Department of Psychology.
Department of Counselling and Psychology.
Psychol Bull. 2020 Dec;146(12):1084-1116. doi: 10.1037/bul0000298. Epub 2020 Sep 3.
In recent decades, numerous studies have suggested a positive relationship between prosociality and well-being. What remains less clear are (a) what the magnitude of this relationship is, and (b) what the moderators that influence it are. To address these questions, we conducted a meta-analysis to examine the strength of the prosociality to well-being link under different operationalizations, and how a set of theoretical, demographic, and methodological variables moderate the link. While the results revealed a modest overall mean effect size ( = .13, = 201, = 198,213) between prosociality and well-being, this masked the substantial variability in the effect as a function of numerous moderators. In particular, the effect of prosociality on eudaimonic well-being was stronger than that on hedonic well-being. Prosociality was most strongly related to psychological functioning-showing a more modest relationship with psychological malfunctioning and physical health. Using prosociality scales was more strongly associated with well-being than using measures of volunteering/helping frequency or status. In addition, informal helping (vs. formal helping) was linked to more well-being benefits. Demographically, younger givers exhibited higher levels of well-being other than physical health, while older and retired givers reported better physical health only. Female givers showed stronger relationships between prosociality and eudaimonic well-being, psychological malfunctioning, and physical health. Methodologically, the magnitude of the link was stronger in studies using primary (vs. secondary) data and with higher methodological rigor (i.e., measurement reliability and validity). We discussed all of these results and implications and suggested directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
在最近几十年,许多研究表明亲社会行为与幸福感之间存在积极关系。但仍不清楚的是:(a)这种关系的强度有多大,以及(b)影响这种关系的调节因素是什么。为了解决这些问题,我们进行了一项元分析,以检验在不同操作定义下亲社会行为与幸福感之间的关系强度,以及一系列理论、人口统计学和方法学变量如何调节这种关系。虽然结果显示亲社会行为与幸福感之间存在适度的总体平均效应大小( =.13, = 201, = 198,213),但这掩盖了由于众多调节因素而导致的效应的巨大可变性。特别是,亲社会行为对幸福的影响强于对享乐主义幸福的影响。亲社会行为与心理功能的关系最为密切,与心理功能障碍和身体健康的关系稍弱。使用亲社会行为量表与幸福感的关系比使用志愿服务/帮助频率或状态的衡量标准更为密切。此外,非正式帮助(而非正式帮助)与更多的幸福感益处相关。从人口统计学角度来看,除了身体健康外,年轻的给予者表现出更高的幸福感水平,而年长和退休的给予者仅报告身体更健康。女性给予者在亲社会行为与幸福、心理功能障碍和身体健康之间表现出更强的关系。从方法论的角度来看,使用主要(而非次要)数据和具有更高方法论严谨性(即测量可靠性和有效性)的研究中,联系的强度更大。我们讨论了所有这些结果及其意义,并为未来的研究提出了方向。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2020 APA,保留所有权利)。