Video Game Experiment Shows People Are Willing to Feed Their Neighbors Even at a Personal Cost

Video games are usually seen as an escape—places where players slay dragons, race impossibly fast cars, or build fantasy worlds far removed from daily life. But a recent research project from the University of Vermont took a very different approach. Instead of fantasy, it dropped players into a situation rooted firmly in reality: the difficult economic choices faced by small farmers during every harvest season. What the researchers discovered was both surprising and encouraging. When given the choice, most players were willing to prioritize feeding their neighbors, even when doing so meant earning less money themselves.

The experiment was built around a digital simulation where participants played the role of small orchard farmers in Vermont. Their virtual decisions closely mirrored the real-life dilemmas farmers face when deciding how to sell their produce. Should they sell apples at the highest possible price to stay financially afloat, even if that price puts food out of reach for many community members? Or should they choose community nourishment, selling apples at lower, more affordable prices while accepting lower profits?

To make the choices feel real, the researchers attached actual cash incentives to the game. Players were paid $1 for every $40,000 of profit their virtual orchard earned. This meant that decisions were not just hypothetical. Each choice had a direct impact on the player’s own earnings, mimicking the tension between economic survival and social responsibility that real farmers experience.

Despite these financial pressures, the outcome was striking. Most participants chose to make their apples accessible to their neighbors, even when that choice reduced their profits. In other words, many people were willing to take a personal financial hit in order to support their local community.

Why the Researchers Built the Game

The research team designed the game to explore how different agricultural policies might affect small farmers. In reality, small-scale farms often struggle to survive financially. Selling food locally at prices neighbors can afford rarely covers costs, while selling at higher prices may keep the farm alive but excludes lower-income families from accessing local food.

Small farms face unique challenges, especially in the northeastern United States. Unlike the vast, flat farmland of the Midwest, the Northeast’s geography limits the ability to scale up production. Smaller plots, higher land costs, and labor-intensive practices make it difficult to compete with large industrial farms. As a result, many small farmers rely on off-farm income just to stay afloat.

This economic reality also affects consumers. In regions dominated by small farms, locally grown food is often more expensive, which can price people out of eating local even if they want to support nearby farmers. The game was designed to make players confront this trade-off directly, rather than simply thinking about it in abstract terms.

How the Experiment Worked

More than 1,000 participants from across the United States played the game in the fall of 2023. They were recruited through the crowdsourcing platform Amazon Mechanical Turk. Unlike traditional surveys that ask people what they think they would do, this approach allowed researchers to observe step-by-step decision-making as players reacted to changing conditions over time.

As players progressed through the game, many began to feel the stress of farming. Some expressed frustration at how difficult it was to make money, even when trying their best. The simulation made it clear that small farmers often face no easy choices, only trade-offs.

Yet even after experiencing these pressures, players continued to choose options that prioritized getting food into their neighbors’ kitchens. This pattern held strong throughout the experiment, revealing a deep commitment to community well-being.

What the Results Reveal About Human Values

One of the most important findings of the study is that people do not always act in strict self-interest, even when real money is involved. When placed in a realistic scenario that highlights social consequences, many individuals are willing to sacrifice some personal gain to support others.

This challenges the assumption that people will always choose profit-maximizing behavior when incentives are aligned that way. Instead, the experiment suggests that values like fairness, care for others, and community support play a significant role in decision-making.

The researchers also noted that this behavior contrasts sharply with how modern food systems are organized. Today, access to affordable food is often handled through charitable organizations or government assistance programs, rather than being built directly into market structures. The game showed that when individuals are given agency within a system, many naturally lean toward inclusive, community-oriented outcomes.

From Research to Policy Conversations

Originally, the study was meant to test how specific policy interventions embedded in the game would influence player behavior. However, once the researchers saw how strongly players favored community nourishment, they realized the findings had broader implications.

This led to the creation of a policy brief aimed at policymakers, nonprofits, and other stakeholders. The goal is to show that public values may already align with policies that support small farmers while ensuring local food remains accessible to everyone.

The researchers hope this evidence will encourage discussions around pricing supports, subsidies, or other mechanisms that allow farmers to stay in business without having to choose between survival and serving their communities.

Serious Games as a Research Tool

This project is also part of a growing movement to use serious games in academic research. Unlike entertainment-focused games, serious games are designed to study behavior, test systems, or explore policy outcomes.

One major advantage of this method is realism. Players experience consequences over time, adapt to challenges, and make decisions under pressure. This creates richer data than one-time surveys, especially for complex systems like food economies.

Serious games have been used in fields ranging from climate science to public health, and this study adds to the evidence that they are a powerful way to understand how people behave when faced with real-world trade-offs.

Why This Study Matters Beyond Farming

Although the experiment focused on agriculture, its implications extend much further. The findings connect to broader research in behavioral economics, which has long shown that humans often value cooperation and fairness over pure profit. Classic experiments like public goods games and ultimatum games have demonstrated similar tendencies.

What makes this study stand out is its grounding in a realistic economic system. By simulating an actual livelihood with financial consequences, the researchers showed that altruistic behavior persists even when stakes feel tangible.

In a time when food insecurity, rising costs, and farmer sustainability are growing concerns, this research offers a hopeful insight. It suggests that many people genuinely care about community outcomes and would support systems that reflect those values.

At its core, the experiment reveals something simple but powerful: when people are placed in situations that mirror real life and are given meaningful choices, many choose to act in ways that support both human dignity and collective well-being.

Research reference:
Morgan, C. B., et al. “A serious games methodology to test solutions for regional food systems inequities.” Journal of Rural Studies (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103366