共情的性别差异:来自元分析的证据

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2018.02.01

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 应用元分析技术考察共情与性别之间的关系及影响该关系的调节变量。通过文献检索与筛查，最终获得了175项研究和186个独立效应量，共包含179546名被试。异质性检验表明应该选取随机效应模型，发表偏差检验表明元分析的结果不受发表偏差的影响。通过随机效应模型得到的主效应结果显示，共情总分与性别呈相关关系，女性的共情得分高于男性（r=-0.23，p<0.001）。调节效应分析表明，测量工具会影响共情总分（Q_b=87.18，p<0.001）与性别的关系，被试发展阶段会影响共情总分（Q_b=36.80，p<0.001）、情绪共情（Q_b=21.04，p<0.001）与性别的关系。具体而言，共情概念偏向情绪方面的问卷更容易出现性别差异，例如Bryant以及Baron-Cohen所编制的共情问卷；从发展阶段来看，在学前期无论是共情总分，还是认知共情或情绪共情都不存在显著的性别差异，青春期个体的共情总分、情绪共情得分与性别之间的关系最强。

关键词: 共情, 性别差异, 元分析, 调节效应, 学前期, 青春期

Abstract: The present research conducted a meta-analysis to explore the relationship between empathy and gender, and the factors affecting this relationship. Through literature retrieval, 175 cases and 186 independent effect sizes together with 179546 participants which met the inclusion criteria of meta-analysis were selected. Heterogeneity test indicated that the random effects model was appropriate for the meta-analysis. The result of funnel plot and fail-safe number illustrated that there was no publication bias. Main-effect test findings demonstrated that empathy was significantly associated with gender (r=-0.23, p<0.001). The moderator analysis revealed that empathy measurement tools moderated the relationship between empathy and gender (Q_b=87.18, p<0.001), participants' age moderated the relationship between empathy (Q_b=36.80, p<0.001), emotional empathy (Q_b=21.04, p<0.001) and gender. For example, the questionnaire which mainly measures person's affective empathy would be easier to show gender difference, and preschool age won't show difference in empathy or cognitive empathy and affective empathy, and puberty would be the most salient period in the relationship between empathy, emotional empathy and gender.

Key words: empathy, gender difference, meta-analysis, moderate effect, preschool child, puberty

中图分类号:

B844

颜志强, 苏彦捷. 共情的性别差异:来自元分析的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 129-136.

YAN Zhiqiang, SU Yanjie. Gender Difference in Empathy: The Evidence from Meta-analysis[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2018, 34(2): 129-136.

参考文献

Abu-Akel, A., Palgi, S., Klein, E., Decety, J., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. (2015). Oxytocin increases empathy to pain when adopting the other-but not the self-perspective. Social Neuroscience, 10(1), 7-15.

Baldner, C., & Mcginley, J. J. (2014). Correlational and exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of commonly used empathy questionnaires:New insights. Motivation & Emotion, 38(5), 727-744.

*Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient:An investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163-175.

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The "reading the mind in the eyes" test revised version:A study with normal adults, and adults with asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(2), 241-251.

Becker, B. J. (2005) Failsafe n or file-drawer number. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton & M. Borenstein (Eds), Publication bias in meta-analysis:Prevention, assessment and adjustments(pp. 111-125). UK, Chichester:John Wiley & Sons.

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex:UK:Wiley & Sons.

Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53(2), 413-425.

*Chapman, E., Baron-Cohen, S., Auyeung, B., Knickmeyer, R., Taylor, K., & Hackett, G. (2006). Fetal testosterone and empathy:Evidence from the empathy quotient (EQ) and the "reading the mind in the eyes" test. Social Neuroscience, 1(2), 135-148.

Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P. F. (2014). Empathy:Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 604-627.

Cohen, B. H. (2007). Explaining psychological statistics (3rd Edition). Hoboken, New Jersey:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cooper, H. M. (1998). Integrating research:A guide for literature reviews (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy:Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126.

de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism:the evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279-300.

de Waal, F. B. M., & Preston, S. D. (2017). Mammalian empathy:Behavioural manifestations and neural basis. Nature Review Neuroscience, 18, 498-509.

de Waal, F. B. M., & Suchak, M. (2010). Prosocial primates:Selfish and unselfish motivations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B:Biological Sciences, 365(1553), 2711-2722.

Decety, J., Bartal, I. B., Uzefovsky, F., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2016). Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour:Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 371(1686), 20150077.

Decety, J., & Svetlova, M. (2012). Putting together phylogenetic and ontogenetic perspectives on empathy. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 1-24.

Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill:A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463.

Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 100-131.

Fagot, B. I. (1978). The influence of sex of child on parental reactions to toddler children. Child Development, 49(2), 459-465.

Gallup, A. C., & Massen, J. J. M. (2016). There is no difference in contagious yawning between men and women. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160174.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando:Academic Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 712-722.

Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R., & Graham, T. (2000). Gender differences in empathic accuracy:Differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships, 7(1), 95-109.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the basic empathy scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 589-611.

Klein, K. J. K., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy:When it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(6), 720-730.

Lamm, C., Decety, J., & Singer, T. (2011). Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. Neuroimage, 54(3), 2492-2502.

Langford, D. J., Crager, S. E., Shehzad, Z., Smith, S. B., Sotocinal, S. G., Levenstadt, J. S., et al. (2006). Social modulation of pain as evidence for empathy in mice. Science, 312(5782), 1967-1970.

Mehrabian, A. (1997). Relations among personality scales of aggression, violence, and empathy:Validation evidence bearing on the risk of eruptive violence scale. Aggressive Behavior, 23(6), 433-445.

Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525-543.

Melchers, M., Montag, C., Reuter, M., Spinath, F. M., & Hahn, E. (2016). How heritable is empathy? Differential effects of measurement and subcomponents. Motivation and Emotion, 40(5), 1-11.

Rueckert, L., Branch, B., & Doan, T. (2011). Are gender differences in empathy due to differences in emotional reactivity? Psychology, 2(6), 574-578.

Rueckert, L., & Naybar, N. (2008). Gender differences in empathy:The role of the right hemisphere. Brain & Cognition, 67(2), 162-167.

Sened, H., Lavidor, M., Lazarus, G., Bar-Kalifa, E., Rafaeli, E., & Ickes, W. (2017). Empathic accuracy and relationship satisfaction:A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(6), 742-752.

Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two systems for empathy:A double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132, 617-627.

Strayer, J. (1993). Children's concordant emotions and cognitions in response to observed emotions. Child Development, 64(1), 188-201.

Wang, B. (2013). Gender difference in recognition memory for neutral and emotional faces. Memory, 21(8), 991-1003.

Wang, Y., Zhang, D., Zou, F., Li, H., Luo, Y., Zhang, M., et al. (2016). Gender differences in emotion experience perception under different facial muscle manipulations. Consciousness and Cognition, 41, 24-30.

Zhou, Q., Valiente, C., & Eisenberg, N. (2003). Empathy and its measurement. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment:A handbook of models and measures (pp. 269-284). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

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.

丁凤琴, 陆朝晖. (2016). 共情与亲社会行为关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 24(8), 1159-1174.

黄翯青, 苏彦捷. (2010). 共情中的认知调节和情绪分享过程及其关系. 西南大学学报 (社会科学版), 36(6), 13-19.

黄翯青, 苏彦捷. (2012). 共情的毕生发展:一个双过程的视角. 心理发展与教育, 28(4), 434-441.

刘聪慧, 王永梅, 俞国良, 王拥军. (2009). 共情的相关理论评述及动态模型探新. 心理科学进展, 17(5), 964-972.

刘金婷, 刘思铭, 曲路静, 钟茹, 詹稼毓, 蒋玉石等. (2013). 睾酮与人类社会行为. 心理科学进展, 21(11), 1956-1966.

桑标, 邓欣媚. (2010). 社会变迁下的青少年情绪发展. 心理发展与教育, 26(5), 549-553.

苏彦捷, 黄翯青. (2014). 共情的性别差异及其可能的影响因素. 西南大学学报 (社会科学版), 40(4), 77-83.

苏彦捷, 姜玮丽, 魏祺, 尚思源. (2017). 是什么引发了青春期? 科学通报, 62(8), 749-758.

苏彦捷, 孙芳芳. (2014). 道德具身性的元分析研究. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 32(2), 88-96.

苏彦捷, 于晶. (2015). 执行功能与心理理论关系的元分析:抑制控制和灵活转换的作用. 心理发展与教育, 31(1), 51-61.

吴南, 苏彦捷. (2012). 催产素及受体基因与社会适应行为. 心理科学进展, 20(6), 863-874.

吴鹏, 刘华山. (2014). 道德推理与道德行为关系的元分析. 心理学报, 46(8), 1192-1207.

颜志强, 苏彦捷. (2017). 共情主题研究的变化——来自文献计量学的证据. 心理科学, 40(3), 699-707.

袁加锦, 汪宇, 鞠恩霞, 李红. (2010). 情绪加工的性别差异及神经机制. 心理科学进展, 18(12), 1899-1908.

张厚粲, 徐建平. (2004). 现代心理与教育统计学. 北京:北京师范大学出版社.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	郭嘉程, 董柔纯, 许放, 徐旋, 牛更枫, 周宗奎. 社会临场感与大学生网络过激行为的关系：双自我意识的并行中介及性别的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 176-186.
[2]	王玉龙, 赵婧斐, 蔺秀云. 家庭风险因素对青少年自伤的累积效应及其性别差异[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 240-247.
[3]	谢和平, 王燕青, 王福兴, 周宗奎, 邓素娥, 段朝辉. 记忆的生成绘图效应及其边界条件：一项元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 29-43.
[4]	颜志强, 周可, 曾晓, 徐惠, 朱晓倩, 张娟. 学前期儿童执行功能与攻击性行为的关系:认知共情的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 788-797.
[5]	邹盛奇, 伍新春. 父母冲突与青少年同伴依恋的关系:亲子依恋的中介作用及性别差异[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 798-807.
[6]	牛湘, 冉光明. 同伴关系与幼儿问题行为关系的三水平元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 473-487.
[7]	纪林芹, 邹小慧, 张露露, 张良. 儿童青少年欺凌行为与冷酷无情、共情的关系:交叉滞后分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 532-541.
[8]	赵纤, 王志航, 王东方, 袁言云, 尹霞云, 黎志华. 贫困家庭儿童在青少年早期的亲社会行为发展轨迹:性别及父母教养方式异质性的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 323-332.
[9]	程阳春, 黄瑾. 近似数量系统与数学能力的关系:一项元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 379-390.
[10]	高玲, 孟文慧, 刘介地, 杨继平, 王兴超. 父母低头行为与青少年网络欺负行为:自尊和基本共情的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 439-448.
[11]	高峰, 白学军, 章鹏, 曹海波. 中国青少年父母教养方式与自杀意念的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(1): 97-108.
[12]	肖雪, 郭磊, 赵永萍, 陈富国. 累积生态风险与初中生受欺凌的关系模式：心理弹性的调节效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 648-657.
[13]	蔺姝玮, 孙炳海, 黄嘉昕, 肖威龙, 李伟健. 共情对广义互惠的影响：自我-他人重叠的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(4): 475-484.
[14]	李蓓蕾, 高婷, 张莉莉, 周楠, 邓林园. 学生感知的教师欺凌态度与学生欺凌行为的关系——学生欺凌态度的中介作用及其性别的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(3): 348-357.
[15]	谢云天, 史滋福, 尹霖, 兰洛. 中国父母教养方式与儿童学业成绩关系的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(3): 366-379.