bennett Thatcher, 2021. "Standing Up or Standing By: Understanding Bystanders’ Proactive Reporting Responses to Social Media Harassment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 561-581, June.
    3. Robson, Karen & Plangger, Kirk & Kietzmann, Jan H. & McCarthy, Ian & Pitt, Leyland, 2015. "Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamification," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 411-420.
    4. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luigino Bruni & Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani & Matteo Rizzolli, 2020. "The Pied Piper: Prizes, Incentives, and Motivation Crowding-in," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 643-658, October.
    2. Heineck, Guido & Süssmuth, Bernd, 2013. "A different look at Lenin’s legacy: Social capital and risk taking in the Two Germanies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 789-803.
    3. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    4. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    5. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur, 2008. "Incentives and Workers' Motivation in the Public Sector," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 171-191, January.
    6. Lohse, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo & Diederich , Johannes, 2014. "Giving is a question of time: Response times and contributions to a real world public good," Working Papers 0566, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    7. Cristiano Cechella, 2011. "The Influence Of Cultural Affinity For The Boost Of Brazilian Investment In Portugal," Regional Science Inquiry, Hellenic Association of Regional Scientists, vol. 0(1), pages 59-72, June.
    8. Aseem Kaul & Jiao Luo, 2018. "An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for‐profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1650-1677, June.
    9. repec:esx:essedp:762 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    11. Delgado, Michael S. & Khanna, Neha, 2015. "Voluntary Pollution Abatement and Regulation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, April.
    12. Jochimsen, Beate, 2019. "Christmas lights in Berlin: New empirical evidence for the private provision of a public good," FiFo Discussion Papers - Finanzwissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 19-04, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    13. Keval Amin & Erica Harris, 2022. "The Effect of Investor Sentiment on Nonprofit Donations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(2), pages 427-450, January.
    14. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2006. "Environmental Morale and Motivation," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    16. Ayelet Gneezy & Alex Imas & Amber Brown & Leif D. Nelson & Michael I. Norton, 2012. "Paying to Be Nice: Consistency and Costly Prosocial Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 179-187, January.
    17. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2000. "A note on the warm glow of giving and scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 343-349, August.
    18. Arno Riedl & Paul Smeets, 2017. "Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 72(6), pages 2505-2550, December.
    19. Yamamura, Eiji & Tsutsui, Yoshiro & Ohtake, Fumio, 2018. "Altruistic and selfish motivations of charitable giving: The case of the hometown tax donation system (Furusato nozei) in Japan," MPRA Paper 86181, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Stephen Leider & Markus M. Möbius & Tanya Rosenblat & Quoc-Anh Do, 2010. "What Do We Expect from Our Friends?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(1), pages 120-138, March.
    21. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Valeria Costantini & Susanna Mancinelli & Massimilano Corradini, 2011. "Environmental and Innovation Performance in a Dynamic Impure Public Good Framework," Working Papers 201117, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bystander intervention; gamification; program evaluation; field experiments; social media; Facebook;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:han:dpaper:dp-692. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Heidrich, Christian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwhande.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.