Advances in Psychological Science ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (1): 32-50.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00032
• Meta-Analysis • Previous Articles Next Articles
ZHU Lin, LIU Jinru, LI Jing, LIU Conghui()
Received:
2020-11-09
Online:
2022-01-15
Published:
2021-11-25
CLC Number:
ZHU Lin, LIU Jinru, LI Jing, LIU Conghui. Moral foreign language effect and its moderating variables: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(1): 32-50.
文献 | 实验 顺序 | 道德故事数目 | 纳入分析的故 事次序/数目 | 样本量 | 女性占比(%) | 故事类型 | 记分方式 | 语系类型 | 效应值g |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
杨雯雯, | Exp.1 | 4 | 1/1 | 44 | 61.37 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.048 |
44 | 61.37 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.008 | ||||
44 | 61.37 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | -0.117 | ||||
44 | 61.37 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | -0.289 | ||||
胡宏安, | Exp.1 | 8 | 1-8/8 | 74 | 50.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.199 |
Exp.2 | 8 | 1-8/8 | 70 | 50.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | 1.181 | |
关旭, | Exp.1 | 8 | 1-8/8 | 62 | 100.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 1.126 |
Exp.2 | 8 | 1-8/8 | 62 | 100.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | -0.043 | |
Exp.3 | 8 | 1-8/8 | 62 | 100.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | -0.087 | |
Hong Im Shin & Juyoung Kim, | Exp.1 | 4 | 1/1 | 161 | 67.08 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.265 |
161 | 67.08 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.166 | ||||
161 | 67.08 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | -0.820 | ||||
161 | 67.08 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.417 | ||||
文献 | 实验 顺序 | 道德故事数目 | 纳入分析的故 事次序/数目 | 样本量 | 女性占比(%) | 故事类型 | 记分方式 | 语系类型 | 效应值g |
Alexandra S. & Marie-France Champoux-Larsson, | Exp.2a | 1 | 1/1 | 198 | 83.84 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.132 |
1/1 | 175 | 84.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.451 | |||
Exp.2b | 1 | 1/1 | 305 | 67.87 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.069 | |
1/1 | 295 | 78.21 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.064 | |||
Janet Geipel et al., | Exp.1 | 2 | 1/1 | 67 | 83.81 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.557 |
76 | 83.81 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.716 | ||||
1/1 | 67 | 83.81 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.135 | |||
76 | 83.81 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.401 | ||||
Exp.2 | 2 | 1/1 | 152 | 44.72 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.330 | |
152 | 44.72 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.016 | ||||
1/1 | 152 | 44.72 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.963 | |||
Exp.3 | 4 | 1/1 | 72 | 76.39 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.511 | |
72 | 76.39 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.152 | ||||
72 | 76.39 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.484 | ||||
72 | 76.39 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.295 | ||||
Susanne Brouwer, | Exp.1 | 6 | 1/1 | 60 | 50.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.196 |
60 | 50.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.196 | ||||
60 | 50.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.155 | ||||
60 | 50.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.866 | ||||
60 | 50.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 1.516 | ||||
60 | 50.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.000 | ||||
Exp. 2 | 6 | 1/1 | 60 | 53.33 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.654 | |
60 | 53.33 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.165 | ||||
60 | 53.33 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.541 | ||||
60 | 53.33 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.355 | ||||
60 | 53.33 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.881 | ||||
60 | 53.33 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.695 | ||||
Michele Miozzo et al., | Exp.3 | 1 | 1/1 | 225 | 47.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.290 |
Exp.4 | 1 | 1/1 | 861 | 44.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.368 | |
Albert Costa et al., | Exp.1 | 1 | 1/1 | 708 | 76.98 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.035 |
Exp.2 | 1 | 1/1 | 667 | 53.19 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.011 | |
Franziska Čavar & Agnieszka Ewa Tytus, | Exp.1 | 6 | 1/1 | 60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.165 |
60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.003 | ||||
60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.363 | ||||
60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.003 | ||||
60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.132 | ||||
60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.008 | ||||
Meagan Y Driver, | Exp.1 | 2 | 1/1 | 180 | 74.64 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.128 |
180 | 74.64 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.530 | ||||
Evy Woumans et al., | Exp.1 | 4 | 1/1 | 256 | 85.55 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.299 |
1/1 | 256 | 87.11 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.281 | |||
256 | 85.55 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.531 | ||||
256 | 87.11 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.299 | ||||
文献 | 实验 顺序 | 道德故事数目 | 纳入分析的故事次序/数目 | 样本量 | 女性占比(%) | 故事类型 | 记分方式 | 语系类型 | 效应值g |
3/1 | 256 | 85.55 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.420 | |||
256 | 87.11 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.461 | ||||
256 | 85.55 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.373 | ||||
256 | 87.11 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.282 | ||||
Rafal Muda et al., | Exp.1 | 20 | 1-10/10 | 140 | 65.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.073 |
11-20/10 | 140 | 65.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.901 | |||
Albert Costa et al., | Exp.1 | 1 | 1/1 | 317 | 53.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 混合语系 | 0.298 |
Exp.2 | 2 | 1/1 | 725 | 71.92 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.585 | |
725 | 71.92 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.013 | ||||
1/1 | 328 | 73.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.521 | |||
1/1 | 397 | 71.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.641 | |||
397 | 71.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.072 | ||||
328 | 73.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.033 | ||||
Joanna D. Corey et al., | Exp.1a | 2 | 1/1 | 211 | 72.54 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.470 |
211 | 72.54 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.324 | ||||
Exp.1b | 2 | 1/1 | 173 | 84.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.360 | |
173 | 84.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.000 | ||||
Exp.2a | 2 | 1/1 | 204 | 79.95 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.092 | |
204 | 79.95 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.040 | ||||
Exp.2b | 2 | 1/1 | 399 | 76.43 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.095 | |
399 | 76.43 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.124 | ||||
Exp.3a | 2 | 1/1 | 202 | 73.05 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.073 | |
202 | 73.05 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.642 | ||||
Exp.3b | 2 | 1/1 | 190 | 70.47 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.334 | |
190 | 70.47 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.426 | ||||
Exp.3c | 2 | 1/1 | 201 | 51.36 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.458 | |
201 | 51.36 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.279 | ||||
Exp.3d | 2 | 1/1 | 197 | 67.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.423 | |
197 | 67.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.069 | ||||
Exp.3e | 2 | 1/1 | 217 | 83.48 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.410 | |
217 | 83.48 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.161 | ||||
Heather Cipolletti et al., | Exp.1 | 2 | 1/1 | 160 | 76.25 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.073 |
160 | 76.25 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.692 | ||||
Janet Geipel, Constantinos Hadjichristidis et al., | Exp.1a | 4 | 1-4/4 | 48 | 70.83 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.716 |
Exp.1b | 4 | 1-4/4 | 64 | 87.50 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.553 | |
Exp.2 | 4 | 1-2/4 | 78 | 78.21 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.511 | |
3-4/4 | 78 | 78.21 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.042 | |||
Exp.3 | 4 | 1-4/4 | 74 | 90.54 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.666 | |
Janet Geipel et al., | Exp.1 | 3 | 1-3/3 | 107 | 73.83 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.168 |
Exp.2 | 2 | 1-2/2 | 144 | 70.14 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.369 | |
Yuen-Lai Chan et al., | Exp.1 | 39 | 1-39/39 | 144 | 52.08 | 未区分故事类型 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.143 |
文献 | 实验 顺序 | 道德故事数目 | 纳入分析的故 事次序/数目 | 样本量 | 女性占比(%) | 故事类型 | 记分方式 | 语系类型 | 效应值g |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
杨雯雯, | Exp.1 | 4 | 1/1 | 44 | 61.37 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.048 |
44 | 61.37 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.008 | ||||
44 | 61.37 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | -0.117 | ||||
44 | 61.37 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | -0.289 | ||||
胡宏安, | Exp.1 | 8 | 1-8/8 | 74 | 50.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.199 |
Exp.2 | 8 | 1-8/8 | 70 | 50.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | 1.181 | |
关旭, | Exp.1 | 8 | 1-8/8 | 62 | 100.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 1.126 |
Exp.2 | 8 | 1-8/8 | 62 | 100.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | -0.043 | |
Exp.3 | 8 | 1-8/8 | 62 | 100.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | -0.087 | |
Hong Im Shin & Juyoung Kim, | Exp.1 | 4 | 1/1 | 161 | 67.08 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.265 |
161 | 67.08 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.166 | ||||
161 | 67.08 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | -0.820 | ||||
161 | 67.08 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.417 | ||||
文献 | 实验 顺序 | 道德故事数目 | 纳入分析的故 事次序/数目 | 样本量 | 女性占比(%) | 故事类型 | 记分方式 | 语系类型 | 效应值g |
Alexandra S. & Marie-France Champoux-Larsson, | Exp.2a | 1 | 1/1 | 198 | 83.84 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.132 |
1/1 | 175 | 84.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.451 | |||
Exp.2b | 1 | 1/1 | 305 | 67.87 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.069 | |
1/1 | 295 | 78.21 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.064 | |||
Janet Geipel et al., | Exp.1 | 2 | 1/1 | 67 | 83.81 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.557 |
76 | 83.81 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.716 | ||||
1/1 | 67 | 83.81 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.135 | |||
76 | 83.81 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.401 | ||||
Exp.2 | 2 | 1/1 | 152 | 44.72 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.330 | |
152 | 44.72 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.016 | ||||
1/1 | 152 | 44.72 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.963 | |||
Exp.3 | 4 | 1/1 | 72 | 76.39 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.511 | |
72 | 76.39 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.152 | ||||
72 | 76.39 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.484 | ||||
72 | 76.39 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.295 | ||||
Susanne Brouwer, | Exp.1 | 6 | 1/1 | 60 | 50.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.196 |
60 | 50.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.196 | ||||
60 | 50.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.155 | ||||
60 | 50.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.866 | ||||
60 | 50.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 1.516 | ||||
60 | 50.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.000 | ||||
Exp. 2 | 6 | 1/1 | 60 | 53.33 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.654 | |
60 | 53.33 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.165 | ||||
60 | 53.33 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.541 | ||||
60 | 53.33 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.355 | ||||
60 | 53.33 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.881 | ||||
60 | 53.33 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.695 | ||||
Michele Miozzo et al., | Exp.3 | 1 | 1/1 | 225 | 47.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.290 |
Exp.4 | 1 | 1/1 | 861 | 44.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.368 | |
Albert Costa et al., | Exp.1 | 1 | 1/1 | 708 | 76.98 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.035 |
Exp.2 | 1 | 1/1 | 667 | 53.19 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.011 | |
Franziska Čavar & Agnieszka Ewa Tytus, | Exp.1 | 6 | 1/1 | 60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.165 |
60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.003 | ||||
60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.363 | ||||
60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.003 | ||||
60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.132 | ||||
60 | 51.67 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.008 | ||||
Meagan Y Driver, | Exp.1 | 2 | 1/1 | 180 | 74.64 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.128 |
180 | 74.64 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.530 | ||||
Evy Woumans et al., | Exp.1 | 4 | 1/1 | 256 | 85.55 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.299 |
1/1 | 256 | 87.11 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.281 | |||
256 | 85.55 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.531 | ||||
256 | 87.11 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.299 | ||||
文献 | 实验 顺序 | 道德故事数目 | 纳入分析的故事次序/数目 | 样本量 | 女性占比(%) | 故事类型 | 记分方式 | 语系类型 | 效应值g |
3/1 | 256 | 85.55 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.420 | |||
256 | 87.11 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.461 | ||||
256 | 85.55 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.373 | ||||
256 | 87.11 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.282 | ||||
Rafal Muda et al., | Exp.1 | 20 | 1-10/10 | 140 | 65.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.073 |
11-20/10 | 140 | 65.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.901 | |||
Albert Costa et al., | Exp.1 | 1 | 1/1 | 317 | 53.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 混合语系 | 0.298 |
Exp.2 | 2 | 1/1 | 725 | 71.92 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.585 | |
725 | 71.92 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.013 | ||||
1/1 | 328 | 73.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.521 | |||
1/1 | 397 | 71.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.641 | |||
397 | 71.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.072 | ||||
328 | 73.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.033 | ||||
Joanna D. Corey et al., | Exp.1a | 2 | 1/1 | 211 | 72.54 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.470 |
211 | 72.54 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.324 | ||||
Exp.1b | 2 | 1/1 | 173 | 84.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.360 | |
173 | 84.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.000 | ||||
Exp.2a | 2 | 1/1 | 204 | 79.95 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.092 | |
204 | 79.95 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.040 | ||||
Exp.2b | 2 | 1/1 | 399 | 76.43 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.095 | |
399 | 76.43 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.124 | ||||
Exp.3a | 2 | 1/1 | 202 | 73.05 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.073 | |
202 | 73.05 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.642 | ||||
Exp.3b | 2 | 1/1 | 190 | 70.47 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.334 | |
190 | 70.47 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.426 | ||||
Exp.3c | 2 | 1/1 | 201 | 51.36 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.458 | |
201 | 51.36 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.279 | ||||
Exp.3d | 2 | 1/1 | 197 | 67.00 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.423 | |
197 | 67.00 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.069 | ||||
Exp.3e | 2 | 1/1 | 217 | 83.48 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.410 | |
217 | 83.48 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.161 | ||||
Heather Cipolletti et al., | Exp.1 | 2 | 1/1 | 160 | 76.25 | 非个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.073 |
160 | 76.25 | 个人道德两难故事 | 二点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.692 | ||||
Janet Geipel, Constantinos Hadjichristidis et al., | Exp.1a | 4 | 1-4/4 | 48 | 70.83 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.716 |
Exp.1b | 4 | 1-4/4 | 64 | 87.50 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.553 | |
Exp.2 | 4 | 1-2/4 | 78 | 78.21 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.511 | |
3-4/4 | 78 | 78.21 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.042 | |||
Exp.3 | 4 | 1-4/4 | 74 | 90.54 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.666 | |
Janet Geipel et al., | Exp.1 | 3 | 1-3/3 | 107 | 73.83 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | 0.168 |
Exp.2 | 2 | 1-2/2 | 144 | 70.14 | 日常道德评价故事 | 多点记分 | 同一语系 | -0.369 | |
Yuen-Lai Chan et al., | Exp.1 | 39 | 1-39/39 | 144 | 52.08 | 未区分故事类型 | 二点记分 | 不同语系 | 0.143 |
调节变量 | 异质性检验 | 类别 | K | 95% CI | 双尾检验 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QB | df | p | 点估计 | 下限 | 上限 | Z | p | |||
故事类型 | 10.956 | 2 | 0.004 | 个人道德两难故事 | 50 | 0.318 | 0.224 | 0.413 | 6.592 | 0.000 |
日常道德评价故事 | 13 | 0.124 | -0.034 | 0.281 | 1.536 | 0.125 | ||||
非个人道德两难故事 | 33 | 0.113 | 0.029 | 0.197 | 2.645 | 0.008 | ||||
记分方式 | 0.790 | 1 | 0.373 | 二点记分 | 61 | 0.202 | 0.118 | 0.286 | 4.726 | 0.000 |
多点记分 | 36 | 0.266 | 0.159 | 0.373 | 4.872 | 0.000 | ||||
语系类型 | 0.030 | 1 | 0.874 | 同一语系 | 79 | 0.228 | 0.160 | 0.295 | 6.624 | 0.000 |
不同语系 | 17 | 0.208 | -0.028 | 0.443 | 1.731 | 0.083 |
调节变量 | 异质性检验 | 类别 | K | 95% CI | 双尾检验 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QB | df | p | 点估计 | 下限 | 上限 | Z | p | |||
故事类型 | 10.956 | 2 | 0.004 | 个人道德两难故事 | 50 | 0.318 | 0.224 | 0.413 | 6.592 | 0.000 |
日常道德评价故事 | 13 | 0.124 | -0.034 | 0.281 | 1.536 | 0.125 | ||||
非个人道德两难故事 | 33 | 0.113 | 0.029 | 0.197 | 2.645 | 0.008 | ||||
记分方式 | 0.790 | 1 | 0.373 | 二点记分 | 61 | 0.202 | 0.118 | 0.286 | 4.726 | 0.000 |
多点记分 | 36 | 0.266 | 0.159 | 0.373 | 4.872 | 0.000 | ||||
语系类型 | 0.030 | 1 | 0.874 | 同一语系 | 79 | 0.228 | 0.160 | 0.295 | 6.624 | 0.000 |
不同语系 | 17 | 0.208 | -0.028 | 0.443 | 1.731 | 0.083 |
Models | P (M) | P (M|data) | BFM | BF10 | %error | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
回归分析 | Null model | 0.500 | 0.771 | 3.376 | 1.000 | |
性别 | 0.500 | 0.229 | 0.296 | 0.296 | 0.008 | |
方差分析 | Null model | 0.200 | 0.622 | 6.577 | 1.000 | |
记分方式 | 0.200 | 0.149 | 0.700 | 0.240 | 0.034 | |
语系类型 | 0.200 | 0.174 | 0.843 | 0.280 | 0.008 |
Models | P (M) | P (M|data) | BFM | BF10 | %error | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
回归分析 | Null model | 0.500 | 0.771 | 3.376 | 1.000 | |
性别 | 0.500 | 0.229 | 0.296 | 0.296 | 0.008 | |
方差分析 | Null model | 0.200 | 0.622 | 6.577 | 1.000 | |
记分方式 | 0.200 | 0.149 | 0.700 | 0.240 | 0.034 | |
语系类型 | 0.200 | 0.174 | 0.843 | 0.280 | 0.008 |
调节变量 | 故事类型 | 异质性检验 | 类别 | K | 95% CI | 双尾检验 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QB | df | p | 点估计 | 下限 | 上限 | Z | p | ||||
记分方式 | 个人道德 两难故事 | 0.646 | 1 | 0.421 | 二点记分 | 35 | 0.293 | 0.182 | 0.404 | 5.168 | 0.000 |
多点记分 | 15 | 0.381 | 0.196 | 0.566 | 4.040 | 0.000 | |||||
非个人道德 两难故事 | 8.967 | 1 | 0.003 | 二点记分 | 25 | 0.054 | -0.042 | 0.149 | 1.104 | 0.270 | |
多点记分 | 8 | 0.272 | 0.166 | 0.378 | 5.026 | 0.000 | |||||
语系类型 | 个人道德 两难故事 | 0.060 | 1 | 0.802 | 同一语系 | 41 | 0.316 | 0.229 | 0.404 | 7.053 | 0.000 |
不同语系 | 8 | 0.375 | -0.108 | 0.859 | 1.521 | 0.128 | |||||
非个人道德 两难故事 | 0.268 | 1 | 0.604 | 同一语系 | 29 | 0.106 | 0.011 | 0.201 | 2.175 | 0.030 | |
不同语系 | 4 | 0.157 | -0.012 | 0.326 | 1.822 | 0.068 | |||||
日常道德 评价故事 | 2.404 | 1 | 0.121 | 同一语系 | 9 | 0.188 | -0.003 | 0.380 | 1.925 | 0.054 | |
不同语系 | 4 | -0.087 | -0.378 | 0.204 | -0.587 | 0.557 |
调节变量 | 故事类型 | 异质性检验 | 类别 | K | 95% CI | 双尾检验 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QB | df | p | 点估计 | 下限 | 上限 | Z | p | ||||
记分方式 | 个人道德 两难故事 | 0.646 | 1 | 0.421 | 二点记分 | 35 | 0.293 | 0.182 | 0.404 | 5.168 | 0.000 |
多点记分 | 15 | 0.381 | 0.196 | 0.566 | 4.040 | 0.000 | |||||
非个人道德 两难故事 | 8.967 | 1 | 0.003 | 二点记分 | 25 | 0.054 | -0.042 | 0.149 | 1.104 | 0.270 | |
多点记分 | 8 | 0.272 | 0.166 | 0.378 | 5.026 | 0.000 | |||||
语系类型 | 个人道德 两难故事 | 0.060 | 1 | 0.802 | 同一语系 | 41 | 0.316 | 0.229 | 0.404 | 7.053 | 0.000 |
不同语系 | 8 | 0.375 | -0.108 | 0.859 | 1.521 | 0.128 | |||||
非个人道德 两难故事 | 0.268 | 1 | 0.604 | 同一语系 | 29 | 0.106 | 0.011 | 0.201 | 2.175 | 0.030 | |
不同语系 | 4 | 0.157 | -0.012 | 0.326 | 1.822 | 0.068 | |||||
日常道德 评价故事 | 2.404 | 1 | 0.121 | 同一语系 | 9 | 0.188 | -0.003 | 0.380 | 1.925 | 0.054 | |
不同语系 | 4 | -0.087 | -0.378 | 0.204 | -0.587 | 0.557 |
[1] | 蔡阿燕, 杨洁敏, 许爽, 袁加锦. (2016). 表达抑制调节负性情绪的男性优势--来自事件相关电位的证据. 心理学报, 48(5), 482-494. |
[2] | 陈武英, 卢家楣, 刘连启, 林文毅. (2014). 共情的性别差异. 心理科学进展, 22(9), 1423-1434. |
[3] | 高园园. (2017). 道德判断中的外语效应及其心理机制. 教育观察, 6(11), 142-145. |
[4] | * 关旭. (2017). 道德判断的外语效应:审慎加工被增强抑或直觉加工被弱化?(硕士学位论文). 宁波大学. |
[5] | 关旭, 张锋, 周楠, 尹军. (2017). 决策行为和道德判断过程的外语效应: 现状与展望. 应用心理学, 23(1), 80-91. |
[6] | * 胡宏安. (2019). 道德外语效应的影响因素研究(硕士学位论文). 云南师范大学, 昆明. |
[7] | 胡艺馨, 何英为, 王大伟. (2018). 道德决策中的情绪作用. 山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版), 63(6), 124-133. |
[8] | 黄龙, 徐富明, 胡笑羽. (2020). 眼动轨迹匹配法:一种研究决策过程的新方法. 心理科学进展, 28(9), 1454-1461. |
[9] | 李明晖, 饶俪琳. (2017). 解释水平视角下的道德判断. 心理科学进展, 25(8), 1423-1430. |
[10] | 李笑燃, 肖前国, 吴小勇. (2014). 近十年有关道德的形成与加工机制研究述评. 内蒙古师范大学学报(教育科学版), 27(12), 42-45. |
[11] | 林蓝菲, 高华. (2020). 道德判断的外语效应与框架效应. 心理技术与应用, 8(11), 671-678. |
[12] | 罗跃嘉, 李万清, 彭家欣, 刘超. (2013). 道德判断的认知神经机制. 西南大学学报(社会科学版), 39(3), 81-86. |
[13] | 倪传斌. (2020). 外语效应的表现形式、影响因素及其作用机制. 外语教学与研究, 52(3), 397-408. |
[14] | 邱俊杰, 张锋. (2015). 道德困境中行为判断的认知与情绪问题: 从道德双加工模型到建构水平理论. 应用心理学, 21(3), 271-280. |
[15] | 田学红, 杨群, 张德玄, 张烨. (2011). 道德直觉加工机制的理论构想. 心理科学进展, 19(10), 1426-1433. |
[16] | * 杨雯雯. (2020). 道德判断中意图和结果信息加工的外语效应研究(硕士学位论文). 电子科技大学, 成都. |
[17] | 尹军, 关旭, 花蕊, 张锋. (2018). 审慎加工对形成道德判断外语效应的作用. 应用心理学, 24(4), 223-333. |
[18] | 余宏波, 刘桂珍. (2006). 移情、道德推理、观点采择与亲社会行为关系的研究进展. 心理发展与教育, 22(1), 113-116. |
[19] | 喻丰, 彭凯平, 韩婷婷, 柴方圆, 柏阳. (2011). 道德困境之困境--情与理的辩争. 心理科学进展, 19(11), 1702-1712. |
[20] | 曾笑雨, 马燚娜. (2020). 多项式模型在道德判断研究中的应用. 科学通报, 65(19), 1912-1921. |
[21] | 张诗容, 胡平. (2017). 外语效应:证据, 机制与前瞻. 中国临床心理学杂志, 25(1), 45-49. |
[22] | 张亚利, 李森, 俞国良. (2019). 自尊与社交焦虑的关系: 基于中国学生群体的元分析. 心理科学进展, 27(6), 1005-1018. |
[23] |
Aguilar, P., Brussino, S., & Fernández-Dols, J.-M. (2013). Psychological distance increases uncompromising consequentialism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 449-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.002
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.002 URL |
[24] |
Amit, E., Algom, D., & Trope, Y. (2009). Distance- dependent processing of pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 400-415. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015835
doi: 10.1037/a0015835 URL |
[25] |
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. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154
doi: 10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154 URL |
[26] |
Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 17(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0003301X
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0003301X URL |
[27] |
Bialek, M., Paruzel-Czachura, M., & Gawronski, B. (2019). Foreign language effects on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, Article 103855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103855
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103855 URL |
[28] | Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (Eds). (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons. |
[29] |
* Brouwer, S. (2019). The auditory foreign-language effect of moral decision making in highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(10), 865-878. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1585863
doi: 10.1080/01434632.2019.1585863 URL |
[30] |
Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2014). Emotionality differences between a native and foreign language: Theoretical implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1055-1058. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01055
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01055 URL pmid: 25295019 |
[31] |
* Čavar, F., & Tytus, A. E. (2017). Moral judgement and foreign language effect: When the foreign language becomes the second language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1304397
doi: 10.1080/01434632.2017.1304397 URL |
[32] |
* Chan, Y. L., Gu, X., Ng, J. C. K., & Tse, C. S. (2016). Effects of dilemma type, language, and emotion arousal on utilitarian vs deontological choice to moral dilemmas in Chinese-English bilinguals. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12123
doi: 10.1111/ajsp.v19.1 URL |
[33] |
* Cipolletti, H., McFarlane, S., & Weissglass, C. (2016). The moral foreign-language effect. Philosophical Psychology, 29(1), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2014.993063
doi: 10.1080/09515089.2014.993063 URL |
[34] |
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
URL pmid: 19565683 |
[35] | Colomé, À., & Miozzo, M. (2010). Which words are activated during bilingual word production? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 96-109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017677 |
[36] | Conrad, M., Recio, G., & Jacobs, A. M. (2011). The time course of emotion effects in first and second language processing: A cross cultural ERP study with German- Spanish bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 351-366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00351 |
[37] |
Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216-235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
doi: 10.1037/a0031021 URL pmid: 23276267 |
[38] |
* Corey, J. D., Hayakawa, S., Foucart, A., Aparici, M., Botella, J., Costa, A., & Keysar, B. (2017). Our moral choices are foreign to us. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1109-1128. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000356
doi: 10.1037/xlm0000356 URL |
[39] |
* Costa, A., Corey, J. D., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Vives, M.-L., & Keysar, B. (2017). The role of intentions and outcomes in the foreign language effect on moral judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817738409
doi: 10.1177/1747021817738409 URL |
[40] |
* Costa, A., Foucart, A., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Apesteguia, J., Heafner, J., & Keysar, B. (2014). Your morals depend on language. PloS One, 9(4), Article e94842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094842
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094842 URL |
[41] | Crain, WC. (1985). Theories of development (pp.118-136). Prentice-Hall, New York. |
[42] | Cushman, F., Young, L., & Greene, J. D. (2010). Our multi-system moral psychology:Towards a consensus view. In J. Doris, G. Harman, S. Nichols, J. Prinz, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, & S. Stich (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of moral psychology (pp.47-72). Oxford, U.K. |
[43] |
Degner, J., Doycheva, C., & Wentura, D. (2012). It matters how much you talk: On the automaticity of affective connotations of first and second language words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 181-189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000095
doi: 10.1017/S1366728911000095 URL |
[44] | Dewaele, J.-M. (2004). The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of multilinguals. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 25(2-3), 204-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630408666529 |
[45] | Dewaele, J.-M. (2010). Christ fucking shit merde! Language preferences for swearing among maximally proficient multilinguals. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4(3), 595-614. https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v4i3.595 |
[46] | * Driver, M. Y. (2020). Switching codes and shifting morals: How code-switching and emotion affect moral judgment. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1005, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1730763 |
[47] |
Dylman, A. S., & Barry, C. (2018). When having two names facilitates lexical selection: Similar results in the picture-word task from translation distractors in bilinguals and synonym distractors in monolinguals. Cognition, 171, 151-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.09.014
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.09.014 URL |
[48] |
* Dylman, A. S., & Champoux-Larsson, M.-F. (2020). It's (not) all Greek to me: Boundaries of the foreign language effect. Cognition, 196, Article 104148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104148
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104148 URL |
[49] |
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 URL |
[50] | Fisher, Z., & Tipton, E. (2015). Robumeta: An R-package for robust variance estimation in meta-analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:.02220. |
[51] |
Friesdorf, R., Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2015). Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: A process dissociation analysis. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 696-713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215575731
doi: 10.1177/0146167215575731 URL |
[52] |
Fu, R., Gartlehner, G., Grant, M., Shamliyan, T., Sedrakyan, A., Wilt, T. J., … Trikalinos, T. A. (2011). Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(11), 1187-1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.010
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.010 URL |
[53] |
* Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2015a). The foreign language effect on moral judgment: The role of emotions and norms. PloS One, 10(7), Article e0131529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131529
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131529 URL |
[54] |
* Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2015b). How foreign language shapes moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.02.001
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.02.001 URL |
[55] |
* Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2016). Foreign language affects the contribution of intentions and outcomes to moral judgment. Cognition, 154, 34-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.05.010
doi: S0010-0277(16)30125-1 URL pmid: 27232522 |
[56] | Gong, H., & Medin, D. L. (2012). Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(5), 628-638. |
[57] | Goulden, K. J. (2006). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Journal of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(5), 419-420. |
[58] | Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 101(2), 366-385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847 |
[59] | Green, D. W. (2009). Mental control of the bilingual lexico- semantic system. Bilingualism Language & Cognition, 1(2), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000133 |
[60] |
Hadjichristidis, C., Geipel, J., & Savadori, L. (2015). The effect of foreign language in judgments of risk and benefit: The role of affect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(2), 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000044
doi: 10.1037/xap0000044 URL |
[61] |
Hadjichristidis, C., Geipel, J., & Surian, L. (2017). How foreign language affects decisions: Rethinking the brain-drain model. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(5), 645-651. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0040-1
doi: 10.1057/s41267-016-0040-1 URL |
[62] |
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
URL pmid: 11699120 |
[63] |
Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998-1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651
doi: 10.1126/science.1137651 URL |
[64] |
Haidt, J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 65-72.
doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00063.x URL |
[65] |
Harenski, C. L., Antonenko, O., Shane, M. S., & Kiehl, K. A. (2010). A functional imaging investigation of moral deliberation and moral intuition. Neuroimage, 49(3), 2707-2716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.062
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.062 URL pmid: 19878727 |
[66] |
Harris, C. L., Ayçíçeğí, A., & Gleason, J. B. (2003). Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater autonomic reactivity in a first language than in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(4), 561-579.
doi: 10.1017/S0142716403000286 URL |
[67] | Harris, C. L., Gleason, J. B., & Aycicegi, A. (2006). When is a first language more emotional? Psychophysiological evidence from bilingual speakers. Bilingual Education Bilingualism, 56, 257-283. |
[68] |
Hayakawa, S., Costa, A., Foucart, A., & Keysar, B. (2016). Using a foreign language changes our choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(11), 791-793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.004
doi: S1364-6613(16)30121-8 URL pmid: 27600315 |
[69] |
Hayakawa, S., Tannenbaum, D., Costa, A., Corey, J. D., & Keysar, B. (2017). Thinking more or feeling less? Explaining the foreign-language effect on moral judgment. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1387-1397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617720944
doi: 10.1177/0956797617720944 pmid: 28806137 |
[70] | Higgins, J. P., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539-1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186 |
[71] |
Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557-560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 URL |
[72] |
Holman, E. W., Brown, C. H., Wichmann, S., Müller, A., Velupillai, V., Hammarström, H., … Egorov, D. (2011). Automated dating of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity. Current Anthropology, 52(6), 841-875. https://doi.org/10.1086/662127
doi: 10.1086/662127 URL |
[73] |
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
URL pmid: 14584987 |
[74] | Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, 49, 81-111. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004 |
[75] |
Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23(6), 661-668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611432178
doi: 10.1177/0956797611432178 URL pmid: 22517192 |
[76] |
Kuppens, S., Laurent, L., Heyvaert, M., & Onghena, P. (2013). Associations between parental psychological control and relational aggression in children and adolescents: A multilevel and sequential meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 49(9), 1697-1712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030740
doi: 10.1037/a0030740 URL pmid: 23163637 |
[77] |
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 364-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001 URL pmid: 24726527 |
[78] |
* Miozzo, M., Navarrete, E., Ongis, M., Mello, E., Girotto, V., & Peressotti, F. (2020). Foreign language effect in decision-making: How foreign is it? Cognition, 199, Article 104245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104245
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104245 URL |
[79] |
Moll, J., & de Oliveira-Souza, R. (2007). Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 319-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.001
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.001 URL |
[80] | Moore, A. B., Lee, N. L., Clark, B. A., & Conway, A. R. (2011). In defense of the personal/impersonal distinction in moral psychology research: Cross-cultural validation of the dual process model of moral judgment. Judgment Decision Making, 6(3), 186-195. http://journal.sjdm.org/11/10310/jdm10310.html |
[81] |
* Muda, R., Niszczota, P., Bialek, M., & Conway, P. (2018). Reading dilemmas in a foreign language reduces both deontological and utilitarian response tendencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(2), 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000447
doi: 10.1037/xlm0000447 URL |
[82] | Pavlenko, A. (2004). 'Stop doing that, Ia Komu Skazala!': Language choice and emotions in parent-child communication. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(2-3), 179-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630408666528 |
[83] |
Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.743665
doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.743665 URL pmid: 23163422 |
[84] |
Pereira, I. A. D., & Praxedes, P. H. L. (2016). Bilingualism, emotions and morality: A study based on the appraisal system. Entrepalavras, 6(2), 213-236.
doi: 10.22168/2237-6321.6.6.2.213-236 URL |
[85] |
Polonioli, A. (2018). A blind spot in research on foreign language effects in judgment and decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 227-231. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00227
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00227 URL pmid: 29662457 |
[86] |
Puntoni, S., de Langhe, B., & van Osselaer, S. M. (2009). Bilingualism and the emotional intensity of advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 1012-1025. https://doi.org/10.1086/595022
doi: 10.1086/595022 URL |
[87] | Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein. (Eds), Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment Adjustments, (pp.1-7). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168.ch1 |
[88] | Schwarzer, G. (2007). Meta: An R package for meta-analysis. R news, 7(3), 40-45. |
[89] | Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge. |
[90] |
* Shin, H. I., & Kim, J. (2017). Foreign language effect and psychological distance. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(6), 1339-1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9498-7
doi: 10.1007/s10936-017-9498-7 URL |
[91] |
Simonsohn, U., Simmons, J. P., & Nelson, L. D. (2015). Better P-curves: Making P-curve analysis more robust to errors, fraud, and ambitious P-hacking, a Reply to Ulrich and Miller (2015). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(6), 1146-1152. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000104
doi: 10.1037/xge0000104 URL |
[92] | Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Young, L., & Cushman, F. (2010). Moral intuitions as heuristics. The Moral Psychology Handbook, 1, 246-272. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582143.003.0008 |
[93] |
Smith, T. C., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & Thomas, A. (1995). Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: A comparative study. Statistics in Medicine, 14(24), 2685-2699. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780142408
URL pmid: 8619108 |
[94] |
Thacker, S. B. (1988). Meta-analysis: A quantitative approach to research integration. Jama, 259(11), 1685-1689. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1988.03720110047033
doi: 10.1001/jama.1988.03720110047033 URL |
[95] |
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
doi: 10.1037/a0018963 URL |
[96] |
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
URL pmid: 7455683 |
[97] | Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 36 (3), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03 |
[98] |
Vøllestad, J., Nielsen, M. B., & Nielsen, G. H. (2012). Mindfulness-and acceptance-based interventions for anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 239-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.2011.02024.
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.2011.02024.x URL pmid: 22803933 |
[99] |
Wagenmakers, E. J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., … Morey, R. D. (2017). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3
doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3 URL |
[100] |
Warn, D., Thompson, S., & Spiegelhalter, D. (2002). Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: Methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1601-1623. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1189
URL pmid: 12111922 |
[101] |
Wong, G., & Ng, B. C. (2018). Moral judgement in early bilinguals: Language dominance influences responses to moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1070-1079. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01070
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01070 URL |
[102] |
* Woumans, E., Van der Cruyssen, I., & Duyck, W. (2020). Crime and punishment: Morality judgment in a foreign language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(8), 1597-1602. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000736
doi: 10.1037/xge0000736 URL |
[1] | LI Yadan, DU Ying, XIE Cong, LIU Chunyu, YANG Yilong, LI Yangping, QIU Jiang. A meta-analysis of the relationship between semantic distance and creative thinking [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(4): 519-534. |
[2] | ZENG Runxi, LI You. The Relationship between self-efficacy and online health information seeking: A meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(4): 535-551. |
[3] | WU Jiahui, FU Hailun, ZHANG Yuhuan. A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived social support and student academic achievement: The mediating role of student engagement [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(4): 552-569. |
[4] | GUO Ying, TIAN Xin, HU Dong, BAI Shulin, ZHOU Shuxi. The effects of shame on prosocial behavior: A systematic review and three-level meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(3): 371-385. |
[5] | CHEN Bizhong, SUN Xiaojun. Cross-temporal changes of college students' time management disposition in the mainland of China during 1999~2020 [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(9): 1968-1980. |
[6] | DU Yufei, OUYANG Huiyue, YU Lin. The relationship between grandparenting and depression in Eastern and Western cultures: A meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(9): 1981-1992. |
[7] | FANG Jie, WEN Zhonglin, OUYANG Jinying, CAI Baozhen. Methodological research on moderation effects in China’s mainland [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(8): 1703-1714. |
[8] | ZHAO Ning, LIU Xin, LI Shu, ZHENG Rui. Nudging effect of default options: A meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(6): 1230-1241. |
[9] | HUANG Xiaoxiao, ZHANG Yali, YU Guoliang. Prevalence of mental health problems among primary school students in Chinese mainland from 2010 to 2010:A meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(5): 953-964. |
[10] | ZHANG Yali, JIN Juanjuan, YU Guoliang. Prevalence of mental health problems among junior high school students in Chinese mainland from 2010 to 2020: A meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(5): 965-977. |
[11] | YU Xiaoqi, ZHANG Yali, YU Guoliang. Prevalence of mental health problems among senior high school students in mainland of China from 2010 to 2020: A meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(5): 978-990. |
[12] | CHEN Yumeng, ZHANG Yali, YU Guoliang. Prevalence of mental health problems among college students in mainland China from 2010 to 2020: A meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(5): 991-1004. |
[13] | FANG Jie, WEN Zhonglin. Moderation analysis and its effect size based on a two-level regression model [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(5): 1183-1190. |
[14] | QI Yue, QIN Shaotian, WANG Kexin, CHEN Wenfeng. Regulation of facial trustworthiness evaluation: The proposal and empirical verification of the experience transfer hypothesis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(4): 715-722. |
[15] | WANG Jiayan, LAN Yuanmei, LI Chaoping. Challenge-hindrance stressors and innovation: A meta-analysis [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(4): 761-780. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||