Zhongyong (golden mean) is a typical Oriental Confucius thought that addresses interpersonal harmony and interdependence. A moderated mediating model was used in this study to examine the relationship between Zhongyong and environmental behavior. The results of our model showed that Zhongyong was positively associated with environmental behavior. In comparison to people with lower levels of Zhongyong, respondents with higher levels of Zhongyong had a significantly higher scores for collective efficacy, personal norms, and environmental behavior. Furthermore, Zhongyong indirectly influenced environmental behavior through collective efficacy and personal norms. More importantly, we introduced two extrinsic moderator variables: environmental concerns and interpersonal communication. The reasons Zhongyong works and how to take advantage of this Oriental cultural heritage to promote an individual’s pro-environmental willingness are further discussed.
Abdul-MuhminA. G. (2007). Explaining consumers’ willingness to be environmentally friendly. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3), 237–247.
2.
BagozziR. P.YiY.PhillipsL. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.
3.
BanduraA. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21–41.
4.
BanduraA. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.
5.
BanduraA. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–290.
6.
BanduraA. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180.
7.
BanduraA.WaltersR. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. Holt Rinehart and Winston.
8.
ChenM. F. (2015). Self-efficacy or collective efficacy within the cognitive theory of stress model: Which more effectively explains people’s self-reported pro-environmental behavior?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42(1), 66–75.
9.
CheungT. S.ChanH. M.ChanK. M.KingA. Y. C.ChiuC. Y.YangC. F. (2003). On Zhongyong rationality: The Confucian doctrine of the mean as a missing link between instrumental rationality and communicative rationality. Asian Journal of Social Science, 31(1), 107–127.
10.
ColemanC. L. (1993). The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20(4), 611–628.
11.
CuadradoE.Macias-ZambranoL. H.CarpioA. J.TaberneroC. (2022). The moderating effect of collective efficacy on the relationship between environmental values and ecological behaviors. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(3), 4175–4202.
12.
DayG. (2020). The Yin and Yang of outside-in thinking. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 84–86.
13.
DengJ.SunP.ZhaoF.HanX.YangG.FengY. (2016). Analysis of the ecological conservation behavior of farmers in payment for ecosystem service programs in eco-environmentally fragile areas using social psychology models. Science of the Total Environment, 550, 382–390.
14.
DietzT.DanA.ShwomR. (2007). Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology, 72(2), 185–214.
15.
DriverM. J.StreufertS. (1969). Integrative complexity: An approach to individuals and groups as information-processing systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 272–285.
16.
DuX. (2015). Does Confucianism reduce minority shareholder expropriation? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 661–716.
17.
DunlopS.WakefieldM.KashimaY. (2008). Can you feel it? Negative emotion, risk, and narrative in health communication. Media Psychology, 11(1), 52–75.
18.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
19.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
20.
GaoR.HuangS.YaoY.LiuX.ZhouY.ZhangS.CaiS.ZuoH.ZhanZ.MoL. (2022). Understanding Zhongyong using a Zhongyong approach: re-examining the non-linear relationship between creativity and the Confucian doctrine of the mean. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 903411.
21.
GoldschmidtG. (2016). Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 115–122.
22.
GuoS.HuQ. (2021). Be zhongyong and be ethical: Dual leadership in promoting employees’ thriving at work. Chinese Management Studies, 10(2), 25–31.
23.
HanR.XuJ. (2020). A comparative study of the role of interpersonal communication, traditional media and social media in pro-environmental behavior: A China-based study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 1883.
24.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:A regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York, London.
25.
JanmaimoolP.ChudechS. (2020). Effect of domestic and global environmental events on environmental concern and environmental responsibility among university students. Sustainability, 12(4), 1610.
26.
JohnsonJ. A.MartinP. R.StikeleatherB.YoungD. (2022). Investigating the interactive effects of prosocial actions, construal, and moral identity on the extent of employee reporting dishonesty. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–23.
27.
JugertP.GreenawayK. H.BarthM.BüchnerR.EisentrautS.FritscheI. (2016). Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 12–23.
28.
KahlorL. A. (2007) An augmented risk information-seeking model: The case of global warming. Media Psychology, 10, 414–435.
29.
KhanN. A.KhanA. N.MoinM. F.PitafiA. H. (2021). A trail of chaos: How psychopathic leadership influence employee satisfaction and turnover intention via self-efficacy in tourism enterprises. Journal of Leisure Research, 52(3), 347–369.
30.
KimD.CavusgilS. T.CalantoneR. J. (2006). Information system innovations and supply chain management: Channel relationships and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 40–54.
31.
KockN. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10.
32.
KuoF. Y.YoungM. L. (2008). A study of the intention–action gap in knowledge sharing practices. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8), 1224–1237.
33.
LiJ.LiuH.Van der HeijdenB.GuoZ. (2021). Confucian Zhongyong, religious commitment, church identification, and church commitment: A moderated mediation model. Pastoral Psychology, 70(3), 273–293.
34.
LinW.ChenQ.JiangM.TaoJ.LiuZ.ZhangX.WuL.XuS.KangY.ZengQ. (2020). Sitting or walking? Analyzing the neural emotional indicators of urban green space behavior with mobile EEG. Journal of Urban Health, 97, 191–203.
35.
LiuD.HanS.ZhangJ. (2022). The golden mean: Research on the mechanism of customer participation in employee service innovation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 68, 103040.
36.
MaY.KoondharM. A.LiuS.WangH.KongR. (2020). Perceived value influencing the household waste sorting behaviors in rural China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6093.
37.
MilfontT. L.DuckittJ.CameronL. D. (2006). A cross-cultural study of environmental motive concerns and their implications for proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 745–767.
38.
NelkinD. (1989). Communicating technological risk: The social construction of risk perception. Annual Review of Public Health, 10(1), 95–113.
39.
NingB.OmarR.YeY.TingH.NingM. (2021). The role of Zhong-Yong thinking in business and management research: A review and future research agenda. Asia Pacific Business Review, 27(2), 150–179.
40.
NixonH.SaphoresJ. D. M. (2009). Information and the decision to recycle: Results from a survey of US households. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(2), 257–277.
41.
NunnallyJ. C. (1994). Nunnally psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
42.
OlsonG. A.RortyR. (1989). Social construction and composition theory: A conversation with Richard Rorty. Journal of Advanced Composition, 9, 1–9.
43.
OskampS. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help?. American Psychologist, 55(5), 496.
44.
PaletzS. B.BogueK.Miron-SpektorE.Spencer-RodgersJ.PengK. (2018). Dialectical thinking and creativity from many perspectives: Contradiction and tension. The psychological and cultural foundations of East Asian cognition: Contradiction, change, and holism, 267–308.
45.
PanW.SunL. Y. (2018). A self-regulation model of Zhong Yong thinking and employee adaptive performance. Management and Organization Review, 14(1), 135–159.
46.
PlettiC.ScheelA.PaulusM. (2017). Intrinsic altruism or social motivation—what does pupil dilation tell us about children’s helping behavior?. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2089.
47.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
48.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.
49.
SadacharA.KhareA.ManchirajuS. (2016). The role of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence in predicting green apparel consumption behavior of American youth. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 5(1), 1–12.
50.
SchererC. W.ChoH. (2003). A social network contagion theory of risk perception. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 23(2), 261–267.
51.
SchultzP. W.ShriverC.TabanicoJ. J.KhazianA. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 31–42.
52.
SchunkD. H.DiBenedettoM. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832.
53.
SchunkD. H.UsherE. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In RyanR. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 11–26). Oxford University Press.
54.
SchwartzS. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). Academic Press.
55.
SchwartzS. H.HowardJ. A. (1984). Internalized values as motivators of altruism. In Development and maintenance of prosocial behavior:International perspectives on positive morality (pp. 229–255). Boston, MA: Springer US.
56.
SemadeniM.WithersM. C.Trevis CertoS. (2014). The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: Understanding through simulations. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 1070–1079.
57.
ShuoY. S. S.RyanC.LiuG. M. (2009). Taoism, temples and tourists: The case of Mazu pilgrimage tourism. Tourism Management, 30(4), 581–588.
58.
SkoricM. M.ZhangN. (2019). Communication, Culture, and Governance in Asia| Opinion Leadership, Media Use, and Environmental Engagement in China. International Journal of Communication, 13, 22.
59.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
60.
SternP. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
61.
SternP. C.DietzT. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65–84.
62.
SuedfeldP.GuttieriK.TetlockP. E. (2003). Assessing integrative complexity at a distance: Archival analyses of thinking and decision making. The psychological assessment of political leaders: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton, 246–270.
63.
TamK. P.ChanH. W. (2018). Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Global Environmental Change, 48, 182–194.
64.
WangL.JinJ. L.ZhouK. Z. (2019). Institutional forces and customer participation in new product development: A Yin-Yang perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 82, 188–198.
65.
WangZ. D.WangY. M.LiK.ShiJ.WangF. Y. (2021). The comparison of the wisdom view in Chinese and Western cultures. Current Psychology, 12(1), 11–21.
66.
WatsonC. B.ChemersM. M.PreiserN. (2001). Collective efficacy: A multilevel analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 1057–1068.
67.
WangQ.ZhangF. (2021). The effects of trade openness on decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth–evidence from 182 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123838.
68.
WeiJ.ChenY.ZhangY.ZhangJ. (2020). How does entrepreneurial self-efficacy influence innovation behavior? Exploring the mechanism of job satisfaction and Zhongyong thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 708.
69.
WigfieldA.TonksS. M.KlaudaS. L. (2016). Expectancy-value theory. In WentzelK. R.MieleD. B. (Eds.). Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 55–74). Routledge.
70.
WuC. H.LinY. C. (2005). Development of a Zhong-Yong thinking style scale. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247–300.
71.
WuJ.LiaoH.WangJ. W.ChenT. (2019). The role of environmental concern in the public acceptance of autonomous electric vehicles: A survey from China. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 60, 37–46.
72.
YangX.ZhangP.ZhaoJ.ZhaoJ.WangJ.ChenY. U.DingS.ZhangX. (2016). Confucian culture still matters: The benefits of Zhongyong thinking (doctrine of the mean) for mental health. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(8), 1097–1113.
73.
ZhangC.ChenC. (2020). The effect of Zhong-yong thinking to employee survival ability: taking Chinese employees as an example. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 40(11/12), 1319–1336.
74.
ZhangN.LiD. (2023). Mind the Gap: How Zhongyong Thinking Affects the Effectiveness of Media Use on Pro-Environmental Behaviours in China. Environmental Communication, 17(4), 437–451.
75.
ZhangN.SkoricM. M. (2018). Media use and environmental engagement: Examining differential gains from news media and social media. International Journal of Communication, 12, 380–403.
76.
ZhaoH. H.GaoQ.WuY. P.WangY.ZhuX. D. (2014). What affects green consumer behavior in China? A case study from Qingdao. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 143–151.
77.
ZhengJ.YangM.XuM.ZhaoC.ShaoC. (2019). An empirical study of the impact of social interaction on public pro-environmental behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4405.
78.
ZhouH.ChenJ. (2021). How does psychological empowerment prevent emotional exhaustion? Psychological safety and organizational embeddedness as mediators. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(1), 54–66.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
