PsyCh Journal 5 (2016): 101–116

DOI: 10.1002/pchj.128

The revising of the Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students

Alexander Unger,1 Chongzeng Bi,2 Ying-Ying Xiao3, and Oscar Ybarra4

1
Institute 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: alunger@web.de
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
102
(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.
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
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
PsyCh Journal
(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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
103
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
104
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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
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).
PsyCh Journal
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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
105
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
106
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.
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
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 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.
PsyCh Journal 107

Table 2 The HBS

Items of the Chinese Self- Control Scale
The HBS is a 9-item scale rated on a 7-point scale. It aims
自控特征问卷 to test individuals’ beliefs about maintaining harmony in
以下是关于自控特征的问卷,所涉项目内容无对、错之分。请用1 ~ 5
为量尺,指出下列每条描述在多大程度上反映了你的情况,如果跟 communicating and interactions with others. Examples of
你的情况非常不符合,就在句子后的括号内填写1,如果非常符合则 items are as follows: “I believe that people should have
填写5,如果不确定是符合还是不符合,则填写3,以此类推。
self-restraint” and “We should try to preserve the dignity of
看懂即可回答,不必过分思量,按第一印象回答往往是最准确的。请一
一作答,不要有遗漏。 others in interpersonal interactions.”
1 = 非常不符合 2 = 不符合 3不确定 4符合 5 非常符合 Higher scores indicate a higher endorsement of beliefs in
1.我能很好地抵制诱惑
(R) * 2.对我来说改掉坏习惯是困难的 interpersonal harmony (Lu & Gilmour, 2004). This is
(R) * 3.我很懒 appropriate for Chinese culture. We assumed a positive
(R) * 4.我经常会说一些不合时宜的话
correlation between self-control and belief in harmony.
5.我从不允许自己失去控制(理智)
(R) * 6.只要我觉得好玩的事,就算是对我有害也照做不误
7.人们相信我能按计划行事
(R) 8.对我来说,早上起床是件困难的事 The STAXI-2
(R) 9.我很难拒绝别人 The STAXI-2 is designed to measure anger as a situational
(R) 10.我经常改变主意/意见
(R) 11.我想到什么就会说什么
emotional response (state), a pre-dispositional quality
(R) 12.人们认为我是个容易冲动的人 (trait), and as a measure of expression (Spielberger &
* 13.我会避免做出对自己有害的事 Sycleman, 1994). The Chinese version of the STAXI-2 is a
(R) 14.我经常乱花钱
15.我是个井井有条的人 57-item scale, with three subscales: the State Anger sub-
(R) 16.我有时会放纵自己 scale (SAS, 15 items), the Trait Anger subscale (TAS,
(R) * 17.我希望自己能更自律一些
18.我是值得信赖、可靠的人
10 items), and the Anger Expression subscale (AX,
(R) 19.我很容易受情绪影响 32 items). The AX has two factors, anger expression
(R) 20.我做的很多事情是因为一时冲动 (Anger Expression-Out; Anger Expression-In) and anger
(R) 21.我不太会保守秘密
* 22.人们说我能严格自律 control (Anger Control-Out; Anger Control-In), which are
(R) 23.我有时会拖到最后一刻才熬夜赶工 opposite reactions to negative feelings. We hypothesized a
24.我不轻易气馁
(R) 25.如果我能三思而后行就更好了
negative correlation between self-control and the subscales
26.我参加有益健康的活动 of Anger Control-In and Anger Control-Out, but positive
27.我的饮食很健康 correlations with all other subscales.
(R) * 28.休闲娱乐有时会妨碍我完成工作任务
(R) * 29.我很难集中精力/注意力
* 30.我能为了长远目标而有效率地工作/学习
(R) * 31.有时我会忍不住去做一些事情,即使我知道那样做是错的
The EPQ-RSC
(R) * 32.做事时,我经常不进行全面考虑就采取行动 The EPQ-RSC was first imported and revised in 2000
(R) 33.我很容易就发脾气 (Qian et al., 2000), and has maintained an identical struc-
(R) 34.我经常打断别人说话或做事
(R) 35.我有时会饮酒/上网过度(或对这些东西有依赖) ture to the EPQ-R Short Scale. The EPQ-RSC contains
36.我一向很准时 four subscales (Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism,
Note. *Items of the Brief Self-Control Scale. (R) = reversed items. and Lie) and each includes 12 items, rated with a Yes/No
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
choice. Self-control was expected to show positive correla-
by Tangney et al. (2004). tions with the Extraversion and Lie subscales, but negative
correlations with Psychoticism and Neuroticism.
The RSES
The RSES (Rosenberg, 1972) is the most widely used self- The FMPS
esteem measure in social science research. It was translated The FMPS is a 35-item scale. Perfectionism is defined as
into Chinese by Ji and Yu (1999), and is commonly scored having high standards of performance with the tendency
with a Likert scale. The RSES has 10 items that are toward critical self-evaluations (Frost et al., 1990). It con-
answered on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly agree to sists of six subscales: Concern over Mistakes, Personal
strongly disagree. The scale generally has high reliability. Standards, Parental Expectations, Parental Criticism,
High values in the RSES should positively correlate with Doubts about Actions, and Organization. It is a reliable and
high self-control. valid scale. As outlined, we assumed a positive correlation

© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
108
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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
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
PsyCh Journal 109

Table 3 SCS and Brief SCS was r(369) = .91, p < .001. These
Fit Statistics of the Full and Brief Self-Control-Scales in Chinese
results clearly indicate a good fit for the five-factor model
Model χ2 χ2/df p RMSEA GFI AGFI RMR for the Brief SCS in Chinese.
Full scale 1344.27 2.30 00 06 82 80 06 The following items showed poor factor loadings, lower
Brief scale 5.25 1.05 39 01 99 98 06
than .35 (cf. Table 4): (5) “I never allow myself to lose
Note. AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index;
RMR = root-mean-square residual; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of control”; (9) “I have trouble saying no”; (13) “I refuse
approximation. things that are bad for me”; (16) “I am self-indulgent”;
(17) “I wish I had more self-discipline”; (25) “I’d be better
the Full SCS, we can see that GFI < .85, AGFI = .80, and off if I stopped to think before acting”; (28) “Pleasure and
RMSEA = .06, which was a cut-off value. From those indi- fun sometimes keep me from getting work done”; and
ces, the five-factor model is a reasonable fit for the (18) “I am reliable.”
observed data. For more efficient and economical use in For those items showing a poor factor loading (cf.
China, we also tested the structure of the Brief SCS with Table 4), and which can be considered for reformulations
confirmatory factor analyses. The results of the Brief SCS or in the case of a short-scale version for omission, we
are also given in Table 3. The correlation between the Full would like to give some examples of possible explanations.

Table 4
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (n = 371)
Factor loadings
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.

© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
110 Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students

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-
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
Full Self-Control Brief Self-Control
Scale Scale

dized residuals and modification indices.4 The critical BIS-11

Motor Impulsiveness −.70** −.60**
threshold of standardized residual covariances (> 2.58) was Cognitive Impulsiveness −.49** −.43**
observed in 2.46% of the covariances.5 The local model No-planning Impulsiveness −.66** −.64**
GHQ −.23** −.16**
violations were concentrated (15 out 31 of observed covar-
RSES −.43** −.43**
iances above 2.58) in covariances of the fifth factor (relia- HBS .13* .11*
bility) with items of other factors. The threshold of > 20 STAXI-2
State Anger Subscale −.31** −.22**
for the modification indices (cf. Norwegian Social Science Trait Anger Subscale −.47** −.36**
Data Services, 2013) was only observed for Item 35 (“I Anger Expression Subscale
Anger Expression-Out −.38** −.29**
sometimes drink or use drugs to excess”). The χ2 decreased
Anger Expression-In −.13* −.15**
by .124. In China, alcohol consumption, including exces- Anger Control-Out .50** .40**
sive alcohol consumption, is closely connected with dining, Anger Control-In .48** .38**
EPQ-RSC
and it is highly socially acceptable in this context, whereas Psychoticism −.25** −.29**
pure isolated drinking and drug consumption are strictly Extraversion −.16** −.16**
Neuroticism −.47** −.36**
banned and refused even more than by Western respon-
Lie −.46** −.44**
dents. These considerations could explain why the item is FMPS
presumably not clearly formulated for the Chinese context. Concern over Mistakes −.34** −.27**
Personal Standards .08 .08
These potential aspects of the model that do not fit as well Parental Expectations −.10 −.12*
as the above reported cases of the low factor loadings of Parental Criticism −.35** −.34**
Doubts about Actions −.34** −.33**
eight items might be addressed in potential model revisions
Organization .47** .42**
of the current measure.
Note. BIS-11 = Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; EPQ-RSC = Eysenck Personality
Further, we observed that the correlations between the fac- Questionnaire-Revised, Short Scale for Chinese; FMPS = Frost Multidimen-
tors ranged between −.22 and .37. The highest correlation sional Perfectionism Scale; GHQ = General Health Questionnaire; HBS = Har-
mony Belief Scale; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; STAXI-2 = State–
was observed between general capacity for self-discipline Trait Anger Expression Inventory 2.
(Factor 1) and work ethics (Factor 4). A mediocre correlation *p < .05; **p < .01.

© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
PsyCh Journal
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) =
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
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
112
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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
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.
PsyCh Journal
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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
113
knowledge for facilitating greater self-control in all
individuals.
Notes
1
It 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.
2
Asymptotic normally distributed means that the distribu-
tion is approximately normally distributed.
3
Further, 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.
4
In order to enable these calculations, we applied the
“replace missing values” procedure of SPSS.
5
The 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
114
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M.
(1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252
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. 陈伟民, & Sang, B. 桑 标. (2002). 儿童自我控制研究
述评 [An overview of researches on self-control in children].
Advances in Psychological Science [心理科学进展], 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
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students
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. 季益富, & Yu, X. 于欣. (1999). 自尊量表 [The Self-
esteem Scale]. In X. Wang 汪向东, X. Wang 王希林, &
H. Ma 马弘 (Eds.), 心理卫生评定量表手册 [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 &
PsyCh Journal
L. B. Sachs (Eds.), The psychology of private events: Perspec-
tives on covert response systems (pp. 37–59). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
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. 李献云, Phillips, M. R., Xu, D. 徐东, Zhang, Y.-L. 张
亚利, Yang, S.-J. 杨少杰, Tong, Y.-S. 童永胜, … Niu, Y.-J.
牛雅娟. (2011). Barratt 冲动性量表中文修订版在社区和大
学人群中应用的信效度 [Reliability and validity of an adapted
Chinese version of Barratt Impulsiveness Scale]. Chinese Men-
tal Health Journal [中国心理卫生杂志], 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. 錢銘怡, Wu, G. 武國城, Zhu, R. 朱榮春, & Zhang, S.
張莘. (2000). 艾森克人格問卷簡式量表中國版(EPQ-RSC)的
修訂 [Development of the revised Eysenck Personality Ques-
tionnaire short scale for Chinese (EPQ-RSC)]. Acta Psycholo-
gica Sinica [心理學報], 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.
© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
115
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. 于国庆. (2005). 大学生自我控制研究 [A research on col-
lege students’ self-control]. Psychological Science [心理科学],
28, 1338–1343.
116 Tangney Self-Control Scale for Chinese students

Zhang, Y. 张杨, Cui, L.-J. 崔利军, Li, K.-Q. 栗克清, Jiang, Q.- General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in epidemiological
P. 江琴普, Sun, X.-L. 孙秀丽, Gao, L.-H. 高良会, … survey of mental illness]. Chinese Mental Health Journal [中
Yang, B.-L. 杨保丽. (2008). 增补后的一般健康问卷在精神 国心理卫生杂志], 22, 189–192.
疾病流行病学调查中的应用 [Supplemented edition of the

© 2016 The Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd