共情促进还是阻碍创造力？来自三水平元分析的证据

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2025.05.011

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

尽管已有研究从不同理论视角探讨了共情与创造力之间的关系，但相关研究结果存在矛盾与不一致。本研究采用三水平元分析方法，系统考察共情与创造力之间的关联，并探讨其潜在的调节因素。通过文献检索和筛选，本研究纳入了29项研究，共包含50个效应量，总样本量达21 462人。结果表明，共情与创造力存在中等程度的正相关，且这一关系受到共情维度和创造力类型的调节。具体而言，相较于情绪共情，共情总分和认知共情与创造力的相关更强；相较于个体创造力，共情与团队创造力之间的关联更为密切。这些发现不仅揭示了共情与创造力之间的紧密联系，还厘清了二者在相关性大小和方向上的分歧。未来研究应进一步关注共情不同维度及创造力类型在这一关系中的作用，以加深对二者交互机制的理解。

关键词: 共情, 认知共情, 情绪共情, 创造力, 三水平元分析

Abstract:

Although previous studies have explored the relationship between empathy and creativity from various theoretical perspectives, their findings remain inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. This study employed a three-level meta-analytic approach to systematically investigate the association between empathy and creativity and examine potential moderating factors. Through comprehensive literature searches and rigorous screening, a total of 29 studies were included, encompassing 50 effect sizes and 21,462 participants. The analysis revealed a moderate positive correlation between empathy and creativity, with this relationship significantly moderated by the dimensions of empathy and types of creativity. Specifically, compared to affective empathy, both total empathy and cognitive empathy exhibited stronger correlations with creativity; similarly, empathy demonstrated a stronger association with team creativity than with individual creativity. These findings underscore the robust link between empathy and creativity while clarifying discrepancies in the strength and direction of their association. Future research should further explore the roles of different dimensions of empathy and types of creativity to deepen our understanding of their interplay.

Key words: empathy, cognitive empathy, affective empathy, creativity, three-level meta-analysis

颜志强, 曾祥路, 黄立群, 肖琳. 共情促进还是阻碍创造力？来自三水平元分析的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(5): 662-669.

Zhiqiang YAN, Xianglu ZENG, Liqun HUANG, Lin XIAO. Does Empathy Promote or Hinder Creativity? The Evidence from Three-Level Meta-Analysis[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2025, 23(5): 662-669.

图/表 4

参考文献 0

	*为纳入元分析文献
	陈栩茜, 张积家. 注意资源理论及其进展. 心理学探新, 2003, 23 (4): 24- 28.
	冯影. (2022). 管理者同理心对员工创新行为的影响研究*(硕士学位论文). 东北林业大学, 哈尔滨.
	谷晋. (2018). 包容型领导对员工创造力的作用机制研究*(硕士学位论文). 山西财经大学, 太原.
	郭婷婷, 崔丽霞, 王岩. 情绪复杂性: 探讨情绪功能的新视角. 心理科学进展, 2011, 19 (7): 993- 1002.
	*何文心, 刘新梅, 姚进. 真实型领导与团队创造力——一个链式中介模型. 科技进步与对策, 2019, 36 (8): 131- 138.
	胡卫平, 林崇德, 申继亮, Adey, P. 英国青少年科学创造力的发展研究. 心理科学, 2003, 26 (5): 775- 777.
	黄丹凤, 陆璟. 教学创新如何促进中小学生创造力发展——基于67项准实验研究的元分析. 教育发展研究, 2025, 45 (4): 69- 77.
	黄翯青, 苏彦捷. 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), 2010, 36 (6): 13- 19.
	黄翯青, 苏彦捷. 共情的毕生发展: 一个双过程的视角. 心理发展与教育, 2012, 28 (4): 434- 441.
	*李昂, 张景焕. 亲子关系和移情对青少年社会创造力的预测: 友谊质量的中介作用. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18 (4): 496- 502.
	*李奥成, 卢玥, 杨建豪. 大学生共情能力对恶意创造力的影响: 心理韧性的中介作用. 心理月刊, 2023, 18 (23): 57- 59.
	李畅晴. (2019). 员工人格特质对创新行为影响研究——以U公司为例*(硕士学位论文). 天津大学.
	*李正东. 数字化转型中领导共情对员工创新绩效的影响研究——一个有调节的双中介模型. 财经论丛, 2022 (2): 89- 100.
	林崇德. 培养和造就高素质的创造性人才. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), 1999 (1): 5- 13.
	刘娇娇. (2018). 领导自我效能感与公共管理者双元性创新: 观点采择的调节作用*(硕士学位论文). 中国科学技术大学, 合肥.
	牛宇霖. (2020). 集体主义氛围对团队创造力作用机制研究*(硕士学位论文). 石河子大学.
	彭小平. (2019). 亲社会动机对员工创造力的影响研究——观点采择和知识共享的多重中介作用*(硕士学位论文). 重庆工商大学.
	齐孟阳. (2014). 个人主义/集体主义对团队创造力的影响研究*(硕士学位论文). 山西大学, 太原.
	邱瓅瑶. (2014). 未来工作自我对员工创造力的影响: 观点采择与创造力自我效能感的中介作用*(硕士学位论文). 苏州大学.
	曲永义. 以科技创新引领新质生产力发展建设现代化产业体系. 红旗文稿, 2025 (5): 24- 27.
	*盛文言. 自恋与创造力关系探究——以观点采择为调节变量. 现代经济信息, 2017 (27): 370- 372, 374.
	*石冠峰, 牛宇霖, 刘朝辉. 多层次导向的变革型领导与多层面创造力: 知识分享与观点采择的跨层中介作用. 管理评论, 2020, 32 (10): 217- 228.
	孙溶梓. (2022). 员工创造力、建言行为与组织创造力的关系研究*(硕士学位论文). 天津财经大学.
	沃建中, 王烨晖, 刘彩梅, 林崇德. 青少年创造力的发展研究. 心理科学, 2009, 32 (3): 535- 539.
	薛贵, 董奇, 周龙飞, 张华, 陈传生. 内部动机、外部动机与创造力的关系研究. 心理发展与教育, 2001, 17 (1): 6- 11.
	颜志强, 苏金龙, 苏彦捷. 共情与同情: 词源、概念和测量. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16 (4): 433- 440.
	颜志强, 苏彦捷. 认知共情和情绪共情的发展差异: 元分析初探. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37 (1): 1- 9.
	颜志强, 周可, 刘思航. 共情越强同伴关系越好? 来自三水平元分析的证据. 心理技术与应用, 2022, 10 (11): 682- 694.
	张春妹, 周权, 殷冉. 个人主义/集体主义对团队创造力的影响: 隐性知识共享的中介作用. 中国社会心理学评论, 2020 (2): 45- 61, 237, 238.
	张贵敏. (2023). 房地产销售团队家长式领导对成员创造力的影响机制研究*(硕士学位论文).北京化工大学.
	张伟达, 俞国良. 亲社会行为实施者何以更有创造力?——基于解释学认识论的内外因模型. 山西师大学报(社会科学版), 2022, 49 (5): 81- 92.
	赵敬雯. (2022). 创造性潜能与道德的关系: 关联模式与心理机制*(博士学位论文). 华东师范大学, 上海.
	Amabile, T. M. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 45 (2): 357- 376. DOI
	Amabile, T. M. (1988). From individual creativity to organizational innovation. In K. Grønhaug & G. Kaufmann (Eds.), Innovation: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 139–166). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian University Press.
	Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. M. Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 2016, 12 (3): 154- 174. DOI
	Claxton, A. F., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. Developmental trends in the creativity of school-age children. Creativity Research Journal, 2005, 17 (4): 327- 335. DOI
	Decety, J., Bartal, I. B. A., Uzefovsky, F., & Knafo-Noam, A. Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2016, 371 (1686): 20150077. DOI
	Decety, J., & Meyer, M. From emotion resonance to empathic understanding: A social developmental neuroscience account. Development and Psychopathology, 2008, 20 (4): 1053- 1080. DOI
	*Dostál, D., Plháková, A., & Záškodná, T. Domain-specific creativity in relation to the level of empathy and systemizing. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2017, 51 (3): 225- 239. DOI
	*Form, S., & Kaernbach, C. More is not always better: The differentiated influence of empathy on different magnitudes of creativity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 2018, 14 (1): 54- 65. DOI
	Harris, D. J., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). The effect of emotional intelligence and task type on malevolent creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 237–244.
	*İmece, S., & Cansever, B. A. Investigation of the relationship between the empathic tendency skills and problem solving skills of Turkish primary school students. International Journal of Progressive Education, 2019, 15 (5): 19- 31. DOI
	*Jiang, W., Wang, L. L., Chu, Z. F., & Zheng, C. D. Does leader turnover intention hinder team innovation performance? The roles of leader self-sacrificial behavior and empathic concern. Journal of Business Research, 2019, 104, 261- 270. DOI
	*Karaçam, A., & Pulur, A. Identification the relation between active basketball classification referees’ empathetic tendencies and their problem solving abilities. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2016, 4 (8): 1912- 1917. DOI
	Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 2009, 13 (1): 1- 12. DOI
	Leung, A. K. Y., Liou, S., Qiu, L., Kwan, L. Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., & Yong, J. C. The role of instrumental emotion regulation in the emotions-creativity link: How worries render individuals with high neuroticism more creative. Emotion, 2014, 14 (5): 846- 856. DOI
	*Li, Q., She, Z. L., & Yang, B. Y. Promoting innovative performance in multidisciplinary teams: The roles of paradoxical leadership and team perspective taking. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, 9, 1083. DOI
	*Li, S., & Liao, S. D. Help others and yourself eventually: Exploring the relationship between help-giving and employee creativity under the model of perspective taking. Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, 8, 1030. DOI
	*Li, X. Y., Chen, J. J., & Fu, H. J. The roles of empathy and motivation in creativity in design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2024, 34 (4): 1305- 1324. DOI
	*Litchfield, R. C., Ford, C. M., & Gentry, R. J. Linking individual creativity to organizational innovation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2015, 49 (4): 279- 294. DOI
	Moriguchi, Y., Decety, J., Ohnishi, T., Maeda, M., Mori, T., Nemoto, K., ... Komaki, G. Empathy and judging other’s pain: An fMRI study of alexithymia. Cerebral Cortex, 2007, 17 (9): 2223- 2234. DOI
	Oboeuf, A., Hanneton, S., Fernandes, E., Buffet, J., Coquinos, S., & Lecroisey, L. Relationships between empathy and creativity in collective games: A comparison between handball and sitting ball. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023, 14, 1185462. DOI
	Peng, X. E., & Liang, C. Y. Before nonprofit organisations become social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 2019, 30 (3): 460- 474. DOI
	Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 2012, 24 (1): 66- 75. DOI
	Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007, 92 (6): 1709- 1721. DOI
	Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 1991, 34 (1): 1- 31. DOI
	Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 2002, 45 (6): 1137- 1148.
	Vaisarova, J., & Lucca, K. A developmental account of curiosity and creativity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2024, 47, e116. DOI
	*Vassallo, J. P., Banerjee, S., Zaman, H., & Prabhu, J. C. Design thinking and public sector innovation: The divergent effects of risk-taking, cognitive empathy and emotional empathy on individual performance. Research Policy, 2023, 52 (6): 104768. DOI
	West, M. J., & Somer, E. (2019). Empathy, emotion regulation, and creativity in immersive and maladaptive daydreaming. Imagination, Cognition and Personality*, 39(4), 358–373.
	Yang, H. J., & Yang, S. J. Sympathy fuels creativity: The beneficial effects of sympathy on originality. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2016, 21, 132- 143. DOI
	Yaniv, D. Dynamics of creativity and empathy in role reversal: Contributions from neuroscience. Review of General Psychology, 2012, 16 (1): 70- 77. DOI
	Ye, C. Q., Lin, Y. H., & Liu, C. L. Neural oscillation mechanism of creativity. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29 (4): 697- 706. DOI
	*Yoon, J., Jo, T. J., & Kang, S. J. A study on the possibility of the relationship among group creativity, empathy, and scientific inquiry ability of elementary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 2020, 42 (13): 2113- 2125. DOI

调节变量	k	Intercept(95%CI)	B(95%CI)	Mean r	F	水平2方差	水平3方差
共情维度
情绪共情	7	0.005[−0.186, 0.195]		0.005	7.65***	0.06**	0.05***
认知共情	21	0.402[0.287, 0.518]***	0.397[0.192, 0.604]***	0.402
共情总分	22	0.269[0.143, 0.395]***	0.264[0.039, 0.490]*	0.269
创造力类型
个人	25	0.166[0.062, 0.269]**		0.166	8.59**	0.06**	0.05**
团队	25	0.380[0.276, 0.483]***	0.214[0.067, 0.361]**	0.380
发展阶段
儿童	7	0.441[0.236, 0.647]***		0.441	3.15	0.07	0.06
成人	43	0.245[0.162, 0.329]***	−0.196[−0.418, 0.026]	0.257

调节变量	k	Intercept(95%CI)	B(95%CI)	Mean r	F	水平2方差	水平3方差
共情维度
情绪共情	7	0.005[−0.186, 0.195]		0.005	7.65***	0.06**	0.05***
认知共情	21	0.402[0.287, 0.518]***	0.397[0.192, 0.604]***	0.402
共情总分	22	0.269[0.143, 0.395]***	0.264[0.039, 0.490]*	0.269
创造力类型
个人	25	0.166[0.062, 0.269]**		0.166	8.59**	0.06**	0.05**
团队	25	0.380[0.276, 0.483]***	0.214[0.067, 0.361]**	0.380
发展阶段
儿童	7	0.441[0.236, 0.647]***		0.441	3.15	0.07	0.06
成人	43	0.245[0.162, 0.329]***	−0.196[−0.418, 0.026]	0.257

调节变量		k	B(95%CI)
	Intercept		−0.169[−0.352, 0.015]
共情维度	认知共情	21	0.386[0.186, 0.586]***
	共情总分	22	0.333[0.140, 0.526]**
创造力类型	团队创造力	25	0.187[0.048, 0.326]**
发展阶段	儿童	7	0.276[0.096, 0.457]**
多重回归模型	k=50	F(4, 45)=8.54, p<0.001	水平2方差 0.04***	水平3方差 0.04***

调节变量		k	B(95%CI)
	Intercept		−0.169[−0.352, 0.015]
共情维度	认知共情	21	0.386[0.186, 0.586]***
	共情总分	22	0.333[0.140, 0.526]**
创造力类型	团队创造力	25	0.187[0.048, 0.326]**
发展阶段	儿童	7	0.276[0.096, 0.457]**
多重回归模型	k=50	F(4, 45)=8.54, p<0.001	水平2方差 0.04***	水平3方差 0.04***

[1]	赵永耀, 张野, 薛培培, 张小南, 魏梦慧. 网络欺凌情境中受害者反应对旁观者建设性干预意愿的影响：状态共情的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(2): 241-248.
[2]	肖飒, 郭英, 谭小宏, 吴映雄, 林群. 大学生公正世界信念对恶意创造力的影响：相对剥夺感和愤怒反刍的链式中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(6): 854-860.
[3]	成子涵, 毕翠华, 吴琪. 未来情景思维对金钱跨期决策的影响—来自三水平元分析的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(5): 704-712.
[4]	许航, 史新广, 段锦云, 卢红旭. 感恩对恶意创造力的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(4): 470-477.
[5]	周淑金, 韩宪国, 李丹, 陈欣银, 周佳茜, 陈小鹏, 罗俊龙. 农村儿童创造力与内、外化问题行为的关系[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(4): 486-493.
[6]	廖天嗣, 黄妍, 陈晓晨. 祖孙代际接触与青少年对老年人态度的关系：群际焦虑和共情的链式中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 86-92.
[7]	韩迎春, 王琳萱. 有氧运动、情绪与创造力：流体智力的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 100-107.
[8]	白博仁, 周详, 张婧婧, 崔虞馨. 人工智能自恋提升人机合作创新意愿及其机制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 137-144.
[9]	张克, 杜秀敏, 李立言, 张雪寒, 赵海霞. 酸味与创造力的关系研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 815-823.
[10]	田可心, 阴山燕, 武亦文, 胡文彬. 积极共情与高中生亲社会行为的关系：自我建构的中介与社会比较的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(5): 712-719.
[11]	刘啸莳, 李静雯, 张蕾, 项珵, 吴芸. 主观社会经济地位与心理幸福感的关系：创造力的中介和安全感的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(1): 138-144.
[12]	钟伟芳, 郭永兴. 悲伤表情识别能力影响疼痛共情—一项ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 585-592.
[13]	李娇娇, 刘晓冰, 裴丹丹, 徐碧波, 尹锡杨. 情绪智力对大学生恶意创造力的影响：一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 563-569.
[14]	罗利, 杨东, 陈圣栋, 高伟, 陈永强, 袁加锦. 特质敬畏对亲社会倾向的正向预测：自我超越和共情的多重中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 390-396.
[15]	郭英, 陈灿杰, 胡东, 袁安怡. 道德认同对大学生亲社会行为倾向的影响：共情的中介作用和正念的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(1): 80-87.