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, engag- ing 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 gen-
erally 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 mea- suring 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 con- text. 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 find- ings,
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 capac- ity 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 nega-
tive 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 regu- latory 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 situa- tional 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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
(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 indi-
viduals 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 varia- ble
(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 discre- pancies. 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 the- ory, 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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
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-con- trol, assessing
how well individuals control impulses, alter moods or emotions,
restrain bad habits, maintain self-disci- pline, 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 availa- ble
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 sub- scales. 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
correla- tion 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 (meas- ured 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
relation- ships (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) con- trol system by
Carver and Scheier (1981). Adapted from De Smet (1998).
104 Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
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 addi- tional 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 asso- ciated 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, peo- ple 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 relation- ship
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 vali- dated 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 parti- cipants, 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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
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 abil- ity 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 founda- tion 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 break- ing)” (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 delib- erate/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-dis- cipline; 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 com- monly 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 hypothe- sized 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.
106 Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
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 sub- scale (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 struc- ture 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 correla- tions 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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
between self-control and organization, but negative correla- tions
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 stu-
dents, 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 differ- ent 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 alter- native. 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 reli- ability. 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 sub- scales of the STAXI-2 for each
scale were adequate (rang- ing 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 satis- factory (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
108 Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
the Full SCS, we can see that GFI < .85, AGFI = .80, and RMSEA =
.06, which was a cut-off value. From those indi- ces, 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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
In the example of Item 17 (“I wish I had more self-disci- pline”),
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 trou- ble saying no reflects a
Chinese context with more of a requirement to be polite, rather
than a pure lack of self-con- trol. 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 con- siderations 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 standar- dized
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 covar- iances above 2.58) in covariances of
the fifth factor (relia- bility) 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 exces- sive 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 fac- tors
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 mea- sures 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.
110 Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
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 har- mony, 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 nega- tive 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 correla- tions
with self-control. In summary, besides these two sub- scales, 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 simi- lar in most cases, they were
fewer in number, due to lim- ited 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 corre- lation,
which was again in line with our assumptions.
Discussion
Although much research on self-control has focused on sit- uational
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 proper- ties 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 stu- dents. 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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
reported in the Results. The Brief SCS shows better fit indi- ces
and it might be reasonable to use this version. The Brief SCS
contains items from each of Tangney’s hypothe- sized 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 comple- tion 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 par- ticipants with higher
self-control were compared with indi- viduals with lower
self-control, they reported lower impulsiveness (motor, cognitive,
and no-planning impul- siveness), 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 perfec- tionism). 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 crite- rion validity.
In cross-cultural psychology, the establishment of (mea- surement)
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 differ- ent 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 accu- rate conclusions based on direct comparisons
between dif- ferent 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 emo- tional 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 per- sonality 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 stud- ies 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 stu-
dents. 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 availa- ble 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 ver- sion 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.
112 Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
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 reg- ulate 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 dur- ing
socialization, especially during the time of early adoles- cence. 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 fac- tor analysis
with maximum likelihood showed a reasona- ble 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 out- comes 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 sit-
uational 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, respec- tively. 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 litera- ture 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 correspond- ing 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 achieve- ment.
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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
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 asses-
sing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing
struc- tural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and
self-regula- tion: 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 manage- ment
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 aca-
demic 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-regu- lation:
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 &
114 Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
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 happi-
ness: 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
grat- ification 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 treat- ment
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
behav- ior: 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 col- lege students’ self-control].
Psychological Science [], 28, 1338–1343.
PsyCh Journal 115
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in epidemiological survey of
mental illness]. Chinese Mental Health Journal [ ], 22,
189–192.
116 Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students