The Impact of Zhongyong Thinking on Self-Control Strategy Use and Effectiveness: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study

Zhao Boqiang, Liu Changlin, Hu Ping

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (5) : 1182-1191.

PDF(810 KB)
PDF(810 KB)
Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (5) : 1182-1191. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260514
Social,Personality & Organizational Psychology

The Impact of Zhongyong Thinking on Self-Control Strategy Use and Effectiveness: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study

Author information +
History +

Abstract

Recent developments in the self-control theory suggest that the successful regulation of desires and impulses does not always depend on effortful willpower. Instead, individuals can achieve self-control through the use of less effortful, strategic approaches that proactively minimize the emergence or impact of temptations. This theoretical shift has prompted growing interest in how to effectively promote the use of self-control strategies. However, most research to date has been conducted in Western contexts and has primarily focused on individual-level factors, such as traits, motivation, or regulatory capacity. Less attention has been paid to whether culturally rooted ways of thinking are associated with the use and effectiveness of self-control strategies in daily life. To address this gap, the present study explored self-control strategy use within a Chinese cultural context and further examined whether zhongyong thinking, a culturally rooted thinking style emphasizing holistic consideration, dialectical coordination, and harmony orientation, predicts both the use and effectiveness of self-control strategies. Two key questions guided this study: (1) Are all types of self-control strategies equally effective in mitigating temptations and impulses within a Chinese cultural context? (2) Is zhongyong thinking associated with self-control success through the use of specific self-control strategies?

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) was employed to track participants’ self-control experiences and strategy use in daily life. After completing a baseline survey measuring zhongyong thinking, trait self-control, and demographic variables, participants took part in a seven-day EMA procedure, with seven assessments per day at 8:00, 10:00, 12:00, 14:00, 16:00, 18:00, and 20:00. In each assessment, participants reported whether they had experienced a self-control situation during the current or previous two hours. If they had attempted self-control, they further reported the type of situation, desire strength, strategies used, and self-control success. Self-control strategies were coded into four categories: situation, attention, cognition, and inhibition strategies. A total of 127 participants contributed 5,886 valid assessments. Given the nested structure of the data, multilevel models were estimated using the lme4 package in R. Multilevel linear models were used to examine whether different strategies predicted self-control success, whereas multilevel logistic models were used to examine whether zhongyong thinking predicted the use of different strategies. Bayesian multilevel mediation analyses were further conducted using the brms package to test the indirect effects of zhongyong thinking on self-control success through strategy use.

The results (see Figure 2) showed that situation strategies (p <.001), attention strategies (p <.001), and cognition strategies (p <.001) were significant positive predictors of self-control success. Inhibition strategies, by contrast, did not significantly predict self-control success (p>.05). As shown in Table 1, zhongyong thinking positively predicted the use of situation (p <.001), attention (p<.05), and cognition strategies (p<.05), but not inhibition strategies (p >.05). As shown in Figure 3, Bayesian mediation analyses further showed significant indirect effects of zhongyong thinking on self-control success through situation (indirect effect =.12), attention (indirect effect =.04), and cognition strategies (indirect effect =.04). The indirect effect through inhibition strategies was not significant.

By employing EMA, this study examined the use and effectiveness of self-control strategies in everyday life within a Chinese cultural context. Furthermore, it investigated how zhongyong thinking, as a culturally rooted thinking style, is associated with individuals’ use of strategies. The findings suggest that, in contrast to inhibition strategies, situation, attention, and cognition strategies are more consistently associated with self-control success in Chinese contexts. This research contributes to a more culturally inclusive understanding of self-control by highlighting how macro-level cultural values and thinking styles can shape micro-level behavioral strategies. These findings provide preliminary evidence for understanding how culturally related psychological constructs may be associated with self-control strategy use and effectiveness in a Chinese cultural context.

Key words

zhongyong thinking / self-control / self-control strategy / ecological momentary assessment

Cite this article

Download Citations
Zhao Boqiang , Liu Changlin , Hu Ping. The Impact of Zhongyong Thinking on Self-Control Strategy Use and Effectiveness: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2026, 49(5): 1182-1191 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260514

References

[1]
陈雪飞, 利振华, 聂衍刚. (2023). 不只是努力抑制--自我控制策略及其使用机制. 心理科学进展, 31(8), 1528-1540.
[2]
高志强. (2021). 中庸的文化心理特征及其实践理路. 心理科学, 44(4), 1018-1023.
[3]
黄莲琼, 罗曦, 侯玉波. (2024). 中国人的思维方式与心理健康: 心理弹性与自尊的作用. 心理科学, 47(2), 458-466.
[4]
欧阳益. (2025). 调节定向对自我控制的影响机制. 心理科学, 48(3), 698-706.
[5]
谭树华, 郭永玉. (2008). 大学生自我控制量表的修订. 中国临床心理学杂志, 16(5), 468-470.
[6]
汪曼颖, 林淑菁, 叶怡玉. (2014). 喜怒哀乐之未发: 情绪性刺激注意力与记忆的中庸思维体现. 中国社会心理学评论, 2, 18-48.
[7]
吴佳辉, 林以正. (2005). 中庸思维量表的编制. 本土心理学研究, 24, 247-300.
[8]
杨中芳. (2009). 传统文化与社会科学结合之实例: 中庸的社会心理学研究. 中国人民大学学报, 23(3), 53-60.
[9]
杨中芳. (2023). 从疫情控制看中庸行动我的应急灵活性. 心理学报, 55(3), 355-373.
[10]
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
[11]
Bermúdez, J. P., Murray, S., Chartrand, L., & Barbosa, S. (2023). What' s inside is all that counts? The contours of everyday thinking about self-control. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14(1), 33-55.
[12]
Bürkner, P. C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1-28.
[13]
Chu, I., & Vu, M. C. (2022). The nature of the self, self-regulation and moral action: Implications from the Confucian relational self and Buddhist non-self. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(1), 245-262.
[14]
Davydenko, M., & Peetz, J. (2024). Does timing of self-control strategies matter? How focusing on proactive versus reactive strategies affects monthly spending. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 46(2), 56-67.
[15]
Duckworth, A. L., Taxer, J. L., Eskreis-Winkler, L., Galla, B. M., & Gross, J. J. (2019). Self-control and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 373-399.
[16]
Gillebaart, M., & Schneider, I. K. (2024). Effortless self-control. Current Opinion in Psychology, 59, Article 101860.
[17]
Han, Y., & Wei, Q. W. (2022). A meta-analysis of the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and creativity: Evidence from China. Social Behavior and Personality, 50(12), 1-16.
[18]
Hennecke, M., Czikmantori, T., & Brandstätter, V. (2019). Doing despite disliking: Self-regulatory strategies in everyday aversive activities. European Journal of Personality, 33(1), 104-128.
[19]
Hofmann, W. (2024). Going beyond the individual level in self-control research. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(1), 56-66.
[20]
Inzlicht, M., Werner, K. M., Briskin, J. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2021). Integrating models of self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 319-345.
[21]
Kim, Y. J., Toh, S. M., & Baik, S. (2022). Culture creation and change: Making sense of the past to inform future research agendas. Journal of Management, 48(6), 1503-1547.
[22]
Krys, K., de Almeida, I., Wasiel, A., & Vignoles, V. L. (2025). WEIRD-Confucian comparisons: Ongoing cultural biases in psychology' s evidence base and some recommendations for improving global representation. American Psychologist, 80(2), 247-263.
[23]
Lopez, R. B. (2024). Self-regulation in daily life: Neuroscience will accelerate theorizing and advance the field. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(1), Article e12898.
[24]
Lopez, R. B., Cosme, D., Werner, K. M., Saunders, B., & Hofmann, W. (2021). Associations between use of self-regulatory strategies and daily eating patterns: An experience sampling study in college-aged women. Motivation and Emotion, 45(6), 747-758.
[25]
Milyavskaya, M., Saunders, B., & Inzlicht, M. (2021). Self-control in daily life: Prevalence and effectiveness of diverse self-control strategies. Journal of Personality, 89(4), 634-651.
[26]
Oyserman, D. (2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 435-463.
[27]
Trommsdorff, G. (2012). Development of “agentic” regulation in cultural context: The role of self and world views. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 19-26.
[28]
Zhao, B. Q., Liu, C. L., Muhetaer, P., & Hu, P. (2025). Willpower or strategy? Self-control beliefs and strategies in collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 56(7), 853-867.
PDF(810 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/

〈 〉