ArticleBMC psychology2026
University students doing good online: typologies, motivators, and psychological outcomes of online prosocial behavior.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs digital technologies increasingly shape the social worlds of university students, there remains a limited understanding of how they engage in prosocial behavior online, why they do so, and how these acts affect their well-being. Existing research has largely adapted offline frameworks or focused on performative forms ("like" on social media) of engagement, leaving more nuanced typologies and motivational processes underexplored.
methodWe conducted in-depth group interviews with 20 university students, recruited through purposive sampling to ensure a diverse range of demographics, to explore the types, motivations and psychological impacts of online prosocial behavior. This was done using a theory-informed thematic analysis.
resultsFive typologies of online prosocial behavior emerged: social support, instrumental support, online donations, cyberbullying intervention, and digital allyship. The first four typologies shared labels with well‑known offline forms of helping, but their mechanisms were transformed by features of the online environment, such as scalability, anonymity, and weak‑tie interactions. In contrast, digital allyship constituted a distinct meso-level form of prosociality, in which individuals leveraged their online presence to visibly advocate for and signal solidarity with vulnerable groups. Across all typologies, students highlighted value‑based motives, including empathy, personal moral commitments, and a sense of social responsibility, and they did not attribute their actions to complying with others' requests or seeking public recognition. Psychologically, online helping was associated with both positive and negative psychological outcomes. An emergent process, which we term 'digital prosocial resilience', captured how students described their capacity to continue engaging in online prosocial behavior despite no feedback or backlash, sustained by internal satisfaction derived from acting in line with their values.
conclusionsThis study extends the conceptualization of offline prosocial behavior into digital ecosystems by identifying five distinct behavioral typologies. Additionally, by contextualizing the underlying value-driven motivations and psychological impacts, the findings offer targeted, practical insights into cultivating digital prosocial resilience among university students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.