TABLE 3.

Standardized specific indirect effect of personality on online prosocial behavior.

Variables	Direct effect	Indirect effects	95% Bootstrap CI
			Bootstrap LLCL	Bootstrap ULCL
Extraversion	0.160		0.065	0.255
→perspective taking		0.042	0.025	0.064
→empathic concern		0.013	0.004	0.029
→fantasy		0.002	−0.006	0.013
→personal distress		−0.014	−0.035	0.005
→social self-efficacy		0.218	0.151	0.285
(total)		0.261	0.210	0.345
Agreeableness	0.282		0.182	0.381
→perspective taking		0.089	0.061	0.123
→empathic concern		−0.038	−0.105	0.029
→fantasy		0.009	−0.008	0.027
→personal distress		0.016	−0.001	0.038
→moral identity internalization		0.082	0.013	0.156
(total)		0.158	0.107	0.213
Conscientiousness	0.215		0.090	0.340
→perspective taking		0.053	0.031	0.080
→empathic concern		0.038	0.003	0.080
→fantasy		0.002	−0.002	0.012
→personal distress		−0.035	−0.070	−0.007
→moral identity internalization		−0.064	−0.167	0.038
→social self-efficacy		0.146	0.109	0.192
(total)		0.141	0.037	0.244
Openness	0.257		0.165	0.349
→perspective taking		0.068	0.037	0.101
→empathic concern		0.011	−0.013	0.139
→fantasy		−0.000	−0.020	0.019
→personal distress		−0.006	−0.021	0.004
→moral identity internalization		0.012	−0.026	0.052
→social self-efficacy		0.161	0.115	0.214
(total)		0.246	0.192	0.305
Neuroticism	−0.179		−0.281	−0.078
→perspective taking		−0.038	−0.061	−0.021
→empathic concern		−0.009	−0.024	−0.002
→fantasy		0.003	−0.003	0.013
→personal distress		0.059	0.011	0.109
→social self-efficacy		−0.186	−0.241	−0.138
(total)		−0.172	−0.250	−0.138

Note: Five personality dimensions’ effects on online prosocial behavior through multiple mediation mechanisms were present in this table, respectively. The bold words stands for independent variables and the dependent variable of the five models is online prosocial behavior. (total) represents the total indirect effect. Gender, Monthly income, and father’ and mother’ educational level served as control variables.