Subjective well-being is the experience and evaluation of one’s life, and it constitutes both cognitive and affective components (Diener, 2000). It is an important characteristic for not only a favorable society but also the fulfillment of an individual’s life (Diener et al., 2003). Significant research efforts have been made in investigating mental health beyond the mere absence of psychiatric conditions. College is an important phase of life, and unhealthy mental states of undergraduate students not only influence them immediately but also continue into later life (Lee & Loke, 2005). Therefore, it is essential to gain a better understanding of the factors that promote subjective well-being among undergraduate students.

 

Zhongyong thinking advocates for a supreme moral idea; more recently, its values, behaviors, and perceptions have been reinterpreted and redeveloped (Sun et al., 2021; S. Zhou & Li, 2022). Zhongyong thinking has progressed considerably in traditional Chinese culture, where people use this style of thinking to consciously select, execute, and correct their actions. These actions encompass an individual’s experience, and the values of Zhongyong thinking influence how they evaluate their lives (Wu & Lin, 2005). Zhongyong thinking is a cultural variable that has been found to be related to emotional states (Hou et al., 2020), resilience (S. Zhou & Li, 2022), and mental health (X. Yang et al., 2016). Various studies of cultural variables that impact subjective well-being have reported findings similar to those of studies on other interrelated factors that affect subjective well-being (Diener, 2000). For example, one study showed that Zhongyong thinking is positively correlated with the cognitive component of subjective well-being (X. Yang et al., 2016).

 

Studies have focused on the motivation and cognition underlying prosocial behavior and its impact on individuals (Crone et al., 2022; Paulus, 2018), linking this behavior to greater physical and mental health (Roth et al., 2013), as well as better well-being (Haller et al., 2022). Previous studies have explored the mechanisms underlying prosocial behavior from a cultural perspective. For example, students from two Southeast Asian cultures were found to display less prosocial behavior than equivalent groups from two Western cultures (Callaghan & Corbit, 2018; Trommsdorff et al., 2007). Zhongyong thinking, originating from the Confucian tradition in ancient China, advocates for a balanced and moderate approach to life and ethical conduct. This style of thinking emphasizes the importance of harmony within society, which may lead to maintaining balanced relationships with others and promoting prosocial behaviors where individuals are more likely to cooperate, share, and engage in mutually beneficial interactions (Z. Zhou et al., 2019).

 

To better understand subjective well-being from a cultural perspective, I explored the effect of Zhongyong thinking on subjective well-being, along with the mediating role of prosocial behavior in this relationship, using a sample of Chinese undergraduate students.

Culture influences not only values and behaviors but also thinking styles. Zhongyong thinking has attracted the attention of psychology researchers because it represents the central theme of Confucian thought and has evolved from supreme morality to an essential system that Chinese people use to confront society (Gao et al., 2013; X. Yang et al., 2016). Wu and Lin (2005) emphasized the importance of cognition and behavior when facing contradictions and conflicts. They described Zhongyong thinking as solving problems from multiple perspectives and selecting appropriate behaviors that consider the entire situation. According to Zhou and Li (2022) the goal of Zhongyong thinking is to maintain inner harmony when individuals confront complex interpersonal situations by applying three principles: multiple thinking (thinking from multiple aspects when expressing and making decisions), holism (viewing external and internal components as a whole), and harmoniousness (harmony is important when interpersonal conflict appears). University is a life stage that coincides with the end of adolescence and the beginning of early adulthood. In a sample of 8,178 Chinese university students, Zhongyong thinking was found to correlate negatively with anxiety and depression symptoms (X. Yang et al., 2016). Thus, Zhongyong thinking, which is highly influenced by traditional Chinese culture, continues to influence young Chinese students today.

 

The concept of subjective well-being has been studied by psychologists (Diener, 2000; Schimmack et al., 2002). Subjective well-being indicates an individual’s feelings toward and satisfaction with life, with cognitive and affective assessments being closely related (Diener et al., 2018). Initially, subjective well-being was considered a stable personality trait. However, social and cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that certain factors can alter subjective well-being, such as personality, occupation, and culture (Diener et al., 2018). Furthermore, studies have shown that culture is a key factor in understanding why subjective well-being varies among countries (Diener, 2000; Diener et al., 2003). For example, one study reported that Asian American people are less satisfied with their lives than are European American people (Wirtz et al., 2010). Additionally, Suh and Choi (2018) revealed that obtaining and maintaining well-being is influenced by culture-related variables.

 

Research has shown that thinking styles rooted in national culture are associated with well-being (Boucher, 2011; Church et al., 2012). Indeed, Zhongyong thinking has been shown to be positively correlated with life satisfaction, which is a dimension of subjective well-being (X. Yang et al., 2016). However, few studies have examined the direct relationship between Zhongyong thinking and subjective well-being. Therefore, I sought to fill this gap in the literature.

Prosocial behavior refers to a volitional and intentional action aimed at benefiting others and society (Dovidio et al., 2006; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). It is important for individual growth and social development; moreover, prosocial behavior has been linked to better physical and mental health (Poulin et al., 2013). Performing a good deed for others benefits both those others and the individual who performs the behavior. A growing body of evidence suggests that prosocial behavior and well-being are significantly connected. Haller et al. (2022) conducted a study with 9,496 participants from different world regions and reported that prosocial behavior was positively correlated with well-being. Therefore, prosocial behavior can be considered an essential protective variable for an individual’s well-being.

 

Research on the mechanism of prosocial behavior in different cultures is essential because it enhances theoretical understanding and provides a more detailed perspective. The factors that impact prosocial behavior have been studied extensively. For example, Buchtel et al. (2018) conducted a study on obligation-motivated benefactors across cultures and showed that participants from a traditional Confucian culture had high levels of obligation-related motivation to engage in prosocial behavior.

 

Additionally, Zhongyong thinking both enables individuals to maintain inner peace and helps them apply key principles when confronting Chinese society (Z. F. Yang, 2009). It emphasizes the importance of harmoniousness within society, which facilitates the formation of balanced relationships and making behavioral decisions after considering others and society, which promotes prosocial behavior (Z. Zhou et al., 2019). As a result, more prosocial behavior leads to greater subjective well-being (Haller et al., 2022). Thus, I proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Zhongyong thinking will be positively associated with subjective well-being.

Hypothesis 2: Prosocial behavior will mediate the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and subjective well-being.

 

Figure 1 shows the research model.

I invited 689 undergraduate students from different provinces in Mainland China to participate in this study. I eliminated 20 questionnaires with more than 15% missing data and 12 questionnaires with unreasonable answers (the same response selected or intermediate values selected to the extreme), leaving 657 valid questionnaires (rate of response = 95%). The participants ranged in age between 18 and 24 years (M = 18.60). Of the participants, 65% were women (n = 402) and 35% were men (n = 217). There were 624 Han Chinese (95%) respondents and 33 were from minority ethnic groups (5%). The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) university students with a minimum age of 18 years, (b) originating from different provinces in China, (c) no communication barriers, and (d) willing to participate in this research. The exclusion criteria were finishing the questionnaire in less than 1 minute, or providing repetition or invalid responses.

 

Before entering the data to test the study hypothesis, I used G*Power 3.1 to conduct a power analysis, ensuring that the sample size of the research was adequate to reflect the study population. An a priori study revealed that a minimum sample size of 127 would be regarded representative and sufficient to achieve statistical power of .80 and a medium effect size of .15 for the structural model. Thus, my sample of 657 respondents was adequate and reasonable to assess the study hypotheses.

 

After I informed all participants of the purpose of the study and gave them instructions, they completed the survey voluntarily and without monetary incentive. To protect the personal information of participants, the data were collected anonymously.

I employed the Zhongyong Thinking Style Scale (Wu & Lin, 2005) to investigate Zhongyong thinking levels. It consists of 13 items spread over three dimensions: multithinking (four items), holism (five items), and harmoniousness (four items). Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher Zhongyong thinking. Sample items include “I make decisions from multiple aspects all the time” (multithinking), “I try to find a balance between others’ aspects and my own opinion” (holism), and “When making decisions, I think an atmosphere of harmony is important” (harmoniousness). Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale in this study was .82, and those for multithinking, holism, and harmoniousness were .63, .76, and .87, respectively, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

I adopted the Adolescent Prosocial Behavior Tendency Scale developed by Carlo and Randall (2002) and revised by Kou et al. (2007). It measures prosocial behavior with 23 items spread over six dimensions: emotionality (four items), compliance (two items), altruism (five items), anonymity (five items), openness (four items), and urgency (three items). Participants score each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). A sample item is “I always tend to help others, especially when they are emotionally in great pain.” This scale has been widely utilized and good reliability and validity have been demonstrated (Kou et al., 2007). Cronbach’s alpha of the full scale and subscales were .81, .75, .77, .76, .79, .83, and .70, respectively, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

I measured subjective well-being by using a Chinese version (Wang et al., 1999) of the Index of Well-Being developed by Campbell et al. (1976). It includes two dimensions: general affect and life satisfaction. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly unsatisfied) to 7 (strongly satisfied), with higher scores indicating higher subjective well-being. A sample item is “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your life in general?” Researchers have reported good reliability and validity among Chinese participants (Zhang & He, 2016). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in this study were .92 and .84 for the subscales, and .92 for the whole scale, indicating the scale is reliable.

I conducted all statistical analyses using SPSS 24.0 and Amos 7.4. All data were first tested for outliers and checked for linearity and normality. According to Ghasemi and Zahediasl (2012), an absolute skewness value < 2 and kurtosis < 10 indicate an acceptable range of normality. I also tested for multiple collinearity and employed Pearson correlations to measure the associations between Zhongyong thinking, prosocial behavior, and subjective well-being. Significance was established at p < .05. I conducted descriptive analyses of the study variables using SPSS 24.0 and performed a confirmatory factor analysis to examine the measurement models. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to examine the structural models including latent variables using Amos 7.4. Models have an acceptable fit to the data when the following threshold values are met: χ²/df < 5, root-mean-square error of approximation <.08, incremental fit index > .90, comparative fit index > .90, normed fit index > .90, goodness-of-fit index > .90, adjusted goodness-of-fit index > .90 (Hu & Bentler, 1998; Wen et al., 2005). I used the bootstrapping method to test the indirect, direct, and total effects of the model. Statistical significance is indicated when the 95% confidence interval (CI) does not include zero.

I used Harman’s single-factor method to check for common method bias in this research. Results showed that there were six common factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 and the first factor explained 29.1% of the variance, which is less than the threshold value of 40%. This suggests that the common method bias had no appreciable impact on the findings of this investigation.

Before testing the structural model of the research, I investigated the basic assumptions of SEM, including the skewness, kurtosis, and multiple collinearity of the variables. The skewness and kurtosis values were appropriate, ranging from −0.04 to 0.27 and from −0.89 to 1.59, respectively, thus showing the distribution of scores on all variables was normal. I calculated variance inflation factors to evaluate the multiple collinearity between the predictor variables. The results showed that variance inflation factor values were less than 2, indicating there was no alignment problem between the variables.

 

Table 1 shows the results of the correlation analysis estimating the relationships between Zhongyong thinking, prosocial behavior, and subjective well-being, and descriptive statistics for the scale scores. I found significant correlations between Zhongyong thinking, prosocial behavior, and well-being. Zhongyong thinking was significantly and positively related to prosocial behavior, r = .31, p < .01, and subjective well-being, r = .45, p < .01, and prosocial behavior was significantly and positively related with well-being, r = .27, p < .01. The mean score of 5.34 indicates that participants tended to show high levels of Zhongyong thinking. Table 1 displays correlations and descriptive statistics.

I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of the model to check the preconditions of the study. All fit indices met the statistical requirements, showing that the model fit the data well (see Table 2).

The magnitude of the factor loadings ranged from .69 to .94. Latent correlations are presented in Figure 2. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis indicated acceptable construct validity.

The SEM results showed a positive correlation between subjective well-being and Zhongyong thinking, β = .47, SE = 0.10, p < .001. The model also demonstrated that the model fit the data well (see Table 2).

Using the methodology of Wen et al. (2005), we created a structural equation model to examine the direct impact of Zhongyong thinking on subjective well-being. All the necessary conditions for mediation analysis were fulfilled and the goodness-of-fit values of the model are presented in Table 2. The theoretical model fit the empirical data well.

 

I used the bootstrapping method to measure the mediating effects. Figure 2 and Table 3 show that the total effect of Zhongyong thinking on subjective well-being was .52, 95% CI [0.433, 0.594]. The direct effect of Zhongyong thinking on subjective well-being was .47, 95% CI [0.377, 0.554]. The indirect mediating effect via prosocial behavior was .05, 95% CI [0.017, 0.085]. The effects above showed statistical significance since the 95% CIs did not include zero, implying that the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and subjective well-being was partially mediated by prosocial behavior. In addition, as shown in Table 3 the indirect effect of Zhongyong thinking on subjective well-being via prosocial behavior accounted for 10% of the total effect.

In this study I examined the influence of Zhongyong thinking on subjective well-being and explored the mediating effect of prosocial behavior. I found that Zhongyong thinking was positively correlated with subjective well-being. The mediation analysis revealed that prosocial behavior partially mediated the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and subjective well-being in Chinese undergraduate students.

 

The mean score of 5.34 for Zhongyong thinking in my sample is consistent with previous research findings (Wei et al., 2022) showing the importance of Zhongyong thinking for young students in China. This may indicate that Chinese traditional culture still influences undergraduate students. One possible reason for this tendency is that Zhongyong thinking originated from Chinese traditional culture, and the long history and impact of this traditional culture is not immutable and stationary, so it still matters in current Chinese society.

 

My finding of a significant positive correlation between subjective well-being and Zhongyong thinking among Chinese undergraduate students is in line with that of X. Yang et al. (2016), who reported that university students with higher Zhongyong thinking tended to be more satisfied with their lives. This suggests that individuals who maintain a balance between inner thoughts and external opinions are more equipped to experience a high level of subjective well-being.

 

Additionally, I found that prosocial behavior partially mediated the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and subjective well-being, which supported Hypothesis 2. A previous study demonstrated that those who engage in more prosocial behavior are more likely to experience a high level of subjective well-being (Sun et al., 2021). Buchtel et al. (2018) showed that participants from traditional Confucian cultures revealed a high level of obligated motivation to engage in prosocial behavior. When people make behavioral decisions they tend to consider both the self and overall situations; the obligated motivation of behavioral decisions represents the principle of holism in Zhongyong thinking and also implies the importance of others and society for individuals in their daily lives. These features of Zhongyong thinking may explain the observed differences in the level of obligated motivation to help others, and why individuals who engage in Zhongyong thinking might be more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors.

My results have several implications for practice. The findings offer insight into the continuation of traditional cultural heritage values. This is an important consideration for psychologists conducting research in different cultures and will help them gain a better understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity. The findings are also relevant to mental health practitioners and researchers across various cultures.

This study has several limitations. First, other culture-related variables not included in my research model may influence subjective well-being. These could be investigated in future studies. Second, I used a sample of Chinese undergraduate students who may have cultural differences and varied psychological characteristics depending on age. Therefore, I recommend caution in interpreting the results and extending them to other populations.

Despite its limitations, my study provides an important contribution toward a new perspective of cultural psychology. This is the first study to investigate the mediating effect of prosocial behavior on the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and subjective well-being among Chinese undergraduate students. The key findings of this study are as follows: (a) Chinese traditional culture continues to influence undergraduate students via self-reported Zhongyong thinking, (b) Zhongyong thinking had a positive effect on both prosocial behavior and subjective well-being, and (c) prosocial behavior had a mediating effect on the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and subjective well-being.

Boucher, H. C. (2011). The dialectical self-concept II: Cross-role and within-role consistency, well-being, self-certainty, and authenticity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(7), 1251–1271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110383316

 

Buchtel, E. E., Ng, L. C. Y., Norenzayan, A., Heine, S. J., Biesanz, J. C., Chen, S. X., Bond, M. H., Peng, Q., & Su, Y. (2018). A sense of obligation: Cultural differences in the experience of obligation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(11), 1545–1566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218769610

 

Callaghan, T., & Corbit, J. (2018). Early prosocial development across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.039

 

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. Russell Sage Foundation. 

 

Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 31(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014033032440

 

Church, A. T., Alvarez, J. M., Katigbak, M. S., Mastor, K. A., Cabrera, H. F., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Vargas-Flores, J. J., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., Zhang, H., Shen, J., Locke, K. D., Ortiz, F. A., Curtis, G. J., Simon, J.-Y. R., Ching, C. M., & Buchanan, A. L. (2012). Self-concept consistency and short-term stability in eight cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(5), 556–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.06.003

 

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34

 

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and open questions in the science of subjective well-being. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.115

 

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425.

 

Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, A. L. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Erlbaum.

 

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91

 

Gao, Z., Cai, H., Tang, G., & Xu, L. Q. (2013). The relationship between Zhongyong and depression [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 1298–1300.

 

Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486–489. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505

 

Haller, E., Lubenko, J., Presti, G., Squatrito, V., Constantinou, M., Nicolaou, C., Papacostas, S., Aydın, G., Chong, Y. Y., Chien, W. T., Cheng, H. Y., Ruiz, F. J., García-Martín, M. B., Obando-Posada, D. P., Segura-Vargas, M. A., Vasiliou, V. S., McHugh, L., Höfer, S., Baban, A., … Gloster, A. T. (2022). To help or not to help? Prosocial behavior, its association with well-being, and predictors of prosocial behavior during the coronavirus disease pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 775032. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.775032

 

Hou, Y., Xiao, R., Yang, X., Chen, Y., Peng, F., Zhou, S., Zeng, X., & Zhang, X. (2020). Parenting style and emotional distress among Chinese college students: A potential mediating role of the Zhongyong thinking style. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1774. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01774

 

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

 

Kou, Y., Hong, H., Tan, C., & Li, L. (2007). A revision of the Prosocial Behavior Scale for Adolescents [In Chinese]. Psychological Development and Education, 1, 112–117.

 

Lee, R. L. T., & Loke, A. J. T. Y. (2005). Health-promoting behaviors and psychosocial well-being of university students in Hong Kong. Public Health Nursing, 22(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-1209.2005.220304.x

 

Paulus, M. (2018). The multidimensional nature of early prosocial behavior: A motivational perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.09.003

 

Poulin, M. J., Brown, S. L., Dillard, A. J., & Smith, D. M. (2013). Giving to others and the association between stress and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 103(9), 1649–1655. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300876

 

Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Ahadi, S. (2002). Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 582–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.582

 

Suh, E. M., & Choi, S. (2018). Predictors of subjective well-being across cultures. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 768–779). DEF Publishers.

 

Sun, H., Guo, H., Wang, K., Sun, L., & Wang, L. (2021). Upward ingratiation outside the workplace and supervisor’s human resource decisions: Moderating effect of Zhongyong thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 636756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636756

 

Trommsdorff, G., Friedlmeier, W., & Mayer, B. (2007). Sympathy, distress, and prosocial behavior of preschool children in four cultures. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(3), 284–293.

 

Wang, X. D., Wang, X. L., & Ma, H. (1999). Handbook of the Subjective Well-Being Index from the Psychological Health Rating Scale [In Chinese]. China Journal of Psychology Health, 13, 31–35.

 

Wei, H., Xu, H., Chen, W., & Lu, L. (2022). Zhongyong thinking (doctrine of the mean) and internet addiction: The mediation of maladaptive cognition and the moderation of subject. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, Article 1045830. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1045830

 

Wen, Z., Hau, K.-T., & Chang, L. (2005). A comparison of moderator and mediator and their applications [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37, 268–274. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2005/V37/I02/268

 

Wirtz, D., Chiu, C., Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2010). What constitutes a good life? Cultural differences in the role of positive and negative affect in subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1167–1196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00578.x

 

Wu, C.-H., & Lin, Y.-C. (2005). Development of a Zhongyong thinking style scale [In Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247–300.

 

Yang, X., Zhang, P., Zhao, J., Zhao, J., Wang, J., Chen, Y., Ding, S., & Zhang, X. (2016). Confucian culture still matters: The benefits of Zhongyong thinking (doctrine of the mean) for mental health. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(8), 1097–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116658260

 

Yang, Z.-F. (2009). An attempt to combine Chinese traditional culture with social science: Social psychological research on Zhongyong thinking [In Chinese]. Journal of Renmin University of China, 3, 53–60.

 

Zhang, J. Y., & He, X. H. (2016). Discussion of the relationships among regulatory emotional self-efficacy, interpersonal disturbance, and subjective well-being [In Chinese]. Journal of Gannan Normal University, 37(2), 110–113.

 

Zhou, S., & Li, X. (2022). Zhongyong thinking style and resilience capacity in Chinese undergraduates: The chain mediating role of cognitive reappraisal and positive affect. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 814039. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.814039

 

Zhou, Z., Hu, L., Sun, C., Li, M., Guo, F., & Zhao, Q. (2019). The effect of Zhongyong thinking on remote association thinking: An EEG study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 207. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00207