Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Dec 19:1–14. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-04130-7

The role of fear of negative evaluation on the effects of self-control on affective states and life satisfaction: a moderated mediation analysis

Angel Lee 1, Wai Chan 1,✉, Jacky Chi Kit Ng 2
PMCID: PMC9762663  PMID: 36570054

Abstract

Previous studies have found a robust positive relationship between trait self-control and life satisfaction mediated by both positive and negative affect, but the simultaneous inclusion of the effect of apprehension of being evaluated by others is less commonly investigated. The present study aimed to examine (1) whether the relationship between self-control and life satisfaction was mediated by positive affect and negative affect in parallel, and (2) whether fear of negative evaluation would moderate the strengths of the mediational pathways. With a sample of two hundred fifty university students in Hong Kong, mediational analysis (ME) revealed that both positive affect and negative affect were the mediators between self-control and life satisfaction. Subsequent moderated mediation analysis (moME) supported the moderating role of fear of negative evaluation on the mediational pathway through positive affect, but not on the pathway through negative affect. In particular, higher scores on fear of negative evaluation would attenuate the strength of association between self-control and positive affect. Therefore, to optimize university students’ well-being and mental health functioning, treatment modalities should target both behavioral (i.e., self-control) and socio-emotional (i.e., apprehension of being evaluated critically from others) aspects.

Keywords: Self-control, Positive affect, Negative affect, Life satisfaction, Fear of negative evaluation, Moderated mediation

Shin and Johnson (1978) regarded life satisfaction (LS) as a person's overall assessment of the relative quality of his or her life, or it is a summative view of the individual’s life overall. In other words, it refers to the extent to which can function positively with respect to physical and psychosocial health (Li et al., 2022; Ryff & Singer, 2008). Research has revealed that life satisfaction plays a crucial role in buffering against health-compromising behaviors during the developmental transition period towards adulthood (Hoyt et al., 2012). For examples, past results indicated that students with higher scores on self-reported well-being reported more physical activities (Piqueras et al., 2011), less drug (e.g., marijuana) consumptions, and less risky, sensation-seeking behaviors (Grant et al., 2009). Conversely, lower life satisfaction is implicative of mental health or behavioral problems such as depression, hopelessness, loneliness, alcoholism, substance abuse, suicidal ideation, and physical inactivity (Grant et al., 2009; Hawton et al., 2013; Lai & Ma, 2016). In Hong Kong, although a past study using latent profile analysis revealed that 90% of university students belonged to the mentally healthy categories (Ma & Lai, 2018), contrary findings from another research published within the same year, however, indicated that the prevalence rates of varying degrees of depressive and anxiety symptoms reported by university students in Hong Kong could rise to 69% and 54% respectively (Lun et al., 2018). Even worse, these statistical figures might have escalated recently because of the mass social unrests against “Extradition Law” in 2019 and the threats of the COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying mandatory policies of social restrictions (Choi et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021a). Therefore, investigating the mechanisms underpinning students’ life satisfaction may shed light on development of preventive strategies against students’ maladaptive health behaviors and mental health issues.

Roles of affective states on life satisfaction

Positive affect (PA) refers to the extent to which an individual experiences positive affects, not only including the state of being alert, inspired, determined, attentive and active, but also enjoyable engagement, full concentration, and high energy (Thompson, 2007). Negative affect (NA), conversely, which typically reflects distress, unpleasant engagement, and lethargy, is usually regarded as a low energy state (Thompson, 2007). The correlation between positive affect and negative affect are usually negative in sign, nonetheless, it can range from positive to near-zero to extremely substantially negative values across samples (e.g., Schimmack, 2007; Schimmack et al., 2002).

Subjective well-being typically comprises the components of (1) a high frequency of positive affective (Positive affect; PA) experiences, (2) a low frequency of negative affective (Negative affect; NA) experiences, and (3) a sense of satisfaction with one's life (i.e., life satisfaction) (Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 2017). Also, the first two components represent individual’s emotional and affective dimensions of the construct, while the latter one refers to the cognitive-judgmental aspect of the same construct (Diener et al., 1985). Several previous studies have suggested that affect and life satisfaction report are consistently found to be empirically distinct (Lucas et al., 1996; Luhmann et al., 2012). Their relationship has been extensively researched using longitudinal and experimental studies (e.g., Metler & Busseri, 2017), ecological momentary assessments (e.g., Jayawickreme et al., 2017), and cross-national studies (e.g., Kuppens et al., 2008). The linear relationship between affective states and life satisfaction varies across studies. While some studies have suggested there is a similar relationship between life satisfaction and the two affective dimensions (Durak et al., 2010; Lazić et al., 2019), others have revealed that the relationship between positive affect and life satisfaction is stronger than the relationship between negative affect and life satisfaction (Busseri, 2018; Gouveia et al., 2009).

Furthermore, many previous studies even show that positive and negative affect both contribute to life satisfaction (Jovanović & Gavrilov-Jerković, 2016; Kööts-Ausmees et al., 2013). In a sample from 46 countries, the effect of positive affect on life satisfaction was found to be significantly greater than the that of negative affect (Kuppens et al., 2008). A plausible explanation is that individuals refer to their affective experiences as a source of information when being asked to evaluate their lives (Kim-Prieto et al., 2005; Kuppens et al., 2008). According to the feeling-as-information theory, for instance, affective states have impacts on how individuals judge their life satisfaction, implying that their emotional states of happiness matter in evaluative judgment (Schwarz, 2011). Some other researchers suggest that pleasant core affect, which is derived from affective experience, is a key determinant of global life satisfaction (Davern et al., 2007; Veenhoven, 2000). Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest a model in which life satisfaction is an output of accumulated affective experience, with positive affect and negative affect contributing to life satisfaction independently (Busseri & Sadava, 2011; Kim-Prieto et al., 2005; Kuppens et al., 2008). Another study suggests that life satisfaction transcends the summation of different affective experiences. For instance, when being asked about their life satisfaction, individuals consider their overall life circumstances rather than just their affective states (Luhmann et al., 2012). To resolve this ambiguity, we therefore revisit the relationship between these three variables in the present study.

Self-control, affective states, and life satisfaction

Self-control (SC) is the trait capacity to adjust an individual's thoughts, feelings, and behavior in order to conform to social norms or to sustain goal-directed behavior (De Ridder et al., 2012; Schmeichel & Zell, 2007). Numerous studies have consistently shown that individuals with high trait self-control do have a wide variety of adaptive and desired life outcomes, including better physical and psychological health, better salary, greater job satisfaction, and higher academic achievement (Allemand et al., 2019; Converse et al., 2016, 2018; Galla & Duckworth, 2015). Among university students in China, a recent study showed that self-control explained the highest proportion of variance of freshmen's adaptation outcomes over time (Li et al., 2021b). On the other hand, low self-control is linked to a wide range of personal and societal problems, including academic failure and underachievement, procrastination, substance abuses, compulsive buying, maladaptive adjustments, aggressive behaviors, heath-compromising diets, and lack of physical exercises (De Ridder et al., 2012; Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Friese & Hofmann, 2009; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Moffitt et al., 2011; Patton et al., 1995; Restubog et al., 2010; Vohs & Faber, 2007).

Not only does self-control explain how individuals cope with adversity and strive for optimal functioning, but it also addresses dysfunctions as well. In other words, previous study has suggested that self-control can act as a buffer against impaired mental health functioning and enable university students to maintain high levels of psychological well-being (i.e., sense of environmental mastery, self-acceptance and personal growth) despite elevated perceived stress (Durand-Bush et al., 2015). Ryff and Keyes (1995)stated that students with high self-regulation capacity were more apt to manage daily, academic tasks and multiple roles they had while maintaining a positive attitude and striving to actualize their full potentials through continued learning. Conversely, Vohs and Baumeister (2004) argued that students with compromised life satisfaction and well-being usually had difficulties in effectively managing their behaviors, thoughts, and feelings that were promotive of achieving desirable goals. In other words, these students might possess poorer self-regulation competence that could maintain stable mental health and well-being in the face of adversity (e.g., academic and life stressors).

Several researchers have discovered the associations between self-control abilities and the ability to reach high levels of subjective well-being (Gavriel-Fried et al., 2018; Ronen et al., 2016; Rosenbaum & Ronen, 2013). For some studies, self-control appears to emerge from positive affect since the pleasant mood results in a stable basis for enabling capacities to achieve goals (Baumeister et al., 1998; Tice et al., 2007). Furthermore, across different age groups and regions, self-control is also found to be negatively correlated with stress and anxiety (Cheung et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016; Nielsen et al., 2019, 2020). Self-control abilities, on the other hand, are found to predict higher positive affect rather than reduced negative affect (Hamama et al., 2013; Orkibi et al., 2018). In this vein, self-control is also believed to be positively associated with one’s overall level of life satisfaction.

Besides positive affect and negative affect, several repeatable research studies have discovered that self-control is also associated with better level of life satisfaction (Cheung et al., 2014; Hofmann et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016; Tu & Yang, 2016). Some researchers, however, believe that excessive exertion of self-control may result in diminished life satisfaction (Grant & Schwartz, 2011). According to this viewpoint, there is an inverted-U link between self-control and life satisfaction. Specifically, it represents that as self-control improves, life satisfaction improves, but as self-control reaches a specific level, further self-control only leads to poorer life satisfaction. Contrary to Grant and Schwartz’s (2022) findings, Situ et al. (2016) revealed that high trait self-control could be negatively associated with emotional and behavioral problems, but no U-shaped patterns were observed as scores on trait self-control further increased. Wiese et al. (2018) have scrutinized this problem and revealed that, after adjusting for various psychological confounds, self-control capacity can positively predict life satisfaction and emotional health in a series of experiments. Nevertheless, Friese et al. (2017) have discovered that direct intervention to improve self-control is not as successful as previously found, implying that any attempts to improve one's self-control in order to increase life satisfaction may not be the best method. Therefore, elucidating the underlying mechanisms of the association between self-control, affective states and the life satisfaction will therefore give insights about ways to improve individuals’ overall well-being.

According to Hofmann et al. (2014), higher self-control is associated with better life happiness. In their study, they found that the effect of self-control on life satisfaction is fully mediated by both positive affect and negative affect, suggesting that self-control can lead to better life satisfaction by mitigating interpersonal conflicts and negative emotions (Hofmann et al., 2014). Their findings to some extent may explain why individuals with heightened levels of self-control tend to excel at controlling negative emotions, resolving disputes, and balancing their performance in daily life. Furthermore, a variety of factors have also been identified to explain the association between self-control and life satisfaction, such as promotion-oriented, prevention-oriented, and positive coping propensities (Cheung et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016). As individuals’ striving/coping behaviors may originate from different inner motivations, in this study, we will focus on the moderating role of fear of negative evaluation on the strength of effect of trait self-control on life satisfaction mediated by states of positive affect and negative affect.

Fear of negative evaluation as a moderator

Watson and Friend (1969) first introduced fear of negative evaluation (FNE), which was defined as the “apprehension about other’s evaluation, distress over their negative evaluations and the expectation that others would evaluate negatively.” To put it another way, fear of negative evaluation is the fear of being negatively judged by the presence of others. Findings in both samples of clinical populations and university students suggest that the fear of negative evaluation, presumably stemmed from poor self-evaluation, is hitherto the best-established cognitive-behavioral component of social anxiety, with which they have a strong positive correlation (Cheng et al., 2015; Iqbal & Ajmal, 2018; Leary & Kowalski, 1997; Weeks & Howell, 2012; Weeks et al., 2010, 2012). Social anxiety and affective states research studies have shed insights on the link between fear of negative evaluation and emotional health.

According to Kashdan et al. (2011), those classified as individuals with high social anxiety require more self-control than their counterparts in many social encounters, and the demands for self-control will be particularly elevated during stressful or challenging social interactions. In other words, those who were awkward and socially withdrawn ruminated over a lot about potential ostracism in society (Blackhart et al., 2015). As a result, they typically engaged in avoidance behaviors, including excessive nodding, or looking for validation, expressing very little, or trying to divert attention by questioning others (Clark & Wells, 1995). Similarly, studies have shown that when people focused their attention on controlling their fear or managing their impressions, they frequently exhibited impairments in other goal-directed actions (Finkel et al., 2006; Kashdan et al., 2010; Vohs et al., 2005). These actions could put more strain on the ability to sustain self-control in the long term.

Furthermore, the attenuation of self-control tends to diminish the favorable outcomes and experiences that socially anxious people might encounter in social contexts, aggravating social anxiety symptoms (Kashdan et al., 2011). That is, when people with social anxiety were attempting at regulating their fear and were engaging in behaviors which were intended to prevent social rejection, they failed to divert their attention to the potential benefits of those fruitful social engagements. Thus, they felt less connected to others and have less positive affect following a satisfying social contact (Kashdan et al., 2011) Such feelings might fuel social anxiety and reinforce it, leading to a vicious spiral of actions. Apart from studies targeting on social anxiety, other researchers observed that individuals with greater degree of fear of negative evaluation also have a higher level of negative affect and a lower level of positive affect (Levinson et al., 2013; Weeks & Howell, 2012; Weeks et al., 2010; Wolniewicz et al., 2018). Therefore, with reference to the mediational pathways introduced, we propose a moderated mediation process in which fear of negative evaluation serves as a moderator moderating the strength of association between self-control and life satisfaction via affective states in the current study.

The present research

Considering the distinction between state and trait psychological construct and the necessity of maintaining consistency in operational definition (Imhoff et al., 2014), self-control in the present study is conceptualized as a trait which tends to remain stable across time. Besides, plenty of studies have established links between self-control and the capacity to achieve high levels of life satisfaction, and Hofmann et al. (2014) demonstrated that the effect of self-control on life satisfaction is mediated by both positive affect and negative affect, we therefore hypothesized that positive affect (H1a) and negative affect (H1b) would respectively mediate the positive relationship between self-control and life satisfaction. Details of these hypotheses are as follows:

  • H1a: Self-control is positively correlated with positive affect, which in turn is positively correlated with life satisfaction.

  • H1b: Self-control is negatively correlated with negative affect, which in turn is negatively correlated with life satisfaction.

Moreover, people who have a higher level of fear of negative evaluation also have a higher level of negative affect and a lower level of positive affect. However, to the author’s best knowledge, no previous study has included fear of negative evaluation into consideration when examining similar associations, the present study contributed to the research literature by further hypothesizing that fear of negative evaluation would moderate the mediational effects of positive affect (H2a) and negative affect (H2b) on the relationship between self-control and life satisfaction. Details of these hypotheses are as follows:

  • H2a: When fear of negative evaluation increases, the mediation effect of positive affect connecting self-control and life satisfaction becomes weaker.

  • H2b: When the score of fear of negative evaluation increases, the mediation effect of negative affect connecting self-control and life satisfaction becomes stronger.

Therefore, the present study could potentially enrich the existing literature by testing and comparing the indirect effects of trait-control on life satisfaction via positive affect or negative affect in Chinese university students, as well as further examining the moderating effect of fear of negative evaluation on the two mediation paths.

Method

Participants and procedure

The present sample consisted of a total of 250 undergraduate students in Hong Kong (182 females; Mage = 20.56, SD = 2.39). Subjects were recruited via email invitations and poster advertisements, using convenience sampling method, and all subjects were asked to complete an online survey tapping various psychological constructs. Prior to the start of the study, informed consent was sought from each participant, and confidentiality was assured.

Measures

Self-control

The 13-item Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS), which is a shortened version of the original 36-item Self-Control Scale, aims to assess individuals’ general trait self-control, with the specific focus on the behavioral aspect including the abilities to break maladaptive habits and preserve through a task (Tangney et al., 2004). Respondents rated each item on a 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are, “I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals” and “pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done (reversed item).” Higher total score reflects greater trait self-control. The Cronbach’s alpha of the BSCS was 0.83 in the present study.

Life satisfaction

The 5-item scale of life satisfaction was extracted from the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 1985). SWLS is an instrument which aims to measure individuals’ global cognitive judgements of one’s life satisfaction through which individuals compare their life circumstances with a self-imposed standard. A sample item is, “So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.” Responders rated each of these statements on a 7-point Likert point ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This scale had good reliability, with an internal consistency reliability Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89 in the present study.

Positive affect and negative affect

The 10-item short form of the Positive and Negative affect schedule (I-PANAS-SF) was used to measure individuals’ positive and negative affect over the previous month (Thompson, 2007). While items in the Positive Affect (PA) subscale reflect the extent to which a person is in the state of high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable engagement, items in Negative Affect (NA) assess subjective distress and unpleasable engagement that subsumes a variety of aversive mood states, including anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and nervousness. In this scale, respondents rated to what extent they felt with reference to 10 different emotion-relevant adjectives on a scale of 1 (little or none at all) to 7 (a lot). Cronbach’s alphas were 0.60 and 0.83 for positive affect (5 items) and negative affect (5 items) subscale, respectively. By deleting an inconsistent item from the positive affect subscale (i.e., the item measuring “alert”), the alpha estimate of the 4-item positive affect subscale increased to 0.67.

Fear of negative evaluation

The 12-item Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE) was adopted to assess the degree to which people experience apprehension at the prospect of being evaluated negatively (Leary, 1983). Although contemporary researchers reveal that fear of negative evaluation precedes the development of social anxiety disorder (or social phobia), fear of negative evaluation is still considered as the cognitive symptoms of this psychopathology since this measurement taps the core features based on the cognitive models of social anxiety. Participants rated to what extent these could statements describe their thinking propensity concerning the possibility of being negatively evaluated by others on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is, “I am frequently afraid of other people noticing my shortcomings.” Higher score on BFNE reflects more individual’s heightened propensity to avoid potentially threatening social comparison information to a greater extent and indicate that individual easily feels worse about receiving negative evaluation. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90 in the present study.

Analytical strategies

All participants provided complete demographic (i.e., age, gender) and survey data. First, Pearson’s correlations were computed to evaluate the bivariate associations among continuously measured variables including self-control, life satisfaction, positive and negative affect, as well as fear of negative evaluation. Next, structural equation modeling (SEM) was adopted to test the proposed mediation model (ME) and the first stage moderated mediation (moME) model, respectively. Traditionally, these mediation, moderation and conditional path models are tested by the regression-based approach, such as the PROCESS macro developed by (Hayes, 2017). However, one limitation about the regression-based approach is that the method does not provide any information regarding the overall model goodness-of-fit. As a result, it is difficult for applied researchers to evaluate to what extent their hypothesized models fit the sample data. To overcome this difficulty, the present study adopted the Variable System (VS) approach, which is an integrated methodological framework for the analysis of conditional path based on SEM (Kwan & Chan, 2018). After depicting the relationships among variables, we applied the VS 1.3 software program (Chan et al., 2016) to (i) transform the conceptual (i.e., proposed) model into a statistical system of variables (i.e., working model) in SEM, and (ii) fit the working model to the sample data under their SEM framework. Moreover, VS 1.3 software program also provides various model goodness-of-fit indices. The following criteria were computed to test whether the proposed ME and moME models have an acceptable fit, namely the Chi-square goodness of fit statistic, root-mean-square errors of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08 (Steiger, 1980), standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) < 0.05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Iacobucci, 2010; Kline, 2015; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.90 (Bentler, 1995), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) > 0.95 (West et al., 2012). Also, all the direct, indirect effects (i.e., path coefficients) in both proposed models were computed by the 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval (BCI) based on 1000 bootstrap samples.

Results

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations

The means, standard deviations and the intercorrelations among all measures are summarized in Table 1. Correlational analyses revealed that self-control correlated positively with life satisfaction (r = 0.27, p < 0.001) and positive affect (r = 0.37, p < 0.001), whereas it correlated inversely with negative affect (r = -0.33, p < 0.001) and fear of negative evaluation (r = -0.43, p < 0.001). On the other hand, fear of negative evaluation correlated negatively with life satisfaction (r = -0.27, p < 0.001), positive affect (r = -0.21, p < 0.01), and correlated positively with negative affect (r = 0.54, p < 0.001). Given these significant correlations, subsequent ME and moME analyses could be performed.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations and the intercorrelations among variables of the study

Measure Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. BSCS 35.78 6.72 –
2. SWLS 21.86 6.12 0.27*** –
3. PA 17.88 3.49 0.37*** 0.36*** –
4. NA 18.51 5.56 −0.33*** −0.43*** −0.14* –
5. BFNE 42.78 7.27 −0.43*** −0.27*** −0.21** 0.54*** –
Open in a new tab

BSCS Brief Self-Control Scale (self-control); SWLS Satisfaction with Life Scale (life satisfaction); PA Positive Affect subscale (4-item) from short form of the Positive and Negative affect schedule (I-PANAS-SF); NA Negative Affect subscale from I-PANAS-SF; BFNE Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (fear of negative evaluation)

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Testing the mediation model

Overall, the goodness of fit indices for the proposed model were satisfactory (Fig. 1), with χ2 (1, n = 250) = 0.20, p > 0.05, RMSEA < 0.001, SRMR = 0.01, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.04. In this model, self-control was significantly associated with both positive affect (a^1 = 0.19, p < 0.001) and negative affect (a^2 = -0.27, p < 0.001), and both positive affect (b^1 = 0.50, p < 0.001) and negative affect (b^2 = -0.41, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with life satisfaction. Furthermore, as hypothesized, the indirect effect of self-control on life satisfaction via positive affect was significant (a^1b^1=.10, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, 95% BCI [0.05, 0.14]), whereas the indirect effect of self-control on life satisfaction via negative affect was also significant (a^2b^2=.11, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, 95% BCI [0.06, 0.16]). When these mediators were taken into account statistically, the direct effect of self-control on life satisfaction became non-significant (c^=.04, p > 0.05), suggesting that positive and negative affects fully mediated the effect of self-control on life satisfaction. Furthermore, a closer examination revealed that the indirect effect of the self-control on life satisfaction via negative affect was larger than the indirect effect of the self-control on life satisfaction via positive affect by 0.016, although the difference was not significant (p > 0.05).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Path coefficients for the mediation model. *** p < 0.001

Overall, these results were supportive of H1a and H1b, and the occurrence of these significant mediational pathways served as the basis for the follow-up moME analysis.

Testing the moderated mediation model

Similar to the ME model, the goodness of fit indices for the proposed moderated mediation (moME) model were also satisfactory (Fig. 2), with χ2 (3, n = 250) = 1.50, p > 0.05, RMSEA < 0.001, SRMR = 0.01, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.03. In this model, self-control was significantly associated with both positive affect (a^1 = 0.18, p < 0.001) and negative affect (a^2 = -0.10, p < 0.05), and both positive affect (b^1 = 0.50, p < 0.001) and negative affect (b^2 = -0.41, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with life satisfaction. Interestingly, the interaction effect between fear of negative evaluation and self-control was negatively associated with positive affect (d^1= -0.01, p < 0.01), implying that the effect of self-control on positive affect was weaker when the score of fear of negative evaluation was higher, and the further interaction effect was illustrated in Fig. 3. On the other hand, the interaction between fear of negative evaluation and self-control did not produce similar effect on negative affect (d^2= 0.01, p > 0.05). Furthermore, results from moME analysis revealed that the pathway between self-control and life satisfaction mediated by positive affect was moderated by fear of negative evaluation (d^1b^1= -0.01, SE = 0.002, p < 0.01, 95% BCI [-0.010, -0.001]), suggesting that this indirect pathway became stronger when the score of fear of negative evaluation was lower, vice versa. However, fear of negative evaluation failed to moderate the pathway between self-control and life satisfaction mediated by negative affect (d^2b^2< -0.001, SE = 0.002, p > 0.05, 95% BCI [-0.006, 0.002]). In short, results of moME analysis supported H2a, but not H2b.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Path coefficients for the moderated mediation model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Graphical Illustration of the Moderating Effect of Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE) on the Relationship Between Self-Control (BSCS) and Positive Affect (PA). Note: Scores on Fear of Negative Evaluation were categorized into high (+ 1 SD), medium and low (-1 SD) groups

Testing alternative models

Given the nature of cross-sectional study design, there was a possibility that competing models fitting the data could exist. According to the broaden-and-build theory, individuals’ experiences of positive affects can expand the repertoire of their momentary thought-action, resulting in the effect of building up an individual’s physical, intellectual, and social resources (Fredrickson, 2004, 2013). As a result, individuals tend to have broader practical solutions and acting abilities for their problems, leading to a higher sense of self-control. To elucidate that the proposed moderated mediation (moME) model (Fig. 2) fits the data best, two alternative models were computed. The first alternative model was similar to that of the model in Fig. 2, except the independent (Self-Control) and dependent (Life Satisfaction) variables were reversed in their positions. The second alternative model was further constructed based on the first alternative model, and the moderating effects were placed between the relationships of the mediators (Positive and Negative Affects) and dependent variable (Self-Control). Details of the goodness-of-indices of the alternative models are shown in Table 2. With reference to the comparisons of the goodness-of-fit indices derived from both alternative models to the proposed moME, the current moME model fitted the data better and was therefore retained. Details of testing the alternative models were shown in Appendix.

Table 2.

Summary of the goodness-of-fit indices for the proposed and alternative models

χ2 RMSEA SRMR CFI TFI
Accepted value  < 0.0.08  < 0.05  > 0.090  > 0.95
Proposed moderated mediation Model 1.5  < 0.001 0.01 1.00 1.03
Alternative model 1 23.13*** 0.16 0.048 0.92 0.61
Alternative model 2 97.57*** 0.23 0.11 0.70 0.08
Open in a new tab

*** p < 0.001

Discussion

First, findings obtained from the mediation analysis in the present study revealed the role of positive affect and negative affect as the mediator between self-control and life satisfaction, supporting the hypothesis H1a that self-control was positively associated with positive affect, which in turn was positively associated with life satisfaction, and hypothesis H1b that self-control was negatively associated with negative affect, which was in turn negatively associated with life satisfaction. This research discovery has sparked interest in studies on self-control, positive affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, and subjective well-being. Several studies have discovered a relationship between self-control and the ability to reach high levels of subjective well-being (Gavriel-Fried et al., 2018; Ronen et al., 2016; Rosenbaum & Ronen, 2013). Furthermore, self-control abilities have been found to predict higher levels of positive affect, as well as to be linked with or even predict higher levels of life satisfaction and emotional health (Cheung et al., 2014; Hofmann et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016; Tu & Yang, 2016; Wiese et al., 2018). Besides, self-control is negatively associated to stress and anxiety (Cheung et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016; Nielsen et al., 2019, 2020). On the other hand, Grant and Schwartz (2011) suggested an inverted-U relationship between self-control and life satisfaction, which suggests that excessive effort of self-control may result in decreased life satisfaction. However, the range of the self-control in the current study may not be wide enough to test the inverted-U relationship.

The follow-up moME revealed the moderating role of fear of negative evaluation in the self-control → positive affect → life satisfaction pathway, supporting the hypothesis H2a that when the score of fear of negative evaluation is higher, the mediation effect of positive affect connecting self-control and life satisfaction becomes weaker, vice versa. This study's findings confirm the previously studied relationship between positive affect and social anxiety, or fear of negative evaluation. The possible explanations for the association between social anxiety and self-control include distribution of attentional resources during and/or after social engagement, incentives to engage in self-control during/after social interaction, and possibly ruminations. Several studies have found that people who were socially anxious were more likely to engage in excessive and persistent ruminations(Chen et al., 2013; Fehm et al., 2007; Jose et al., 2012; Kocovski & Rector, 2007; McEvoy & Kingsep, 2006; Nepon et al., 2011; Rachman et al., 2000; Vassilopoulos, 2004). According to Clark and Wells (1995), those with greater levels of social anxiety tended to demonstrate ruminative cognitive styles, as featured by preoccupation of the negative parts of their interpersonal relationships and their perceived social difficulties. Alike experience avoidance, being overwhelmed by the thoughts of undesirable social encounters might attenuate individuals’ sustainability self-control over time.

Interestingly, contrary to the results obtained from the mediation analysis, findings from the moME did not reveal a significant moderation effect of fear of negative evaluation on the self-control → negative affect → life satisfaction pathway, and hypothesis H2b was therefore not supported. From the evolutionary perspective, Hofmann et al. (2004) has suggested that “fight or flight” are the predominant reactions to anxiety. Despite the difficulty in defining anger, it has been argued that anger involves the interpretation of any insult against oneself or interference with one’s cherished values and pursuit of intended goals (Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004). Past research has provided some evidence that the perceived exposures to social rejection and shame, the constructs which largely overlap with social anxiety, are associated with elevated anger and aggression (Leary et al., 2006; Tangney et al., 1996; Twenge et al., 2001). In this vein, the higher proneness to fear of negative evaluation may not be accompanied by the emotion of sadness, presumably explaining the non-significant moderated effect of fear of negative evaluation on the relationship between self-control and negative affect. Furthermore, a close examination of correlational analyses revealed that scores on fear of negative evaluation and negative affect were highly overlapped (i.e., r = 0.54), implying the occurrence of multicollinearity which may diminish the significance of statistical findings.

Research implications

In line with several previous studies, research findings from the present study suggest that self-control capacity plays a vital role in university students’ mental health functioning and life satisfaction (Durand-Bush et al., 2015; Park et al., 2012). In details, self-control during the undergraduate studies could possibly facilitate students to proactively manage their intended goals, mental health functioning, and shift from being troubled, at-risk, or frustrated to being well-adjusted, adaptive, and even resilient in the face of academic and life stressors. Furthermore, the originality of the present study lied in the inclusion of fear of negative evaluation as a potential factor that moderated the mediation path of self-control on life satisfaction through affective states. Several past studies from the social cognitive perspectives support the notion that the apprehension of being evaluated negatively from others, which is found to rise steadily from childhood to adulthood, is the core feature of social anxiety (Rapee & Heimberg, 1997; Schreier & Heinrichs, 2010; Wells et al., 1995). Therefore, to optimize the treatment outcomes, current psychosocial intervention modalities should adopt a whole-person, holistic approach which addresses both students’ behavioral (i.e., self-control, time management, prioritizing of tasks) and socio-emotional (i.e., social anxiety, adaptability to other classmates within the university context) dimensions.

Limitations and further research

Despite the research implications, the present study also had its limitations. First, as this study adopted a self-reported cross-sectional survey design, cautions need to be taken when drawing causal relationships between the psychological constructs included in the analyses, especially when all the constructs were based on self-reported measures which were subject to participants’ recall bias. While it is plausible that self-control contributes to affective states and life satisfaction, we cannot conclude that self-control has a casual effect on these variables, the interrelations among variables can be conceptualized by alternative theoretical models and mechanisms. While the proposed moME model was chosen in the present study based on current literature, other competing models may fit the data too, leading to the possibility that alternative theoretical frameworks could also be applied to elucidate the results. To see if our hypothesized model is able to explain the data better, we compared it against two alternative models. Results indicated that both alternative models resulted in inadequate fit, and this may provide some support to the validity of our model. Furthermore, according to Hamaker (2012), cross-sectional data analysis cannot disentangle between-subjects relationships from short-term within-subjects relationships. In greater details, even a positive correlation between trait self-control and life satisfaction were found in the present study, it was unknown whether individuals had higher self-control would lead them to higher life satisfaction (a within-subjects effect) or people who on average had higher self-control also tend to experience greater life satisfaction on average (a between-subjects effect). Therefore, an important avenue for further research is to conduct longitudinal study with more advanced analytical strategies (i.e., latent growth modeling, cross-lagged panel analysis) so that the directional dynamic interplays among variables across time may be examined.

Second, although the Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS) provides information on students’ overall self-control capacity, it does not explicitly inform us which aspects of self-control can be related to psychological health and life satisfaction (Lindner et al., 2015). A solution to this limitation is to adopt validated scale supporting the multi-faceted, multidimensional nature of self-control (Nilsen et al., 2020). Third, the number of samples collected via convenience sampling method from the university students was not large enough, and there was major unequal distribution of male and female subjects, thus findings from the present study may not be generalizable to other populations.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, findings from the present study conducted among university students in Hong Kong supported the hypotheses that positive affect (H1a) and negative affect (H1b) are the full parallel mediators between self-control and life satisfaction in the mediation analysis. Subsequent moderated mediated analysis revealed fear of negative evaluation as the moderator (H2a) influencing the strength of indirect effect from self-control to life satisfaction mediated by positive affect (i.e., self-control → positive affect → life satisfaction). However, fear of negative evaluation has no moderating role when considering the self-control → negative affect → life satisfaction pathway. The thesis statement of this survey study is that although self-control has been found to be correlated with better life satisfaction, the strength of association between self-control and positive affect would be diminished when the score on fear of negative evaluation is high, informing researchers and mental health practitioners the clinical importance of targeting both self-regulation capacity and social anxiety when working with university students.

Appendix

Results from the alternative model 1 revealed that the goodness of fit indices as follow: χ2 (3, n = 250) = 23.13, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.16, SRMR = 0.048, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.61. In this model, life satisfaction was significantly associated with both positive affect (a^1 = 0.19, p < 0.001) and negative affect (a^2 = -0.28, p < 0.001), and both positive affect (b^1 = 0.60, p < 0.001) and negative affect (b^2 = -0.32, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with self-control. The interaction effect between fear of negative evaluation and life satisfaction was not associated with positive affect (d^1= -0.005, p > 0.05), and the interaction effect between fear of negative evaluation and life satisfaction did not produce significant effect on negative affect (d^2= -0.002, p > 0.05). Furthermore, results from moME analysis revealed that the pathway between life satisfaction and self-control mediated by positive affect was not significantly moderated by fear of negative evaluation (d^1b^1= -0.003, SE = 0.003, p > 0.05, 95% BCI [-0.008, 0.002]). The fear of negative evaluation also failed to moderate the pathway between life satisfaction and self-control mediated by negative affect (d^2b^2= 0.001, SE = 0.002, p > 0.05, 95% BCI [-0.003, 0.004]). Details were illustrated in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Path coefficients for the alternative model 1. *** p < 0.001

Furthermore, results from the alternative model 2 revealed that the goodness of fit indices as follow: χ2 (3, n = 250) = 97.57, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.23, SRMR = 0.11, CFI = 0.70, TLI = 0.08. In this model, life satisfaction was significantly associated with both positive affect (a^1 = 0.20, p < 0.001) and negative affect (a^2 = -0.39, p < 0.001). However, positive affect (b^1 = 0.61, p < 0.001), but not negative affect (b^2 = -0.09, p > 0.05), was significantly associated with self-control. The interaction effect between fear of negative evaluation and positive affect was associated with self-control (d^1= -0.04, p < 0.01), and the interaction effect between fear of negative evaluation and negative affect was also associated with self-control (d^2= -0.02, p < 0.01). Furthermore, results from moME analysis revealed that the pathway between life satisfaction and self-control mediated by positive affect was significantly moderated by fear of negative evaluation (d^1b^1= -0.009, SE = 0.003, p < 0.05, 95% BCI [-0.015, -0.002]). The fear of negative evaluation also moderated the pathway between life satisfaction and self-control mediated by negative affect (d^2b^2= 0.008, SE = 0.003, p < 0.05, 95% BCI [0.002, 0.014]). Details were illustrated in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Path coefficients for the alternative model 2. *** p < 0.001

Author contributions statement

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Angel Lee, Wai Chan and Chi Kit Jacky Ng. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Angel Lee and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No.: CUHK 14614719).

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Human Subjects Ethics Sub-Committee of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HSEARS20131217002).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publish

Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Allemand M, Job V, Mroczek DK. Self-control development in adolescence predicts love and work in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2019;117(3):621. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M, Tice DM. Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;74(5):1252. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bentler PM. EQS structural equations program manual. Multivariate software Encino; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  4. Berkowitz L, Harmon-Jones E. Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion. 2004;4(2):107. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blackhart GC, Williamson J, Nelson L. Social anxiety in relation to self-control depletion following social interactions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2015;34(9):747. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2015.34.9.747. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Busseri MA. Examining the structure of subjective well-being through meta-analysis of the associations among positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018;122:68–71. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Busseri MA, Sadava SW. A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2011;15(3):290–314. doi: 10.1177/1088868310391271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chan, W., Kwan, J. L.-Y., & Choi, C. Y.-T. (2016). VS for Windows. In Hong Kong, China: The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from http://www.psy.cuhk.edu.hk/vs.
  9. Chen J, Rapee RM, Abbott MJ. Mediators of the relationship between social anxiety and post-event rumination. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2013;27(1):1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheng G, Zhang D, Ding F. Self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation as mediators between family socioeconomic status and social anxiety in Chinese emerging adults. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 2015;61(6):569–576. doi: 10.1177/0020764014565405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheung TT, 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. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi EPH, Hui BPH, Wan EYF. Depression and anxiety in Hong Kong during COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(10):3740. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark D. M., Wells A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In Heimberg R. G., Liebowitz M. R., Hope D. A., Schneier F. R. (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  14. Converse PD, Thackray M, Piccone K, Sudduth MM, Tocci MC, Miloslavic SA. Integrating self-control with physical attractiveness and cognitive ability to examine pathways to career success. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2016;89(1):73–91. doi: 10.1111/joop.12107. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Converse PD, Beverage MS, Vaghef K, Moore LS. Self-control over time: Implications for work, relationship, and well-being outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality. 2018;73:82–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Davern MT, Cummins RA, Stokes MA. Subjective wellbeing as an affective-cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2007;8(4):429–449. doi: 10.1007/s10902-007-9066-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. De Ridder DT, Lensvelt-Mulders G, Finkenauer C, Stok FM, Baumeister RF. Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2012;16(1):76–99. doi: 10.1177/1088868311418749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Diener E. ArticleTitle ‘Subjective well-being’. Psychological Bulletin. 1984;95:542–575. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1985;49(1):71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Diener E, Heintzelman SJ, Kushlev K, Tay L, Wirtz D, Lutes LD, Oishi S. Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne. 2017;58(2):87. doi: 10.1037/cap0000063. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Duckworth AL, Seligman ME. Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science. 2005;16(12):939–944. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Durak M, Senol-Durak E, Gencoz T. Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers, and elderly adults. Social Indicators Research. 2010;99(3):413–429. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9589-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Durand-Bush, N., McNeill, K., Harding, M., & Dobransky, J. (2015). Investigating stress, psychological well-being, mental health functioning, and self-regulation capacity among university undergraduate students: is this population optimally functioning? Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 49(3).
  24. Fehm L, Schneider G, Hoyer J. Is post-event processing specific for social anxiety? Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 2007;38(1):11–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Finkel EJ, Campbell WK, Brunell AB, Dalton AN, Scarbeck SJ, Chartrand TL. High-maintenance interaction: Inefficient social coordination impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006;91(3):456. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Fredrickson BL. The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 2004;359(1449):1367–1377. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Fredrickson BL. Updated thinking on positivity ratios. The American Psychologist. 2013;68(9):814–822. doi: 10.1037/a0033584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Friese M, Hofmann W. Control me or I will control you: Impulses, trait self-control, and the guidance of behavior. Journal of Research in Personality. 2009;43(5):795–805. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.07.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Friese M, Frankenbach J, Job V, Loschelder DD. Does self-control training improve self-control? A Meta-Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2017;12(6):1077–1099. doi: 10.1177/1745691617697076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Galla BM, Duckworth AL. More than resisting temptation: Beneficial habits mediate the relationship between self-control and positive life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2015;109(3):508. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gavriel-Fried B, Ronen T, Agbaria Q, Orkibi H, Hamama L. Multiple facets of self-control in Arab adolescents: Parallel pathways to greater happiness and less physical aggression. Youth & Society. 2018;50(3):405–422. doi: 10.1177/0044118X15606157. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). General Theory of Crime.
  33. Gouveia VV, Milfont TL, Da Fonseca PN, Coelho JAPdM. Life satisfaction in Brazil: Testing the psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) in five Brazilian samples. Social Indicators Research. 2009;90(2):267–277. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9257-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. 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. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Grant N, Wardle J, Steptoe A. The relationship between life satisfaction and health behavior: A cross-cultural analysis of young adults. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2009;16(3):259–268. doi: 10.1007/s12529-009-9032-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hamaker, E. L. (2012). Why researchers should think "within-person": A paradigmatic rationale. In Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life. (pp. 43–61). The Guilford Press.
  37. Hamama L, Ronen T, Shachar K, Rosenbaum M. Links between stress, positive and negative affect, and life satisfaction among teachers in special education schools. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2013;14(3):731–751. doi: 10.1007/s10902-012-9352-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hawton K, iComabella CC, Haw C, Saunders K. Risk factors for suicide in individuals with depression: a systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2013;147(1–3):17–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hofmann SG, Heinrichs N, Moscovitch DA. The nature and expression of social phobia: Toward a new classification. Clinical Psychology Review. 2004;24(7):769–797. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2004.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. 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):265–277. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hoyt LT, Chase-Lansdale PL, McDade TW, Adam EK. Positive youth, healthy adults: Does positive well-being in adolescence predict better perceived health and fewer risky health behaviors in young adulthood? Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012;50(1):66–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.05.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Iacobucci D. Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2010;20(1):90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Imhoff R, Schmidt AF, Gerstenberg F. Exploring the interplay of trait self–control and ego depletion: Empirical evidence for ironic effects. European Journal of Personality. 2014;28(5):413–424. doi: 10.1002/per.1899. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Iqbal A, Ajmal A. Fear of negative evaluation and social anxiety in young adults. Peshawar Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (PJPBS) 2018;4(1):45–53. doi: 10.32879/picp.2018.4.1.45. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Jayawickreme E, Tsukayama E, Kashdan TB. Examining the within-person effect of affect on daily satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality. 2017;71:27–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.08.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Jose PE, Wilkins H, Spendelow JS. Does social anxiety predict rumination and co-rumination among adolescents? Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2012;41(1):86–91. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2012.632346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Jovanović V, Gavrilov-Jerković V. The structure of adolescent affective well-being: The case of the PANAS among Serbian adolescents. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2016;17(5):2097–2117. doi: 10.1007/s10902-015-9687-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Kashdan TB, Breen WE, Julian T. Everyday strivings in war veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: Suffering from a hyper-focus on avoidance and emotion regulation. Behavior Therapy. 2010;41(3):350–363. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2009.09.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Kashdan TB, Weeks JW, Savostyanova AA. Whether, how, and when social anxiety shapes positive experiences and events: A self-regulatory framework and treatment implications. Clinical Psychology Review. 2011;31(5):786–799. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kim-Prieto C, Diener E, Tamir M, Scollon C, Diener M. Integrating the diverse definitions of happiness: A time-sequential framework of subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2005;6(3):261–300. doi: 10.1007/s10902-005-7226-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford publications; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kocovski NL, Rector NA. Predictors of post-event rumination related to social anxiety. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2007;36(2):112–122. doi: 10.1080/16506070701232090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kööts-Ausmees L, Realo A, Allik J. The relationship between life satisfaction and emotional experience in 21 European countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2013;44(2):223–244. doi: 10.1177/0022022112451054. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kuppens P, Realo A, Diener E. The role of positive and negative emotions in life satisfaction judgment across nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008;95(1):66. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kwan JLY, Chan W. Variable system: An alternative approach for the analysis of mediated moderation. Psychological Methods. 2018;23(2):262. doi: 10.1037/met0000160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Lai CC, Ma CM. The mediating role of social support in the relationship between psychological well-being and health-risk behaviors among Chinese university students. Health Psychology Open. 2016;3(2):2055102916678106. doi: 10.1177/2055102916678106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Lazić M, Gavrilov-Jerković V, Jovanović V. The moderating role of trait affect in the relationship between negative life events and life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2019;20(7):2251–2267. doi: 10.1007/s10902-018-0050-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Leary MR. A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1983;9(3):371–375. doi: 10.1177/0146167283093007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Leary MR, Kowalski RM. Social anxiety. Guilford Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  62. Leary MR, Twenge JM, Quinlivan E. Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2006;10(2):111–132. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Levinson CA, Rodebaugh TL, White EK, Menatti AR, Weeks JW, Iacovino JM, Warren CS. Social appearance anxiety, perfectionism, and fear of negative evaluation. Distinct or shared risk factors for social anxiety and eating disorders? Appetite. 2013;67:125–133. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. 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;97:130–133. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.042. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Li AW, Chak WH, Yuen KS. Snapshot of a social movement: Mental health and protest classes in Hong Kong. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2021;295:883–892. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.08.111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Li, J.-B., Wang, Y.-S., Sun, Y., Liang, Y., & Dou, K. (2021b). Individual and interpersonal correlates of changes in college adaptation among Chinese freshmen: A longitudinal study. Current Psychology, 1–13.
  67. Li Q, Xiang G, Song S, Huang X, Chen H. Examining the associations of trait self-control with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2022;23(2):667–687. doi: 10.1007/s10902-021-00418-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Lindner C, Nagy G, Retelsdorf J. The dimensionality of the Brief Self-Control Scale—An evaluation of unidimensional and multidimensional applications. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;86:465–473. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Lucas RE, Diener E, Suh E. Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;71(3):616. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Luhmann M, Hawkley LC, Eid M, Cacioppo JT. Time frames and the distinction between affective and cognitive well-being. Journal of Research in Personality. 2012;46(4):431–441. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.04.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Lun KW, Chan C, Ip PK, Ma SY, Tsai W, Wong C, Wong CH, Wong T, Yan D. Depression and anxiety among university students in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Medical Journal. 2018;24(5):466–472. doi: 10.12809/hkmj176915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Ma CM, Lai CC. Mental health profile and health-related behavior among Hong Kong Chinese university students. Health Psychology Open. 2018;5(2):2055102918786869. doi: 10.1177/2055102918786869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. McEvoy PM, Kingsep P. The post-event processing questionnaire in a clinical sample with social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2006;44(11):1689–1697. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Metler SJ, Busseri MA. Further evaluation of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Evidence from longitudinal and experimental studies. Journal of Personality. 2017;85(2):192–206. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Harrington H, Houts R, Poulton R, Roberts BW, Ross S. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011;108(7):2693–2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010076108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Nepon T, Flett GL, Hewitt PL, Molnar DS. Perfectionism, negative social feedback, and interpersonal rumination in depression and social anxiety. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement. 2011;43(4):297. doi: 10.1037/a0025032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Nielsen KS, Gwozdz W, De Ridder D. Unraveling the relationship between trait self-control and subjective well-being: The mediating role of four self-control strategies. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:706. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Nielsen KS, Bauer JM, Hofmann W. Examining the relationship between trait self-control and stress: Evidence on generalizability and outcome variability. Journal of Research in Personality. 2020;84:103901. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103901. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Nilsen FA, Bang H, Boe O, Martinsen ØL, Lang-Ree OC, Røysamb E. The Multidimensional Self-Control Scale (MSCS): Development and validation. Psychological Assessment. 2020;32(11):1057. doi: 10.1037/pas0000950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Orkibi H, Hamama L, Gavriel-Fried B, Ronen T. Pathways to adolescents’ flourishing: Linking self-control skills and positivity ratio through social support. Youth & Society. 2018;50(1):3–25. doi: 10.1177/0044118X15581171. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Park CL, Edmondson D, Lee J. Development of self-regulation abilities as predictors of psychological adjustment across the first year of college. Journal of Adult Development. 2012;19(1):40–49. doi: 10.1007/s10804-011-9133-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES. Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1995;51(6):768–774. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6<768::AID-JCLP2270510607>3.0.CO;2-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Piqueras JA, Kuhne W, Vera-Villarroel P, Van Straten A, Cuijpers P. Happiness and health behaviours in Chilean college students: A cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Rachman S, Grüter-Andrew J, Shafran R. Post-event processing in social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2000;38(6):611–617. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00089-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Rapee RM, Heimberg RG. A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1997;35(8):741–756. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00022-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Restubog SLD, Garcia PRJM, Wang L, Cheng D. It’s all about control: The role of self-control in buffering the effects of negative reciprocity beliefs and trait anger on workplace deviance. Journal of Research in Personality. 2010;44(5):655–660. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Ronen T, Hamama L, Rosenbaum M, Mishely-Yarlap A. Subjective well-being in adolescence: The role of self-control, social support, age, gender, and familial crisis. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2016;17(1):81–104. doi: 10.1007/s10902-014-9585-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Rosenbaum, M., & Ronen, T. (2013). Emotional well-being and self-control skills of children and adolescents: The Israeli perspective. In Mental Well-being (pp. 209–229). Springer.
  89. Ryff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69(4):719. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Ryff CD, Singer BH. Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2008;9(1):13–39. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online. 2003;8(2):23–74. [Google Scholar]
  92. Schimmack U, Oishi S, Diener E. Cultural influences on the relation between pleasant emotions and unpleasant emotions: Asian dialectic philosophies or individualism-collectivism? Cognition & Emotion. 2002;16(6):705–719. doi: 10.1080/02699930143000590. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Schimmack, U. (2007). Methodological issues in the assessment of the affective component of subjective well-being. Oxford Handbook of Methods in Positive Psychology, 96–110.
  94. Schmeichel BJ, Zell A. Trait self-control predicts performance on behavioral tests of self-control. Journal of Personality. 2007;75(4):743–756. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00455.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Schreier S-S, Heinrichs N. Parental fear of negative child evaluation in child social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2010;48(12):1186–1193. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Schwarz N. Feelings-as-information theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. 2011;1:289–308. [Google Scholar]
  97. Shin DC, Johnson DM. Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social Indicators Research. 1978;5(1):475–492. doi: 10.1007/BF00352944. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. 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):177–185. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. The annual meeting of the Psychometric Society. Iowa City, IA. 1980.
  100. Tangney JP, Wagner PE, Hill-Barlow D, Marschall DE, Gramzow R. Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;70(4):797. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Thompson ER. Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS) Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2007;38(2):227–242. doi: 10.1177/0022022106297301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Tice DM, Baumeister RF, Shmueli D, Muraven M. Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2007;43(3):379–384. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Tu Y, Yang Z. Self-control as mediator and moderator of the relationship between social support and subjective well-being among the Chinese elderly. Social Indicators Research. 2016;126(2):813–828. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-0911-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. Twenge JM, Baumeister RF, Tice DM, Stucke TS. If you can't join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;81(6):1058. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Vassilopoulos SP. Anticipatory processing in social anxiety. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy. 2004;32(3):303–311. doi: 10.1017/S1352465804001377. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Veenhoven R. The four qualities of life. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2000;1(1):1–39. doi: 10.1023/A:1010072010360. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Vohs KD, Faber RJ. Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research. 2007;33(4):537–547. doi: 10.1086/510228. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Vohs KD, Baumeister RF, Ciarocco NJ. Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;88(4):632. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation. Handbook of Self-Regulation, 19.
  111. Watson D, Friend R. Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1969;33(4):448. doi: 10.1037/h0027806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Weeks JW, Howell AN. The bivalent fear of evaluation model of social anxiety: Further integrating findings on fears of positive and negative evaluation. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2012;41(2):83–95. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2012.661452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Weeks JW, Jakatdar TA, Heimberg RG. Comparing and contrasting fears of positive and negative evaluation as facets of social anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2010;29(1):68–94. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2010.29.1.68. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Weeks JW, Heimberg RG, Rodebaugh TL, Goldin PR, Gross JJ. Psychometric evaluation of the Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale in patients with social anxiety disorder. Psychological Assessment. 2012;24(2):301. doi: 10.1037/a0025723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Wells A, Clark DM, Salkovskis P, Ludgate J, Hackmann A, Gelder M. Social phobia: The role of in-situation safety behaviors in maintaining anxiety and negative beliefs. Behavior Therapy. 1995;26(1):153–161. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80088-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. West SG, Taylor AB, Wu W. Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling. 2012;1:209–231. [Google Scholar]
  117. Wiese CW, Tay L, Duckworth AL, D’Mello S, Kuykendall L, Hofmann W, Baumeister RF, Vohs KD. Too much of a good thing? Exploring the inverted-U relationship between self-control and happiness. Journal of Personality. 2018;86(3):380–396. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Wolniewicz CA, Tiamiyu MF, Weeks JW, Elhai JD. Problematic smartphone use and relations with negative affect, fear of missing out, and fear of negative and positive evaluation. Psychiatry Research. 2018;262:618–623. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.09.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.j.) are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES