Table 5.

The mean, standard deviation, sample size of NFA average subscale scores and NFC total scores in multinational samples, and the effect size indices of the scores comparisons across cultures

	Two samples being compared	Mean ± SD (N)	Cohen’s d	Hedges’ g	SEg	95% CI Lower limit	95% CI Upper limit
Approach	CA vs. AA	.55 ± 1.54 (1186)vs. .91 ± .92 (980)	−0.28	− 0.28	0.04	− 0.36	−0.19
	CA vs. GAS	.55 ± 1.54 (1186)vs. 1.28 ± .96 (1160)	−0.57	−0.57	0.04	−0.65	− 0.48
	CA vs. GA	.55 ± 1.54 (1186)vs. 1.29 ± .92 (627)	−0.54	−0.54	0.05	−0.64	− 0.45
	CA vs. AC	.55 ± 1.54 (1186)vs. 1.15 ± 1.07 (126)	−0.40	−0.40	0.09	−0.58	− 0.22
	CA vs. UKA	.55 ± 1.54 (1186)vs. 1.02 ± 1.0 (236)	−0.32	−0.32	0.07	−0.46	− 0.18
	AA vs. GAS	.91 ± .92 (980) vs. 1.28 ± .96 (1160)	−0.39	−0.39	0.04	−0.48	− 0.31
	AA vs. GA	.91 ± .92 (980) vs. 1.29 ± .92 (627)	−0.41	−0.41	0.05	−0.51	− 0.31
	AA vs. AC	.91 ± .92 (980) vs. 1.15 ± 1.07 (126)	−0.26	−0.26	0.09	−0.44	− 0.07
	AA vs. UKA	.91 ± .92 (980) vs. 1.02 ± 1.0 (236)	−0.12	−0.12	0.07	−0.26	0.02
Avoidance	CA vs. AA	−.05 ± 1.29 (1186) vs. -.91 ± 1.15 (980)	0.70	0.70	0.04	0.61	0.79
	CA vs. GAS	−.05 ± 1.29 (1186) vs. -1.39 ± 1.12 (1160)	1.11	1.11	0.04	1.02	1.19
	CA vs. GA	−.05 ± 1.29 (1186) vs. -1.06 ± 1.18 (627)	0.81	0.81	0.05	0.71	0.91
	CA vs. AC	−.05 ± 1.29 (1186) vs. -1.5 ± 1.07 (126)	1.14	1.14	0.10	0.95	1.33
	CA vs. UKA	−.05 ± 1.29 (1186) vs. -.55 ± 1.2 (236)	0.39	0.39	0.07	0.25	0.53
	AA vs. GAS	−.91 ± 1.15 (980) vs. -1.39 ± 1.12 (1160)	0.42	0.42	0.04	0.34	0.51
	AA vs. GA	−.91 ± 1.15 (980) vs. -1.06 ± 1.18 (627)	0.13	0.13	0.05	0.03	0.23
	AA vs. AC	−.91 ± 1.15 (980) vs. -1.5 ± 1.07 (126)	0.52	0.52	0.10	0.33	0.70
	AA vs. UKA	−.91 ± 1.15 (980) vs. -.55 ± 1.2 (236)	−0.31	−0.31	0.07	−0.45	−0.17
NFC	CA vs. AA	44.90 ± 11.7 (1186) vs. 55.28 ± 11.87 (980)	−0.88	− 0.88	0.05	− 0.97	−0.79

Note: CA Chinese adults, AA American adults, GAS German/Austria students, GA German adults, AC Austria couples, UKA UK adults

Sample CA and AA were from the current study, other samples were from Appel et al. [22]