羞愧对亲社会行为影响的三水平元分析

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00371

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

羞愧是一种典型的道德情绪, 其对亲社会行为的作用在既往研究中并不一致。本研究首次采用三水平元分析技术整合相关实证研究, 检验羞愧对亲社会行为的影响及调节变量在二者关系中的作用。通过文献检索和筛选, 共计纳入26篇文献, 85个效应量, 总样本量为5823人。主效应检验发现, 羞愧组比控制组表现出更多的亲社会行为, 羞愧能够促进亲社会行为的产生。调节效应检验发现, 暴露情境比掩蔽情境更能诱发羞愧对亲社会行为的促进作用, 亲社会行为的产生情境(暴露情境或掩蔽情境)调节作用显著, 但年龄、文化背景、羞愧诱发方法、羞愧类型及亲社会行为类型等变量的调节作用不显著。本研究使用三水平元分析方法保证了纳入文献信息的完整性, 从而就羞愧对亲社会行为的影响及调节变量在两者关系中的作用得出更为全面可靠的研究结论, 有助于拓展人们对于羞愧与亲社会行为关系及调节机制的认识。后续研究可深入探讨认知因素和个体特征在羞愧对亲社会行为影响中的作用, 考察羞愧与其他道德情绪对亲社会行为影响的差异。

关键词: 羞愧, 亲社会行为, 三水平元分析, 调节效应

Abstract:

Shame is a typical moral emotion whose effects on prosocial behavior were not consistent in previous studies. Some studies have shown its constructive effects on prosocial behavior, while others have demonstrated its destructive effects on prosocial behavior. Thus, some factors may have a potential impact on the role of shame on prosocial behavior. In view of this, this study used the three-level meta-analysis to integrate relevant empirical studies to examine the effects of shame on prosocial behavior and the role of moderating variables in the relationship.
The study was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). And literature search and screening were conducted using common Chinese and international databases, including CNKI, PubMed, Web of Science, Elsevier, EBSCO, ProQuest, etc. The keywords for shame were “shame”, and for prosocial behavior were “prosocial behavior”, “helping behavior”, “altruistic behavior”, etc. By February 2022, 26 papers (20 in English and 6 in Chinese) with 85 effect sizes were included, with a total sample size of 5823 participants. The research used the metafor package in R to conduct three-level meta-analysis, which solves the problem that the effect size of traditional meta-analysis is not independent, preserves the integrity of information and improves the statistical efficiency.
The results of the publication bias test indicated that there was no significant publication bias in this study. Based on the main effect test, the shame group showed much more prosocial behavior than the control group (g = 0.33), suggesting that shame can promote the generation of prosocial behavior. The heterogeneity test found significant differences in both within-study variance (levels 2) and between-study variance (levels 3), which indicates significant heterogeneity between studies. The moderating effect test revealed that shame was more likely to induce prosocial behavior in the expose situation than in the masking situation. However, the moderating effects of age, cultural background, shame-induced method, the type of shame, the type of prosocial behavior, and the generating situation of prosocial behavior (experimental situation or daily situation) were not significant, suggesting that the influence of shame on prosocial behavior has a strong stability.
The study is the first to demonstrate that shame promotes prosocial behavior by using a three-level meta-analysis method, which responds to the controversy of the existing theories and research findings on the topic and provides support for the theory that shame facilitates prosocial behavior. Moreover, for the first time, cultural background, the type of shame, and generating situation of prosocial behavior were examined as moderating variables to investigate the relationship between the two, revealing the reasons for the heterogeneity of shame's influence on prosocial behavior. It provides a new perspective or theoretical interpretation of the inconsistent conclusions of the existing studies on the relationship between the two, and contributes to the theoretical construction of indigenous research on the topic. Based on the findings of this study, future explorations of this topic need to be examined combined with situational factors. Subsequent research could further investigate the influence of cognitive factors and individual characteristics in the effects of shame on prosocial behavior, and examine the different effects of shame and other moral emotions on prosocial behavior.

Key words: shame, prosocial behavior, three-level meta-analysis, moderating effect

中图分类号:

B849: C91

郭英, 田鑫, 胡东, 白书琳, 周蜀溪. (2023). 羞愧对亲社会行为影响的三水平元分析. 心理科学进展 , 31(3), 371-385.

GUO Ying, TIAN Xin, HU Dong, BAI Shulin, ZHOU Shuxi. (2023). The effects of shame on prosocial behavior: A systematic review and three-level meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(3), 371-385.

图/表 3

参考文献 85

	*表示元分析用到的文献
[1]	陈璟, 姜金栋, 汪为, 李红. (2014). 决策中情绪作用机制的理论研究述评. 心理科学, 37(6), 1346-1353.
[2]	* 丁芳, 曹令敏, 张琛琛. (2013). 小学儿童羞耻情绪对其合作行为的影响. 青少年研究(山东省团校学报), (1), 19-24.
[3]	* 杜灵燕. (2012). 内疚与羞耻对道德判断、道德行为影响的差异研究 (硕士学位论文). 中国地质大学, 北京.
[4]	范伟, 任梦梦, 肖俊泽, 简增郸, 杜晓明, 傅小兰. (2019). 羞耻情绪对欺骗行为的影响:自我控制的作用. 心理学报, 51(9), 992-1006.
[5]	费定舟, 钱东海, 黄旭辰. (2016). 利他行为的自我控制过程模型:自我损耗下的道德情绪的正向作用. 心理学报, 48(9), 1175-1183.
[6]	高学德. (2013). 羞耻研究:概念、结构及其评定. 心理科学进展, 21(8), 1450-1456.
[7]	郝娜, 崔丽莹. (2022). 补偿他人还是保护自己?内疚与羞耻情绪对合作行为的影响差异. 心理科学进展, 30(7), 1626-1636.
[8]	* 李赛琦, 王柳生. (2020). 内源性羞耻与群体身份对亲社会行为的影响. 心理科学, 43(4), 957-962.
[9]	* 廖红玲, 赵冬梅. (2020). 羞耻条件下权力感对个体道德伪善的影响. 心理研究, 13(2), 121-129.
[10]	* 刘谞. (2011). 社会情绪和社会规范对独裁者博弈中公平行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 浙江大学, 杭州.
[11]	王煜, 李梦菊. (2020). 建设性还是破坏性?羞愧的双路径模型. 心理科学进展, 28(8), 1325-1336.
[12]	* 姚薇, 王柳生, 李皓. (2019). 大学生羞耻情绪对亲社会行为的影响研究. 心理技术与应用, 7(1), 34-38.
[13]	俞国良, 赵军燕. (2009). 自我意识情绪: 聚焦于自我的道德情绪研究. 心理发展与教育, 25(2), 116-120.
[14]	Alexander, C. N., & Knight, G. W. (1971). Situated identities and social psychological experimentation. Sociometry, 34(1), 65-82. doi: 10.2307/2786351 URL
[15]	Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. (2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(3), 154-174. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154 URL
[16]	Bedford, O., & Hwang, K.-K. (2003). Guilt and shame in Chinese culture: A cross-cultural framework from the perspective of morality and identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33(2), 127-144. doi: 10.1111/1468-5914.00210 URL
[17]	Carlo, G. (2014). The development and correlates of prosocial moral behaviors. In M. Killen, & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 208-234). London, UK: Psychology Press.
[18]	* Carlo, G., McGinley, M., Davis, A., & Streit, C. (2012). Behaving badly or goodly: Is it because I feel guilty, shameful, or sympathetic? Or is it a matter of what I think? New Directions for Youth Development, (136), 75-93. doi: 10.1002/yd.20040 pmid: 23359445
[19]	Cheung, M. W. L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 211-229. doi: 10.1037/a0032968 pmid: 23834422
[20]	Cheung, M. W. L. (2019). A guide to conducting a meta-analysis with non-independent effect sizes. Neuropsychology Review, 29(4), 387-396. doi: 10.1007/s11065-019-09415-6 pmid: 31446547
[21]	Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 pmid: 19565683
[22]	Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 947-966. doi: 10.1037/a0022641 pmid: 21517196
[23]	* Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., & Kiyonari, T. (2014). No place to hide: When shame causes proselfs to cooperate. Journal of Social Psychology, 154(1), 74-88. pmid: 24689338
[24]	* de Hooge, I. E., Breugelmans, S. M., & Zeelenberg, M. (2008). Not so ugly after all: When shame acts as a commitment device. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 933-943. doi: 10.1037/a0011991 pmid: 18808269
[25]	* de Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2007). Moral sentiments and cooperation: Differential influences of shame and guilt. Cognition and Emotion, 21(5), 1025-1042. doi: 10.1080/02699930600980874 URL
[26]	de Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2010). Restore and protect motivations following shame. Cognition and Emotion, 24(1), 111-127. doi: 10.1080/02699930802584466 URL
[27]	* Dempsey, H. L., & Mann, A. (2017). Guilt, shame, sympathy, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 14(1), 59-68.
[28]	DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M. T., & Maner, J. K. (2008). Depletion makes the heart grow less helpful: Helping as a function of self-regulatory energy and genetic relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1653-1662. doi: 10.1177/0146167208323981 pmid: 19050337
[29]	Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A. (2017). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. London, UK: Psychology Press.
[30]	Drummond, J. D. K., Hammond, S. I., Satlof-Bedrick, E., Waugh, W. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2017). Helping the one you hurt: Toddlers’ rudimentary guilt, shame, and prosocial behavior after harming another. Child Development, 88(4), 1382-1397. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12653 pmid: 27797103
[31]	* Duangdao, K. M. (2011). When knowing just isn't enough: Examining of the role of moral emotions in health decision making using the Theory of Planned Behavior (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). The University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
[32]	Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x pmid: 10877304
[33]	Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629-634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 URL
[34]	Fessler, D. M. T. (2004). Shame in two cultures: Implications for evolutionary approaches. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(2), 207-262. doi: 10.1163/1568537041725097 URL
[35]	Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39-66. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 pmid: 7870863
[36]	Gambin, M., & Sharp, C. (2018). The relations between empathy, guilt, shame and depression in inpatient adolescents. Journal of Affective Disorders, 241, 381-387. doi: S0165-0327(17)32536-3 pmid: 30145508
[37]	* Gausel, N., Leach, C. W., Vignoles, V. L., & Brown, R. (2012). Defend or repair? Explaining responses to in-group moral failure by disentangling feelings of shame, rejection, and inferiority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 941-960. doi: 10.1037/a0027233 pmid: 22352324
[38]	Gausel, N., Vignoles, V. L., & Leach, C. W. (2016). Resolving the paradox of shame: Differentiating among specific appraisal-feeling combinations explains pro-social and self-defensive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 40(1), 118-139. doi: 10.1007/s11031-015-9513-y URL
[39]	Ghorbani, M., & Liao, Y. (2014). The effect of acculturation on reparative behavior in shame and guilt cultures. Frontiers of Business Research in China (Higher Education Press), 8(3), 273-298.
[40]	* Ghorbani, M., Liao, Y., Çayköylü, S., & Chand, M. (2013). Guilt, shame, and reparative behavior: The effect of psychological proximity. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 311-323. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1350-2 URL
[41]	Giner-Sorolla, R., Piazza, J., & Espinosa, P. (2011). What do the TOSCA guilt and shame scales really measure: Affect or action? Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 445-450. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.010 URL
[42]	Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T. A., & Ebert, D. D. (2021). Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-on guide. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
[43]	Hertz, S. G., & Krettenauer, T. (2016). Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior?: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 20(2), 129-140. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000062 URL
[44]	Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
[45]	Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[46]	* Ibanez, L., & Roussel, S. (2021). The effects of induced emotions on environmental preferences and behavior: An experimental study. Plos One, 16(9), e0258045. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258045 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258045 URL
[47]	* Jacquet, J., Hauert, C., Traulsen, A., & Milinski, M. (2011). Shame and honour drive cooperation. Biology Letters, 7(6), 899-901. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0367 pmid: 21632623
[48]	* Johnson, R. C., Danko, G. P., Darvill, T. J., Bochner, S., Bowers, J. K., Huang, Y.-H., ... Pennington, D. (1989). Cross-cultural assessment of altruism and its correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(8), 855-868. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(89)90021-4 URL
[49]	Kingsford, J. M., Hawes, D. J., & de Rosnay, M. (2022). The development of moral shame indicates the emergence of moral identity in middle-childhood. Journal of Moral Education, 51(3), 422-441. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2021.1898936 URL
[50]	Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Matsumoto, H. (1995). Culture, self, and emotion: A cultural perspective on "self-conscious" emotionsIn J. P. Tangney, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 439-464). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
[51]	Leach, C. W., & Cidam, A. (2015). When is shame linked to constructive approach orientation? A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 983-1002. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000037 pmid: 26641074
[52]	Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. Psychoanalytic Review, 58(3), 419-438. pmid: 5150685
[53]	Lickel, B., Kushlev, K., Savalei, V., Matta, S., & Schmader, T. (2014). Shame and the motivation to change the self. Emotion, 14(6), 1049-1061. doi: 10.1037/a0038235 pmid: 25401288
[54]	Lüdecke, D. (2019). esc: Effect size computation for meta analysis (version 0.5.1). Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/esc/
[55]	Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2018). Reconsidering the differences between shame and guilt. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 14(3), 710-733. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v14i3.1564 pmid: 30263080
[56]	Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., ... Group, P.-P. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 URL
[57]	* Myyry, L., Helkama, K., Silfver-Kuhalampi, M., Petkova, K., Valentim, J. P., & Liik, K. (2021). Explorations in reported moral behaviors, values, and moral emotions in four countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 661172. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661172 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661172 URL
[58]	NIH. (2018). Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and crosssectional studies. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
[59]	* Nunney, S. J., van der Schalk, J., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2022). Emotion and intergroup cooperation: How verbal expressions of guilt, shame, and pride influence behavior in a social dilemma. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(4), e2273. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2273
[60]	* Ortiz Baron, M. J., Etxebarria Bilbao, I., Apodaca Urquijo, P., Conejero Lopez, S., & Pascual Jimeno, A. (2018). Moral emotions associated with prosocial and antisocial behavior in school-aged children. Psicothema, 30(1), 82-88. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.143 pmid: 29363475
[61]	Quarmley, M., Feldman, J., Grossman, H., Clarkson, T., Moyer, A., & Jarcho, J. M. (2022). Testing effects of social rejection on aggressive and prosocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 48(6), 529-545. doi: 10.1002/ab.22026 pmid: 35349722
[62]	* Riek, B. M., & DeWit, C. C. (2018). Differences and similarities in forgiveness seeking across childhood and adolescence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(8), 1119-1132. doi: 10.1177/0146167218760797 pmid: 29552950
[63]	* Riek, B. M., Luna, L. M. R., & Schnabelrauch, C. A. (2014). Transgressors’ guilt and shame: A longitudinal examination of forgiveness seeking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(6), 751-772. doi: 10.1177/0265407513503595 URL
[64]	Robertson, T. E., Sznycer, D., Delton, A. W., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2018). The true trigger of shame: Social devaluation is sufficient, wrongdoing is unnecessary. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(5), 566-573. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.05.010 URL
[65]	* Roos, S., Hodges, E. V., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Do guilt- and shame-proneness differentially predict prosocial, aggressive, and withdrawn behaviors during early adolescence? Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 941-946. doi: 10.1037/a0033904 pmid: 23895166
[66]	Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
[67]	Scheff, T. J., & Retzinger, S. M. (1991). Emotions and violence: Shame and rage in destructive conflicts. MA: Lexington Books.
[68]	Sheikh, S. (2014). Cultural variations in shame’s responses: A dynamic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(4), 387-403. doi: 10.1177/1088868314540810 pmid: 25074027
[69]	Silke, C., Brady, B., Boylan, C., & Dolan, P. (2018). Factors influencing the development of empathy and pro-social behaviour among adolescents: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 421-436. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.027 URL
[70]	Sznycer, D., Takemura, K., Delton, A. W., Sato, K., Robertson, T., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2012). Cross-cultural differences and similarities in proneness to shame: An adaptationist and ecological approach. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(2), 352-370. pmid: 22947644
[71]	Sznycer, D., Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., Porat, R., Shalvi, S., & Halperin, E. (2016). Shame closely tracks the threat of devaluation by others, even across cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(10), 2625-2630. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1514699113 URL
[72]	Sznycer, D., Xygalatas, D., Agey, E., Alami, S., An, X. F., Ananyeva, K. I., ... Tooby, J. (2018). Cross-cultural invariances in the architecture of shame. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(39), 9702-9707. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1805016115 URL
[73]	Tangney, J. P. (1996). Conceptual and methodological issues in the assessment of shame and guilt. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(9), 741-754. pmid: 8936757
[74]	Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2003). Shame and guilt. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
[75]	Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Martinez, A. G. (2014). Two faces of shame: The roles of shame and guilt in predicting recidivism. Psychological Science, 25(3), 799-805. doi: 10.1177/0956797613508790 pmid: 24395738
[76]	Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 345-372. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145 URL
[77]	Tignor, S. M., & Colvin, C. R. (2017). The interpersonal adaptiveness of dispositional guilt and shame: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality, 85(3), 341-363. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12244 pmid: 26808188
[78]	van den Noortgate, W., López-López, J. A., Marín-Martínez, F., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2013). Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 576-594. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6 pmid: 23055166
[79]	van Eldik, W. M., de Haan, A. D., Parry, L. Q., Davies, P. T., Luijk, M. P. C. M., Arends, L. R., & Prinzie, P. (2020). The interparental relationship: Meta-analytic associations with children’s maladjustment and responses to interparental conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 146(7), 553-594. doi: 10.1037/bul0000233 URL
[80]	van Kleef, G. A., & Lelieveld, G. J. (2022). Moving the self and others to do good: The emotional underpinnings of prosocial behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 80-88. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.029 URL
[81]	Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48.
[82]	* Wang, C.-C., Cheng, Y.-Y., Chiou, W.-B., & Kung, C.-C. (2012). Shame for money: Shame enhances the incentive value of economic resources. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1), 77-85. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500001856 URL
[83]	* Wang, L., Pan, H., & Zhang, H. (2020). The effect of emotional intensity of shame on children’s prosocial behaviour. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(2), 263-274. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2019.1573666 URL
[84]	Wei, J., Zhang, W., Feng, L., & Gao, W. (2017). Comparison of fertility-sparing treatments in patients with early endometrial cancer and atypical complex hyperplasia: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Medicine, 96(37), e8034. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008034 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008034 URL
[85]	* Wood, D., Pilisuk, M., & Uren, E. (1973). The martyr's personality: An experimental investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 177-186. pmid: 4687929

调节变量	k	#ES	Intercept/ Hedges’g	95% CI	β₁	Omnibus test	p	Var.level 2 Var.level 3
样本特征
年龄						F (1, 83) = 0.57	0.454	0.13* 0.20*
青少年	6	16	0.47*	0.04, 0.89
成人	20	69	0.28	-0.67, 0.30	-0.18
文化背景						F (1, 83) = 1.27	0.263	0.13* 0.19*
东方	9	21	0.18	-0.15, 0.51
西方	18	64	0.40	-0.17, 0.60	0.22
实验特征
羞愧类型						F (1, 83) = 0.05	0.821	0.12* 0.21*
状态羞愧	16	56	0.31*	0.04, 0.58
特质羞愧	10	29	0.36	-0.38, 0.48	0.05
羞愧诱发方法						F (3, 81) = 0.17	0.916	0.13 0.20*
想象	8	31	0.36*	0.05, 0.67
真实情景	6	12	0.28	-0.47, 0.32	-0.08
回忆	4	13	0.22	-0.56, 0.28	-0.14
自我报告	10	29	0.35	-0.46, 0.45	-0.01
亲社会行为类型						F (5, 79) = 0.91	0.482	0.13 0.18*
利他	5	11	0.06	-0.37, 0.50
合作	6	27	0.35	-0.28, 0.84	0.28
捐助	6	8	0.24	-0.45, 0.80	0.17
助人	3	4	0.18	-0.61, 0.84	0.12
其他	6	25	0.53*	0.01, 0.93	0.47
总体	5	10	0.37	-0.29, 0.89	0.30
亲社会行为产生情境
a						F (1, 83) = 0.09	0.762	0.13* 0.20*
日常情境	12	36	0.35**	0.09, 0.61
实验情境	16	49	0.31	-0.33, 0.25	-0.04
b						F (1, 83) = 6.90	0.010	0.13 0.13*
暴露情境	8	21	0.69***	0.36, 1.02
掩蔽情境	21	64	0.20**	-0.85, -0.12	-0.49

调节变量	k	#ES	Intercept/ Hedges’g	95% CI	β₁	Omnibus test	p	Var.level 2 Var.level 3
样本特征
年龄						F (1, 83) = 0.57	0.454	0.13* 0.20*
青少年	6	16	0.47*	0.04, 0.89
成人	20	69	0.28	-0.67, 0.30	-0.18
文化背景						F (1, 83) = 1.27	0.263	0.13* 0.19*
东方	9	21	0.18	-0.15, 0.51
西方	18	64	0.40	-0.17, 0.60	0.22
实验特征
羞愧类型						F (1, 83) = 0.05	0.821	0.12* 0.21*
状态羞愧	16	56	0.31*	0.04, 0.58
特质羞愧	10	29	0.36	-0.38, 0.48	0.05
羞愧诱发方法						F (3, 81) = 0.17	0.916	0.13 0.20*
想象	8	31	0.36*	0.05, 0.67
真实情景	6	12	0.28	-0.47, 0.32	-0.08
回忆	4	13	0.22	-0.56, 0.28	-0.14
自我报告	10	29	0.35	-0.46, 0.45	-0.01
亲社会行为类型						F (5, 79) = 0.91	0.482	0.13 0.18*
利他	5	11	0.06	-0.37, 0.50
合作	6	27	0.35	-0.28, 0.84	0.28
捐助	6	8	0.24	-0.45, 0.80	0.17
助人	3	4	0.18	-0.61, 0.84	0.12
其他	6	25	0.53*	0.01, 0.93	0.47
总体	5	10	0.37	-0.29, 0.89	0.30
亲社会行为产生情境
a						F (1, 83) = 0.09	0.762	0.13* 0.20*
日常情境	12	36	0.35**	0.09, 0.61
实验情境	16	49	0.31	-0.33, 0.25	-0.04
b						F (1, 83) = 6.90	0.010	0.13 0.13*
暴露情境	8	21	0.69***	0.36, 1.02
掩蔽情境	21	64	0.20**	-0.85, -0.12	-0.49