







































 

 

 

 

 

 

The Influence of School Loose-Tight Culture 

on Bullying of Middle School Students: The 

Mediating Role of Collective Moral 

Disengagement and Collective Efficacy

Lei Wang, Yirui Song  

 
Wuhan Sports University, Wuhan 430079, Hubei, China 

Abstract. To explore the relationship and mechanism of school loose-

tight culture to middle school bullying, a total of 808 students were 

selected from three middle schools in Dehong Prefecture, Yunnan 

Province of China, to conduct a questionnaire survey. The study used the 

school loose-tight culture scale, the collective moral disengagement 
scale, the collective efficacy scale, and the bullying scale for middle 

school students. The results showed that (i) school loose-tight culture 

significantly predicted the occurrence of school bullying; (ii) school 
loose-tight culture was significantly negatively correlated with collective 

moral disengagement and school bullying but positively correlated with 
collective efficacy. Further, collective moral disengagement was 

significantly positively correlated with school bullying, but collective 

efficacy was significantly negatively correlated with school bullying; (iii) 

school loose-tight culture inhibited school bullying through the dual 

mediating effects of collective moral disengagement and collective 
efficacy at the same time. 

Best Evidence in Chinese Education 2021; 9(2):1263-1272. 

Doi: 10.15354/bece.21.ar060. 

How to Cite: Wang, L., & Song, Y. (2021). The influence of school loose-tight 

culture on bullying of middle school students: The mediating role of collective moral 

disengagement and collective efficacy. Best Evidence in Chinese Education, 

9(2):1263-1272. 

Keywords: School Loose-Tight Culture, Collective Moral Disengagement, 

Collective Efficacy, Campus Bullying

 

 



Wang & Song. Influence of School Loose-Tight Culture on Bullying of Middle School Students. 

BECE, Vol.9, No.2, 2021 1264 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

About the Author: Yirui Song, Department of Psychology, Wuhan Sports University, Wuhan 430079, Hubei, China. 

E-mail: 804504354@qq.com  

Correspondence to: Lei Wang, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Wuhan Sports University, Wuhan 
430079, Hubei Province, China. E-mail: 378299706@qq.com 

Funding: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund Project “Mental Generation Mechanism 
and Intervention Research on Campus Violence in Middle School Students” (project #: 16BSH104). 

Conflict of Interests: None. 
 

© 2021 Insights Publisher. All rights reserved. 

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License 

(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of 

the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed by the Insights Publisher. 

mailto:804504354@qq.com
mailto:378299706@qq.com


Wang & Song. Influence of School Loose-Tight Culture on Bullying of Middle School Students. 

BECE, Vol.9, No. 2, 2021 1265 

Question 

CHOOL bullying is considered a widespread form of school violence, which has 

a long-term negative impact on young people’s healthy personalities and devel-

opment (Hu, 2017). Studies have shown that students with externalized behavior 

problems react negatively to the external environment (Cai, 2006). First, according to 

the ternary interaction theory, an individual’s behavior is strongly governed by motiva-

tion and beliefs and adversely affects the subject’s thinking and emotions. Secondly, 

behavior is not only governed by individual needs but also restricted by the environ-

ment. Schools and classes are the environments that middle school students are exposed 

to most frequently, directly impacting their behavior. Studies have shown that bullying 

behaviors of middle school students are related to factors such as moral disengagement, 

self-efficacy, and class environment (Wang et al., 2018). Still, there is no research on 

the influencing factors of campus bullying from the collective level. According to the 

ecological system theory, the development of middle school students is in a complex 

environmental system, and each layer of the system interacts with other systems and 

individuals, which affects the development of students. School culture is the core force 

that promotes the development of the school and the internal mechanism that affects 

students’ behavior. Therefore, it is feasible and significant to discuss the impact of 

school culture on campus bullying from the collective level. 

Tight-loose culture is a new dimension of cross-cultural psychology research, 

which refers to the social norm culture of punishment and intensity of deviant behaviors 

(Lu et al., 2017). The “loose” in tight-loose culture refers to weak norms and a high 

tolerance for deviant behaviors (inadequate punishment), and “tight” refers to solid 

norms and a low tolerance for deviant behaviors (intense punishment) (Gelfand, Li & 

Gordon, 2017). Social norms under different cultural backgrounds reflect the difference 

between looseness and tightness, which helps to enhance our understanding and predic-

tion of differences in human psychology and behavior. Under different school cultural 

backgrounds, students perceive different school loose-tight cultures, and their self-

control, self-regulation, and self-monitoring abilities for bullying behavior are also quite 

different. Studies have shown that students are prone to frequent skipping classes in 

schools with relatively loose rules and regulations. Students cannot be better integrated 

into the class environment, leading to increased bullying behavior (Zeng et al., 2019). 

As a result, school loose-tight culture directly impacts campus bullying, and this impact 

will play a role indirectly through the class atmosphere. 

Studies have shown that moral disengagement has a significant positive predic-

tive effect on adolescent verbal bullying, relationship bullying, and physical bullying 

(Yang & Wang, 2012). Bandura (2002) put forward the concept of collective moral dis-

engagement, which refers to the common belief of the group that defends negative be-

haviors morally, and it reflects the degree of recognition or opposition of the class to 

certain irregular behaviors. As a collective consensus, collective moral disengagement 

is more likely to transfer responsibility, which in turn increases the possibility of cam-

pus bullying. The lower the middle school students’ perception of the school atmos-

S 



Wang & Song. Influence of School Loose-Tight Culture on Bullying of Middle School Students. 

BECE, Vol.9, No. 2, 2021 1266 

phere, the higher their level of moral disengagement. Collective efficacy is proposed by 

Bandura based on self-efficacy and defines it as to whether people feel that they can 

solve problems through joint efforts in a group, organization, or country, and increase 

the strength of belief in life. Studies have shown a negative correlation between indi-

vidual self-efficacy and bullying behavior, and individuals with low self-efficacy are 

more likely to have bullying behavior (Valois et al., 2017). Studies have pointed out 

that student problem behaviors are significantly related to class collective efficacy, and 

students with lower collective efficacy levels are bullied more frequently (Sapouna, 

2010). Social norms run through the entire human culture and are a collective consensus 

of human beings on acceptable behavior. Collective moral disengagement and collec-

tive efficacy, as a collective consensus of class environment and school belonging, may 

affect students’ bullying behavior. 

School culture has a particular influence on campus bullying. In addition, col-

lective moral disengagement and collective efficacy, as an individual’s perception of 

class atmosphere, also impact campus bullying behavior. According to ecosystem theo-

ry, school loose-tight culture will affect the class atmosphere, and the class atmosphere 

will further affect campus bullying. Therefore, the relationship between school loose-

tight culture, collective moral disengagement, collective efficacy, and the occurrence of 

campus bullying is worthy of attention. This study aims to test the relationship between 

these variables to provide a reference for the prevention and intervention of school bul-

lying. 

Methodology 

Survey Object 

Using the convenient sampling method, a total of 850 middle school students were se-

lected from three middle schools in Dehong Prefecture, Yunnan Province of China. Af-

ter excluding 42 invalid data, 808 valid data were finally obtained, with an effective rate 

of 95.1%. Among them, there are 353 boys (43.7%) and 455 girls (56.3%); there are 

276 (34.2%) students in the 7th grade, 238 (29.5%) in the 8th grade, and 294 (36.3%) in 

the 9th grade. 

Research Tools 

 School Loose-Tight Culture Scale 

This study used the school loose-tight culture scale compiled by Gelfand et al. (2011), 

with a total of 6 items. A Likert 6-point scoring is used, from 1 for “completely disagree” 

to 6 for “completely agree. The higher the score, the “tighter” the school loose-tight 

culture perceived by the students. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale in this study 

was 0.86. 

 School Bullying Moral Disengagement Scale 



Wang & Song. Influence of School Loose-Tight Culture on Bullying of Middle School Students. 

BECE, Vol.9, No. 2, 2021 1267 

This study used the Moral Disengagement Scale of Campus Bullying compiled by 

Thornberg et al. The Chinese version was revised by Wang, Yan & Qiu (2019). There 

are 30 items in the scale divided into eight dimensions: moral defense, distorted results, 

dehumanization, responsibility transfer, scattered responsibility, euphemistic labeling, 

favorable comparison, and blame attribution. Use a 5-point scale of 1-5. The higher is 

the score, and the higher is the level of campus bullying moral disengagement. The 

Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale in this study was 0.91. 

 Collective Efficacy Scale 

This study used the collective efficacy scale compiled by Goddard (2002), with 12 tems 

in total. It is divided into two factors: task analysis and group structure. Using a 5-point 

scale of 1-5, and the higher is the score; the higher is the students’ collective efficacy. 

The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale in this study was 0.87. 

 Bullying Scale for Middle School Students 

Using Yang’s (2014) bullying scale for middle school students, there are 14 items in 

total, divided into two subscales: bullying and being bullied. The scale uses a 5-point 

scale of 1-5. The Bullying Scale has seven items, and the higher the score, the higher 

the frequency of bullying; the Bullied Scale has seven items and the higher the score, 

the higher the degree of being bullied. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the bullying 

subscale and the being bullied subscale in this study were 0.89 and 0.85, respectively. 

Data Processing and Collection 

Use SPSS25.0 for reliability test, single factor common method deviation test, descrip-

tive statistics, and correlation analysis. In addition, Mplus7.4 established the structural 

equation model, and the mediation effect test of the percentile Bootstrap method with 

deviation correction was carried out. 

Results and Analysis 

Common Method Deviation Test 

Harman’s single factor test method was used to perform unrotated EFA on all the origi-

nal items of the main variables in this study. The test results found that the explanatory 

rate of the first common factor was 14.28%, which did not exceed the critical value of 

40%. Therefore, this result indicated that no serious common method deviation existed 

in this study. 

Descriptive Statistics 

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis were performed on school loose-

tight culture, collective moral disengagement, collective efficacy, and school bullying 

(Table 1). The results showed that school bullying was significantly negatively corre- 



Wang & Song. Influence of School Loose-Tight Culture on Bullying of Middle School Students. 

BECE, Vol.9, No. 2, 2021 1268 

Table 1. Correlation Analysis of School Bullying and School Loose-Tight Cul-
ture, Collective Moral Disengagement, and Collective Efficacy. 

Variable M±SD 

School 

Loose-Tight 

Culture 

Collective  

Moral  

Disengagement 

Collective 

Efficacy Bullying 

School 

Loose-Tight 

Culture 

4.52±0.93 1    

Collective 

Moral 

Disengagement 

2.09±0.65 -0.17** 1   

Collective 

Efficacy 
3.58±0.58 0.31** -0.28** 1  

Bullying 1.71±0.81 -0.21** 0.28** -0.33** 1 

Being Bullied 1.34±0.65 -0.15** 0.31** -0.28** 0.53** 

Note: **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Analysis of the mediating effect of collective moral disengagement 
and collective efficacy. 

 
Effect 

Size 

Boot 

SE Z p 

95% CI 

Upper Limit Lower Limit 

Overall Effect -0.25 0.04 -5.53 < 0.001 -0.34 -0.16 

Indirect Effect -0.22 0.03 -5.90 < 0.001 -0.30 -0.16 

School Loose-Tight Culture →  

Collective Moral Disengagement →  

School Bullying 

-0.07 0.02 -3.55 < 0.001 -0.11 -0.03 

School Loose-Tight Culture →  

Collective Efficacy →  

School Bullying 

-0.15 0.03 -4.84 < 0.001 -0.23 -0.10 

Direct Effect -0.03 0.02 -0.52 0.61 -0.13 0.08 

 

 

 

 

lated with school loose-tight culture, significantly positively correlated with collective 

moral disengagement, and significantly negatively correlated with collective efficacy. 

School loose-tight culture has a significant negative correlation with collective moral 

disengagement and a significant positive correlation with collective efficacy. Further-

more, bullying is positively associated with being bullied. This showed that school bul-

lying is obviously affected by school loose-tight culture perception, collective moral 

disengagement, and collective efficacy. 

 



Wang & Song. Influence of School Loose-Tight Culture on Bullying of Middle School Students. 

BECE, Vol.9, No. 2, 2021 1269 

 
Figure 1. The Mediation Model of School Loose-Tight Culture Affecting 

School Bullying. 

 

 

 

 

The Mediating Role of Collective Moral Disengagement 

and Collective Efficacy in the Relationship between 

School Loose-Tight Culture and School Bullying 

Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the multiple mediating effects of col-

lective moral disengagement and collective efficacy between school loose-tight culture 

and campus bullying (Figure 1). Each fitting index of the model reached a critical value 

(χ
2
/df = 3.64, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06). According to the Bootstrap 

method recommended by Wen and Ye (2014) to further test the significance of the me-

diation effect. The results show that the mediating effects of collective moral disen-

gagement and collective efficacy are both significant, and the parallel mediating effects 

of collective moral disengagement and collective efficacy in school loosening culture 

and campus bullying are significant. 

The total effect of school loose-tight culture on school bullying was -0.25. Af-

ter the model introduces collective moral disengagement and collective efficacy, the 

direct effect changed to -0.03; the indirect effect of collective moral disengagement and 

collective efficacy in the impact of school bullying on school loose-tight culture was -

0.22, and the effect amount (that is, the mediation effect accounts for the total effect 

percentage) was 88%. School loose-tight culture had an indirect effect on campus bully-

ing through collective moral disengagement, with a size of -0.07, accounting for 28% of 

the total effect. School loose-tight culture could also indirectly affect bullying behavior 



Wang & Song. Influence of School Loose-Tight Culture on Bullying of Middle School Students. 

BECE, Vol.9, No. 2, 2021 1270 

through collective efficacy, with a size of -0.15, accounting for 60% of the overall ef-

fect (Table 2). 

Discussion 

This study aimed to explore the impact of school loose-tight culture on campus bullying, 

and the mediating mechanism of collective moral disengagement and collective efficacy. 

Correlation analysis showed that school loose-tight culture is significantly negatively 

correlated with school bullying; further structural equations showed that school loose-

tight culture negatively predicts school bullying. The finding is consistent with previous 

research results (Wang et al., 2017) and further proved the negative predictive effect of 

school loose-tight culture on campus bullying. Collective moral disengagement is sig-

nificantly positively correlated with campus bullying; collective efficacy is significantly 

negatively correlated with campus bullying. This result validates our hypothesis and is 

also in line with the moral disengagement theory. When individuals have externalized 

behavior problems, they will first reduce psychological guilt and self-blame through the 

mechanism of moral disengagement (Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, 2015). According to so-

cial cognition theory, when individuals pursue goals, self-efficacy affects behavior 

changes through physical arousal and is cultivated by individuals in the social environ-

ment. In the same way, collective efficacy is a way of cognition cultivated by individu-

als in a group environment and affects their bullying behavior. 

Our results showed that collective moral disengagement plays a completely 

mediating role between school loose-tight culture and campus bullying. On the one 

hand, moral disengagement is a crucial internal mechanism for psychological abuse and 

neglect to affect adolescent bullying behavior. On the other hand, school culture is the 

norms, rules, atmosphere, and way of thinking jointly created by teachers, students, and 

school administrators in the long-term educational and teaching activities through the 

interaction between the school members. School culture provides students with ethical 

requirements, lists clear rules and regulations, and determines what behaviors students 

can do and what is out of school management treaties. These can effectively reduce the 

occurrence of collective moral disengagement. On the other hand, when the level of 

moral disengagement is higher, the collective will transfer more responsibility, thereby 

perceiving less attribution of blame and lowering the victim’s painful perception, which 

ultimately leads to campus bullying, consistent with previous studies (Sun et al., 2017). 

Therefore, we must not only pay attention to the cultivation of the school cultural envi-

ronment, but also prevent the negative effect of collective moral disengagement in the 

class environment. 

Collective efficacy plays a completely intermediary role between school loose-

tight culture and campus bullying. In collective cognition development, group identity, 

collective efficacy, and group emotions will change with social situations and group 

conditions. When students perceive the “tight” school culture atmosphere, the level of 

collective efficacy will increase, and group members are more willing to participate in 

joint actions. Students have improved their interpersonal relationships through coopera-

tion and communication, and the intervention on campus bullying will also increase, 



Wang & Song. Influence of School Loose-Tight Culture on Bullying of Middle School Students. 

BECE, Vol.9, No. 2, 2021 1271 

which has a certain inhibitory effect on bullying. Therefore, improving the level of col-

lective effectiveness can effectively reduce the probability of school bullying incidents. 

The research results showed that there is a significant negative correlation be-

tween collective moral disengagement and collective efficacy. Collective moral disen-

gagement and collective efficacy, as a collective consciousness, as the class environ-

ment and atmosphere, are closely linked to the school culture, forming an ecological 

environment system that connects the school and the class and profoundly impacts the 

bullying behavior of students. 

The study results confirmed that the school loose-tight culture reduces school 

bullying by reducing collective moral disengagement and enhancing collective efficacy. 

Thus, introducing the loose-tight cultural dimension in cross-cultural psychology has 

practical significance for advancing the localization of campus bullying. Therefore, in 

the future, we can pay attention to campus bullying and the level of students’ mental 

health from the overall ecosystem level of individual-collective, home-school connec-

tion, and so on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References
Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengage-

ment in the exercise of moral agency. Jour-

nal of Moral Education, 31(2):101-109. 

Available at: 

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/0305724

022014322  

Cai, C.F., & Zhou, Z.K. (2006). A study on the 

behavioral stability of children with external 

problems. Advances in Psychological Sci-

ence, 14(1):66-72. DOI: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-

3710.2006.01.011   

Gelfand, M.J., Li, R., & Gordon, S. (2017). 

Tightness-looseness and consumer behavior: 

The road ahead. Journal of Consumer Psy-

chology, 27(3):405-407. DOI: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.05.001   

Gelfand, M.J., Raver, J.L., Nishii, L., Leslie, 

L.M., Lun, J., Lim, B.C., Duan, L., 

Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., Aycan, 

Z., Boehnke, K., Boski, P., Cabecinhas, R., 

Chan, D., Chhokar, J., D'Amato, A., Ferrer, 

M., Fischlmayr, I.C., Fischer, R., Fülöp, M., 

Georgas, J., Kashima, E.S., Kashima, Y., 

Kim, K., Lempereur, A., Marquez, P., Oth-

man, R., Overlaet, B., Panagiotopoulou, P., 

Peltzer, K., Perez-Florizno, L.R., 

Ponomarenko, L., Realo, A., Schei, V., 

Schmitt, M., Smith, P.B., Soomro, N., Szabo, 

E., Taveesin, N., Toyama, M., Van de Vliert, 

E., Vohra, N., Ward, C., & Yamaguchi, S. 

(2011). Differences between tight and loose 

cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 

332(6033):1100-1104. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754   

Goddard, R.A. (2002). Theoretical and empirical 

analysis of the measurement of collective ef-

ficacy: The development of a short form. 

Educational and Psychological Measure-

ment, 62(1): 97-110. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00131644020620

01007   

Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E. (2015). Moral dis-

engagement and aggression: Comments on 

the special issue. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 

61(1):192-211. DOI: 

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/0305724022014322
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/0305724022014322
http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2006.01.011
http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2006.01.011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.05.001
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013164402062001007
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013164402062001007


Wang & Song. Influence of School Loose-Tight Culture on Bullying of Middle School Students. 

BECE, Vol.9, No. 2, 2021 1272 

https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.

61.1.0192  

Hu, C.G. (2017). Campus bullying: meaning, 

causes and prevention strategies. Education-

al Research and Experiment, 2017(1):73-79.  

Lu, J., Chen, H., & Le, G.A. (2017). Loose-tight 

culture: A new dimension of cross-cultural 

psychology research. Advances in Psycho-

logical Science, 25(5):887-902. Available at: 

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/10.372

4/SP.J.1042.2017.00887  

Sapouna, M. (2010). Collective efficacy in the 

school context: Does it help explain victimi-

zation and bullying among Greek primary 

and secondary school students? Journal of 

Interpers Violence, 25(10):1912-1927 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626050935450

9  

Sun, L.J., Heng, S.P., Niu, G.F., Li, J.Y., Du, 

H.Q., & Hu, X.G. (2017). The influence of 

childhood psychological abuse on adolescent 

aggressive behavior: The mediating effect of 

security and loneliness. Chinese Journal of 

Clinical Psychology, 25(5). 

Valois, R.F., Zullig, K.J., & Revels, A.A. (2017). 

Aggressive and violent behavior and emo-

tional self-efficacy: Is there a relationship 

for adolescents? Journal of School Health, 

87(4):269-277. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12493  

Wang, J.Y., Yan, X.C. & Yan, H.X. (2017). 

Campus ethics analysis and construction of 

campus bullying phenomenon. Journal of 

Chinese Education, 2017(3):54-60. Availa-

ble at: 

http://www.jcse.com.cn/CN/Y2017/V0/I3/54  

Wang, L., Xing, S.Y., X.Y.Y., & Chen, J. (2018). 

The influence of class environment on vio-

lent behavior of middle school students: the 

mediating effect of moral refusal. Educa-

tional Research and Experiment, 

2018(5):88-91. 

Wang, X.F., Yan, L.S., & Qiu, X.Y. (2019). 

Reliability and validity test of the school 

bullying moral rejection scale in domestic 

middle school students. Chinese Journal of 

Clinical Psychology, 27(1):54-58. 

Wen, Z.L., & Ye, B.J. (2014). Mediating effect 

analysis: Method and model development. 

Advances in Psychological Science, 

22(5):731-745. 

Yang, J.P., & Wang, X.C. (2012). The influence 

of moral refusal on adolescents’ aggressive 

behavior: A moderated mediating effect. 

Psychological Bulletin, 44(8):1075-1085. 

Available at: 

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2012/V

44/I8/1075  

Yang, W.M. (2014). Research on the Influencing 

Factors of Middle School Students’ Bullying 

Behavior: Based on Multi-layer Analysis of 

HLM Model. Zhejiang: Master’s Thesis of 

Zhejiang Normal University. 

Zeng, X.R., Wang, Y., Ding, J.H., & Zhou, H. 

(2019). Classroom bullying norms and bul-

lying behavior: The mediating effect of 

group fear and peer pressure. Psychology 

News, 51(8):935-944. DOI: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00

935  

 

 

 

Received: 29 September 2021 

Revised: 07 October 2021 

Accepted: 25 October 2021 

 

 

The Chinese version of this article has been published in Educational Research and Experiment, 

2021,1:93-96. The English version has been authorized for being publication in BECE by the au-

thor(s) and the Chinese journal. 

王磊, 宋一锐. (2021). 学校松-紧文化对中学生欺凌的影响: 集体道德推脱与集体效能感的中
介作用. 教育研究与实验, 1:93-96. 

 

https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.1.0192
https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.1.0192
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.00887
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.00887
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354509
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354509
https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12493
http://www.jcse.com.cn/CN/Y2017/V0/I3/54
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2012/V44/I8/1075
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2012/V44/I8/1075
http://dx.doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00935
http://dx.doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00935

	Article-LeiWang-BECE_title_Dec2021
	Article-LeiWang--BECE_MaintextDec2021

