The revising of the Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese

UntitledThe revising of the Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
Alexander Unger,1 Chongzeng Bi,2 Ying-Ying Xiao3, and Oscar Ybarra4
1Institute of International Management Studies, University of Applied Sciences, Ludwigshafen,
Germany, 2Research Center for Psychology and Social Development, Southwest University,
Chongqing, China, 3School of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 4Department of
Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Abstract: Recent studies have characterized self-control as a vital psychological variable that helps explain various problems. Tangney’s
Self-Control Scale (SCS) is a self-report measurement to assess individual differences in traits of self-control. It has gained popularity in
social and psychological science research. In China, there are a few Chinese-version scales measuring general self-control, which can be
applied to college students. The purposes of the present study were to evaluate: (a) the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of
Tangney’s SCS using confirmatory factor analysis, and (b) whether higher scores on the scale correlated with positive outcomes in China.
The final sample in this study consisted of 371 Chinese college students aged 17–23 years. The Full SCS and Brief SCS were both found
to have a reasonable fitness, which also had satisfactory internal consistencies and a high correlation. Higher scores on the SCS correlated
with higher self-esteem, extraversion, better harmony in interpersonal relationships and an appropriate anger expression, less impulsive-
ness, and state and trait anger. The test–retest reliability was confirmed in two additional samples. Tangney’s SCS could be used in China.
Keywords: positive outcomes; psychometric properties; self-control; self-control scale
Correspondence: Dr. Alexander Unger, Institute of International Management Studies, University of Applied Sciences, Ernst-Böhe-
Str. 4, Ludwigshafen, 67059 Germany. Email: [email protected]
Received 15 June 2015. Accepted 6 February 2016.
In their daily lives, people often face temptations that can lead to a host of suboptimal behaviors, such as: overeating, excessive alcohol consumption, taking harmful recreational drugs, engaging in aggressive and violent actions, verbally abusing others, spending money beyond one’s means, engaging in inappropriate sexual activity, and procrastinating when one should be working. On occasions when confronted with the need to control their behavior, people at times can also show an extraordinary capacity to regulate and overcome their impulses and drives. The ability to guide one’s own behavior toward more appropriate routes has been named, by psychologists, as self-control. It is, however, also well documented that humans often fail to regulate their behavior in such a way (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). The ability to exert control over the self is considered a
critical aspect of human behavior central to goal attainment and the successful achievement of tasks, as well as in the general organization of one’s life (Baumeister, Leith,
Muraven, & Bratslavsky, 1998). Yet self-control is not only important for achieving important tasks and in reaching goals (e.g. passing an exam), it is also important in being able to resist and avoid inappropriate choices (e.g. eating too much unhealthy food, smoking, or engaging in excessive alcohol consumption). Often it is about making the better choice when confronted with multiple choices with sets of tradeoffs.
Self-control in China
In China, the literature on self-control provides diverse definitions of the term, yet these different perspectives generally share the view that self-control efforts involve both the triggering of desired responses and the inhibition of undesired responses (Chen & Sang, 2002). A review of the literature on self-control in China revealed an emphasis on the developmental and psychology-of-learning perspectives
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
PsyCh Journal 5 (2016): 101–116 DOI: 10.1002/pchj.128
(Yu, 2005). Thus, previous research has focused on measuring the self-control of children (junior high or middle school), with a focus on the capacity to learn. There are also some measures designed for college students, but these focus either on specific self-control aspects, such as school and learning, or Internet use, or they tend to emphasize self-awareness (for an overview, see Yu, 2005). Thus, there are some Chinese assessments measuring specific aspects relevant to self-control, but missing is a tool for measuring self-control as a general trait that might be shown to predict behavior and outcomes in diverse life domains.
To fill this lack of an appropriate validated Chinese self-control scale, in the present research we adapted Tangney’s Self-Control Scale (SCS) to the Chinese context. It measures self-control as a dispositional trait and provides information about a person’s ability to exert self- control. We intended to test whether Tangney’s scale is suitable for Chinese college students and developed a Chi- nese version of this scale. If validated, this scale could serve as a useful tool and be extended to studies dealing with self-control in China. This could also offer a bridge to cross-cultural research on self-control, specifically for comparisons between Chinese and Western cultures, which could help researchers better understand the under- lying mechanisms of self-control and potential differences in self-control.
Based on anecdotal impressions and prior research findings, Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone (2004) hypothesized that the successful execution of self-control could produce various positive outcomes in daily life. They referred to prior research findings in six important life domains: achievement and task performance (Wolfe & Johnson, 1995), impulse control (Heatherton & Baumeister, 1991), adjustment (Fabes et al., 1999), interpersonal relationships (Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000), moral emotions (Tangney, 1991), and other related aspects of personality. They predicted that those who have a high personal capacity for self-control would have better grades than students with a low personal capacity, as well as higher self-esteem, better interpersonal relationships, fewer psychological and emotional symptoms and problems, and that they would display other benefits. The relationship between self-control and those positive outcomes is assumed to be linear (Tangney et al., 2004); in other words, people with higher self-control would live happier, healthier lives, whereas those with lower self-control would experience more negative outcomes.
Self-control: General resource and influenced by situational factors
There are different influential models of self-control, such as the behavioral model of self-control (Kanfer, 1971), control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982), the paradigm of delayed gratification (Mischel, Ebbesen, & Raskoff Zeiss, 1972), or the regulatory fit model (Higgins, 1997). Similar to the regulatory fit model, one model that has received much research attention in the last 10–15 years is the resource model, which assumes that self-control relies upon a limited amount of mental energy resources (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Mura- ven, & Tice, 1998). The main assumption of the resource model is that self-control (also referred to as willpower) is a cognitive resource, which although important and domain- unspecific, is limited. Thus, each activity that requires self- control draws on the same resource, and once a certain level of this resource is exhausted, the remainder may not be suffi- cient for subsequently exerting control over one’s behavior— a state referred to as ego depletion. Consequently it is pro- posed that the self-control strength of humans fluctuates across different situations. Recent expansions of the model suggest that motivational factors also come into play, which renders self-control variable across contexts (Inzlicht, Schmeichel, & Macrae, 2014). In this view, self-control may vary as individuals switch the priority of tasks calling on the resource in particular, as they exert cognitive effort among tasks they have to do versus those they want to do. In addition to variance across contexts, as a trait, people also vary in their self-control ability. Thus, in addition to the above factors (number of tasks requiring cognitive effort, priority of tasks), individuals will also differ in how they deploy their self- control capacity.
Individual differences in self-control ability
Despite the importance of recognizing situational influ- ences on self-control, often self-control as a trait reflects a resource that an individual can draw upon to enhance their effectiveness in life. Studies have shown that self-control capacity is also a trait that differs across individuals (cf. for an overview de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012) and that interacts with situational factors, as shown in an example by the ego depletion effect (e.g. Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006). Tangney et al. (2004) refer to the muscle analogy
102 Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
(Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), which suggests that individuals can train and thus improve their individual level of self-control (Muraven, Baumeister, & Tice, 1999). The main reason why self-control is seen as a trait is the obser- vation of individual differences, which are already observa- ble in children (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). Hence, in addition to mapping out the situations that can
affect self-control, it is equally important to focus on individuals and how they differ in their self-control abilities, which necessitates a valid and reliable measure to assess these differences accurately. A focus on measuring self-control in individuals in valid
and accurate ways becomes even more important when we consider the many areas of life in which self-control is implicated. In recent years, many investigations have demonstrated
the importance of self-control as a vital psychological variable (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007) in explaining personal and social problems, such as risk-taking (de Langhe, Swel- dens, van Osselaer, & Tuk, 2008; Freeman & Muraven, 2010; Unger & Stahlberg, 2011), unethical or immoral behavior (Baumeister & Alghamdi, 2015; Yam, Chen, & Reynolds, 2014), aggression (Stucke & Baumeister, 2006), alcohol consumption (Muraven, Collins, Morsheimer, Shiff- man, & Paty, 2005), overconsumption (Faber & Vohs, 2004; Vohs & Faber, 2007), incurring debt (Achtziger, Hubert, Kenning, Raab, & Reisch, 2015), and academic achievement (Barber, Munz, Bagsby, & Grawitch, 2009; Dent, 2013). For academic achievement, studies have shown that self-control outdoes IQ in predicting academic achievement (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2012; Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). These studies have expanded our understanding of self-
control but, just as importantly, they have mapped out many areas of life in which the ability of an individual to control the self is important and of consequence (Baumeister, Leith, et al., 1998). Tangney et al. (2004) developed a scale for measuring
self-control as a trait, assessing individual differences in self-control. The theoretical foundation of the scale is based on the theory of self-control as a limited mental resource (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, et al., 1998). This implies that self-control is domain-unspecific, although several subdivi- sions can be differentiated. Tangney et al. (2004) refer, for example, to the work of Baumeister et al. (1994), who “identified four major domains of self-control—controlling thoughts, emotions, impulses, and performance—which would be important to include in an overall index of
self-control” (Tangney et al., 2004, p. 272). The main assumption is that self-control relies on a limited resource, which can be trained like a muscle (Muraven & Baumeis- ter, 2000). Once the resource of self-control is reduced by prior acts of self-control, the individual is less able to exe- cute self-control in an efficient way. This state is named ego depletion. Schmeichel and Zell (2007) showed that people high in self-control as a trait are less affected by the ego depletion effect. Self-control as a trait is also referred to as willpower. Further, the scale was developed in refer- ence to the domains that can benefit from high self-control. These domains are: (a) achievement and task performance; (b) impulse control; (c) interpersonal relationships; and (d) moral emotions (cf. Tangney et al., 2004, pp. 275–281).
Further, the theoretical foundation of the measure is based on the model of Scheier and Carver (1985), who developed a cybernetic model of self-regulation in which perceived discrepancies between a current state and defined goals initiate behavioral acts to reduce the gaps or discrepancies. The perception and evaluation of discrepancies is conceived as a feedback loop and the resulting reactions are termed the “operate” phase. Tangney et al.’s (2004) research focused on the operate phase of the loop, rather than the feedback loop itself. In the operate phase, the self performs operations that alter itself (Tangney et al., 2004).
The basic processes of the Carver and Scheier model can be summarized as follows: After comparing a relevant goal to its actual realization, a perceived discrepancy will result in an action phase that intends to reduce the discrepancy, thus this can be understood as an actual/target comparison. Afterward, an operate (re)test is done to control for success versus failure. Finally, the control system can be exited. Carver and Scheier named this TOTE (Test-Operate-Test- Exit). This is, of course, a very shortened and simplified description (for more detailed information about this theory, see Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1982). The Tangney et al. (2004) scale refers to the above-mentioned operate phase. Thus, it is focused on self-control strength as a trait that is needed to realize goals (by minimizing the distance to these goals or to reach them completely). The processes of comparing between a target and an actual situation and their regulating consequences for goal-striving are de- emphasized. For example, the scale does not address the adapting of goals or achievement levels. Pre-operate and post-operate feedback loops, however, involve information processing to adjust goals and initiate action. Thus, it becomes easily recognizable that these components of the
PsyCh Journal 103
model are highly important, but involve other aspects that might be beyond the mere concept of self-control.1 To summarize, the scale refers to the execution of self-control and objectives to achieve, whereas the processes of goal achievement and so forth are de-emphasized (cf. Figure 1).
The research by Tangney and colleagues provided a new scale, the SCS, which included an overall index of self-control, assessing how well individuals control impulses, alter moods or emotions, restrain bad habits, maintain self-discipline, and manage performance (for a full discussion, see Tangney et al., 2004). There is also a short version of the scale consisting of 13 items, known as the Brief Self- Control Scale, which is highly correlated with and has the same structure as the Full Self-Control Scale.
The present research
Taking the earlier validation work in the context of available Chinese research, we chose seven criterion validity scales (see the Materials section) from five life domains that captured most of those examined by Tangney et al. (2004), except for achievement/task performance. We predicted that impulsiveness (measured by the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale [BIS-11]; Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995) would be negatively related to self-control, because
impulse control is one important domain of self-control. Thus, negative correlations were expected for all other subscales. We also expected that those high in self-control would report fewer health problems, higher self-esteem, and a higher belief in interpersonal harmony. High health problems should be associated with low self-control, because some unhealthy habits (like cigarette smoking, and excessive alcohol or unhealthy food consumption) occur because of a lack of self-control, namely the inability to resist temptations. Thus, we predicted a negative correlation between self-control and general health (where high values indicate [potential] health problems; measured by the General Health Questionnaire [GHQ]; Zhang et al., 2008), but a positive correlation with self-esteem (measured by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale [RSES]; Rosen- berg, 1972) and a belief in interpersonal harmony (measured by the Harmony Beliefs Scale [HBS]; Lu & Gil- mour, 2004). High self-esteem and good social relationships (and thus a high belief in interpersonal harmony) can be expected—at least partly—to be the result of high self- control. In terms of anger, we expected that students higher in self-control would show lower levels of anger as a trait and as a state (measured by the State–Trait Anger Expres- sion Inventory 2 [STAXI-2]; Spielberger & Sycleman, 1994). We further assumed that those higher in self-control would be better at anger control, but worse at anger
Figure 1. The Test-Operate-Test-Exit (TOTE) control system by Carver and Scheier (1981). Adapted from De Smet (1998).
expression (another possible means of regulation of anger), because high self-control facilitates effortful anger control, but also enables individuals to suppress anger expression (thus preventing them from showing anger expressions, which may be evaluated as inappropriate). We also assumed that self-control would have a positive
correlation with the more favorable personality trait, Extraver- sion, while exhibiting negative correlations with problematic personality traits, such as Psychoticism and Neuroticism (all three subscales were measured by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised, Short Scale for Chinese [EPQ-RSC]; Qian, Wu, Zhu, & Zhang, 2000). This should be expected because Psychoticism is highly associated with impulsivity (Rawlings & Dawe, 2008) and Neuroticism is highly related to a low frustration tolerance as well as to frequent experi- ences of perceiving situations as threatening (Widiger, 2009). All of these personal factors require the continuous operation of being in permanent control, which may thus tie up additional cognitive resources that could potentially result in reduced self-control ability. This assumption is also based on a functional magnetic resonance imaging study by Eisenber- ger, Lieberman, and Satpute (2005), who were able to show that higher extraversion is accompanied by activation of those brain regions as the “lateral pre-frontal cortex, lateral parietal cortex, and right anterior cingulate cortex” (Wilt & Revelle, 2009, p. 37), which are all typically associated with self- control activity. Further, Elfhag and Morey (2008) report that higher extraversion is connected to more restrained eating and might be preventative for obesity. A potentially more positive role of extraversion is also reported by Tamir (2009) for emotional regulation. Individuals high in extraversion could also better cope with interpersonal conflict and incon- sistencies (Graziano, Feldesman, & Rahe, 1985; Norman & Watson, 1976). These beneficial coping styles might be associated with higher self-control. Regarding the Lie subscale of the EPQ-RSC, we
assumed a positive correlation between this measure and self-control. At first glance, it seems contradictory that a person high in self-control would display more tendencies to lie. However, it has to be considered that in general, people need greater degrees of self-control to lie, because the process of deception is often accompanied by increased arousal and the need for behavioral inhibition (Pennebaker & Chew, 1985). Thus, only individuals with a high level of self-control can lie and therefore should show higher values in the tendency towards lying. The relationship with perfectionism (measured by the Frost
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale [FMPS]; Frost, Mar- ten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990) is complex, but Tangney et al. (2004) stated that perfectionism was connected to problems in adapting one’s behavior to a given situation, and thus could lead to procrastination. For organization, which can be seen as a positive aspect of perfectionism, we expected a positive correlation.
The purpose of the present study was to confirm whether self-control as a trait would correlate in the described way with the above-mentioned scales in the case of China and thus cross-validate the Chinese version of the Tangney SCS. Our logic for testing the relationship of the seven criterion validity scales is as follows. We aimed to test whether the same structure of correlational relationships could be shown for our Chinese sample as that in the study by Tangney et al. (2004). Consequently, this would measure the same construct of self-control as intended. According to the choice of these scales, we considered two criteria. First, we searched for the equivalent scales for China as used in the Tangney et al. study. Second, we ensured that these scales were validated and reliable scales. The last point put some restrictions on the number of available scales.
Method
Ethics The research procedure was approved by the ethics review board of the University of Applied Sciences.
Participants Participants were 391 undergraduates (208 female) enrolled in introductory psychology courses taken as minor subjects. Twenty participants did not complete the questionnaire, so their data were removed from all analyses. This left a final sample of 371 participants (199 female), who ranged in age from 17 to 23 years (M = 19.79, SD = 1.22). They majored in math, language, art, machinery, economics, and other disciplines. Informed consent sheets were given to all participants, who signed them before participating in the study.
We analyzed the test–retest reliability of the SCS in two additional samples. The participants of the first sample were 113 (59 female) senior high school students (Mage = 16.30; SD = 0.61) of Yuncheng High School, who com- pleted the scale twice (the time interval was from November 3 to December 4, 2014). The second sample consisted of a total of 94 (87 female) community college
PsyCh Journal 105
students (Mage = 19.94; SD = 0.90) majoring in nursing and midwifery at Henan Vocational College of Nursing. They filled out the scale twice (the time interval was from November 16 to December 16, 2014).
Materials The SCS
In the original SCS, self-control was described as the ability to override or change one’s inner responses, interrupt undesired behavioral tendencies and refrain from acting on them (Tangney et al., 2004). The scale contains 36 items (cf. Tables 1–2), rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much), with five dimensions: general capacity for self-discipline, deliberate/nonimpulsive action, healthy habits, work ethics, and reliability. The theoretical foundation of the scale is based on five domains relevant to self- control. Based on a review of self-control failure in these domains by Baumeister et al. (1994) and Tangney et al. (2004) generated “a large 93 items encompassing all the spheres of self-control covered in that review (in particular, control over thoughts, emotional control, impulse control, performance regulation, and habit breaking)” (Tangney et al., 2004, p. 282). At the end of their analysis, 36 items remained: 11 of them refer to a factor of general capacity for self-discipline; 10 items refer to deliberate/nonimpulsive action; seven items refer to healthy habits; five refer to work ethics; and five refer to reliability (cf. Tangney et al., 2004, pp. 282–283). The short version of the scale showed the same structure by including items of each of the factors (five for general capacity for self-discipline; three for deliberate/nonimpulsive action; two for healthy habits; two for work ethics; and one for reliability; cf. Tangney et al., 2004, p. 283).
The BIS-11
The BIS-11 is the most extensive measurement used to assess impulsiveness in both research and clinical settings (Patton et al., 1995). The adapted Chinese version of the scale is also a 30-item self-report instrument designed to assess the personality construct of impulsiveness. It has three dimensions—Motor Impulsiveness, Cognitive Impul- siveness, and Lack of Planning Impulsiveness—and has excellent internal consistency and test–retest reliability (Li et al., 2011). We assumed a negative correlation with self-control.
The Supplemented Edition GHQ
The GHQ was originally developed by Goldberg in the 1970s. It is a measure of current mental health and is commonly used in different settings and cultures. The Supple- mented Edition GHQ (Zhang et al., 2008) used in this study was based closely on the GHQ-12 and was designed to determine whether a Chinese participant is at risk of developing a psychiatric disorder. Each item is rated, as in the GHQ-12, on a 4-point scale, with either a bimodal (0- 0-1-1) or a Likert scoring method (0-1-2-3). In this study, response categories score 0, 0, 1 and 1, respectively, so the total scores ranged from 0 to 12. High values on the GHQ indicate a high level of health problems. Thus we hypothesized a negative correlation between the GHQ and self- control.
Table 1 Items of the Self-Control Scale (cf. Tangney et al., 2004)
* 1. I am good at resisting temptation. (R) * 2. I have a hard time breaking bad habits. (R) * 3. I am lazy. (R) * 4. I say inappropriate things.
5. I never allow myself to lose control. (R) 6. I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun.
7. People can count on me to keep on schedule. (R) 8. Getting up in the morning is hard for me. (R) 9. I have trouble saying no. (R) 10. I change my mind fairly often. (R) 11. I blurt out whatever is on my mind. (R) 12. People would describe me as impulsive.
* 13. I refuse things that are bad for me. (R) 14. I spend too much money.
15. I keep everything neat. (R) 16. I am self-indulgent at times. (R) * 17. I wish I had more self-discipline.
18. I am reliable. (R) 19. I get carried away by my feelings. (R) 20. I do many things on the spur of the moment. (R) 21. I don’t keep secrets very well.
* 22. People would say that I have iron self-discipline. (R) 23. I have worked or studied all night at the last minute. (R) 24. I’m not easily discouraged. (R) 25. I’d be better off if I stopped to think before acting.
26. I engage in healthy practices. 27. I eat healthy foods.
(R) * 28. Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done.
(R) * 29. I have trouble concentrating. * 30. I am able to work efficiently towards long-term goals.
(R) * 31. Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong.
(R) * 32. I often act without thinking through all the alternatives. (R) 33. I lose my temper too easily. (R) 34. I often interrupt people. (R) 35. I sometimes drink or use drugs to excess.
36. I am always on time.
Note. *Items of the Brief Self-Control Scale. (R) = reversed items.
The RSES
The RSES (Rosenberg, 1972) is the most widely used self- esteem measure in social science research. It was translated into Chinese by Ji and Yu (1999), and is commonly scored with a Likert scale. The RSES has 10 items that are answered on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The scale generally has high reliability. High values in the RSES should positively correlate with high self-control.
The HBS
The HBS is a 9-item scale rated on a 7-point scale. It aims to test individuals’ beliefs about maintaining harmony in communicating and interactions with others. Examples of items are as follows: “I believe that people should have self-restraint” and “We should try to preserve the dignity of others in interpersonal interactions.”
Higher scores indicate a higher endorsement of beliefs in interpersonal harmony (Lu & Gilmour, 2004). This is appropriate for Chinese culture. We assumed a positive correlation between self-control and belief in harmony.
The STAXI-2
The STAXI-2 is designed to measure anger as a situational emotional response (state), a pre-dispositional quality (trait), and as a measure of expression (Spielberger & Sycleman, 1994). The Chinese version of the STAXI-2 is a 57-item scale, with three subscales: the State Anger subscale (SAS, 15 items), the Trait Anger subscale (TAS, 10 items), and the Anger Expression subscale (AX, 32 items). The AX has two factors, anger expression (Anger Expression-Out; Anger Expression-In) and anger control (Anger Control-Out; Anger Control-In), which are opposite reactions to negative feelings. We hypothesized a negative correlation between self-control and the subscales of Anger Control-In and Anger Control-Out, but positive correlations with all other subscales.
The EPQ-RSC
The EPQ-RSC was first imported and revised in 2000 (Qian et al., 2000), and has maintained an identical structure to the EPQ-R Short Scale. The EPQ-RSC contains four subscales (Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Lie) and each includes 12 items, rated with a Yes/No choice. Self-control was expected to show positive correlations with the Extraversion and Lie subscales, but negative correlations with Psychoticism and Neuroticism.
The FMPS
The FMPS is a 35-item scale. Perfectionism is defined as having high standards of performance with the tendency toward critical self-evaluations (Frost et al., 1990). It con- sists of six subscales: Concern over Mistakes, Personal Standards, Parental Expectations, Parental Criticism, Doubts about Actions, and Organization. It is a reliable and valid scale. As outlined, we assumed a positive correlation
Table 2 Items of the Chinese Self- Control Scale

5,,3,
1. (R) * 2. (R) * 3. (R) * 4.
5.() (R) * 6.,
(R) 10./
18. (R) 19.
(R) 20. (R) 21.
36.
Note. *Items of the Brief Self-Control Scale. (R) = reversed items. This Chinese version of the Self-Control Scale reversion work was conducted by A. Unger, C. Bi, Y. Xiao, & O. Ybarra. The original Self-Control Scale is by Tangney et al. (2004).
PsyCh Journal 107
between self-control and organization, but negative correlations with all other subscales.
Procedures The Tangney SCS (Tangney et al., 2004) was initially translated into Chinese, and then two bilingual Chinese speakers translated it back into English. There were six items where there was a debate in translation, so we kept the two different versions for them. A total of 348 Chinese college students (120 males) were asked to complete this scale (42 items, including the six alternative items) in their class. We analyzed the collected data and interviewed some participants about each item on self-control. After that, to ensure that the correct meaning of the original scale was easily and accurately understood by Chinese college students, we modified some translated items and created a final version. The final sample (in this study) was recruited to complete the SCS (36 items) and the seven other scales that are described in the Materials section. The session took about 15–20 min to complete. To ensure that genuine answers were given, the students received extra credits for their participation if they finished completely. Thus we enhanced the interest of the participants for the questionnaires.
Analysis In order to examine the factor structure of the SCS among Chinese college students, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. One of the frequently used methods for model evaluation is the maximum likelihood method, which is based on the assumption that the data should be normal and continuous. In this study, the data of the SCS were asymptotic,2 normally distributed (skewness < 2, kurtosis < 7) and 5-point scales were used. Thus, we employed the maximum likelihood test to analyze the data, which was executed by Amos 20.0 software.
We tested the structure of the Full SCS and Brief SCS, respectively. The adequacy of the five-factor model was evaluated by various fit criteria, as each index has different types of information when used to assess the goodness-of-fit between the hypothetical model and the observed data (Cole, 1987). Further, Rigdon (1996) recommends using the comparative fit index for explora- tory contexts only and not in confirmatory contexts like in the current study. Like the comparative fit index, the Tucker–Lewis index provides a good and often-used alternative. We did not use either of these indexes because
they should not be applied if the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; see below and Table 3) is smaller than .158 (Kenny, 2015). Following these recom- mendations, we used the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) to indicate the fit of the model. The criteria were GFI > .85, AGFI > .80 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1984). Another fit index used in this analysis—as recommend by Rigdon for confirmatory analysis—was the RMSEA, which represented the size of model residuals. Browne and Cudeck (1993) have sug- gested that values below .05 represent a close fit; below .08 a reasonable fit; below .10 a minimally acceptable fit; and above .10 an unacceptable fit. The used fit indices (RMSEA, GFI, and AGFI) are based on the fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data. After examining the structure of the SCS, we calculated
the Pearson correlation coefficients between the SCS and the other seven scales to test whether high self-control would predict a range of positive outcomes. It was analyzed using SPSS 15.0 software.
Results
Reliability of the SCS and the criterion validity scales Both the Full SCS and the Brief SCS have satisfactory reliability. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha of the Full SCS was .88, and for each dimension, ranged from .58 to .81. The Brief SCS displayed a Cronbach’s alpha of .75. According to the three factors of the BIS-11, the Cron- bach’s alphas in this study were, respectively, .84, .78, and .82. The Cronbach’s alphas of the Supplemented Edition GHQ was .69. Similar high Cronbach’s alphas were observed for the RSES (.84) and the HBS (.75). In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha of the above-mentioned subscales of the STAXI-2 for each scale were adequate (ranging from .69 to .94). Further, the Cronbach’s alphas for each of the subscales of the EPQ-RSC were .41, .79, .79, and .66, respectively. Finally the internal consistency of the Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale of the FMPS was satisfactory (ranging from .56 to .83).
Confirmatory factor analyses of SCS for Chinese The fit indices of the Full SCS and Brief SCS for the five- factor model are reported in Table 3. From the statistics of
the Full SCS, we can see that GFI < .85, AGFI = .80, and RMSEA = .06, which was a cut-off value. From those indices, the five-factor model is a reasonable fit for the observed data. For more efficient and economical use in China, we also tested the structure of the Brief SCS with confirmatory factor analyses. The results of the Brief SCS are also given in Table 3. The correlation between the Full
SCS and Brief SCS was r(369) = .91, p < .001. These results clearly indicate a good fit for the five-factor model for the Brief SCS in Chinese.
The following items showed poor factor loadings, lower than .35 (cf. Table 4): (5) “I never allow myself to lose control”; (9) “I have trouble saying no”; (13) “I refuse things that are bad for me”; (16) “I am self-indulgent”; (17) “I wish I had more self-discipline”; (25) “I’d be better off if I stopped to think before acting”; (28) “Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done”; and (18) “I am reliable.”
For those items showing a poor factor loading (cf. Table 4), and which can be considered for reformulations or in the case of a short-scale version for omission, we would like to give some examples of possible explanations.
Table 3 Fit Statistics of the Full and Brief Self-Control-Scales in Chinese
Model χ2 χ2/df p RMSEA GFI AGFI RMR
Full scale 1344.27 2.30 00 06 82 80 06 Brief scale 5.25 1.05 39 01 99 98 06
Note. AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMR = root-mean-square residual; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.
Table 4 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (n = 371)
Item number Item
1 2 3 4 5
02 I have a hard time breaking bad habits .54 04 I say inappropriate things .47 05 I never allow myself to lose control −.24 08 Getting up in the morning is hard for me .50 09 I have trouble saying no .21 13 I refuse things that are bad for me −.22 15 I keep everything neat −.61 16 I am self-indulgent at times .12 17 I wish I had more self-discipline .07 22 People would say that I have iron self-discipline .44 24 I’m not easily discouraged .37 11 I blurt out whatever is on my mind .58 12 People would describe me as impulsive .72 14 I spend too much money .52 19 I get carried away by my feelings .58 20 I do many things on the spur of the moment .74 25 I’d be better off if I stopped to think before acting .21 31 Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong .41 32 I often act without thinking through all the alternatives .62 33 I lose my temper too easily .73 34 I often interrupt people .48 01 I am good at resisting temptation .50 06 I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun .46 26 I say inappropriate things .58 27 I eat healthy foods .55 35 I sometimes drink or use drugs to excess .41 03 I am lazy .64 23 I have worked or studied all night at the last minute .41 28 Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done .26 29 I have trouble concentrating .50 30 I am able to work efficiently towards long-term goals .57 07 People can count on me to keep on schedule .56 10 I change my mind fairly often −.44 18 I am reliable .34 21 I don’t keep secrets very well .40 36 I am always on time .35
Note. Factor 1: general capacity for self-discipline; Factor 2: deliberate/nonimpulsive action; Factor 3: healthy habits; Factor 4: work ethics; Factor 5: reliability.
PsyCh Journal 109
In the example of Item 17 (“I wish I had more self-discipline”), the poor factor loading might not be due to a mere cultural reason, but a logical one instead: Presumably some participants score lower on this item because they are not interested, or only to a very small degree, in having self- control. Some other participants score highly instead because they want to express their modesty. Indeed, it is exactly these participants who often show an already high level of self-control. A cultural idiosyncrasy might be responsible for the poor loading of Item 9 (“I have trouble saying no”); however, it should not be overgeneralized to suggest that “yes” responses might be more likely to be given in China due in part to politeness. Thus, having trouble saying no reflects a Chinese context with more of a requirement to be polite, rather than a pure lack of self-control. Another reason for a biased measurement and poor factor loading in the six remaining critical items (5, 13, 12, 16, 18 and 28) could be due to social desirability. This might also play a role in behavior like excessive alcohol drinking3 (Item 35) or related deviant behavior. These considerations and the results of the current study (cf. Table 4) can be used in further refinement projects of the scale.
To test for local model violations, we calculated standardized residuals and modification indices.4 The critical threshold of standardized residual covariances (> 2.58) was observed in 2.46% of the covariances.5 The local model violations were concentrated (15 out 31 of observed covariances above 2.58) in covariances of the fifth factor (reliability) with items of other factors. The threshold of > 20 for the modification indices (cf. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, 2013) was only observed for Item 35 (“I sometimes drink or use drugs to excess”). The χ2 decreased by .124. In China, alcohol consumption, including excessive alcohol consumption, is closely connected with dining, and it is highly socially acceptable in this context, whereas pure isolated drinking and drug consumption are strictly banned and refused even more than by Western respon- dents. These considerations could explain why the item is presumably not clearly formulated for the Chinese context. These potential aspects of the model that do not fit as well as the above reported cases of the low factor loadings of eight items might be addressed in potential model revisions of the current measure.
Further, we observed that the correlations between the factors ranged between −.22 and .37. The highest correlation was observed between general capacity for self-discipline (Factor 1) and work ethics (Factor 4). A mediocre correlation
between the factors is, however, in line with the assumed higher-order factor of self-control (cf. Tangney et al., 2004).
Relationship between the SCS and other scales The correlations between the SCS and the seven other measures are shown in Table 5. Consistent with the results from America, the higher the self-control, the better the outcomes reported by individuals. All three sub-subscales of the BIS-11 showed continu-
ously significant negative correlations of r(362) = −.70 (Motor Impulsiveness), r(364) = −.49 (Cognitive Impul- siveness), and r(360) = −.67 (No-planning Impulsiveness), all ps < .001, with higher scores on the Full SCS (for this and all following results, see Table 5). All of the following correlations refer to the Full SCS. Further, all reported
Table 5 Correlations of Self-Control Scale with Measures of the BIS-11, GHQ, RSES, HBS, STAXI-2, EPQ-RSC and FMPS
Bivariate correlations
BIS-11 Motor Impulsiveness −.70** −.60** Cognitive Impulsiveness −.49** −.43** No-planning Impulsiveness −.66** −.64** GHQ −.23** −.16** RSES −.43** −.43** HBS .13* .11*
STAXI-2 State Anger Subscale −.31** −.22** Trait Anger Subscale −.47** −.36**
Anger Expression Subscale Anger Expression-Out −.38** −.29** Anger Expression-In −.13* −.15** Anger Control-Out .50** .40** Anger Control-In .48** .38**
EPQ-RSC Psychoticism −.25** −.29** Extraversion −.16** −.16** Neuroticism −.47** −.36** Lie −.46** −.44**
FMPS Concern over Mistakes −.34** −.27** Personal Standards .08 .08 Parental Expectations −.10 −.12* Parental Criticism −.35** −.34** Doubts about Actions −.34** −.33** Organization .47** .42**
Note. BIS-11 = Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; EPQ-RSC = Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised, Short Scale for Chinese; FMPS = Frost Multidimen- sional Perfectionism Scale; GHQ = General Health Questionnaire; HBS = Har- mony Belief Scale; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; STAXI-2 = State– Trait Anger Expression Inventory 2. *p < .05; **p < .01.
significant correlations showed ps < .001, if not otherwise stated. The GHQ showed a modest correlation with self-control,
r(369) = −.23. High values indicate worse health status, thus, as predicted, higher self-control corresponds with a better health status. Also as predicted, high scores on the SCS correlated significantly with higher self-esteem, as measured by the RSES, and with a stronger belief in harmony, as measured by the HBS (p < .05). With regard to the STAXI-2, we observed the predicted
significant negative correlations between self-control and State Anger, r(369) = −.31, as well as between self-control and the Trait Anger subscale, r(369) = −.47. Further, we observed significant positive correlations with Anger Con- trol, r(369) = .50 (Control-Out) and r(369) = .48 (Control- In), but significant negative correlations with the Anger Expression subscales, r(369) = −.38 (Expression-Out), and r(369) = −.13 (Expression-In), p = .013. We also observed supporting correlational patterns for
the EPQ-RSC: Significant negative correlations between self-control and Psychoticism and Neuroticism were observed, whereas significant positive correlations were observed for the Extraversion and Lie subscales. In the case of Extraversion, the correlation was quite small, r(369) = .15, p = .003. As assumed, a positive correlation with the Lie subscale was observed. For the FMPS, we assessed six subscales. As predicted,
the three dealing with the negative effects of an overempha- sized dysfunctional perfectionism were significantly negative in relation to self-control: Concern over Mistakes, r(369) = −.34; Parental Criticism, r(369) = −.35; and Doubts about Actions, r(369) = −.34. Emphasis of structure and organization as positive sides of perfectionism was measured by the Organization subscale, which showed, as expected, a significant positive correlation, r(369) = .47. However, Personal Standards, r(369) = .08, and Parental Expectations, r(369) = −.10, showed no significant correlations with self-control. In summary, besides these two subscales, all correlations were in line with our assumptions. The corresponding correlational pattern of the Brief SCS showed an overall equivalent correlational pattern to the Full version. In one case, that of Parental Expectations, a weak negative correlation was observed with the Brief SCS only, p = .016. The results of test–retest reliability assessed in two sepa-
rate samples were as follows. For the senior high school students, the Full SCS test–retest reliability was r(111) =
.80, p < .001, and that for the Brief SCS was r(111) = .75, p < .001. For the community college students, similar results were observed: The test–retest reliability coefficient of the Full SCS was r(92) = 0.71, p < .001; and that for the Brief SCS was r(92) = 0.73, p < .001.
In summary, the results showed significant similarity with the results of Tangney et al. (2004), although it should be noted that while the scales we used were similar in most cases, they were fewer in number, due to limited availability of Chinese versions. We can confirm the relationship of high self-control to the following aspects: (a) less impulsivity, as measured by the BIS-11; (b) more positive health outcomes, as measured by the GHQ; (c) higher self-esteem, as measured by the RSES; (d) more harmonious communication with other people, as measured by the HBS; (e) less anger as a trait, as well as less anger as a state, and better anger expression, as measured by the three subscales of the STAXI-2; (f) more favorable patterns of personality, social relationships, and stability of personality, as measured by the EPQ-RSC; and (g) perfectionism, as measured by the FMPS, where we provided evidence for the expected significant negative correlations with the subscales Concern over Mistakes, Parental Criticism, and Doubts about Actions. We failed, however, to observe the expected negative correlations with Personal Standards and Parental Expectations. In both cases, no correlations were observed and thus, these two measurements were the only two that showed no con- firming pattern. The positive side of perfectionism, the Organization subscale, showed a significant positive correlation, which was again in line with our assumptions.
Discussion
Although much research on self-control has focused on situational determinants of self-control, researchers have also treated problems of self-control as problems of personality (Baumeister et al., 1994). In this study, we chose college students as participants to assess the psychometric properties of a self-control scale when used in China. Results of the confirmatory factor analyses showed that the Full SCS model did adequately fit the data, revealing that the original five-factor structure is also appropriate for Chinese students. This indicates that the scale would be a good tool for measuring self-control in Chinese participants, although we have to consider several shortcomings of the model, as
PsyCh Journal 111
reported in the Results. The Brief SCS shows better fit indices and it might be reasonable to use this version. The Brief SCS contains items from each of Tangney’s hypothesized five factors, and it has a good correlation with the full version of the scale and a reasonable fit. Future research on self-control could use this brief scale, which has the advan- tage of decreasing completion time and increasing completion rates. The present results lead us back to the scale’s theory, which emphasizes the operate phase of the loop, a process that is likely to be similar regardless of culture. Thus, from this perspective, the meaning of self-control may be the same across cultures, but future research is needed to validate this more general aspect of self-control.
Another purpose of the study was to test whether higher self-control would be correlated with a wide spectrum of positive outcomes when used in China. The present data provided strong support for this hypothesis. When the participants with higher self-control were compared with individuals with lower self-control, they reported lower impulsiveness (motor, cognitive, and no-planning impulsiveness), fewer health problems, higher self-esteem, more harmony in interpersonal relationships, less inappropriate anger outcomes (state and trait) but more appropriate anger expression, extraversion, and better personality features (less psychoticism, neuroticism, more extraversion and rational organization without an overemphasis on perfectionism). As many theories have asserted, higher self- control is associated with a variety of benefits in human life. Thus, the scale revised for China had satisfactory criterion validity.
In cross-cultural psychology, the establishment of (measurement) equivalence of different kinds is very important for scale development. In this context one strategy might even be to adapt the content of the scales to fit into different cultures. A modification of the scale at stake could thus help to adapt a scale for a new culture. According to Sil- verthorne (2005), however, “if scales are modified to address cultural differences, then the ability to draw accurate conclusions based on direct comparisons between different cultural groups may be jeopardized” (p. 22). Thus, we did not apply this approach. This is reasonable because we argue that the construct of self-control is a generalized construct that might show specific features across different cultures (e.g. the Chinese show higher performance in emotional suppression compared to Europeans), but the basic structure of the concept of self-control should be the same. On the other hand, the reported shortcoming (local model
violations and low factor loadings for some items) suggest that model revisions might be a reasonable path for future research. The general utility of the revised scale is proven to be valid in China. It provides a tool to measure the personality trait of self-control, making it beneficial to research self-control in different cultures.
Limitations and future research Several limitations to the study do affect the interpretation of the results and thus should be noted. The first limitation was criterion validity, that is, the questionnaires used. Although the scales we selected were based on extant studies and could be used to estimate the validity of the SCS, they are only scales, which may influence the results of the relationships through different processes. In order to addi- tionally validate the structure of self-control and to be more comprehensive, future studies should use more sophisti- cated criterion validity approaches, such as performance in daily life and assessments from friends. Second, the conclusions may be limited by our conven-
ience sampling method. We should be careful in accepting the full implications of the present research when applying these to other groups in the Chinese population. Possible future research may adopt the newly developed scale for other target groups, such as people working in different professional domains or other non-student samples. Third, the scale provides an opportunity to measure self-
control as a trait, at least in the case of Chinese college students. The new Chinese scale could be used to control for the efficiency of self-control training programs in the long run, for example, in the context of Chinese school children or college students, but the situational fluctuation of available resources of self-control as discussed in the energy model (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, et al., 1998) must also be considered in future research with Chinese participants. Although it is obvious, we would like to stress that our version of the scale is not the last word on this topic, and we explicitly encourage further refinements of the presented measurement tool. In particular, the reported low factor loadings of some items suggest the need to retest the short version or to modify or replace these items. Such an approach of adaption has to be made carefully as it com- promises between the requirement to reflect on the original content of the English-language scale to ensure comparabil- ity, and the consideration of cultural idiosyncrasies. We hope that the presented scale is a good first step to better measuring self-control as a trait in China.
It is worth noting that children in Chinese schools are frequently confronted with the Chinese school system’s emphasis on discipline. This requires that their self-control be challenged and developed regularly, through the need to be persistent, complete long and often boring tasks, or regulate their emotions. Thus, higher levels of self-control could be expected for Chinese individuals at the end of adolescence. Because of this, the Chinese version of the Tangney SCS may contribute to obtaining further insights into how self-control is developed as a trait and shaped during socialization, especially during the time of early adolescence. A better understanding of cultural differences, which may have inhibiting as well as facilitating effects, could also help to improve our understanding of human self- control as a whole.
Conclusion
One of the purposes of this study was to test whether the five-factor structure of the SCS could be replicated with Chinese college students. The results of confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood showed a reasonable fit, and the brief scale also fit well. The second main aim of this study was also achieved: Increasing scores on the SCS correlated with seven other scales, indicating that high self-control can predict various positive outcomes in China, and that the relationship between general self-control and several positive outcomes observed by Tangney et al. (2004) was successfully replicated in our Chinese student sample. In sum, we can conclude that this is a useful tool for measuring self-control as a trait in China. The above-mentioned aspects may be fruitful starting
points in attaining further insights into the domain of self- control in the case of China. The validated scale is the first step towards this goal and could enable, together with other considerations discussed, a better understanding of how situational and trait-related aspects of self-control work and interact in China. Further studies into self-control in China and other Asian countries could prove beneficial to research in this domain because of the presumed levels of self- control and certain types of achievements by Chinese and other Asians. So, a better understanding of self-control in both of these cultural contexts and cross-culturally could aid the potential discovery of different antecedents and determinants of self-control, which could in turn serve as
knowledge for facilitating greater self-control in all individuals.
Notes
1It might be interesting to address these parts of the theory in accordance to self-control and self-regulation, respectively. We would like to take the opportunity here to clarify the difference between the two terms. Although the two expressions have often been used as synonyms in the literature of the limited-resource model, many authors differenti- ate between the terms to emphasize the following different concepts: Self-control refers to willpower and deliberate acts carried out to reach goals, whereas self-regulation is a broader concept that includes unconscious and auto- matic acts. 2Asymptotic normally distributed means that the distribu- tion is approximately normally distributed. 3Further, Item 35 might be conceptually related to the latent variable of reliability. Besides the mentioned cultural aspects, it can be assumed that drinking alcohol excessively goes hand in hand with decreasing reliability of a person because of the influence of alcohol itself, and corresponding changes in personality in the long run. 4In order to enable these calculations, we applied the “replace missing values” procedure of SPSS. 5The Standardized Residual Covariances as well as further information, like original data, are available from the first author for those who are interested in applying an adaption approach and modifying the measure.
References
Achtziger, A., Hubert, M., Kenning, P., Raab, G., & Reisch, L. (2015). Debt out of control: The links between self-control, compulsive buying, and real debts. Journal of Economic Psy- chology, 49, 141–149. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2015.04.003
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155–173. doi:10.1007/BF02294170
Barber, L. K., Munz, D. C., Bagsby, P. G., & Grawitch, M. J. (2009). When does time perspective matter? Self-control as a moderator between time perspective and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 250–253. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.007
Baumeister, R. F., & Alghamdi, N. G. (2015). Role of self-control failure in immoral and unethical actions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 66–69. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.04.001
PsyCh Journal 113
Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74, 1773–1802. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00428.x
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Los- ing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Leith, K. P., Muraven, M., & Bratslavsky, E. (1998). Self-regulation as a key to success in life. In D. Pushkar, W. M. Bukowski, A. E. Schwartzman, D. M. Stack, & D. R. White (Eds.), Improving competence across the lifespan: Building interventions based on theory and research (pp. 117–132). New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/0-306-47149-3_9
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psycho- logical Science, 16, 351–355. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007 .00534.x
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5887-2
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111–135. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111
Chen, W. , & Sang, B. . (2002). [An overview of researches on self-control in children]. Advances in Psychological Science [], 10, 65–70. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2002.01.010
Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology, 55, 584–594. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.4.584
de Langhe, B., Sweldens, S. T. L. R., van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Tuk, M. (2008). The emotional information processing system is risk averse: Ego-depletion and investment behavior (No. ERS-2008-064-MKT). ERIM report series research in management Erasmus Research Institute of Management. Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13614
Dent, A. L. (2013). The relation between self-regulation and academic achievement: A meta-analysis exploring variation in the way constructs are labeled, defined, and measured. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience in the Graduate School of Duke University. Retrieved from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/ dspace/handle/10161/7265
de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self- control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 76–99. doi:10.1177/1088868311418749
De Smet, A. L. (1998). Adaptive models of organization for sub- stance abuse treatment (Technical Report). Columbia Univer- sity, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://165.112.78.61/HSR/ da-tre/DeSmet Adaptive Models.htm
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Tsukayama, E. (2012). What No Child Left Behind leaves behind: The roles of IQ and self- control in predicting standardized achievement test scores and report card grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 439–451. doi:10.1037/a0026280
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280 .2005.01641.x
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Satpute, A. B. (2005). Personality from a controlled processing perspective: An fMRI study of neuroticism, extraversion, and self-consciousness. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 169–181. doi:10.3758/CABN.5.2.169
Elfhag, K., & Morey, L. C. (2008). Personality traits and eating behavior in the obese: Poor self-control in emotional and external eating but personality assets in restrained eating. Eating Behaviors, 9, 285–293. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2007 .10.003
Faber, R. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). To buy or not to buy? Self- control and self-regulatory failure in purchase behavior. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 509–524). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Jones, S., Smith, M., Guthrie, I., Poulin, R., … Friedman, J. (1999). Regulation, emotionality, and preschoolers’ socially competent peer interactions. Child Development, 70, 432–442. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00031
Freeman, N., & Muraven, M. (2010). Self-control depletion leads to increased risk taking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 175–181. doi:10.1177/1948550609360421
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. doi:10.1007/BF01172967
Graziano, W. G., Feldesman, A. B., & Rahe, D. F. (1985). Extra- version, social cognition, and the salience of aversiveness in social encounters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 49, 971–980. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.971
Heatherton, T. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Binge eating as escape from self-awareness. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 86–108. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.86
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52 .12.1280
Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends in Cogni- tive Sciences, 18, 127–133. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.009
Ji, Y. F. , & Yu, X. . (1999). [The Self- esteem Scale]. In X. Wang , X. Wang , & H. Ma (Eds.), [Rating scales for mental health] (Rev. ed., pp. 318–320). Beijing: Chinese Men- tal Health Journal Publishing.
Kanfer, F. H. (1971). The maintenance of behavior by self- generated stimuli and reinforcement. In A. Jacobs &
Kenny, D. A. (2015). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from http:// davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psy- chology, 36, 220–232. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220
Li, X.-Y. , Phillips, M. R., Xu, D. , Zhang, Y.-L. , Yang, S.-J. , Tong, Y.-S. , … Niu, Y.-J. . (2011). Barratt [Reliability and validity of an adapted Chinese version of Barratt Impulsiveness Scale]. Chinese Men- tal Health Journal [], 25, 610–615.
Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happiness: Individual oriented and social oriented SWB. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 269–291. doi:10.1007/s10902-004-8789-5
Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. (1972). Cogni- tive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 204–218. doi:10.1037/h0032198
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938. doi:10.1126/science.2658056
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247–259. doi:10.1037// 0033-2909.126.2.247
Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1999). Longitudi- nal improvement of self-regulation through practice: Building self-control strength through repeated exercise. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 446–457. doi:10.1080/00224549909598404
Muraven, M., Collins, R. L., Morsheimer, E. T., Shiffman, S., & Paty, J. A. (2005). The morning after: Limit violations and the self-regulation of alcohol consumption. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, 253–262. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.19.3.253
Norman, R. M. G., & Watson, L. D. (1976). Extraversion and reactions to cognitive inconsistency. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 446–456. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(76)90058-1
Norwegian Social Science Data Services. (2013). Various levels of measurement equivalence, part 2. Retrieved from http:// essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/topics/immigration/2/4.html
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768–774. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199511) 51:6<768::AID-JCLP2270510607>3.0.CO;2-1
Pennebaker, J. W., & Chew, C. H. (1985). Behavioral inhibition and electrodermal activity during deception. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 49, 1427–1433. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.49.5.1427
Qian, M. , Wu, G. , Zhu, R. , & Zhang, S. . (2000). (EPQ-RSC) [Development of the revised Eysenck Personality Ques- tionnaire short scale for Chinese (EPQ-RSC)]. Acta Psycholo- gica Sinica [], 32, 317–323.
Rawlings, D., & Dawe, S. (2008). Psychoticism and impulsivity. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 1.
Personality theories and models (pp. 357–378). London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781849200462
Rigdon, E. E. (1996). CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two fit indexes for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3, 369–379. doi:10.1080/10705519609540052
Rosenberg, M. (1972). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The self-consciousness scale: A revised version for use with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 687–699. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb02268.x
Schmeichel, B. J., & Zell, A. (2007). Trait self-control predicts performance on behavioral tests of self-control. Journal of Per- sonality, 75, 743–756. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00455.x
Silverthorne, C. P. (2005). Organizational psychology in cross cultural perspective. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Spielberger, C. D., & Sycleman, S. J. (1994). State–Trait Anxiety Inventory and State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 292–321). Mah- wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stucke, T. S., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Ego depletion and aggressive behavior: Is the inhibition of aggression a limited resource? European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 1–3. doi:10.1002/ejsp.285
Tamir, M. (2009). Differential preferences for happiness: Extra- version and trait-consistent emotion regulation. Journal of Per- sonality, 77, 447–470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00554.x
Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 598–607. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.61.4.598
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
Unger, A., & Stahlberg, D. (2011). Ego-depletion and risk behavior: Too exhausted to take a risk. Social Psychology, 42, 28–38. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000040
Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self- regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 537–547. doi:10.1086/510228
Widiger, T. A. (2009). Neuroticism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 129–146). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2009). Extraversion. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 27–45). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Wolfe, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance. Educational and Psychological Meas- urement, 55, 177–185. doi:10.1177/0013164495055002002
Yam, K. C., Chen, X.-P., & Reynolds, S. J. (2014). Ego depletion and its paradoxical effects on ethical decision making. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 204–214. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.03.008
Yu, G. . (2005). [A research on college students’ self-control]. Psychological Science [], 28, 1338–1343.
PsyCh Journal 115
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in epidemiological survey of mental illness]. Chinese Mental Health Journal [ ], 22, 189–192.

Documents

The revising of the Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese