Mental simulation of future scenarios is hypothesized to affect future behavior, but a large and inconsistent literature means it is unclear whether, and under what conditions, mental simulation can change people’s behavior. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the effects of mental simulation on behavior and examine under what conditions mental simulation works best. An inclusive systematic database search identified 123 (N = 5,685) effect sizes comparing mental simulation to a control group. After applying a multilevel random effects model, a statistically-reliable positive effect of Hedges’ g = 0.49, 95% CI [0.37; 0.62] was found, which was significantly different than zero. Using a taxonomy to identify different subtypes of mental simulation (along two dimensions, class [process, performance, outcome] and purpose [whether an inferior, standard, superior version of that behavior is simulated]), it was found that superior simulations garnered more reliable beneficial effects than inferior simulations. These findings have implications for integrating theories of how mental simulations change behavior, how mental simulations are classified, and may help guide professionals seeking evidence-based and cost-effective methods of changing behavior.

假设对未来情景的心理模拟会影响未来的行为，但大量且不一致的文献意味着尚不清楚心理模拟是否以及在什么条件下可以改变人们的行为。进行荟萃分析以综合心理模拟对行为的影响，并检查在什么条件下心理模拟最有效。一项包容性系统数据库搜索确定了 123 ( N = 5,685) 个效应大小，将心理模拟与对照组进行比较。应用多级随机效应模型后，Hedges' g的统计可靠正效应= 0.49, 95% CI [0.37; 0.62]，与零有显着差异。使用分类法来识别心理模拟的不同子类型（沿着两个维度，类别 [过程、性能、结果] 和目的 [是否模拟了该行为的劣质、标准、优越版本]），发现优秀的模拟获得了更多比劣质模拟可靠的有益效果。这些发现对于整合关于心理模拟如何改变行为、心理模拟如何分类的理论具有重要意义，并且可能有助于指导专业人士寻求基于证据且具有成本效益的改变行为的方法。