擦干净:对身体清洁的心理后果和前因后果的元分析回顾。

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological bulletin Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-15 DOI:10.1037/bul0000421
Spike W S Lee, Kathleen Chen, Cecilia Ma, Joe Hoang
{"title":"擦干净:对身体清洁的心理后果和前因后果的元分析回顾。","authors":"Spike W S Lee, Kathleen Chen, Cecilia Ma, Joe Hoang","doi":"10.1037/bul0000421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Physical cleansing is a human universal. It serves health and survival functions. It also carries rich psychological meanings that interest scholars across disciplines. What psychological effects result from cleansing? What psychological states trigger cleansing? The present meta-analysis takes stock of all experimental studies examining the psychological consequences and antecedents of cleansing-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., feeling less guilty after cleansing; spontaneously cleansing oneself after thinking of unwelcomed sexual encounter). It includes 129 records, 230 experiments, and 551 effects from 42,793 participants. Effect sizes were synthesized in random-effects models using robust variance estimates with small-sample corrections, supplemented by other techniques. Outliers were excluded using leave-one-out diagnostics and sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed and corrected for using eight methods. Theoretical, methodological, sample, and report moderators were coded. After excluding outliers, without bias correction, the synthesized effect size estimate was <i>g</i> = 0.315, 95% CI [0.277, 0.354]. Using various bias correction methods, the estimate ranged from <i>g</i> = 0.103 to 0.331 and always exhibited considerable heterogeneity. Effect sizes were especially large for behavioral measures and varied significantly between sample types, sample regions, and report types. Meanwhile, effects were domain-general (observed in the moral domain and beyond), bidirectional (physical cleansing ↔ psychological variables), and robust across theoretical types, manipulation operationalizations, and study designs. Limitations included mixed replicability, suboptimal methodological rigor, and restricted sample diversity. We recommend future studies to (a) incorporate power analysis, preregistration, and replication; (b) investigate generalizability across samples; (c) strengthen discriminant validity; and (d) test competing theoretical accounts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wipe it off: A meta-analytic review of the psychological consequences and antecedents of physical cleansing.\",\"authors\":\"Spike W S Lee, Kathleen Chen, Cecilia Ma, Joe Hoang\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/bul0000421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Physical cleansing is a human universal. It serves health and survival functions. It also carries rich psychological meanings that interest scholars across disciplines. What psychological effects result from cleansing? What psychological states trigger cleansing? The present meta-analysis takes stock of all experimental studies examining the psychological consequences and antecedents of cleansing-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., feeling less guilty after cleansing; spontaneously cleansing oneself after thinking of unwelcomed sexual encounter). It includes 129 records, 230 experiments, and 551 effects from 42,793 participants. Effect sizes were synthesized in random-effects models using robust variance estimates with small-sample corrections, supplemented by other techniques. Outliers were excluded using leave-one-out diagnostics and sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed and corrected for using eight methods. Theoretical, methodological, sample, and report moderators were coded. After excluding outliers, without bias correction, the synthesized effect size estimate was <i>g</i> = 0.315, 95% CI [0.277, 0.354]. Using various bias correction methods, the estimate ranged from <i>g</i> = 0.103 to 0.331 and always exhibited considerable heterogeneity. Effect sizes were especially large for behavioral measures and varied significantly between sample types, sample regions, and report types. Meanwhile, effects were domain-general (observed in the moral domain and beyond), bidirectional (physical cleansing ↔ psychological variables), and robust across theoretical types, manipulation operationalizations, and study designs. Limitations included mixed replicability, suboptimal methodological rigor, and restricted sample diversity. We recommend future studies to (a) incorporate power analysis, preregistration, and replication; (b) investigate generalizability across samples; (c) strengthen discriminant validity; and (d) test competing theoretical accounts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20854,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological bulletin\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000421\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000421","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

身体清洁是人类的普遍现象。它具有健康和生存功能。它还蕴含着丰富的心理意义,引起了各学科学者的兴趣。清洁会产生哪些心理影响?哪些心理状态会引发洁癖?本荟萃分析总结了所有与洁净相关的想法、感受和行为(例如,洁净后内疚感减轻;想到不受欢迎的性接触后自发洁净自己)的心理后果和前因后果的实验研究。它包括来自 42,793 名参与者的 129 项记录、230 项实验和 551 项效应。在随机效应模型中,利用稳健方差估计和小样本校正,并辅以其他技术,对效应大小进行了综合。使用留一诊断和敏感性分析排除了异常值。采用八种方法对发表偏倚进行评估和校正。对理论、方法、样本和报告调节因子进行了编码。排除异常值后,在未进行偏倚校正的情况下,综合效应大小估计值为 g = 0.315,95% CI [0.277, 0.354]。使用各种偏差校正方法后,估计值从 g = 0.103 到 0.331 不等,并且始终表现出相当大的异质性。行为测量的效应大小尤其大,并且在样本类型、样本地区和报告类型之间存在显著差异。同时,效应具有领域普遍性(可在道德领域及其他领域观察到)、双向性(身体清洁 ↔ 心理变量),并且在不同理论类型、操纵操作和研究设计中都很稳健。局限性包括可复制性参差不齐、方法不够严谨以及样本多样性受限。我们建议今后的研究应:(a)结合功率分析、预先登记和复制;(b)调查不同样本的普遍性;(c)加强判别有效性;以及(d)测试相互竞争的理论观点。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Wipe it off: A meta-analytic review of the psychological consequences and antecedents of physical cleansing.

Physical cleansing is a human universal. It serves health and survival functions. It also carries rich psychological meanings that interest scholars across disciplines. What psychological effects result from cleansing? What psychological states trigger cleansing? The present meta-analysis takes stock of all experimental studies examining the psychological consequences and antecedents of cleansing-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., feeling less guilty after cleansing; spontaneously cleansing oneself after thinking of unwelcomed sexual encounter). It includes 129 records, 230 experiments, and 551 effects from 42,793 participants. Effect sizes were synthesized in random-effects models using robust variance estimates with small-sample corrections, supplemented by other techniques. Outliers were excluded using leave-one-out diagnostics and sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed and corrected for using eight methods. Theoretical, methodological, sample, and report moderators were coded. After excluding outliers, without bias correction, the synthesized effect size estimate was g = 0.315, 95% CI [0.277, 0.354]. Using various bias correction methods, the estimate ranged from g = 0.103 to 0.331 and always exhibited considerable heterogeneity. Effect sizes were especially large for behavioral measures and varied significantly between sample types, sample regions, and report types. Meanwhile, effects were domain-general (observed in the moral domain and beyond), bidirectional (physical cleansing ↔ psychological variables), and robust across theoretical types, manipulation operationalizations, and study designs. Limitations included mixed replicability, suboptimal methodological rigor, and restricted sample diversity. We recommend future studies to (a) incorporate power analysis, preregistration, and replication; (b) investigate generalizability across samples; (c) strengthen discriminant validity; and (d) test competing theoretical accounts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
期刊最新文献
Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature. Supporting the status quo is weakly associated with subjective well-being: A comparison of the palliative function of ideology across social status groups using a meta-analytic approach. When connecting with LGBTQ+ communities helps and why it does: A meta-analysis of the relationship between connectedness and health-related outcomes. Who am I? A second-order meta-analytic review of correlates of the self in childhood and adolescence. Defining social reward: A systematic review of human and animal studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1