自我控制策略映射:集体主义和个人主义语境下的跨文化网络分析

IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Boqiang Zhao , Changlin Liu , Palizhati Muhetaer , Ping Hu
{"title":"自我控制策略映射:集体主义和个人主义语境下的跨文化网络分析","authors":"Boqiang Zhao ,&nbsp;Changlin Liu ,&nbsp;Palizhati Muhetaer ,&nbsp;Ping Hu","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent theoretical perspectives suggest that self-control could be achieved not only through “effortful” inhibition of impulses but also through strategies that prevent impulses from arising. Cultural models of agency and self-regulation propose that self-concepts shaped by collectivism and individualism lead to different preferences for self-control strategies. However, limited research has explored these cultural differences. This study employed network analysis to examine cross-cultural variations in self-control strategies. The Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS) was administered to 732 Chinese participants and 838 American participants to compare their network structures of self-control strategy. Results indicated notable differences in the self-control strategy networks between the two cultural groups. Specifically, in the Chinese self-control strategy network, situation selection emerged as the most central strategy, while reappraise dominated the American network. These findings suggest that collectivist cultures prioritize externally-scaffolded strategies (e.g., situation selection), whereas individualist cultures emphasize intra-psychic strategies (e.g., reappraise).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"247 ","pages":"Article 113413"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping self-control strategies: A cross-cultural network analysis in collectivist and individualist contexts\",\"authors\":\"Boqiang Zhao ,&nbsp;Changlin Liu ,&nbsp;Palizhati Muhetaer ,&nbsp;Ping Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Recent theoretical perspectives suggest that self-control could be achieved not only through “effortful” inhibition of impulses but also through strategies that prevent impulses from arising. Cultural models of agency and self-regulation propose that self-concepts shaped by collectivism and individualism lead to different preferences for self-control strategies. However, limited research has explored these cultural differences. This study employed network analysis to examine cross-cultural variations in self-control strategies. The Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS) was administered to 732 Chinese participants and 838 American participants to compare their network structures of self-control strategy. Results indicated notable differences in the self-control strategy networks between the two cultural groups. Specifically, in the Chinese self-control strategy network, situation selection emerged as the most central strategy, while reappraise dominated the American network. These findings suggest that collectivist cultures prioritize externally-scaffolded strategies (e.g., situation selection), whereas individualist cultures emphasize intra-psychic strategies (e.g., reappraise).</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Individual Differences\",\"volume\":\"247 \",\"pages\":\"Article 113413\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Individual Differences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886925003757\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886925003757","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的理论观点表明,自我控制不仅可以通过“努力”抑制冲动,还可以通过防止冲动产生的策略来实现。代理和自我调节的文化模型表明,集体主义和个人主义塑造的自我概念导致了对自我控制策略的不同偏好。然而,研究这些文化差异的研究有限。本研究采用网络分析探讨自我控制策略的跨文化差异。采用自我控制策略量表(SCSS)对732名中国参与者和838名美国参与者进行自我控制策略网络结构比较。结果显示,两种文化群体的自我控制策略网络存在显著差异。具体而言,在中国人的自我控制策略网络中,情境选择是最核心的策略,而在美国人的网络中,重评策略占主导地位。这些发现表明,集体主义文化优先考虑外部框架策略(例如,情境选择),而个人主义文化强调心理内策略(例如,重新评估)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mapping self-control strategies: A cross-cultural network analysis in collectivist and individualist contexts
Recent theoretical perspectives suggest that self-control could be achieved not only through “effortful” inhibition of impulses but also through strategies that prevent impulses from arising. Cultural models of agency and self-regulation propose that self-concepts shaped by collectivism and individualism lead to different preferences for self-control strategies. However, limited research has explored these cultural differences. This study employed network analysis to examine cross-cultural variations in self-control strategies. The Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS) was administered to 732 Chinese participants and 838 American participants to compare their network structures of self-control strategy. Results indicated notable differences in the self-control strategy networks between the two cultural groups. Specifically, in the Chinese self-control strategy network, situation selection emerged as the most central strategy, while reappraise dominated the American network. These findings suggest that collectivist cultures prioritize externally-scaffolded strategies (e.g., situation selection), whereas individualist cultures emphasize intra-psychic strategies (e.g., reappraise).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.70%
发文量
577
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信