http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2449-7969
Figures
Abstract
High levels of self-control are found to be associated with greater life satisfaction. To further understand this relationship, the current study examined two questions: (1) whether too much self-control reduces, rather than increases, life satisfaction, as argued by some scholars; and (2) whether engaging in prosocial behavior explains the “self-control–life satisfaction” link. To this end, we conducted survey research among adolescents (N = 1,009), university students (N = 2,620), and adult workers (N = 500). All participants answered the same self-control and life satisfaction measures, whereas prosocial behavior was assessed using different scales across samples. Results of two-line regressions failed to reveal significant inverted-U shaped association between self-control and life satisfaction across samples. Moreover, results of mediation analyses showed that across samples, high levels of self-control were related to greater life satisfaction and this association was partly mediated by prosocial behavior. In conclusion, there is no evidence showing that too much self-control impairs life satisfaction. Engaging in prosocial behavior partly explains how high self-control relates to greater well-being.
Citation: Dou K, Li J-B, Wang Y-J, Li J-J, Liang Z-Q, Nie Y-G (2019) Engaging in prosocial behavior explains how high self-control relates to more life satisfaction: Evidence from three Chinese samples. PLoS ONE 14(10): e0223169. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223169
Editor: Valerio Capraro, Middlesex University, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: February 12, 2019; Accepted: September 10, 2019; Published: October 14, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Dou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: Kai Dou received support from the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (No. 17YJCZH040), https://www.sinoss.net/, and the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (NO. 2018A030313406), http://edu.gd.gov.cn/English/EducationInGuangdong/. Yu-Jie Wang received support from the Characteristic and Innovation Project of Guangdong Province Office of Education (No. 2017GGXJK001), http://edu.gd.gov.cn/, and the Philosophy and Social Science Project of Guangdong Industry Polytechnic (No. KJRW001), http://www.gdqy.edu.cn/. Yan-Gang Nie received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NO. 31671153), http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/, and the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (No. 16JJD880006), https://www.sinoss.net/.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Self-control refers to the ability to change one’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviors to comply with social norms and to support goal-directed behavior [1, 2]. While low self-control has long been viewed as a major cause of various emotional and behavioral problems [2–4], researchers recently have realized that there is insufficient understanding on whether and how self-control affects individual’s well-being. This awareness has led to a growing body of studies investigating the relationship between self-control and well-being indicators such as life satisfaction in the past few years [5–9].
However, there are two gaps in the literature that warrant further study. First, while prior research assumes that the relationship between self-control and life satisfaction is linear, some scholars contend that too much self-control (defined as very high levels of self-control) may result in less rather than more life satisfaction [10]. This suggests an inverted-U relationship between self-control and life satisfaction, such that life satisfaction increases as self-control increases, but life satisfaction reduces when self-control exceeds a certain level. However, only few studies have addressed this question [11] and thus further evidence is needed. Second, a recent research found that direct intervention to enhance self-control is not as effective as usually thought [12]. This implies that aiming to boost life satisfaction by improving individuals’ self-control seems not an optimal approach. Instead, examining the mechanisms underlying the “self-control—life satisfaction” association would provide pivotal insight on how to enhance personal life satisfaction. Although several studies have examined this issue [5–9], each mechanism only accounts for a small proportion of the relationship. Hence, investigating other unexplored mechanism is still needed. Taken together, this research aims to (1) examine whether there is an inverted-U association between self-control and life satisfaction, and (2) examine prosocial behavior as a potential, but untested, mechanism.
Self-control and life satisfaction
Life satisfaction is an overall judgment dependent on one’s satisfaction with the fields important to him/her [13]. Individuals with high self-control are more likely to achieve life goals and have better physical and psychosocial functioning, which possibly leads to a positive appraisal of one’s life [7]. Besides, individuals high in self-control are prone to use positive coping strategies, focus on promotional regulation, perceive optimal levels of job satisfaction, and satisfy basic psychological needs, which are all beneficial to one’s experience of good and happy life [5–9]. All these findings suggest self-control is linearly related to life satisfaction.
While the linear relationship between self-control and life satisfaction prevails in the literature, it is also argued that there may be an inverted-U relationship between the two constructs. Individuals with an under-control profile (i.e., reflected as low-score in the self-control scale) are prone to act without restraint, which may results in externalizing problems; whereas those with an over-control profile (i.e., reflected as very high-score in the self-control scale) are likely to suppress their emotion, which may results in internalizing problems [14]. In this sense, individuals with high levels of self-control are adept at dealing with difficulties, handling interpersonal and motivational conflicts successfully, more often achieving personal goals, and engaging in less externalizing problems, all of which are important etiological sources of long-term satisfaction with life [15]. However, people with very high levels of self-control are likely to overregulate cognition, emotions, and behaviors impairs positive interpersonal relationship [16], brings about rigidity and limits the enjoyment of momentary positive emotion [10], and likely induces excessive anxiety in the process of leading indivdiuals to focus on fulfilling personal goals too much [17]. All these problems could possibly reduce personal life satisfaction [7, 18, 19]. Taken together, this suggests an inverted-U relationship between self-control and life satisfaction.
A recent research has systematically examined the inverted-U shaped association between self-control and life satisfaction in a number of samples [11]. However, results of this study did not find any significant evidence for such an inverted-U shaped association. Despite such early findings, it is important to provide more evidence before drawing a robust conclusion. Hence, the first goal of this study was to explore whether the relation between self-control and life satisfaction is linear or inverted-U shaped.
The role of prosocial behavior
Prosocial behavior refers to actions that benefit others, such as cooperation, sharing, helping, and caring [20]. In this study, we contend that individuals with high levels of self-control would engage in more prosocial behavior, which in turn associates with greater life satisfaction.
Prosociality is automatic whereas deliberation leads to payoff-maximizing behavior. This phenomenon has also been observed in the domain of cooperation [21], altruism [22], and honesty [23]. While prosocial behavior is promoted in most cultures, motivational conflicts often arise in the process of being prosocial [24]. Overcoming such conflict requires the exertion of self-control, an ability to regulate one’s own dominant responses to align with social norms and values [1, 2]. In other words, successful engagement in prosocial behavior needs the recruitment of self-control. Studies from different fields reconcile to suggest that self-control plays a central role in prosocial behavior. For example, developmental studies have found that adolescents high in self-control report more prosocial behavior [25–27]. Behavioral research has revealed that experimentally manipulating self-control into a state of depletion affects different dimensions of prosociality including prosocial behaviors [24], cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma [28], altruism in the dictator game [29, 30], and honesty in cheating tasks [31]. Work from neuroscience has suggested that brain regions related to self-control are recruited during prosocial behaviors [32].
Theorists have asserted that people who are socially responsible and prosocial live a eudemonic life [33], implying that satisfaction with life may be a function of engagement in prosocial behavior. Three reasons may lend support to this view. First, prosocial behavior leads to better relationship and social competence [34, 35], which are seen as important foundation for people to judge their lives as good and satisfied [36]. Second, prosocial behavior is considered as a tool to avoid and relieve negative feeling such as guilt [37], thereby further translating into satisfaction with life. Third, engaging in prosocial behavior satisfies people’s basic psychological needs [9] and brings people sense of meaning, which is known as a crucial source of happiness [38]. Prior studies have found that individuals who often engage in different forms of prosocial behavior (e.g., helping, prosocial spending) report greater life satisfaction [36, 39, 40].
Taken together, based on the association between self-control and prosocial behavior and the one between prosocial behavior and life satisfaction reviewed above, it stands reason for us to expect that prosocial behavior is a plausible, yet untested, factor linking self-control and life satisfaction.
The present research
In this study, we expected: (1) there would be a linear association between self-control and life satisfaction, but we would also explore whether there would be an inverted-U relationship between the two constructs, and (2) prosocial behavior would mediate the linear relationship between self-control and life satisfaction. In order to expand the generalizability of our research findings, we conceptually examined these two hypotheses in three samples with different demographics (i.e., middle school students, university students, and adult employees). In each sample, we used different measures to capture prosocial behavior. For instance, we used the prosocial behavior subscale of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire to assess adolescents’ prosocial behavior, the Prosocial Tendency Measure to capture university students’ prosocial behavior, and the Organizational Citizen Behavior to tap employees’ prosocial behavior at the work context. Two reasons motivated us to do so. First, each measure is specifically designed to tap prosocial behavior of different samples. Second, prosocial behavior has a wide range of behavioral indicators. If the proposed model can be replicated with different prosocial measures, we are more confident to draw robust conclusion.
Method
Participants and procedure
Data were collected from three samples. Sample 1 consisted of 1,009 students (493 male, 516 female; Mage = 14.72 years, SD = 1.67) recruited from four middle schools in Guangzhou, China, between March and April 2017. Sample 2 consisted of 2,620 university students (612 male, 2008 female; Mage = 21.48 years, SD = 1.27) recruited from a large university in Guangzhou, China, between April and June 2017. Sample 3 included 500 Chinese full-time employees (198 males, 302 females, Mage = 28.91 years, SD = 5.27; M length of service = 49.37 months, SD = 66.61; M annual income = 67471.84 RMB, SD = 61184) who worked in different industries from various regions of China. They are recruited through online advertisements in exchange for the chance to win 100 RMB. The data were collected between April and July 2017. Demographics of each sample are presented in Table 1.
The study was approved by the IRB of Guangzhou University. Regarding university students and employees, they provided written consent before participating in the study. Regarding middle school students who were under 18 years, we sought written consent from their legal guardians and students provided their verbal consent before participation. Participants of sample 1 and 2 completed the survey in paper-and-pencil format while participants of sample 3 answered the survey online.
Measures
Self-control.
The Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS) was used to measure participants’ self-control ability [2]. All participants answered the Chinese version of the BSCS which had been used in Chinese populations and had showed sound psychometric properties [4, 6]. The scale includes 13 items rated on a five-point scale (from “1 = not like me at all” to “5 = very much like me”), with a higher score indicating greater self-control. Cronbach’s α was .78, .80, and .81 for middle school students, university students, and adult employees, respectively.
Prosocial behavior.
Middle school students’ prosocial behavior was measured with the prosocial subscale of the Chinese version of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (www.sdqinfo.org) [41]. This subscale has five items rated on a three-point scale (from “0 = not true” to “2 = certainly true”), with a higher score indicating more prosocial behavior. Cronbach’s α was .75 in this study.
University students’ prosocial behavior was assessed with the Chinese version of Carlo and Randall’s (2002) Prosocial Tendencies Measure [36, 42]. The scale has 26 items which can be divided into six dimensions (i.e., public, anonymous, altruistic, compliant, emotional, and dire prosocial behaviors). All items are rated on a five-point scale (from “1 = does not describe me at all” to “5 = describes me greatly”), with a higher total score indicating more frequent engagement in prosocial behavior. Cronbach’s α was .92 in this study.
Adult employee’s prosocial behavior was measured with Aryee, Budhwar, and Chen’s (2002) Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (OCBS)[43]. This scale has two dimensions, one measuring pro-colleagues and the other measuring pro-organization behavior. The former dimension reflects prosocial behavior at individual level whereas the latter indicates prosocial behavior at organizational level. These two dimensions are highly correlated, showing that those who are pro-colleagues are also likely to be pro-organization [44, 45]. Hence, a total score is summed to represent employees’ prosocial behavior within the organization. Participants answered the Chinese version of the scale [45]. It has 9 items rated on a seven-point scale (from “1 = strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”), with a higher score indicating more prosocial behavior toward colleagues and the organization. Cronbach’s α was .89 in this study.
Life satisfaction.
Diener et al.’s (1985) Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) was used to measure participants’ life satisfaction[13]. All participants answered the Chinese version which had been validated in the Chinese population [46]. The scale consists of 5 items rated on a seven-point scale (from “1 = strongly disagree” to “7 = strongly agree”), with a higher total score indicating greater life satisfaction. Cronbach’s α was .85, .88, and .88 for middle school students, university students, and adult employees, respectively.
Data analytic plan
Multiple analyses were performed for each sample. First, descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were carried out. Second, in order to examine whether there would be an inverted-U shaped association between self-control and life satisfaction, we carried out two-lines analyses through an online APP (http://webstimate.org/twolines) developed by Simonsohn [47]. This test tests two regression models simultaneously with the values of the independent variable (in this case, self-control) before and after a break point. A statistically significant inverted U-shaped was supported if: (1) the slope of the first line before the break point had a positive sign, while the second line had an opposite sign; (2) both slopes were significant. A detailed, step-by-step instruction of this analysis can be obtained online (http://webstimate.org/twolines). Third, mediation models were tested in Hayes’ PROCESS macro (v2.13, Model 4) in SPSS. Self-control, prosocial behavior, and life satisfaction were entered the model as independent variable, mediator, and dependent variable, respectively. Effects obtained from the total effect model (i.e., without including the mediator in the model) and the indirect effect model (i.e., with mediator in the model) were reported. Bootstrapping (N = 10,000) was employed and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to justify the significance of the mediation effect. If the 95% CI does not include 0, then a significant mediation effect is tenable [48].
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlation
Means, standard deviation and correlations of samples 1 to 3 are presented in Table 2. Regarding sample 1, self-control was positively related with prosocial behavior (r = .30, p < .001) and life satisfaction (r = .25, p < .001). Prosocial behavior was also positively related with life satisfaction (r = .25, p < .001). Regarding sample 2, self-control was positively related with prosocial tendencies (r = .17, p < .001) and life satisfaction (r = .26, p < .001). Prosocial tendency was also positively related to life satisfaction (r = .26, p < .001). Regarding sample 3, self-control was positively related with organizational citizenship behavior (r = .36, p < .001) and life satisfaction (r = .20, p < .001). Organizational citizenship behavior was also positively correlated to life satisfaction (r = .21, p < .001).
Examination of inverted-U shaped association between self-control and life satisfaction
In order to examine whether there is presence or absence of an inverted U effect of self-control on life satisfaction, we followed Simonsohn’s “two-line” approach [47] and ran the statistics on http://webstimate.org/twolines/. The results are summarized in Fig 1.
Regarding middle school students, the data showed that there was a positive relation between self-control and life satisfaction before the break point (B = 0.56, z = 5.58, p < .001), but the influence of self-control on life satisfaction became insignificant after the break point (B = 0.00, z = .01, p = .996). Regarding university students, a similar result was found, such that the influence of self-control on life satisfaction was significant before the break point (B = 0.52, z = 9.15, p < .001) but it became insignificant after the break point (B = 0.28, z = 1.11, p = .266). Regarding adult employees, the influence of self-control on life satisfaction was significant both before (B = 0.53, z = 4.52, p < .001) and after (B = 0.94, z = 4.96, p < .001) the break point. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that there is no significant evidence showing an inverted-U association between self-control and life satisfaction.
The mediation effect of prosocial behavior
Regarding middle school students, the total effect model explained 5.98% variance of life satisfaction. The results showed that self-control was positively related to life satisfaction (B = 0.55, SE = 0.07, p < .001). The indirect effect model (Fig 2) explained 9.43% variance of life satisfaction. The association between self-control and life satisfaction reduced but remained significant (B = 0.42, SE = 0.07, p < .001). More importantly, this relation was mediated by prosocial behavior (estimate = 0.13, SE = 0.03, 95% bootstrapping CI = [0.08, 0.19]). Controlling for gender and age did not significantly change the results.
Note: *** p<0.001; value in parenthesis represents total effect.
Regarding university students, the total effect model explained 6.87% variance of life satisfaction. The results showed that self-control was positively related to life satisfaction (B = 0.56, SE = 0.04, p < .001). The indirect effect model (Fig 3) explained 11.68% variance of life satisfaction. The association between self-control and life satisfaction reduced but remained significant (B = 0.48, SE = 0.04, p < .001). More importantly, this relation was mediated by prosocial tendencies (estimate = 0.08, SE = 0.01, 95% bootstrapping CI = [0.06, 0.10]). Controlling for gender and age did not significantly change the results.
Note: *** p<0.001; value in parenthesis represents total effect.
Regarding adult employees, the total effect model explained 3.79% variance of life satisfaction. The results showed that self-control was positively related to life satisfaction (B = 0.46, SE = 0.10, p < .001). The indirect effect model (Fig 4) explained 5.95% variance of life satisfaction. The association between self-control and life satisfaction reduced but remained significant (B = 0.32, SE = 0.11, p = .003). More importantly, this relation was mediated by organizational citizenship behavior (estimate = 0.14, SE = 0.05, 95% bootstrapping CI = [0.05, 0.24]). Controlling for gender and age did not significantly change the results.
**p<0.01, ***p<0.001; value in parenthesis represents total effect.
In each sample, we analyzed the data with and without controlling for gender and age. To save space, we only reported results without controlling for gender and age. In terms of controlling for gender and age, we regressed the mediator and the outcome on both gender and age.
Discussion
Consistent with prior research [11], our results supported that high levels of self-control were linearly related to greater life satisfaction and that too much self-control did not dampen life satisfaction. Regarding the second question, we disclosed that engaging in prosocial behavior partly explained the relationship between self-control and life satisfaction: people with high levels of self-control have the propensity to engage in more prosocial behavior, which in part translates into higher life satisfaction.
Prior research has examined whether too much self-control is associated with lower rather than higher life satisfaction, and its results suggest a linear rather than inverted-U shaped association [11]. Consistent with this study, our current findings reveals a similar pattern using a different analytic approach. Specifically, our results show that across the three samples, the increase of self-control is related to the increase of life satisfaction before the break point. In two samples (i.e., middle school and university students), continued increase in self-control does not add additional benefit to the gain of life satisfaction. For adult employees, continued increase in self-control still associates with more life satisfaction. Taken together, very high levels of self-control do not impair life satisfaction. If anything, it only stops adding more life satisfaction at most when it reaches a certain level.
Regarding our second question, we found that engaging prosocial behavior partly mediates the relationship between self-control and life satisfaction. Investigation of the influence of self-control on life satisfaction and its related working mechanisms have been only recently picked up [5–9]. The current findings pile on this trendy theme by revealing that prosociality is another important mechanism, too. Although our hypothesized models are confirmed across the three samples, the explained variance differs. This could be probably due to the differences in the characteristics of the samples and in the prosociality measures.
Our findings should be interpreted with caution. First, the data was cross-sectional in nature and were recruited with convenient sampling; thus causality cannot be deduced and generalization of findings is limited. Second, only self-report measures were used, which may cause common method variance. Moreover, the sample sizes as well as the measures used to assess prosociality varied across samples, which renders our findings less comparable across the three different samples. Future study may consider using a prosocial measure that is suitable across samples of different age so that the results can be more comparable. One promising step is scholars could develop a measure to assess prosocial behavior of samples with different demographic characteristics. By this way, future research may conduct multi-group analysis to explore whether the hypothesized model is invariant across samples in a more sophisticated manner. In addition, it is necessary to note that the main variables tested in this study are likely affected by other factors. For instance, the current findings are obtained in the Chinese context. Prior studies have found that self-control, prosocial behavior, and well-being differ among cultures [49–51]. This suggests that the relationships among these constructs could be inequivalent in other cultures. Hence, future studies could consider conducting cross-cultural comparison on the current models. Besides, personal temperament (e.g., negative affect) may be another factor that affects the current variables. For instance, individuals with high levels of negative temperament trait (e.g., anger, neuroticism) are easily in a hotheaded state and susceptible to external stress, which may lead to more self-control failure, less prosocial behavior and life satisfaction [52, 53]. Considering that our findings are drawn from samples recruited in one culture and did not control for temperament factor, we encourage future research to replicate the current findings in different cultural contexts taking possible confounding variables (e.g., temperament) into account.
Nevertheless, this study bears important practical implications. As mentioned above, direct intervention of self-control seems not as effective as usually thought (Friese et al., 2017), and thus programs targeted at increasing life satisfaction by improving self-control may not be optimal. Instead, encouraging individuals to engage in prosocial behavior may be a useful way to enhance one’s life satisfaction, especially for those low in self-control. In fact, prior research already shows that prosocial behavior induced by intervention program increases subsequent life satisfaction [54]. Institutes (e.g., schools and companies) could consider setting up rules and establish climates to encourage daily prosocial behavior, which is a promising avenue to create a happy campus and organization.
Conclusion
In conclusion, self-control is a great human strength not only protecting against psychopathology but also fostering well-being. Too much self-control does not lower people’s life satisfaction. One mechanism behind the “self-control–life satisfaction” relation is that individuals with high self-control are more willing to benefit others, which in turn associates with more life satisfaction.
Supporting information
S1 File. IRB—protocol number: GZHU2017001 (PDF).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223169.s001
(PDF)
S2 File. Self-control and life satisfaction–minimized data (zip).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223169.s002
(ZIP)
References
- 1. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Tice DM. The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2007;16(6):351–5.
- 2. Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality. 2004;72(2):271–324. pmid:15016066
- 3. Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Harrington H, et al. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011;108(7):2693–8.
- 4. Situ QM, Li JB, Dou K. Reexamining the linear and U-shaped relationships between self-control and emotional and behavioural problems. Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2016;19(2):177–85.
- 5. Cheung TTL, Gillebaart M, Kroese F, De Ridder D. Why are people with high self-control happier? The effect of trait self-control on happiness as mediated by regulatory focus. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014;5:722. PMC4085873. pmid:25071683
- 6. Dou K, Nie YG, Wang YJ, Liu YZ. The relationship between self-control, job satisfaction and life satisfaction in Chinese employees: A preliminary study. Work (Reading, Mass). 2016;55(4):797–803.
- 7. Hofmann W, Luhmann M, Fisher RR, Vohs KD, Baumeister RF. Yes, but are they happy? Effects of trait self-control on affective well-being and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality. 2014;82(4):265–77. pmid:23750741
- 8. Li J-B, Delvecchio E, Lis A, Nie Y-G, Di Riso D. Positive coping as mediator between self-control and life satisfaction: Evidence from two Chinese samples. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016;97:130–3.
- 9. Orkibi H, Ronen T. Basic psychological needs satisfaction mediates the association between self-control skills and subjective well-being. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017;8:936. pmid:28638362
- 10. Grant AM, Schwartz B. Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2011;6(1):61–76. Epub 2011/01/01. pmid:26162116.
- 11. Wiese CW, Tay L, Duckworth AL, D'Mello S, Kuykendall L, Hofmann W, et al. Too much of a good thing? Exploring the inverted-U relationship between self-control and happiness. Journal of Personality. 2018;86(3):380–96. pmid:28480971.
- 12. Friese M, Frankenbach J, Job V, Loschelder DD. Does self-control training improve self-control? A meta-analysis. Perspectives on psychological science: a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. 2017;12(6):1077–99. pmid:28846503.
- 13. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1985;49(1):71–5. pmid:16367493
- 14. Robins RW, John OP, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Stouthamer-Loeber M. Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;70(1):157–71. pmid:8558407
- 15. Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin. 1999;125(2):276–302.
- 16. Letzring TD, Block J, Funder DC. Ego-control and ego-resiliency: Generalization of self-report scales based on personality descriptions from acquaintances, clinicians, and the self. Journal of Research in Personality. 2005;39(4):395–422.
- 17. Pomerantz EM, Saxon JL, Oishi S. The psychological trade-offs of goal investment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;79(4):617–30. pmid:11045742
- 18. McGregor I, Little BR. Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;74(2):494–512. pmid:9491589
- 19. Tay L, Diener E. Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2011;101(2):354–65. pmid:21688922
- 20. Penner LA, Dovidio JF, Piliavin JA, Schroeder DA. Prosocial behavior: multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology. 2005;56:365–92. pmid:15709940.
- 21. Rand DG. Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological science. 2016;27(9):1192–206. Epub 2016/07/17. pmid:27422875.
- 22. Rand DG, Brescoll VL, Everett JA, Capraro V, Barcelo H. Social heuristics and social roles: Intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2016;145(4):389–96. Epub 2016/02/26. pmid:26913619.
- 23. Capraro V. Does the truth come naturally? Time pressure increases honesty in one-shot deception games. Economics Letters. 2017;158:54–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.015.
- 24. Dewall CN, Baumeister RF, Gailliot MT, Maner JK. Depletion makes the heart grow less helpful: helping as a function of self-regulatory energy and genetic relatedness. Personality & social psychology bulletin. 2008;34(12):1653–62. Epub 2008/12/04. pmid:19050337.
- 25. Carlo G, Crockett LJ, Wolff JM, Beal SJ. The role of emotional reactivity, self-regulation, and puberty in adolescents' prosocial behaviors. Social Development. 2012;21(4):667–85. pmid:28316370
- 26. Nie Y-G, Li J-B, Vazsonyi AT. Self-control mediates the associations between parental attachment and prosocial behavior among Chinese adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016;96:36–9.
- 27. Padilla-Walker LM, Christensen KJ. Empathy and self‐regulation as mediators between parenting and adolescents' prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2011;21(3):545–51.
- 28. Capraro V, Cococcioni G. Rethinking spontaneous giving: Extreme time pressure and ego-depletion favor self-regarding reactions. Sci Rep. 2016;6:27219. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27219#supplementary-information.
- 29. Halali E, Bereby-Meyer Y, Ockenfels A. Is it all about the self? The effect of self-control depletion on ultimatum game proposers. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2013;7:1–8. Epub 2013/06/20. pmid:23781182; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3680729.
- 30. Achtziger A, Alós-Ferrer C, Wagner AK. The impact of self-control depletion on social preferences in the ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2016;53:1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.12.005.
- 31. Gino F, Schweitzer ME, Mead NL, Ariely D. Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2011;115(2):191–203.
- 32. Telzer EH, Masten CL, Berkman ET, Lieberman MD, Fuligni AJ. Neural regions associated with self control and mentalizing are recruited during prosocial behaviors towards the family. NeuroImage. 2011;58(1):242–9. Epub 2011/06/28. pmid:21703352; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3276247.
- 33.
Ryan RM, Huta V, Deci EL. Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. In: Delle Fave A, editor. The Exploration of Happiness: Present and Future Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2013. p. 117–39.
- 34. Caprara GV, Kanacri BPL, Gerbino M, Zuffianò A, Alessandri G, Vecchio G, et al. Positive effects of promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence: Evidence from a school-based intervention. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2014;38(4):386–96.
- 35. Caputi M, Lecce S, Pagnin A, Banerjee R. Longitudinal effects of theory of mind on later peer relations: The role of prosocial behavior. Developmental Psychology. 2012;48(1):257–70. pmid:21895361
- 36. Yang Y, Li P, Fu X, Kou Y. Orientations to happiness and subjective well-being in Chinese adolescents: The roles of prosocial behavior and internet addictive behavior. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2017;10(4):881–97.
- 37. Lindsey LLM. Anticipated guilt as behavioral motivation an examination of appeals to help unknown others through bone marrow donation. Human Communication Research. 2005;31(4):453–81.
- 38. Sonnentag S, Grant AM. Doing good at work feels good at home, but not right away: When and why perceived prosocial impact predicts positive affect. Personnel Psychology. 2012;65(3):495–530.
- 39. Aknin LB, Barrington-Leigh CP, Dunn EW, Helliwell JF, Burns J, Biswas-Diener R, et al. Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2013;104(4):635–52. pmid:23421360
- 40. Martin KM, Huebner ES. Peer victimization and prosocial experiences and emotional well‐being of middle school students. Psychology in the Schools. 2007;44(2):199–208.
- 41. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998;7(3):125–30. pmid:9826298.
- 42. Carlo G, Randall BA. The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2002;31(1):31–44.
- 43. Aryee S, Budhwar PS, Chen ZX. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2002;23(3):267–85.
- 44. De Cremer D, Mayer DM, van Dijke M, Schouten BC, Bardes M. When does self-sacrificial leadership motivate prosocial behavior? It depends on followers’ prevention focus. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009;94(4):887–99. pmid:19594232
- 45. Wang Y-J, Dou K, Tang Z-W. The relationship between trait self-control, consideration for future consequence and organizational citizenship behavior among Chinese employees. Work (Reading, Mass). 2017;58(3):341–7. pmid:29036869.
- 46. Wang KT, Yuen M, Slaney RB. Perfectionism, depression, loneliness, and life satisfaction: A study of high school students in Hong Kong. The Counseling Psychologist. 2009;37(2):249–74.
- 47. Simonsohn U. Two lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-Shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2018;1(4):538–55.
- 48.
Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation. Aregression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications; 2013.
- 49. Chudek M, Henrich J. Culture–gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2011;15(5):218–26. pmid:21482176
- 50. Luria G, Cnaan RA, Boehm A. Religious attendance and volunteering: Testing national culture as a boundary condition. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2017;56(3):577–99.
- 51. Li J-B, T. Vazsonyi A, Dou K. Is individualism-collectivism associated with self-control? Evidence from Chinese and U.S. samples. PloS one. 2018;13(12):e0208541. pmid:30566491
- 52. McKnight CG, Huebner ES, Suldo S. Relationships among stressful life events, temperament, problem behavior, and global life satisfaction in adolescents. Psychology in the Schools. 2002;39(6):677–87.
- 53. Wills TA, Dishion TJ. Temperament and adolescent substance use: A transactional analysis of emerging self-control. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2004;33(1):69–81. pmid:15028542
- 54. Layous K, Nelson SK, Kurtz JL, Lyubomirsky S. What triggers prosocial effort? A positive feedback loop between positive activities, kindness, and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2017;12(4):385–98.