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. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2006:i:33:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Daniel Sutter & Daniel J. Smith, 2017. "Coordination in disaster: Nonprice learning and the allocation of resources after natural disasters," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 30(4), pages 469-492, December.
    6. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    7. Dwenger, Nadja & Kleven, Henrik & Rasul, Imran & Rincke, Johannes, 2014. "Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivations for Tax Compliance. Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100389, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    9. Francesco Rullani, 2005. "The Debate and the Community. “Reflexive Identity” in the FLOSS Community," LEM Papers Series 2005/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    10. Nikolova, Milena & Roman, Monica & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2017. "Left behind but doing good? Civic engagement in two post-socialist countries," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 658-684.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. C. Mónica Capra & Bing Jiang & Yuxin Su, 2022. "Do pledges lead to more volunteering? An experimental study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 87-100, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Carattini, Stefano & Gillingham, Kenneth & Meng, Xiangyu & Yoeli, Erez, 2024. "Peer-to-peer solar and social rewards: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 340-370.
    16. Mengyuan Zhou, 2019. "The Effect of the Source of Inheritance on Bequest Attitudes: Evidence from Japan," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2019-018, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    17. Ek, Claes, 2017. "Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 45-62.
    18. D. Sirin Saracoglu & Terry L. Roe, 2004. "Rural-urban Migration and Economic Growth in Developing Countries," 2004 Meeting Papers 241, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. 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.
    20. Pilar Useche, 2016. "Who Contributes to the Provision of Public Goods at the Community Level? The Case of Potable Water in Ghana," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 34(6), pages 869-888, November.
    21. repec:esx:essedp:762 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.

    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.