The Effect of Interaction Partners' Zhongyong and Social Mindfulness on Cooperation

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1649

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on interdependence theory, the present study aimed to investigate the effects of interaction partners' Zhongyong and social mindfulness on individuals' cooperation. Zhongyong, which emphasizes balance (中) and harmony (和), may foster cooperative behaviors when recognized. The characteristics of Zhongyong align with the skills and will required for the occurrence of social mindfulness behavior. This alignment can provide a plausible explanation for the emergence of social mindfulness, potentially enhancing individuals' trust in the benevolence of their interaction partners and strengthening the positive role of social mindfulness in promoting cooperation.

Three studies were conducted to test the hypotheses. Study 1 (N = 114) utilized a two-factor (interaction partners' Zhongyong and social mindfulness), two-level (high versus low), between-subjects design. Participants engaged in a public goods game after perceiving their virtual partners' Zhongyong and social mindfulness. Zhongyong was manipulated by presenting a virtual partner who endorsed either 80% or 20% Zhongyong statements on the Zhongyong Belief-Value Scale. Social mindfulness was manipulated by having the virtual partner choose either 80% of non-unique options or 20% in the social mindfulness paradigm. Participants' cooperative behavior was assessed through the amount of money they contributed, while their trust in their partners was inferred from their predictions regarding their partners' contributions. Study 2 (N = 199) and Study 3 (N = 135) replicated Study 1's procedure. In Study 2, a dictator game was implemented, with the dependent variable measured by the amount of money participants chose to allocate to their partners. Each participant was provided with 10 yuan to distribute. In Study 3, the cold-pressor test was used, and the dependent variable was indicated by the duration participants kept their hands submerged in cold water.

The current study revealed a positive correlation between partners' Zhongyong and social mindfulness on participants' cooperative behavior. Despite the experimental setting posing challenges to individuals' predisposition for cooperation, the presence of Zhongyong and social mindfulness consistently positively impacted cooperation. Study 1 revealed that both Zhongyong and social mindfulness had a statistically significant effect on cooperation, with participants more likely to cooperate with high Zhongyong or social mindfulness. Moreover, partners' Zhongyong enhanced the positive impact of social mindfulness on cooperative behavior. Similar findings were observed regarding partners' Zhongyong and social mindfulness on participants' trust. While Studies 2 and 3 largely replicated these findings, Study 2 did not show a statistically significant main effect of social mindfulness on cooperation.

The application of Zhongyong enhances individuals' trust and reciprocal motivations, prompting them to think and act in a Zhongyong manner through experimental tasks designed to stimulate recognition of partners characterized by Zhongyong, thus fostering a cooperative tendency. This differs from cooperating driven solely by personal adherence to Zhongyong. Moreover, Zhongyong offers a rational explanation for the occurrence of social mindfulness behaviors, reliably predicting cooperative behavior and amplifying the positive influence of prosocial tendencies on cooperation. In conclusion, this study suggests that people are more inclined to cooperate with partners exhibiting high levels of Zhongyong and social mindfulness, even in situations characterized by low mutual dependence, high conflict of interests, and high relative power—conditions typically discourage cooperation according to interdependence theory. The role of Zhongyong in fostering cooperation under such circumstances is particularly noteworthy.

Key words: Zhongyong, social mindfulness, cooperation, interdependence theory

YANG Can, LI Zixuan, BI Chongzeng. (2025). The Effect of Interaction Partners' Zhongyong and Social Mindfulness on Cooperation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(9), 1649-1660.

Figures/Tables 4

Figure 1. The Effect of The Partners’ Zhongyong and Social Mindfulness on Trust (Predicted Cooperation Amount) in Experiment 1.
Note. Error bars represent standard error.

Figure 2. The Effect of The Partners’ Zhongyong and Social mindfulness on Cooperation in Experiment 1.
Note. Error bars represent standard error.

Figure 3. The Effect of Partners’ Zhongyong and Social Mindfulness on Cooperation in Experiment 2
Note. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 4. The Impact of Partners’ Zhongyong and Social Mindfulness on Cooperation in Experiment 3
Note. Error bars represent standard errors.

References 54

[1]	Balliet, D., & Lindström, B. (2023). Inferences about interdependence shape cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(6), 583-595. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2023.03.003 pmid: 37055313
[2]	Balliet, D., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1090-1112. doi: 10.1037/a0030939 pmid: 23231532
[3]	Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2006). Culture and the evolution of the human social instincts. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Berg (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 453- 477). Routledge.
[4]	Chen, X., Zhao, G. X., & Ye, H. S. (2014). The forms and functions of punishment in public-goods dilemmas. Advances in Psychological Science, 22, 160-170. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00160
[5]	Chiu, C. Y. (2010). The morality, practicality, cultural specificity, and social adaptability of the practical thinking of the golden mean. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, (34), 137-144.
[6]	Ding, Q., Zhang, Y. X., Wei, H., & Hu, W. (2019). Effect of social support and loneliness zhongyong thinking style and internet addiction of college students: Serial mediating. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 17(4), 553-560.
[7]	Dou, K., Liu, Y.Z., Wang, Y.J., & Nie, Y.G. (2018). Willingness to cooperate: Emotion enhancement mechanism of perceived social mindfulness on cooperative behaviour. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(1), 101-114.
[8]	Dou, K., Nie, Y. G., Wang, Y. J., & Liu, Y. Z. (2018). Trust or defence? The enhancing effect of perceived social mindfulness on cooperative behavior during interactive game. Journal of Psychological Science, 41(2), 390-396.
[9]	Dou, K., Wang, Y. J, Li, J. B., Li, J. J., & Nie, Y. G. (2018). Perceiving high social mindfulness during interpersonal interaction promotes cooperative behaviours. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 97-106.
[10]	Du, J., & Yao, J. H. (2015). Zhongyong: The connotation and its relationship with collectivism. Chinese Journal of Management, 12(5), 638-646.
[11]	Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
[12]	Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review, 91(2), 73-78.
[13]	Huang, C. L., Lin, Y. C., & Yang, C. F. (2012). Revision of the Yang & Zhao’s Zhongyong belief-Value Scale. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 38, 3-14.
[14]	Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. New York, NY: Cambridge
[15]	Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley.
[16]	Kittler, J. E., Menard, W., & Phillips, K. A. (2007). Weight concerns in individuals with body dysmorphic disorder. Eating Behaviors, 8(1), 115-120. pmid: 17174859
[17]	Li, Z. X., Wang, X. G., & Bi, C. Z. (2019). What kind of person prefers Zhongyong Thinking? —A preliminary description in the fundamental dimensions of social cognition. Psychology: Techniques and Applications, 7(1), 17-22
[18]	Lu, J., Huang, X., Liao, C., Guan, Q., Qi, X. R., & Cui, F. (2020). Social mindfulness shown by individuals with higher status is more pronounced in our brain: Erp evidence. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 1-10.
[19]	Lv, M. Z., Pan, J. Q., Zheng, Q., Xue, H., & Deng, Z. (2015). The impact of compromising thinking on forgiveness and self-forgiveness in college students. China Journal of Health Psychology, 23(1), 71-74.
[20]	Moore, A. K., Lewis, J., Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2023). Benevolent friends and high integrity leaders: How preferences for benevolence and integrity change across relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 177, 104-252.
[21]	Pletzer, J. L., Balliet, D., Joireman, J., Kuhlman, D. M., Voelpel, S. C., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2018). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(1), 62-83.
[22]	Rand, D. G. (2016). Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological Science, 27(9), 1192-1206. doi: 10.1177/0956797616654455 pmid: 27422875
[23]	Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413-425. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.003 pmid: 23856025
[24]	Rao, L. L., Han, R., Ren, X. P., Bai, X. W., Zheng, R., & Liu, H. (2011). Disadvantage and prosocial behavior: The effects of the Wenchuan earthquake. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(1), 63-69.
[25]	Rodriguez, L. M., Neighbors, C., & Knee, C. R. (2014). Problematic alcohol use and marital distress: An interdependence theory perspective. Addiction Research and Theory, 22(4), 294-312.
[26]	Rusbult, C. E., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 351-375.
[27]	Simpson, J. A. (2007). Psychological foundations of trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 264-268.
[28]	Tian, Y., Wang, L., Xu, Y., & Jiao, L. Y. (2021). Psychological structure of social mindfulness in Chinese culture. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(9), 1003-1017. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01003
[29]	van Dijk, E., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2021). Experimental games and social decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 415-438. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-081420-110718 pmid: 33006926
[30]	van Doesum, N. J., van Lange, D. A. W., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 86-103. doi: 10.1037/a0032540 pmid: 23647176
[31]	van Doesum, N. J., van Lange, P. A. M., Mischkowski, D., & van Dijk, E. (2025). Social mindfulness and the SoMi Paradigm: A decade of research on low-cost prosociality. European Review of Social Psychology, 1-51.
[32]	van Lange, P. A. M., & Rand, D. G. (2022). Human cooperation and the crises of climate change, COVID-19, and misinformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 370-402.
[33]	van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (2012). Interdependence theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 251-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[34]	Wang, H., & Zhang, L. C. (2018, January). Need for Zhongyong balance and its influence on dormitory interpersonal relationship. Paper presented at the 5^th Zhongyong Psychology Conference, Xiamen, China.
[35]	Wang, P., & Chen, L. (2011). The effects of sanction and social value orientation on trust and cooperation in public goods dilemmas. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(1), 52-64.
[36]	Wang, X. H., Zhang, L. B., & Peng, M. (2021). How peer characteristics affect people's cooperation and conflict behavior? Journal of Psychological Science, 44(1), 148-154.
[37]	Wang, Y. M., Zhang, J. M., Wang, F. Y., Xu, W. T., & Liu, W. T. (2023). Do not think any virtue trivial, and thus neglect it: Serial mediating role of social mindfulness and perspective taking. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(4), 626-641. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00626
[38]	Wu, C. H. (2006). Zhongyong make my life better: The effect of Zhongyong thinking on life satisfaction. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 7, 163-176.
[39]	Wu, C. H., & Lin, Y. C. (2005). Development of a Zhong-yong thinking style scale. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247-299.
[40]	Xiong, C. Q., Xu, J. Y., Ma, D. Y., & Liu, Y. F. (2021). The effect of opponent’s emotional facial expressions on individuals’ cooperation and underlying mechanism in prisoner’s dilemma game. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(8), 919-933.
[41]	Yamagishi, T. (2011). Trust: The evolutionary game of mind and society. New York, NY: Springer.
[42]	Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., & Schug, J. (2008). Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19(6), 579-584. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02126.x pmid: 18578848
[43]	Yang, C. F. (2009). A case of attempt to combine the Chinese traditional culture with the social science: the social psychological research of “Zhongyong”. Journal of Renmin University of China, (3), 53-60.
[44]	Yang, C. F. (2022). Zhongyong psychology:Past, present and future. In C. F. Yang & J. H. Chang (Eds.), Chinese indigenous psychology, 30 years after (Vol. I, Chapter 5). Taipei: Wu-Nan Publishing Co.
[45]	Yang, C. F. (2023). Zhong-yong action self as a contributing factor to COVID-19 crisis management. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(3), 355-373. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00355
[46]	Yang, C. F., & Chiu, C. Y. (1997, May). A preliminary study of Zhongyong. Paper presented at the Fourth Symposium on “The Psychology and Behavior of the Chinese”, Taipei, China.
[47]	Yang, C. F., & Lin, S. D. (2014). What does Huang, Lin & Yang’s Zhongyong Belief/Value Scale really measure? Chinese Social Psychological Review, 7, 159-77.
[48]	Yao, X., Yang, Q., Dong, N., & Wang, L. (2010). Moderating effect of Zhong Yong on the relationship between creativity and innovation behaviour. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 53-57.
[49]	Ye, X. L., & Zhang, L. C. (2014). The effects of Zhongyong thinking mode on decision-making in different situations. Chinese Social Psychological Review, 8, 77-87.
[50]	Yuan, B., Liu, Y. C., & Ku, T. T. (2024). The impact of perceived social mindfulness on adolescents’ prosocial behavior. Journal of Psychological Science, 47(5), 1153-1162.
[51]	Zhang, T. S., Jin, Y. J., Chen, H. W., Chen, J. M., Yang, C. F., Chiu, C. Y., & Yi, S. B. (2001). On Zhongyong rationality: Beyond instrumental, value, and communicative rationality. Sociological Studies, (2), 33-48.
[52]	Zhao, X., Li, D. D., & Yang, X. D. (2022). The relationship between preschoolers’ understanding of considerate socially-mindful actions and theory of mind. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(8), 892-904.
[53]	Zhou, Z., Zhang, H., Li, M., Sun, C., & Luo, H. (2021). The effects of Zhongyong thinking priming on creative problem‐solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(1), 145-153.
[54]	Zou, X., Tam, K.-P., Morris, M. W., Lee, S., Lau, I. Y.-M., & Chiu, C. Y. (2009). Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 579-597. doi: 10.1037/a0016399 pmid: 19785480