ISSN 1671-3710
CN 11-4766/R
主办:中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

心理科学进展 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (6): 992-1009.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2026.0992 cstr: 32111.14.2026.0992

• 元分析 • 上一篇    下一篇

公正世界信念对第三方惩罚的影响:一项三水平元分析

黄传斌, 王阳, 丁毅, 郭永玉   

  1. 南京师范大学心理学院, 南京 210097
  • 收稿日期:2025-11-06 出版日期:2026-06-15 发布日期:2026-04-17
  • 作者简介:黄传斌和王阳为本文共同第一作者。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目(72571147)

The effects of belief in a just world on third-party punishment: A three-level meta-analysis

HUANG Chuanbin, WANG Yang, DING Yi, GUO Yongyu   

  1. School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China
  • Received:2025-11-06 Online:2026-06-15 Published:2026-04-17

摘要: 路见不平, 拔刀相助?公正世界信念能否促进第三方惩罚在理论假设和实证研究中仍存在分歧。为厘清这一争议, 本研究采用三水平元分析方法系统探讨了公正世界信念与第三方惩罚的关系及其调节因素。通过文献检索与筛选, 获得46篇文献和93个效应量, 共包含15772名被试。结果发现, 公正世界信念与第三方惩罚之间存在显著但微弱的正相关(r = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.14])。二者关系受公正世界信念的自我-他人维度、第三方惩罚行为形式(社会惩罚 vs. 金钱惩罚)、文化背景、违规情境以及样本类型的调节, 但不受性别、年龄群体、公正世界信念的外显-内隐维度、第三方惩罚类型(惩罚行为 vs. 惩罚意愿)以及研究方法类型的调节。本研究基于第三方惩罚视角系统检验了公正世界信念理论的竞争性假设及其适用条件, 为后续理论发展与实证研究提供了启示。

关键词: 公正世界信念, 第三方惩罚, 三水平元分析, 调节效应

Abstract: See injustice and draw your sword against it. Since its proposal, the just world theory has focused on the phenomenon, yet its theoretical hypotheses and empirical findings remain inconsistent. To resolve this controversy and uncover the reasons for the divergent results, we conducted a three-level meta-analysis to systematically examine the effects between belief in a just world (BJW) and third-party punishment (TPP) and its boundary conditions.
Through literature search and screening, a total of 46 research papers with 93 effect sizes were included, and the total sample size was 15,772 participants. The main effect analyses revealed a significant but weak positive correlation between BJW and TPP (r = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.14], p = 0.006). Moderator analyses indicated that the effect was moderated by the self-other dimension of BJW (F (1, 55) = 6.20, p = 0.016). Specifically, BJW-self was positively correlated with TPP (r = 0.22, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.34], p = 0.001), but the association between BJW-other and TPP was not significant (r = 0.05, 95% CI = [-0.03, 0.14], p = 0.236). The effect was moderated by the form of third-party punishment behavior (F (1, 35) = 10.19, p = 0.003). Specifically, BJW was positively correlated with material punishment (r = 0.30, 95% CI = [0.12, 0.46], p = 0.001), but the association between BJW and social punishment was not significant (r = -0.03, 95% CI = [-0.13, 0.06], p = 0.500). The effect was moderated by the cultural background (F (1, 84) = 4.87, p = 0.030). Specifically, BJW was positively correlated with TPP in collectivistic culture (r = 0.19, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.29], p < 0.001), but the association between BJW and TPP was not significant in individualistic culture (r = 0.05, 95% CI = [-0.01, 0.12], p = 0.105); The effect was moderated by the violation scenario (F (2, 45) = 21.49, p < 0.001). Specifically, BJW was negatively correlated with TPP in the rape scenario (r = -0.10, 95% CI = [-0.15, -0.04], p = 0.002), but positively correlated with TPP in the robbery scenario (r = 0.14, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.24], p = 0.004) and corruption scenario (r = 0.30, 95% CI = [0.19, 0.40], p < 0.001). Notably, the correlation was significantly stronger in the corruption scenario than in the robbery scenario (Z = 2.04, p = 0.041). The effect was moderated by the sample type (F (3, 89) = 2.86, p = 0.041). Specifically, BJW was positively correlated with TPP in college students (Mage = 22.01 , SD = 3.72; r = 0.19, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.28], p < 0.001), but the association between BJW and TPP was not significant in middle and high school students (Mage = 14.58 , SD = 0.60; r = 0.20, 95% CI = [-0.05, 0.43], p = 0.115), non-students group (Mage = 36.32, SD = 8.580; r = 0.17, 95% CI = [-0.01, 0.35], p = 0.068) and mixed group (Mage = 30.92 , SD = 8.30; r = 0.02, 95% CI = [-0.05, 0.09], p = 0.545). However, the association between BJW and TPP was not moderated by observers' gender (β = -0.19, 95% CI = [-0.66, 0.29], p = 0.442), observers' age group (F (2, 70) = 2.53, p = 0.087), the explicit-implicit dimension of BJW (F (1, 88) = 0.02, p = 0.902), the type of third-party punishment (punishment behavior vs. punishment willingness) (F (1, 91) = 0.11, p = 0.739) and research method (F (1, 91) = 0.12, p = 0.726).
These findings contribute to addressing the competing hypotheses of the just world theory and specifying its boundary conditions, offering valuable insights for future theoretical development and empirical research. However, we examined the competing hypotheses of the just world theory solely from the perspective of third-party punishment. Future research should comprehensively examine bystanders' responses towards both victims and perpetrators to better clarify these competing hypotheses. Furthermore, the homo economicus and homo socialis perspectives offer inconsistent explanations for the association between BJW and TPP. Future research should further resolve the competing perspectives and explore the underlying mechanisms between BJW and TPP.

Key words: belief in a just world, third-party punishment, three-level meta-analysis, moderating effect.