The effects of state power on prosocial behavior: A three-level meta-analysis

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01786

Abstract

Abstract:

State power is temporary activated external power perception 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 state power 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 state power 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).Three databases including CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), WFD (Wanfang Data) and CSTJD (China Science and Technology Journal Database) were selected for Chinese, and Web of Science、Elsevier、EBSCO、ProQuest、Google Scholar, databases were selected for foreign languages to search relevant studies The keywords for state power were “power”, “power sense”, “state power”, and for prosocial behavior were “prosocial behavior”, “helping behavior”, “altruistic behavior”, “cooperation”, “donation”, “share”, etc. Retrieved on 3 March 2024. In the end, 48 papers (23 in English and 25 in Chinese) with 106 effect sizes were included, with a total sample size of 14871 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 effect size of the sense of state power on prosocial behavior showed that there was no significant difference in the influence of different levels of state power on prosocial behavior (g= -0.08, p = 0.359, 95%CI [-0.26, 0.11]). 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 the relationship between state power and prosocial behavior was moderated by the social visibility of behavior When behavioral society was visible, the state power positively predicted prosocial behavior. When behavioral society is not visible, the state power cannot predict prosocial behavior. In addition, the relationship between state power and prosocial behavior was moderated by behavioral appeal context. When in egoistic appeal, the state power significantly positively predicted prosocial behavior. When in altruistic appeal, the state power does not predict prosocial behavior. However, the moderating effects of age, gender, cultural background, inducing method of state power, type of state power, type of prosocial behavior, data source of prosocial behavior and publication status were not significant.

The study is the first to integrate the relevant empirical research on the relationship between state power and prosocial behavior by using a three-level meta-analysis method, which explore the influence of state power on prosocial behavior and its possible moderating factors. Moreover, for the first time, age, gender, cultural background, priming paradigm of state power, type of state power, type of prosocial behavior, social visibility of behavior, behavioral appeal context, data source of prosocial behavior and publication status were examined as moderating variables to investigate the relationship between the two, revealing the reasons for the heterogeneity of state power '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 two. This contributes to a deeper understanding of the relationship between state power and prosocial behavior and the moderating mechanisms.

Key words: power sense, state power, prosocial behavior, three-level meta-analysis

CLC Number:

B849: C91

ZHU Yanhan, HE Bin, SUN Lei. The effects of state power on prosocial behavior: A three-level meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2024, 32(11): 1786-1799.

Figures/Tables 8

References 98

	*元分析用到的参考文献
[1]	蔡頠, 吴嵩, 寇彧. (2016). 权力对亲社会行为的影响:机制及相关因素. 心理科学进展, 24(1), 120-131. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.00120
[2]	* 陈咪咪. (2023). 绿色广告诉求对消费者绿色产品购买意愿的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 石河子大学.
[3]	* 段锦云, 王国轩, 田晓明. (2018). 恐惧管理理论视角下死亡凸显和权力感对助人行为的影响. 应用心理学, 24(2), 153-163.
[4]	方俊燕, 张敏强. (2020). 元回归中效应量的最小个数需求:基于统计功效和估计精度. 心理科学进展, 28(4), 673-680. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00673
[5]	* 胡晨. (2018). 权力和地位对个体亲社会倾向的交互影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 浙江大学, 杭州.
[6]	* 黄传昊. (2021). 权力感对社会善念的影响: 支配性动机的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 江西师范大学, 南昌.
[7]	焦涵. (2023). 大学生权力感与亲社会行为倾向:心理特权的中介和共情的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 沈阳师范大学.
[8]	* 靳菲, 涂平. (2018). 受助者群体身份调节权力感对捐赠的影响. 管理学报, 15(11), 1679-1685.
[9]	* 李盟. (2017). 大学生权力感对助人行为的影响:调节效应和中介效应的分析 (硕士学位论文). 山东师范大学, 济南.
[10]	李馨, 刘培, 肖晨洁, 王笑天, 李爱梅. (2020). 组织中权力如何促进亲社会行为?责任感知的中介作用. 心理科学进展, 28(9), 1586-1598. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01586
[11]	* 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.
[12]	* 柳武妹. (2019). 权力越高越倾向于捐赠时间吗:慈善营销中捐赠者的权力对其时间捐赠意愿的影响及机制研究. 南开管理评论, 22(2), 23-32.
[13]	* 刘耀中, 黄俊杰. (2014). 权力感和社会价值取向对个体利己行为的影响. 广州大学学报(社会科学版), 13(9), 29-34.
[14]	* 刘耀中, 张俊龙. (2017). 权力感和群体身份对合作行为的影响——社会距离的中介作用. 心理科学, 40(6), 1412-1420.
[15]	* 罗学敏. (2023). 权力感对大学生亲社会行为的影响:一个链式中介模型 (硕士学位论文). 长江大学, 荆州.
[16]	* 马苏兰, 孙倩, 田晓明. (2024). 权力感对公共物品博弈中合作行为的影响:共情的调节作用. 心理技术与应用, 12(4), 193-199.
[17]	孟现鑫, 颜晨, 俞德霖, 高树玲, 傅小兰. (2024). 童年创伤与网络成瘾关系的三水平元分析. 心理科学进展, 32(7), 1087.
[18]	彭小平, 田喜洲, 郭小东. (2019). 组织中的亲社会行为研究述评与展望. 外国经济与管理, 41(5), 114-127.
[19]	孙麟惠. (2019). 个体权力感水平与自利倾向的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 浙江大学, 杭州.
[20]	* 孙鹏. (2019). 权力感对利他行为的影响:中介效应及调节效应分析 (硕士学位论文). 山东师范大学, 济南.
[21]	* 王君瑜, 韦欢丹, 迟立忠. (2022). 时间压力与权力感对合作行为的影响——基于囚徒困境博弈合作任务. (摘要). 第二十四届全国心理学学术会议摘要集 (pp.1558-1560). 河南新乡.
[22]	* 王仁瑾. (2021). 权力感对博弈情境中合作行为的影响及促进研究 (硕士学位论文). 陕西师范大学, 西安.
[23]	* 王若宸. (2021). 权力对合作行为的影响:敬畏的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 湖南师范大学, 长沙.
[24]	王雪, 蔡頠, 孙嘉卿, 吴嵩, 封子奇, 金盛华. (2014). 社会心理学视角下权力理论的发展与比较. 心理科学进展, 22(1), 139-149. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00139
[25]	* 王垚, 李小平. (2015). 不同人际关系取向下的权力对利他行为的影响. 心理与行为研究, 13(4), 516-520.
[26]	* 魏丹. (2017). 权力对道德行为的前后一致性的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 四川师范大学, 成都.
[27]	* 伍嘉华. (2023). 权力感对亲社会行为的影响:共情的中介作用和自我建构的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 东北师范大学, 长春.
[28]	* 杨驰. (2018). 权力感对合作的影响——控制感的中介和支配性动机的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 暨南大学, 广州.
[29]	* 姚琦, 吴章建, 张常清, 符国群. (2020). 权力感对炫耀性亲社会行为的影响. 心理学报, 52(12), 1421-1435. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01421
[30]	姚琦, 周赟, 贺钟祥, 吴章建. (2022). 消费者权力感对混合情绪广告分享意愿的影响. 珞珈管理评论, 6, 154-170.
[31]	* 曾丽萍. (2018). 不同亲密关系下权力感对宽恕的影响 (硕士学位论文). 广西师范大学, 桂林.
[32]	* 张丽娜. (2021). 大学生权力感与亲社会行为的关系研究:移情的中介作用和人际关系取向的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 江苏师范大学, 徐州.
[33]	* 周静. (2019). 权力感与合作/竞争下的亲社会:获益感知的中介 (硕士学位论文). 华东师范大学, 上海.
[34]	周静, 杨莹, 周天爽, 孙兰, 崔丽娟. (2021). 权力感与亲社会倾向:自我获益的中介和情境的调节作用. 心理科学, 44(2), 370-376.
[35]	* 周天爽, 潘玥杉, 崔丽娟, 杨莹. (2020). 权力感与助人行为:社会距离的中介和责任感的调节. 心理科学, 43(5), 1250-1257.
[36]	* Alhoqail, S. (2017). Can power determine donation? In P. Rossi (Ed.), Marketing at the confluence between entertainment and analytics (pp. 1169-1179). Springer International Publishing.
[37]	Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313-344. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x pmid: 21446947
[38]	Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. M. (2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(3), 154-174.
[39]	Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Accuracy of self-reports on donations to charitable organizations. Quality & Quantity, 45(6), 1369-1383.
[40]	* Cai, Y., & Liu, Y. (2019). Power makes you selfish? When and how power affect pro-social behavior. Psychology, 10(5), 748-766.
[41]	Card, N. A. (2016). Applied meta-analysis for social science research (Paperback edition). The Guilford Press.
[42]	Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363-1368. doi: 10.1177/0956797610383437 pmid: 20855902
[43]	Caza, B. B., Tiedens, L., & Lee, F. (2011). Power becomes you: The effects of implicit and explicit power on the self. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 15-24.
[44]	Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173-187. pmid: 11220439
[45]	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
[46]	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
[47]	* Cho, Y., & Fast, N. J. (2018). Lacking status hinders prosocial behavior among the powerful. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(9), 1547-1560.
[48]	Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical Power Analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98-101.
[49]	De Wit, A., & Bekkers, R. (2016). Exploring gender differences in charitable giving: The dutch case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 741-761.
[50]	* Dong, M., Palomo-Vélez, G., & Wu, S. (2021). Reducing the gap between pro-environmental disposition and behavior: The role of feeling power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(3), 262-272.
[51]	* Dong, X., & Bavik, A. (2023). Power, self-presentation and volunteer intention: Altruistic versus egoistic appeals in volunteer recruitment message. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 56, 94-105.
[52]	Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 436-449. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000008 pmid: 25621858
[53]	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: Journal of the Biometric Society, 56(2), 455-463.
[54]	Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences:Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502-1505.
[55]	Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453-466. pmid: 14498782
[56]	Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450-1466. doi: 10.1037/a0012633 pmid: 19025295
[57]	Gao, S., Yu, D., Assink, M., Chan, K. L., Zhang, L., & Meng, X. (2024). The Association between child maltreatment and pathological narcissism: A three-level meta-analytic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 275-290.
[58]	Guinote, A. (2007). Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 256-295.
[59]	Guinote, A. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 237-252. doi: 10.1037/a0012518 pmid: 18665700
[60]	* Han, D., Lalwani, A. K., & Duhachek, A. (2017). Power distance belief, power, and charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 182-195.
[61]	Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T. A., & Ebert, D. D. (2021). Doing meta-analysis with r: A hands-on guide. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
[62]	Hays, N. A. (2013). Fear and loving in social hierarchy: Sex differences in preferences for power versus status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1130-1136.
[63]	* Hershcovis, M. S., Neville, L., Reich, T. C., Christie, A. M., Cortina, L. M., & Shan, J. V. (2017). Witnessing wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 45-57.
[64]	Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557-560.
[65]	Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 3-26.
[66]	House, B. R., Kanngiesser, P., Barrett, H. C., Broesch, T., Cebioglu, S., Crittenden, A. N., … Silk, J. B. (2019). Universal norm psychology leads to societal diversity in prosocial behaviour and development. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1), 36-44.
[67]	Inesi, M. E., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). How power corrupts relationships: Cynical attributions for others’ generous acts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 795-803.
[68]	* Jin, F., Zhu, H., & Tu, P. (2020). How recipient group membership affects the effect of power states on prosocial behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 108, 307-315.
[69]	* Joosten, A., Van Dijke, M., Van Hiel, A., & De Cremer, D. (2015). Out of control!? How loss of self-control Influences prosocial behavior: The role of power and moral values. PloS One, 10(5), e0126377.
[70]	* Kalmanovich-Cohen, Hanna. (2020). Bridging time and power: How changes in social power influence individuals’ prosocial behavior at work (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
[71]	* Karremans, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2010). Having the power to forgive: When the experience of power increases interpersonal forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(8), 1010-1023. doi: 10.1177/0146167210376761 pmid: 20693385
[72]	Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.265 pmid: 12747524
[73]	* Khalil, M., Khan, S., & Septianto, F. (2020). Effects of power and implicit theories on donation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 28(3), 98-107.
[74]	Kraus, M. W., & Callaghan, B. (2016). Social Class and prosocial behavior: The moderating role of public versus private contexts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(8), 769-777.
[75]	* Liu, Y. (2017). Power effects on consumer well-being: Two essays on the power effects on donation and material/ experiential consumption (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of Central Florida - Orlando.
[76]	Liu, Y., Yuan, P., Lu, H., & Ju, F. (2019). The effect of power on donation intention: A moderated mediation model. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(10), 1-12.
[77]	Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158-186. doi: 10.1177/1088868312472732 pmid: 23348983
[78]	* Narayanan, J., Tai, K., & Kinias, Z. (2013). Power motivates interpersonal connection following social exclusion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 257-265.
[79]	Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D.,... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 74(9), 790-799.
[80]	* Peña, J., & Chen, M. (2017). With great power comes great responsibility: Superhero primes and expansive poses influence prosocial behavior after a motion-controlled game task. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 378-385.
[81]	Piff, P. K., & Robinson, A. R. (2017). Social class and prosocial behavior: Current evidence, caveats, and questions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 6-10. doi: S2352-250X(17)30044-1 pmid: 29221512
[82]	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
[83]	Rodgers, M. A., & Pustejovsky, J. E. (2021). Evaluating meta-analytic methods to detect selective reporting in the presence of dependent effect sizes. Psychological Methods, 26(2), 141-160.
[84]	Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
[85]	Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352-368.
[86]	* Salehi, N., & Dehghani, M. (2013). The rich who have the humility of the poor: Effects of culture and power on altruism. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 35, No. 35). UC Merced.
[87]	* Schmidt-Barad, T., & Uziel, L. (2020). When (state and trait) powers collide: Effects of power-incongruence and self-control on prosocial behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 162, 110009.
[88]	Sun, P., Li, H., Liu, Z., Ren, M., Guo, Q., & Kou, Y. (2021). When and why does sense of power hinder self‐reported helping behavior? Testing a moderated mediation model in Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(5), 502-512.
[89]	* Tost, L. P., & Johnson, H. H. (2019). The prosocial side of power: How structural power over subordinates can promote social responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 25-46.
[90]	Van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., Langendijk, G., & Anderson, C. (2018). Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), 164-181. doi: 10.1037/apl0000260 pmid: 28933910
[91]	Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48.
[92]	* Wang, X., Wang, M., Sun, Q., Gao, Q., Liu, Y., & Deng, M. (2019). Powerful individuals behave less cooperatively in common resource dilemmas when treated unfairly. Experimental Psychology, 66(3), 177-186. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000438 pmid: 31266433
[93]	* Wang, Y., Feng, H., Qiu, S., & Cui, L. (2021). Interactive effects of power and donation target on charitable giving. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(4), 479-487. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2223
[94]	* Yang, C., Liu, Y., & Chen, H. (2018). The influence of power sense on cooperation: The mediating effect of perceived control and the moderating effect of dominance motivation. Psychology, 9(5), 1065-1080.
[95]	Yang, Y., & Konrath, S. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between economic inequality and prosocial behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11), 1899-1916. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01681-y pmid: 37563303
[96]	* Yoon, J. D. (2013). Power and altruistic helping in organizations: Roles of psychological closeness, workplace design, and relational self-construal (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of Minnesota - Minneapolis.
[97]	Yuan, Y., Li, P., & Ju, F. (2023). The divergent effects of the public’s sense of power on donation intention. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 118.
[98]	* Zhang, Y., Ao, J., & Deng, J. (2019). The influence of high-low power on green consumption: The moderating effect of impression management motivation. Sustainability, 11(16), 4287.

调节变量	k	Intercept/ Hedge’s g (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	F	p	水平2方差	水平3方差
人口统计学特征
平均年龄	81	−0.0(−0.25, 0.10)	0.01(−0.02, 0.03)	0.01	0.909	0.15^***	0.17^**
女性比例	105	−0.09(−0.28, 0.10)	−0.00(−0.01, 0.01)	0.11	0.738	0.15^***	0.31^***
文化背景				0.53	0.469	0.15^***	0.31^***
东方	80	−0.13(−0.35, 0.1)
西方	26	0.02(−0.30, 0.34)	0.14(−0.25, 0.54)
实验特征
状态权力感启动方式				0.71	0.492	0.16^***	0.28^***
结构性操纵	29	−0.10 (−0.35, 0.15)
经验性操纵	66	−0.03(−0.23, 0.17)	0.07(−0.19, 0.32)
概念性操纵	9	−0.22(−0.63, 0.19)	−0.12 (−0.67, 0.28)
状态权力感类型				0.58	0.448	0.15^***	0.30^***
外显权力	95	−0.06(−0.25, 0.13)
内隐权力	11	−0.22(−0.63, 0.19)	−0.16(−0.58, 0.26)
亲社会行为指标选取				0.64	0.67	0.14^***	0.34^***
助人行为	20	0.07(−0.28, 0.42)
利他行为	11	−0.15(−0.64, 0.34)	−0.22(−0.92, 0.35)
捐赠行为	27	−0.10(−0.45, 0.25)	−0.17(−0.67, 0.28)
合作	15	0.07(−0.38, 0.51)	−0.01(−0.62, 0.56)
总体亲社会行为	11	−0.27(−0.66, 0.12)	−0.34(−0.86, 0.09)
其他	20	−0.04(−0.40, 0.32)	−0.11(−0.64, 0.37)
亲社会行为来源				0.003	0.958	0.15^***	0.31^***
行为观察	49	−0.08(−0.29, 0.15)
自我报告	57	−0.08(−0.30, 0.14)	−0.01(−0.25, 0.24)
行为社会可见性				12.10	< 0.001	0.14^***	0.19^**
可见	10	0.75(0.32, 1.17)^***
不可见	13	−0.37(−0.76, 0.02)	−1.11(−1.58, −0.65)^***
未明确	83	−0.11(−0.27, 0.06)	−0.85(−1.29, −0.41)^***
行为诉求类型				15.90	< 0.001	0.08^***	0.37^***
利已诉求	11	0.72(0.33, 1.12)^***
利他诉求	6	−0.07(−0.43, 0.30)	−0.79(−1.23, −0.44)^***
未明确	89	−0.13(−0.32, 0.06)	−0.85(−1.24, −0.47)^***
出版状态				0.43	0.516	0.15^***	0.31^**
已发表	70	−0.03 (−0.26, 0.20)
未发表	36	−0.16(−0.46, 0.15)	−0.13(−0.51, 0.26)

调节变量	k	Intercept/ Hedge’s g (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	F	p	水平2方差	水平3方差
人口统计学特征
平均年龄	81	−0.0(−0.25, 0.10)	0.01(−0.02, 0.03)	0.01	0.909	0.15^***	0.17^**
女性比例	105	−0.09(−0.28, 0.10)	−0.00(−0.01, 0.01)	0.11	0.738	0.15^***	0.31^***
文化背景				0.53	0.469	0.15^***	0.31^***
东方	80	−0.13(−0.35, 0.1)
西方	26	0.02(−0.30, 0.34)	0.14(−0.25, 0.54)
实验特征
状态权力感启动方式				0.71	0.492	0.16^***	0.28^***
结构性操纵	29	−0.10 (−0.35, 0.15)
经验性操纵	66	−0.03(−0.23, 0.17)	0.07(−0.19, 0.32)
概念性操纵	9	−0.22(−0.63, 0.19)	−0.12 (−0.67, 0.28)
状态权力感类型				0.58	0.448	0.15^***	0.30^***
外显权力	95	−0.06(−0.25, 0.13)
内隐权力	11	−0.22(−0.63, 0.19)	−0.16(−0.58, 0.26)
亲社会行为指标选取				0.64	0.67	0.14^***	0.34^***
助人行为	20	0.07(−0.28, 0.42)
利他行为	11	−0.15(−0.64, 0.34)	−0.22(−0.92, 0.35)
捐赠行为	27	−0.10(−0.45, 0.25)	−0.17(−0.67, 0.28)
合作	15	0.07(−0.38, 0.51)	−0.01(−0.62, 0.56)
总体亲社会行为	11	−0.27(−0.66, 0.12)	−0.34(−0.86, 0.09)
其他	20	−0.04(−0.40, 0.32)	−0.11(−0.64, 0.37)
亲社会行为来源				0.003	0.958	0.15^***	0.31^***
行为观察	49	−0.08(−0.29, 0.15)
自我报告	57	−0.08(−0.30, 0.14)	−0.01(−0.25, 0.24)
行为社会可见性				12.10	< 0.001	0.14^***	0.19^**
可见	10	0.75(0.32, 1.17)^***
不可见	13	−0.37(−0.76, 0.02)	−1.11(−1.58, −0.65)^***
未明确	83	−0.11(−0.27, 0.06)	−0.85(−1.29, −0.41)^***
行为诉求类型				15.90	< 0.001	0.08^***	0.37^***
利已诉求	11	0.72(0.33, 1.12)^***
利他诉求	6	−0.07(−0.43, 0.30)	−0.79(−1.23, −0.44)^***
未明确	89	−0.13(−0.32, 0.06)	−0.85(−1.24, −0.47)^***
出版状态				0.43	0.516	0.15^***	0.31^**
已发表	70	−0.03 (−0.26, 0.20)
未发表	36	−0.16(−0.46, 0.15)	−0.13(−0.51, 0.26)

作者(年份)	出版状态	研究序号	高权力感组N	低权力感组N	女性占比%	平均年龄	文化背景	状态权力感启动方式	状态权力感类型	亲社会行为指标	亲社会行为数据来源	行为社会可见性	诉求类型	效应值g	95% CI
曾丽萍, 2018	UPulish	Exp.1	123	123	59.35	未报告	E	CM	Im	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.88	[0.62, 1.14]
		Exp.2	71	71	59.15	未报告	E	CM	Im	O	OB	UP	UA	−0.29	[−0.04, 0.62]
陈咪咪, 2023	UPulish	Exp.2	53	54	47.70	29.00	E	SM	Ex	O	SR	UP	EP	0.68	[0.29, 1.08]
			54	53	47.70	29.00	E	SM	Ex	O	SR	UP	AP	−0.51	[0.12, 0.90]
		Exp.3	65	65	40.00	28.00	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	EP	0.30	[−0.05, 0.64]
			65	65	40.00	28.00	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	AP	−0.31	[−0.03, 0.66]
段锦云等, 2018	Pulish	Exp.2	30	33	61.90	20.62	E	EM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	−0.32	[−0.82, 0.18]
		Exp.3	58	58	67.24	22.05	E	CM	Im	H	OB	UP	UA	−0.20	[−0.57, 0.17]
胡晨, 2018	UPulish	Exp.3	49	49	57.12	21.28	E	SM	Ex	T	OB	UP	UA	−0.69	[0.28, 1.10]
黄传昊, 2021	UPulish	Exp.2	60	60	51.70	18.86	E	SM	Ex	O	OB	UP	UA	−0.53	[−0.89, −0.16]
		Exp.3	142	150	65.40	17.53	E	EM	Ex	O	OB	UP	UA	−0.54	[−0.77, −0.30]
靳菲, 涂平, 2018	Pulish	Exp.1	59	59	34.70	34.64	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.23	[−0.14, 0.59]
			59	59	34.70	34.64	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.17	[−0.19, 0.53]
		Exp.2b	80	80	53.10	20.12	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.36	[0.05, 0.68]
李盟, 2017	UPulish	Exp.2	52	58	62.73	18.59	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.40	[−0.78, −0.02]
		Exp.3	45	48	65.59	19.70	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.39	[−0.80, 0.02]
廖红玲, 赵冬梅, 2020	Pulish	Exp.1	45	44	70.79	21.74	E	SM	Ex	A	OB	UP	UA	0.95	[0.51, 1.39]
刘耀中, 黄俊杰, 2014	Pulish	Exp.1	26	26	56.60	22.98	E	SM	Ex	A	OB	UP	UA	−2.00	[−2.68, −1.33]
刘耀中, 张俊龙, 2017	Pulish	Exp.1	50	53	54.37	未报告	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−0.56	[−0.95, −0.16]
		Exp.2	29	30	49.15	未报告	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−1.20	[−1.76, −0.64]
		Exp.3	40	40	51.25	未报告	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−0.86	[0.40, 1.32]
柳武妹, 2019	Pulish	Exp.1b	52	52	38.60	27.30	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	0.55	[0.16, 0.95]
			52	52	38.60	27.30	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.61	[−1.01, −0.22]
		Exp.2	118	118	57.80	33.02	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	0.46	[0.20, 0.72]
		Exp.3	47	47	47.10	34.50	E	SM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	0.47	[0.06, 0.87]
作者(年份)	出版状态	研究序号	高权力感组N	低权力感组N	女性占比%	平均年龄	文化背景	状态权力感启动方式	状态权力感类型	亲社会行为指标	亲社会行为数据来源	行为社会可见性	诉求类型	效应值g	95% CI
柳武妹, 2019	Pulish	Exp.3	47	47	47.10	34.50	E	SM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	−0.47	[0.06, 0.88]
罗学敏, 2023	UPulish	Exp.2	82	87	54.60	未报告	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	0.89	[0.57, 1.21]
马苏兰等, 2024	Pulish	Exp.1	118	118	60.17	20.00	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−0.67	[−0.94, −0.41]
孙鹏, 2019	UPulish	Exp.1	54	54	45.37	未报告	E	EM	Ex	A	SR	UP	UA	0.16	[−0.22, 0.54]
		Exp.2	52	52	47.12	未报告	E	SM	Ex	T	OB	UP	UA	−1.20	[0.78, 1.62]
王君瑜等, 2022	UPulish	Exp.1	53	53	未报告	未报告	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	UP	UA	0.48	[0.09, 0.87]
王仁瑾, 2021	UPulish	Exp.1	67	67	58.95	未报告	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	UP	UA	−0.48	[−0.83, −0.14]
		Exp.2	64	52	72.40	未报告	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	UP	UA	−0.92	[−1.30, −0.53]
王若宸, 2021	UPulish	Exp.1	42	42	68.23	20.20	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	UP	UA	−0.54	[−0.98, −0.11]
		Exp.2	149	149	62.41	20.03	E	CM	Im	C	OB	UP	UA	−0.28	[0.05, 0.51]
王垚, 李小平, 2015	Pulish	Exp.1	36	53	50.55	30.05	E	EM	Ex	A	OB	UP	AP	−0.79	[−1.23, −0.35]
			44	31	50.55	30.05	E	EM	Ex	A	OB	UP	EP	0.08	[−0.38, 0.55]
魏丹, 2017	UPulish	Exp.3	26	25	76.47	未报告	E	CM	Im	H	OB	UP	UA	0.69	[0.12, 1.26]
			26	25	76.47	未报告	E	CM	Im	H	SR	UP	UA	0.67	[0.10, 1.24]
伍嘉华, 2023	UPulish	Exp.1	64	64	52.34	20.99	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	−1.14	[−1.51, −0.76]
		Exp.2	61	61	53.27	20.94	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.12	[0.14, −0.33]
杨驰, 2018	UPulish	Exp.2	30	30	46.67	未报告	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pu	UA	1.65	[1.06, 2.24]
		Exp.3	45	45	50.00	未报告	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	Pu	UA	0.94	[0.51, 1.38]
姚琦等, 2020	Pulish	Exp.1	69	69	64.03	26.29	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	Pu	EP	0.48	[0.14, 0.82]
		Exp.2a	36	36	48.98	23.05	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	Pu	EP	0.45	[−0.03, 0.92]
			36	36	48.98	23.05	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	Pr	UA	−0.67	[−1.15, −0.19]
			36	36	48.98	23.05	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	Pu	EP	0.57	[0.10, 1.04]
			36	36	48.98	23.05	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	Pr	UA	−0.53	[−1.00, −0.06]
		Exp.2b	35	35	55.71	24.77	E	EM	Ex	D	OB	Pu	EP	0.50	[0.115, 0.892]
			35	35	55.71	24.77	E	EM	Ex	D	OB	Pr	UA	−0.52	[0.13, 0.91]
作者(年份)	出版状态	研究序号	高权力感组N	低权力感组N	女性占比%	平均年龄	文化背景	状态权力感启动方式	状态权力感类型	亲社会行为指标	亲社会行为数据来源	行为社会可见性	诉求类型	效应值g	95% CI
姚琦等, 2020	Pulish	Exp.3	59	59	48.95	24.93	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	EP	0.55	[0.18, 0.91]
			59	59	48.95	24.93	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.25	[−0.62, 0.11]
张丽娜, 2021	Pulish	Exp.2	97	119	55.60	未报告	E	CM	Im	P	SR	UP	UA	−2.20	[−2.55, −1.86]
周静, 2019	UPulish	Exp.1	15	30	64.44	19.82	E	SM	Ex	P	OB	UP	UA	1.18	[0.51, 1.85]
			15	30	64.44	19.82	E	SM	Ex	P	SR	UP	UA	0.75	[0.11, 1.40]
		Exp.3a	51	49	68.00	26.89	E	EM	Ex	P	SR	UP	UA	0.66	[0.26, 1.07]
		Exp.3b	57	64	64.46	34.34	E	EM	Ex	P	SR	UP	UA	−0.51	[0.14, 0.87]
周天爽等, 2020	Pulish	Exp.2	66	66	54.90	21.73	E	EM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	−0.41	[0.06, 0.75]
			66	66	54.90	21.73	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.39	[0.04, 0.73]
Alhoqail, 2017	Pulish	Exp.1	65	65	38.93	25.10	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	−0.37	[0.02, 0.71]
			65	65	38.93	25.10	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.10	[−0.24, 0.45]
Cai & Liu, 2019	Pulish	Exp.2a	69	73	56.45	22.74	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.51	[−0.85, −0.18]
		Exp.2b	91	91	49.18	22.70	E	EM	Ex	D	OB	UP	UA	−0.31	[0.02, 0.60]
Cho & Fast, 2018	Pulish	Exp.2	71	71	52.00	34.29	W	SM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	0.18	[−0.15, 0.51]
Dong et al., 2021	Pulish	Exp.1	100	100	58.00	33.80	W	EM	Ex	O	OB	UP	UA	0.25	[0.91, 6.84]
		Exp.2	67	71	50.72	34.60	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.03	[−0.31, 0.36]
Dong & Bavik, 2023	Pulish	Exp.2	21	17	45.12	未报告	E	EM	Ex	A	SR	Pu	AP	1.04	[0.35, 1.73]
			21	22	45.12	未报告	E	EM	Ex	A	SR	Pu	EP	0.70	[0.07, 1.32]
			22	20	45.12	未报告	E	EM	Ex	A	SR	Pr	AP	−0.16	[−0.78, 0.45]
			21	20	45.12	未报告	E	EM	Ex	A	SR	Pr	EP	1.18	[0.51, 1.85]
Han et al., 2017	Pulish	Exp.2	86	68	64.00	36.30	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	AP	−0.42	[−0.74, −0.10]
			69	73	64.00	36.30	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	EP	0.44	[0.11, 0.77]
Hershcovis et al., 2017	Pulish	Exp.1	51	51	75.00	未报告	W	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.55	[−0.95, −0.15]
		Exp.3	82	82	49.00	35.00	W	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.25	[−0.56, 0.06]
作者(年份)	出版状态	研究序号	高权力感组N	低权力感组N	女性占比%	平均年龄	文化背景	状态权力感启动方式	状态权力感类型	亲社会行为指标	亲社会行为数据来源	行为社会可见性	诉求类型	效应值g	95% CI
Jin et al., 2020	Pulish	Exp.1	61	61	55.70	22.96	E	SM	Ex	D	OB	UP	UA	0.12	[−0.24, 0.47]
			61	61	55.70	22.96	E	SM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	−0.09	[−0.45, 0.26]
		Exp.3	112	112	53.60	23.37	E	SM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.24	[−0.02, 0.50]
		Exp.4	94	94	49.70	21.29	E	EM	Ex	P	SR	UP	UA	0.16	[−0.13, 0.45]
Joosten et al., 2015	Pulish	Exp.1	42	42	89.30	18.59	W	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.04	[−0.39, 0.47]
Kalmanovich-Cohen, 2020	UPulish	Exp.1	81	81	44.80	未报告	W	SM	Ex	P	OB	UP	UA	−0.57	[−0.88, −0.25]
			81	81	44.80	未报告	W	SM	Ex	P	OB	UP	UA	−0.49	[−0.81, −0.18]
		Exp.2	509	509	64.90	37.70	W	SM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	-0.12	[−0.25, −0.001]
Karremans & Smith, 2010	Pulish	Exp.2	42	42	88.09	21.00	W	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	0.43	[−0.01, 0.86]
Khalil et al., 2020	Pulish	Exp.1	98	98	44.56	35.10	W	EM	Ex	D	OB	UP	UA	−0.38	[0.10, 0.67]
		Exp.2	99	99	41.70	33.49	W	CM	Im	D	SR	UP	UA	−0.30	[0.02, 0.58]
Liu, 2017	UPulish	Exp.1b	140	140	51.40	22.50	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.05	[−0.19, 0.28]
		Exp.2	137	137	60.20	38.70	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.15	[−0.08, 0.39]
Narayanan et al., 2013	Pulish	Exp.4	44	44	67.05	未报告	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.40	[−0.02, 0.83]
Peña & Chen, 2017	Pulish	Exp.1	206	206	81.00	20.27	W	PM	Im	P	OB	UP	UA	0.42	[0.23, 0.62]
		Exp.2	206	206	81.00	20.27	W	PM	Im	P	SR	UP	UA	0.23	[0.03, 0.42]
Salehi & Dehghani, 2013	Pulish	Exp.1	22	8	48.07	21.10	E	EM	Ex	A	OB	Pr	UA	0.89	[0.03, 1.75]
Salehi & Dehghani, 2013			6	16	48.07	21.10	E	EM	Ex	A	OB	Pr	UA	−0.93	[−0.08, 1.93]
Schmidt-Barad & Uziel, 2020	Pulish	Exp.2	87	87	77.41	22.92	W	SM	Ex	P	OB	UP	UA	0.33	[0.03, 0.63]
		Exp.3	119	119	76.05	22.26	W	EM	Ex	D	OB	UP	UA	0.18	[−0.08, 0.43]
Tost & Johnson, 2019	Pulish	Exp.3	71	71	63.00	33.65	W	SM	Ex	O	OB	UP	UA	0.40	[0.06, 0.73]
			71	71	63.00	33.65	W	EM	Ex	O	OB	UP	UA	0.06	[−0.28, 0.39]
Wang et al., 2019	Pulish	Exp.1	52	52	73.08	22.90	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−0.50	[0.10, 0.89]
		Exp.2	48	48	58.76	22.13	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−0.74	[0.32, 1.15]
作者(年份)	出版状态	研究序号	高权力感组N	低权力感组N	女性占比%	平均年龄	文化背景	状态权力感启动方式	状态权力感类型	亲社会行为指标	亲社会行为数据来源	行为社会可见性	诉求类型	效应值g	95% CI
Wang et al., 2021	Pulish	Exp.1	89	89	54.30	33.09	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.19	[−0.11, 0.49]
		Exp.2	77	77	84.71	未报告	E	SM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.09	[−0.22, 0.41]
Yang et al., 2018	Pulish	Exp.2	30	30	46.67	23.00	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pu	UA	1.67	[1.08, 2.27]
		Exp.3	45	45	50.00	23.00	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	Pu	UA	1.89	[1.39, 2.39]
Yoon, 2013	UPulish	Exp.1	54	54	50.63	27.51	W	EM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	0.20	[−0.18, 0.58]
Zhang et al., 2019	Pulish	Exp.1	69	70	61.87	20.56	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.73	[−1.07, −0.38]
		Exp.2	65	65	68.46	68.46	E	SM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.83	[−1.18, −0.47]
		Exp.3	67	67	67.91	67.91	E	CM	Im	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.84	[0.48, 1.19]

作者(年份)	出版状态	研究序号	高权力感组N	低权力感组N	女性占比%	平均年龄	文化背景	状态权力感启动方式	状态权力感类型	亲社会行为指标	亲社会行为数据来源	行为社会可见性	诉求类型	效应值g	95% CI
曾丽萍, 2018	UPulish	Exp.1	123	123	59.35	未报告	E	CM	Im	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.88	[0.62, 1.14]
		Exp.2	71	71	59.15	未报告	E	CM	Im	O	OB	UP	UA	−0.29	[−0.04, 0.62]
陈咪咪, 2023	UPulish	Exp.2	53	54	47.70	29.00	E	SM	Ex	O	SR	UP	EP	0.68	[0.29, 1.08]
			54	53	47.70	29.00	E	SM	Ex	O	SR	UP	AP	−0.51	[0.12, 0.90]
		Exp.3	65	65	40.00	28.00	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	EP	0.30	[−0.05, 0.64]
			65	65	40.00	28.00	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	AP	−0.31	[−0.03, 0.66]
段锦云等, 2018	Pulish	Exp.2	30	33	61.90	20.62	E	EM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	−0.32	[−0.82, 0.18]
		Exp.3	58	58	67.24	22.05	E	CM	Im	H	OB	UP	UA	−0.20	[−0.57, 0.17]
胡晨, 2018	UPulish	Exp.3	49	49	57.12	21.28	E	SM	Ex	T	OB	UP	UA	−0.69	[0.28, 1.10]
黄传昊, 2021	UPulish	Exp.2	60	60	51.70	18.86	E	SM	Ex	O	OB	UP	UA	−0.53	[−0.89, −0.16]
		Exp.3	142	150	65.40	17.53	E	EM	Ex	O	OB	UP	UA	−0.54	[−0.77, −0.30]
靳菲, 涂平, 2018	Pulish	Exp.1	59	59	34.70	34.64	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.23	[−0.14, 0.59]
			59	59	34.70	34.64	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.17	[−0.19, 0.53]
		Exp.2b	80	80	53.10	20.12	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.36	[0.05, 0.68]
李盟, 2017	UPulish	Exp.2	52	58	62.73	18.59	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.40	[−0.78, −0.02]
		Exp.3	45	48	65.59	19.70	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.39	[−0.80, 0.02]
廖红玲, 赵冬梅, 2020	Pulish	Exp.1	45	44	70.79	21.74	E	SM	Ex	A	OB	UP	UA	0.95	[0.51, 1.39]
刘耀中, 黄俊杰, 2014	Pulish	Exp.1	26	26	56.60	22.98	E	SM	Ex	A	OB	UP	UA	−2.00	[−2.68, −1.33]
刘耀中, 张俊龙, 2017	Pulish	Exp.1	50	53	54.37	未报告	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−0.56	[−0.95, −0.16]
		Exp.2	29	30	49.15	未报告	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−1.20	[−1.76, −0.64]
		Exp.3	40	40	51.25	未报告	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−0.86	[0.40, 1.32]
柳武妹, 2019	Pulish	Exp.1b	52	52	38.60	27.30	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	0.55	[0.16, 0.95]
			52	52	38.60	27.30	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.61	[−1.01, −0.22]
		Exp.2	118	118	57.80	33.02	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	0.46	[0.20, 0.72]
		Exp.3	47	47	47.10	34.50	E	SM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	0.47	[0.06, 0.87]
作者(年份)	出版状态	研究序号	高权力感组N	低权力感组N	女性占比%	平均年龄	文化背景	状态权力感启动方式	状态权力感类型	亲社会行为指标	亲社会行为数据来源	行为社会可见性	诉求类型	效应值g	95% CI
柳武妹, 2019	Pulish	Exp.3	47	47	47.10	34.50	E	SM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	−0.47	[0.06, 0.88]
罗学敏, 2023	UPulish	Exp.2	82	87	54.60	未报告	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	0.89	[0.57, 1.21]
马苏兰等, 2024	Pulish	Exp.1	118	118	60.17	20.00	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−0.67	[−0.94, −0.41]
孙鹏, 2019	UPulish	Exp.1	54	54	45.37	未报告	E	EM	Ex	A	SR	UP	UA	0.16	[−0.22, 0.54]
		Exp.2	52	52	47.12	未报告	E	SM	Ex	T	OB	UP	UA	−1.20	[0.78, 1.62]
王君瑜等, 2022	UPulish	Exp.1	53	53	未报告	未报告	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	UP	UA	0.48	[0.09, 0.87]
王仁瑾, 2021	UPulish	Exp.1	67	67	58.95	未报告	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	UP	UA	−0.48	[−0.83, −0.14]
		Exp.2	64	52	72.40	未报告	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	UP	UA	−0.92	[−1.30, −0.53]
王若宸, 2021	UPulish	Exp.1	42	42	68.23	20.20	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	UP	UA	−0.54	[−0.98, −0.11]
		Exp.2	149	149	62.41	20.03	E	CM	Im	C	OB	UP	UA	−0.28	[0.05, 0.51]
王垚, 李小平, 2015	Pulish	Exp.1	36	53	50.55	30.05	E	EM	Ex	A	OB	UP	AP	−0.79	[−1.23, −0.35]
			44	31	50.55	30.05	E	EM	Ex	A	OB	UP	EP	0.08	[−0.38, 0.55]
魏丹, 2017	UPulish	Exp.3	26	25	76.47	未报告	E	CM	Im	H	OB	UP	UA	0.69	[0.12, 1.26]
			26	25	76.47	未报告	E	CM	Im	H	SR	UP	UA	0.67	[0.10, 1.24]
伍嘉华, 2023	UPulish	Exp.1	64	64	52.34	20.99	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	−1.14	[−1.51, −0.76]
		Exp.2	61	61	53.27	20.94	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.12	[0.14, −0.33]
杨驰, 2018	UPulish	Exp.2	30	30	46.67	未报告	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pu	UA	1.65	[1.06, 2.24]
		Exp.3	45	45	50.00	未报告	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	Pu	UA	0.94	[0.51, 1.38]
姚琦等, 2020	Pulish	Exp.1	69	69	64.03	26.29	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	Pu	EP	0.48	[0.14, 0.82]
		Exp.2a	36	36	48.98	23.05	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	Pu	EP	0.45	[−0.03, 0.92]
			36	36	48.98	23.05	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	Pr	UA	−0.67	[−1.15, −0.19]
			36	36	48.98	23.05	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	Pu	EP	0.57	[0.10, 1.04]
			36	36	48.98	23.05	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	Pr	UA	−0.53	[−1.00, −0.06]
		Exp.2b	35	35	55.71	24.77	E	EM	Ex	D	OB	Pu	EP	0.50	[0.115, 0.892]
			35	35	55.71	24.77	E	EM	Ex	D	OB	Pr	UA	−0.52	[0.13, 0.91]
作者(年份)	出版状态	研究序号	高权力感组N	低权力感组N	女性占比%	平均年龄	文化背景	状态权力感启动方式	状态权力感类型	亲社会行为指标	亲社会行为数据来源	行为社会可见性	诉求类型	效应值g	95% CI
姚琦等, 2020	Pulish	Exp.3	59	59	48.95	24.93	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	EP	0.55	[0.18, 0.91]
			59	59	48.95	24.93	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.25	[−0.62, 0.11]
张丽娜, 2021	Pulish	Exp.2	97	119	55.60	未报告	E	CM	Im	P	SR	UP	UA	−2.20	[−2.55, −1.86]
周静, 2019	UPulish	Exp.1	15	30	64.44	19.82	E	SM	Ex	P	OB	UP	UA	1.18	[0.51, 1.85]
			15	30	64.44	19.82	E	SM	Ex	P	SR	UP	UA	0.75	[0.11, 1.40]
		Exp.3a	51	49	68.00	26.89	E	EM	Ex	P	SR	UP	UA	0.66	[0.26, 1.07]
		Exp.3b	57	64	64.46	34.34	E	EM	Ex	P	SR	UP	UA	−0.51	[0.14, 0.87]
周天爽等, 2020	Pulish	Exp.2	66	66	54.90	21.73	E	EM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	−0.41	[0.06, 0.75]
			66	66	54.90	21.73	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.39	[0.04, 0.73]
Alhoqail, 2017	Pulish	Exp.1	65	65	38.93	25.10	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	−0.37	[0.02, 0.71]
			65	65	38.93	25.10	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.10	[−0.24, 0.45]
Cai & Liu, 2019	Pulish	Exp.2a	69	73	56.45	22.74	E	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.51	[−0.85, −0.18]
		Exp.2b	91	91	49.18	22.70	E	EM	Ex	D	OB	UP	UA	−0.31	[0.02, 0.60]
Cho & Fast, 2018	Pulish	Exp.2	71	71	52.00	34.29	W	SM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	0.18	[−0.15, 0.51]
Dong et al., 2021	Pulish	Exp.1	100	100	58.00	33.80	W	EM	Ex	O	OB	UP	UA	0.25	[0.91, 6.84]
		Exp.2	67	71	50.72	34.60	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.03	[−0.31, 0.36]
Dong & Bavik, 2023	Pulish	Exp.2	21	17	45.12	未报告	E	EM	Ex	A	SR	Pu	AP	1.04	[0.35, 1.73]
			21	22	45.12	未报告	E	EM	Ex	A	SR	Pu	EP	0.70	[0.07, 1.32]
			22	20	45.12	未报告	E	EM	Ex	A	SR	Pr	AP	−0.16	[−0.78, 0.45]
			21	20	45.12	未报告	E	EM	Ex	A	SR	Pr	EP	1.18	[0.51, 1.85]
Han et al., 2017	Pulish	Exp.2	86	68	64.00	36.30	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	AP	−0.42	[−0.74, −0.10]
			69	73	64.00	36.30	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	EP	0.44	[0.11, 0.77]
Hershcovis et al., 2017	Pulish	Exp.1	51	51	75.00	未报告	W	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.55	[−0.95, −0.15]
		Exp.3	82	82	49.00	35.00	W	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.25	[−0.56, 0.06]
作者(年份)	出版状态	研究序号	高权力感组N	低权力感组N	女性占比%	平均年龄	文化背景	状态权力感启动方式	状态权力感类型	亲社会行为指标	亲社会行为数据来源	行为社会可见性	诉求类型	效应值g	95% CI
Jin et al., 2020	Pulish	Exp.1	61	61	55.70	22.96	E	SM	Ex	D	OB	UP	UA	0.12	[−0.24, 0.47]
			61	61	55.70	22.96	E	SM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	−0.09	[−0.45, 0.26]
		Exp.3	112	112	53.60	23.37	E	SM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.24	[−0.02, 0.50]
		Exp.4	94	94	49.70	21.29	E	EM	Ex	P	SR	UP	UA	0.16	[−0.13, 0.45]
Joosten et al., 2015	Pulish	Exp.1	42	42	89.30	18.59	W	EM	Ex	H	SR	UP	UA	−0.04	[−0.39, 0.47]
Kalmanovich-Cohen, 2020	UPulish	Exp.1	81	81	44.80	未报告	W	SM	Ex	P	OB	UP	UA	−0.57	[−0.88, −0.25]
			81	81	44.80	未报告	W	SM	Ex	P	OB	UP	UA	−0.49	[−0.81, −0.18]
		Exp.2	509	509	64.90	37.70	W	SM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	-0.12	[−0.25, −0.001]
Karremans & Smith, 2010	Pulish	Exp.2	42	42	88.09	21.00	W	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	0.43	[−0.01, 0.86]
Khalil et al., 2020	Pulish	Exp.1	98	98	44.56	35.10	W	EM	Ex	D	OB	UP	UA	−0.38	[0.10, 0.67]
		Exp.2	99	99	41.70	33.49	W	CM	Im	D	SR	UP	UA	−0.30	[0.02, 0.58]
Liu, 2017	UPulish	Exp.1b	140	140	51.40	22.50	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.05	[−0.19, 0.28]
		Exp.2	137	137	60.20	38.70	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.15	[−0.08, 0.39]
Narayanan et al., 2013	Pulish	Exp.4	44	44	67.05	未报告	W	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.40	[−0.02, 0.83]
Peña & Chen, 2017	Pulish	Exp.1	206	206	81.00	20.27	W	PM	Im	P	OB	UP	UA	0.42	[0.23, 0.62]
		Exp.2	206	206	81.00	20.27	W	PM	Im	P	SR	UP	UA	0.23	[0.03, 0.42]
Salehi & Dehghani, 2013	Pulish	Exp.1	22	8	48.07	21.10	E	EM	Ex	A	OB	Pr	UA	0.89	[0.03, 1.75]
Salehi & Dehghani, 2013			6	16	48.07	21.10	E	EM	Ex	A	OB	Pr	UA	−0.93	[−0.08, 1.93]
Schmidt-Barad & Uziel, 2020	Pulish	Exp.2	87	87	77.41	22.92	W	SM	Ex	P	OB	UP	UA	0.33	[0.03, 0.63]
		Exp.3	119	119	76.05	22.26	W	EM	Ex	D	OB	UP	UA	0.18	[−0.08, 0.43]
Tost & Johnson, 2019	Pulish	Exp.3	71	71	63.00	33.65	W	SM	Ex	O	OB	UP	UA	0.40	[0.06, 0.73]
			71	71	63.00	33.65	W	EM	Ex	O	OB	UP	UA	0.06	[−0.28, 0.39]
Wang et al., 2019	Pulish	Exp.1	52	52	73.08	22.90	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−0.50	[0.10, 0.89]
		Exp.2	48	48	58.76	22.13	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pr	UA	−0.74	[0.32, 1.15]
作者(年份)	出版状态	研究序号	高权力感组N	低权力感组N	女性占比%	平均年龄	文化背景	状态权力感启动方式	状态权力感类型	亲社会行为指标	亲社会行为数据来源	行为社会可见性	诉求类型	效应值g	95% CI
Wang et al., 2021	Pulish	Exp.1	89	89	54.30	33.09	E	EM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.19	[−0.11, 0.49]
		Exp.2	77	77	84.71	未报告	E	SM	Ex	D	SR	UP	UA	0.09	[−0.22, 0.41]
Yang et al., 2018	Pulish	Exp.2	30	30	46.67	23.00	E	EM	Ex	C	OB	Pu	UA	1.67	[1.08, 2.27]
		Exp.3	45	45	50.00	23.00	E	SM	Ex	C	OB	Pu	UA	1.89	[1.39, 2.39]
Yoon, 2013	UPulish	Exp.1	54	54	50.63	27.51	W	EM	Ex	H	OB	UP	UA	0.20	[−0.18, 0.58]
Zhang et al., 2019	Pulish	Exp.1	69	70	61.87	20.56	E	EM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.73	[−1.07, −0.38]
		Exp.2	65	65	68.46	68.46	E	SM	Ex	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.83	[−1.18, −0.47]
		Exp.3	67	67	67.91	67.91	E	CM	Im	O	SR	UP	UA	−0.84	[0.48, 1.19]

研究	标准1	标准2	标准3	标准4	标准5	标准6	标准7	标准8	标准9	标准10	标准11	标准12	标准13	标准14	得分
Alhoqail, 2017	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	7
Cai & Liu, 2019	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	9
Cho & Fast, 2018	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	9
Dong et al., 2021	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
Dong & Bavik, 2023	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	NA	N	8
Han et al., 2017	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	Y	9
Hershcovis et al., 2017	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	Y	9
Jin et al., 2020	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
Joosten et al., 2015	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
Kalmanovich-Cohen, 2020	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	Y	9
Karremans & Smith, 2010	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	9
Khalil et al., 2020	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
Liu, 2017	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	NA	N	7
Narayanan et al., 2013	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
Peña & Chen, 2017	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	NA	N	7
Salehi & Dehghani, 2013	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	NA	Y	8
Schmidt-Barad & Uziel, 2020	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	Y	9
Tost & Johnson, 2019	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	Y	9
Wang et al., 2019	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
Wang et al., 2021	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
Yang et al., 2018	Y	N	Y	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	Y	7
Yoon, 2013	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	10
Zhang et al., 2019	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
曾丽萍, 2018	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	7
陈咪咪, 崔登峰, 2023	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
段锦云等, 2018	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
胡晨, 2018	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	9
黄传昊, 2021	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	10
靳菲, 涂平, 2018	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
李盟, 2017	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	7
廖红玲, 赵冬梅, 2020	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	NA	N	7
刘耀中, 黄俊杰, 2014	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	NA	Y	7
刘耀中, 张俊龙, 2017	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
柳武妹, 2019	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
罗学敏, 2023	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
马苏兰等, 2024	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	NA	N	6
孙鹏, 2019	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	7
王君瑜等, 2022	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	NA	NA	6
王仁瑾, 2021	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
王若宸, 2021	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	7
王垚, 李小平, 2015	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	NA	N	7
魏丹, 2017	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
伍嘉华, 2023	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	7
杨驰, 2018	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	7
姚琦等, 2020	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	8
张丽娜, 2021	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	9
周静, 2019	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	7
周天爽等, 2020	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	NA	N	9