同理心是对痛苦的默认反应吗?视角采取对共情关怀影响的元分析评价

IF 7.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Social Psychology Review Pub Date : 2019-03-05 DOI:10.1177/1088868319887599
W. McAuliffe, Evan C. Carter, Juliana F Berhane, Alexander Snihur, M. McCullough
{"title":"同理心是对痛苦的默认反应吗?视角采取对共情关怀影响的元分析评价","authors":"W. McAuliffe, Evan C. Carter, Juliana F Berhane, Alexander Snihur, M. McCullough","doi":"10.1177/1088868319887599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We conducted a series of meta-analytic tests on experiments in which participants read perspective-taking instructions—that is, written instructions to imagine a distressed persons’ point of view (“imagine-self” and “imagine-other” instructions), or to inhibit such actions (“remain-objective” instructions)—and afterwards reported how much empathic concern they experienced upon learning about the distressed person. If people spontaneously empathize with others, then participants who receive remain-objective instructions should report less empathic concern than do participants in a “no-instructions” control condition; if people can deliberately increase how much empathic concern they experience, then imagine-self and imagine-other instructions should increase empathic concern relative to not receiving any instructions. Random-effects models revealed that remain-objective instructions reduced empathic concern, but “imagine” instructions did not significantly increase it. The results were robust to most corrections for bias. Our conclusions were not qualified by the study characteristics we examined, but most relevant moderators have not yet been thoroughly studied.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Empathy the Default Response to Suffering? A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Perspective Taking’s Effect on Empathic Concern\",\"authors\":\"W. McAuliffe, Evan C. Carter, Juliana F Berhane, Alexander Snihur, M. McCullough\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1088868319887599\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We conducted a series of meta-analytic tests on experiments in which participants read perspective-taking instructions—that is, written instructions to imagine a distressed persons’ point of view (“imagine-self” and “imagine-other” instructions), or to inhibit such actions (“remain-objective” instructions)—and afterwards reported how much empathic concern they experienced upon learning about the distressed person. If people spontaneously empathize with others, then participants who receive remain-objective instructions should report less empathic concern than do participants in a “no-instructions” control condition; if people can deliberately increase how much empathic concern they experience, then imagine-self and imagine-other instructions should increase empathic concern relative to not receiving any instructions. Random-effects models revealed that remain-objective instructions reduced empathic concern, but “imagine” instructions did not significantly increase it. The results were robust to most corrections for bias. Our conclusions were not qualified by the study characteristics we examined, but most relevant moderators have not yet been thoroughly studied.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319887599\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319887599","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

我们对实验进行了一系列的元分析测试,在这些实验中,参与者阅读换位思考的指导——也就是说,想象一个痛苦的人的观点的书面指导(“想象自我”和“想象他者”的指导),或者抑制这种行为(“保持客观”的指导)——然后报告他们在了解痛苦的人时经历了多少共情关怀。如果人们自发地对他人产生共情,那么接受保持客观指示的参与者应该比“无指示”控制条件下的参与者报告更少的共情关注;如果人们能有意识地增加他们所经历的共情关注,那么想象自我和想象他人的指令相对于不接受任何指令应该会增加共情关注。随机效应模型显示,保持客观的指令减少了移情关注,但“想象”指令并没有显著增加移情关注。结果对大多数偏差校正都是稳健的。我们的结论不符合我们检查的研究特征,但大多数相关的调节因子尚未被彻底研究。
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
Is Empathy the Default Response to Suffering? A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Perspective Taking’s Effect on Empathic Concern
We conducted a series of meta-analytic tests on experiments in which participants read perspective-taking instructions—that is, written instructions to imagine a distressed persons’ point of view (“imagine-self” and “imagine-other” instructions), or to inhibit such actions (“remain-objective” instructions)—and afterwards reported how much empathic concern they experienced upon learning about the distressed person. If people spontaneously empathize with others, then participants who receive remain-objective instructions should report less empathic concern than do participants in a “no-instructions” control condition; if people can deliberately increase how much empathic concern they experience, then imagine-self and imagine-other instructions should increase empathic concern relative to not receiving any instructions. Random-effects models revealed that remain-objective instructions reduced empathic concern, but “imagine” instructions did not significantly increase it. The results were robust to most corrections for bias. Our conclusions were not qualified by the study characteristics we examined, but most relevant moderators have not yet been thoroughly studied.
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
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
1.90%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Title: Personality and Social Psychology Review (PSPR) Journal Overview: Official journal of SPSP, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. Premiere outlet for original theoretical papers and conceptual review articles in all areas of personality and social psychology Features stimulating conceptual pieces identifying new research directions and comprehensive review papers providing integrative frameworks for existing theory and research programs Topics Covered: Attitudes and Social Cognition: Examines the inner workings of the human mind in understanding, evaluating, and responding to the social environment Interpersonal and Group Processes: Explores patterns of interaction and interdependence characterizing everyday human functioning Intergroup Relations: Investigates determinants of prejudice, conflict, cooperation, and harmonious relationships between social groups Personality and Individual Differences: Focuses on causes, assessment, structures, and processes giving rise to human variation Biological and Cultural Influences: Studies the biological and cultural mediation of social psychological and personality processes
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to Gillath, O., Karantzas, G. C., Romano, D., & Karantzas, K. M. (2022). Attachment security priming: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26(3), 183-241. Insight in the Conspiracist's Mind. Connecting to Community: A Social Identity Approach to Neighborhood Mental Health. On Personality Measures and Their Data: A Classification of Measurement Approaches and Their Recommended Uses. Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size.
×
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