Abstract: Drawing on the Zhongyong practical thinking framework and the dual-factor model of mental health, this study employed a three-level meta-analytic approach to examine the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and mental health, as well as its moderators. Through comprehensive searches of major Chinese and international databases up to April 30, 2025, the final dataset included 56 studies (60 samples, 139 effect sizes, N = 35,410) addressing positive mental health, and 43 studies (45 samples, 136 effect sizes, N = 35,596) concerning negative mental health. Across studies, Zhongyong thinking demonstrated a moderate and stable positive association with positive mental health (r = 0.24), and a moderate negative association with negative mental health (r = -0.21). These findings confirm that Zhongyong thinking functions as a reliable cultural–cognitive resource linked to both enhanced well-being and reduced psychological distress.
A closer inspection of mental health indicator types provides a more nuanced understanding of the psychological domains most strongly shaped by Zhongyong thinking. Within positive mental health, the associations with psychological resilience, job satisfaction, and work-related well-being were significantly stronger than those with general life satisfaction, suggesting that Zhongyong thinking may be particularly consequential in contexts requiring dynamic adjustment, conflict integration, and role coordination. In contrast, Zhongyong thinking shows weaker associations with simple or hedonic indicators such as life satisfaction, and its associations with happiness, peace of mind, and positive affect are likewise indistinguishable from this benchmark, suggesting that these outcomes do not activate the context-sensitive balancing processes characteristic of Zhongyong thinking. For negative mental health, no significant differences were observed across indicators (e.g., depression, anxiety), indicating consistent protective effects against psychological distress.
One of the most consequential findings concerns measurement heterogeneity. The strength of correlations varied systematically across Zhongyong thinking scales. Measures grounded in beliefs and values or expressive tendencies—such as the Zhongyong Belief–Value Scale and the Zhongyong Opinion Expression Scale—yielded effect sizes that were significantly stronger and more consistent. In contrast, the Zhongyong Practical Self-Evaluation Scale—especially its deliberation and after-event reflection dimensions—showed weaker correlations, likely because the scale does not capture the dynamic, context-dependent “action-self,” and because these subdimensions may reflect early, less mature forms of Zhongyong practice that temporarily resemble rumination or suppression. Future revisions of Zhongyong measures should take care to exclude these factors.
Moderator analyses further revealed that key demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, education) and regional differences (Mainland China vs. Taiwan) did not significantly moderate the relationships, underscoring the universal applicability of Zhongyong within Chinese cultural contexts. Publication year significantly moderated the Zhongyong–negative mental health relationship, with stronger correlations in recent studies.
Publication bias tests showed mild funnel plot asymmetry—more pronounced for negative mental health—but neither publication status nor sensitivity analyses suggested meaningful inflation of effect sizes. The inclusion of numerous unpublished theses contributed to reducing classical file-drawer bias. Thus, the observed effects appear substantively robust.
The findings of this meta-analysis advance current knowledge by clarifying why Zhongyong thinking exhibits consistent yet only moderate associations with mental health. As discussed in prior theory and reinforced by the present evidence, Zhongyong thinking is not a unidirectional cognitive trait that should yield uniformly strong correlations with any single psychological outcome. Instead, it is an inherently dialectical, bidirectional, and context-adaptive form of reasoning, marked by the capacity to balance and coordinate different perspectives in a manner consistent with the principle of “Holding Balance Brings Harmony.” (“执中致和”). Such a cognitive style is not expected to maximize either hedonic affect or simple satisfaction; rather, it moderates tensions, coordinates competing demands, and promotes harmony under conditions of contradiction or conflict. Therefore, a moderate-level correlation is not a limitation but a reflection of the construct’s inherent conceptual structure.
In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides the most comprehensive synthesis to date on the relationship between Zhongyong thinking and mental health. By applying a rigorous three-level framework, comparing major measurement approaches, and integrating findings with the Zhongyong practical thinking model, the study clarifies the robustness, scope, and conditions under which Zhongyong thinking contributes to psychological wellbeing. These results highlight how a culturally grounded, balance-oriented mode of reasoning supports adaptive functioning in complex contexts. Together, the findings establish clearer empirical benchmarks and offer a systematic foundation for future research on the psychological mechanisms and applied value of Zhongyong thinking.

Key words: Zhongyong thinking, mental health, three-level meta-analysis