Whether and how self-concept clarity (SCC) affects self-control has not been sufficiently explored in empirical research. We proposed that low SCC inhibits self-control through a lower sense of global self-continuity. The results of five studies provided converging support for our mediation model ( N = 898). Compared with participants with high SCC, participants with low SCC scored lower on self-control scales (Studies 1 and 2), spent less time practicing to improve their performance on a tedious task (Study 3), and were less likely to stay focused on an ongoing task (Study 4) or to adhere to the exercise plan to stay healthy (Study 5). Global self-continuity mediated the effects of low SCC on self-control (Studies 1–5) even after emotional affect (Study 5) and self-esteem (Studies 4 and 5) were controlled for. These findings highlight the importance of fostering SCC for coping with self-control failures.

Past research suggests that people with different thinking styles show different cognitive processes. Accordingly, we test how thinking style and advice jointly affect investment decision. We conduct three experiments with 530 participants. In Study 1, coin, card and stamp investors who had high levels of holistic thinking and made decisions on their own obtained the lowest returns. In Study 2, participants who used analytic thinking to make decisions on their own in the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) earned the most. In Study 3, Westerners who made decisions on their own using analytic thinking had the highest incomes, while Easterners using holistic thinking and listening to others also had positive returns. The results support the framing effect in investment decisions, and the two simulation paradigms are presented for future studies and to confirm the impacts of thinking styles.

This research focused on the psychological impact of an epidemic. We conducted a cross-sectional survey and two empirical experiments to examine how an epidemic would influence unethical behaviors and how the effect differs in people of different subjective socioeconomic statuses. These studies consistently demonstrated that subjective socioeconomic status moderates the relationship between an epidemic and unethical behaviors. Specifically, the perceived severity of an epidemic positively predicts the unethical behaviors of people with a high socioeconomic status, but it does not predict the unethical behaviors of people with a low socioeconomic status. These findings elucidate the effects of epidemics and bring theoretical and practical implications.

This research explored whether people hold double standards in a public crisis. We proposed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, people required others to strictly follow self-quarantine rules and other preventive behaviors, whereas they themselves would not, demonstrating double standards. Moreover, this effect would be moderated by the perceived threat from the pandemic. Using data collected in the United States and China, three studies (N = 2,180) tested the hypotheses by measuring (Study 1) and manipulating the perceived threat (Studies 2 and 3). We found that people generally applied higher standards to others than to themselves when it came to following the self-quarantine rules. This effect was strong when a relatively low threat was perceived, but the self–other difference disappeared when the perceived threat was relatively high, as the demands they placed on themselves would increase as the perceived threat intensified, but their requirements of others would be constantly strict. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved