The Effect of Perceived Discrimination on Social Alienation of Probationers: Evidence from China

Abstract

Applying an integrated mode of labeling theory, this study conducted an empirical analysis of 427 probationers from 48 judicial offices in China. The results found that, after controlling for age, gender, educational background, marital status, and social support, perceived discrimination is positively correlated with social alienation; shame plays a partial positive mediating role in the relationship between perceived discrimination and social alienation. Additionally, Zhongyong thinking can moderate the direct effect of perceived discrimination on social alienation and the mediating effect of shame in a negative way. The results further empirically validated an integrated model of labeling theory.

Keywords

probationer perceived discrimination social alienation shame Zhongyong thinking

Introduction

According to Article 72 of the Criminal Law of China, it is possible to grant probation to offenders who are sentenced to criminal detention or fixed-term imprisonment of less than 3 years. Due to the minor circumstances of these crimes, probation may be imposed, suspending the execution of the imposed punishment. This is appropriate when there is a demonstration of repentance and a determination that there will be no risk of recidivism and that the provisional suspension of punishment will have no significant adverse impact on the offender's community. Those sentenced to probation must complete community corrections under the supervision of community corrections institutes. Since 2003, community corrections have been piloted in a few provinces and cities in China, with the program being fully deployed across the country in 2009.

The Criminal Law Amendment (VIII) of 2011 established a clear legal foundation for community corrections, and the 2019 Community Corrections Law laid out the fundamentals of China's community corrections system, encouraging improvement in the criminal justice system (Jiang et al., 2014). According to Article 2 of the Community Corrections Law, community corrections are carried out for those sentenced to public surveillance, probation, parole, or temporary service of sentences outside prisons. In practice, probationers generally constitute the greatest share of community corrections’ caseload. Using Xi’ning City, Qinghai Province, China as an example, as of September 30, 2018, there were 430 registered community corrections personnel in Chengdong District of Xi’ning City, serving 385 probationers, and accounting for 89.5 percent (Ji, 2019). In another example, Zhang et al. (2019) found that the proportion of probationers is the highest, ranging from 63% to 93%, in a survey of community corrections personnel in nine counties or cities in China. As probationers comprise the majority of community corrections cases in China, the investigation of the impact of community corrections on probationers is important for enhancing the public's understanding of the community corrections system as a whole (Jiang et al., 2018; Li, 2017).

Regarding the legal obligations that probationers must fulfill during community corrections, China's Criminal Law has a number of provisions, including the requirement of adherence to all applicable laws and administrative regulations, and the need to submit to monitoring and reporting on all activities according to the supervisory authority's requirements, etc. Simultaneously, those who commit new crimes or violate laws or administrative regulations during the probation period shall have their probation revoked and their original sentence reinstated, if the circumstances are serious. Thus, to enhance the quality of community corrections and to facilitate the probationers’ reintegration into society, the Community Corrections Law highlights the importance of combining supervision and management with education and support. For instance, in order to achieve classified management and individualized correction (Jiang et al., 2016), community correctional institutions should develop targeted correction plans based on judgment, gender, age, psychological traits, health status, causes, types, and circumstances crime, and repentance. In this context, it is critical to investigate probationers’ mental health status (like social alienation) and related mechanisms to facilitate their smooth integration back into society, as well as to eliminate factors that may lead to re-offending. This is to assist them in becoming law-abiding citizens and to improve the quality of China community corrections (Jiang et al., 2022).

Studies have found that, compared to the general population, probationers often suffer from social exclusion and deprivation, and their mental health problems are more widespread and complex (Binswanger et al., 2015). In fact, when they are socially isolated for a long period and their coping resources and strategies are exhausted, probationers tend to avoid social interaction and consciously experience socially alienation. Social alienation refers to feelings of negative emotion such as helplessness or loneliness resulting from the failure to positively interact with the outside world, the result of repeated rejection or exclusion in social interactions (Brown et al., 2003). Many studies have shown that social alienation not only has a negative impact on an individual's physical and mental health, but also leads to violence, vandalism, absenteeism, drug and alcohol abuse, deviant behaviors, or crimes (Ifeagwazi et al., 2015; Smith & Bohm, 2008). Importantly, more and more research has addressed the mechanisms underlying social alienation. Here, mainstream criminological labeling theory argues that when a person receives a criminal or illegal label, the influence of that label leads to the risk of social exclusion, resulting in structural obstacles in that person's life, and leading those that are criminally labeled to avoid social interactions. The resultant social alienation may further lead to subsequent criminal behaviors (Motz et al., 2020). In this context, some researchers have attempted to develop a comprehensive labeling theory framework model that integrates the elements of other theories to explore how they jointly or independently influence social alienation or subsequent crimes. For example, there are studies that integrate the criminal embeddedness variable (i.e., deviant social groups) to explore its mediating role (Bernburg et al., 2006), and address the moderated role of reintegrative shaming theoretical variable (i.e., family attachment) (Jackson & Hay, 2013).

In this regard, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive framework for labeling theory, integrating key elements from other theoretical perspectives to identify mediated and moderated variables between perceived discrimination and social alienation. This integrated model combines labeling theory with shaming theory – the variable of shame – and cognitive-affective processing system theory—a Zhongyong thinking variable—to test our research hypothesis. By applying this integrated model of labeling theory, we proceed to assess the independent contribution of each theoretical perspective to probationers’ social alienation while controlling for variables from other perspectives. Specifically, this investigation utilizes Chinese probationers’ survey samples to explore whether their perceived discrimination was the result of labeling's impact on social alienation, and to further understand whether shame mediated the relationship between this perceived discrimination and social alienation – and is this mediation path moderated by Zhongyong thinking?. In other words, the goal was to explore how the perceived discrimination of probationers, independently and jointly, affects their social alienation in order to test the cross-cultural applicability of the integrated model of labeling theory against the context of community corrections in China. Additionally, the intent is to enrich and develop the application of labeling theory in a non-Western context so as to fill the existing gap in research.

Literature Review

The Influence of Perceived Discrimination by Probationers on Their Social Alienation

Perceived discrimination refers to an individual's awareness that one's group has been negatively evaluated or unfairly treated by the outside world (Pascoe & Richman, 2009). A series of studies have shown that perceived discrimination will result in a series of negative effects, causing great harm to an individual's mental health (such as social alienation) (Walsh et al., 2019). Labeling theory argues that an individual's perceived discrimination is causally related to an individual's criminal record that affects his or her social network. When individuals are labeled as criminals, the label becomes paramount in social releationships, with other people tending to define them as criminal deviants. The resulting negative impression portrays them as irresponsible and lacking in self-control, leading to others’ avoiding social interaction and contact with them (Motz et al., 2020). These ensuing embarrassing, tense, and uneasy social interactions between “normal” members of society and labeled individuals are experienced as stigma. Further, these social interactions have been regarded as a kind of discrimination that leads the labeled individuals to withdraw from interactions with former peers or other members of society. This leaves the labeled with a sense of social alienation in the form of helplessness and loneliness. Consequently, they then proceed to seek the company of criminal groups who occupy a similarly vulnerable social status, contributing to subsequent illegal and criminal activities (Abrah, 2019; Bernburg et al., 2006). Therefore, this article puts forward Hypothesis 1: Probationers’ perceived discrimination positively predicts their social alienation.

The Mediating Role of Shame in the Relationship Between Probationers’ Perceived Discrimination and Social Alienation

While previous studies have shown that there is a significant relationship between an individual's perceived discrimination and social alienation, the underlying mechanisms (i.e., mediating and moderating effects) warrant further study. In one empirical study, researchers provided evidence of the role of shame variables as mediating between perceived discrimination and social alienation. Shame is a self-conscious feeling that stems from one's perception of failure, fault, flaw, and self-reflection (Tangney et al., 2014); and it is a negative emotion associated with negative self-evaluation. Individuals who experience shame frequently link unfavorable outcomes to their inherent qualities and blame themselves, creating pain, embarrassment, and humiliation (Tracy & Robins, 2004).

A number of studies have discovered that shame plays a critical role in mediating the relationship between stressors (such as traumatic experiences of bullying victimization; perceived discrimination as a result of information disclosure) and adaptation outcomes (such as social alienation; mental illness) (Bhuptani et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2021). However, as to whether the mediating impact of shame is associated with positive or negative emotional valence, there are two distinct theories: disintegrative shaming theory and reintegrative shaming theory. The former offers that offenders (such as probationers) will feel isolated from society as a result of the process of social labeling. This sense of exclusion and discrimination has a significant positive predictive effect on individual shame, and as individual shame rises, it may lead to more serious social adaptation problems or deviant behaviors (Bleakley & Bleakley, 2019; Braithwaite, 1989). The latter contends that society can promote prosocial behavior and reduce social alienation and recidivism by maintaining respect and love while imposing shame on criminals (such as probationers) – reintegrating offenders into the community of law-abiding citizens through forgiving words and deeds or rituals that remove the offender identity (Forsyth & Braithwaite, 2020).

To reconcile the contradictions between the two theories, de Hooge et al. (2011) proposed motivation theory, which states that the specific situation and behavior causing shame is key to the emergence of prosocial behavior or avoidance behavior (such as social alienation) after an individual encounters shame (i.e., whether society has made efforts to reconcile the relationship between offender and community). So, would the sense of social alienation rise or lessen for Chinese probationers (or offenders) when they feel humiliated as a result of discrimination? In this regard, some scholars have noted that in China, due to social exclusion and discrimination against probationers that jeopardize their motivations for survival, they will feel a strong desire to absolve themselves of shame and avoid communication with society, resulting in a greater sense of social alienation (Huo, 2016). This finding is also supported by empirical evidence. According to some experts, a survey of 2,690 offenders in China revealed that criminals’ sense of shame will increase during the socialization process, and they are more likely to harbor avoidance and hostility toward people and society, leading to their sense of social alienation (Li et al., 2011). From this, this research advances Hypothesis 2: Shame plays a positive mediating role between probationers’ perceived discrimination and social alienation.

The Moderating Role of Zhongyong Thinking in the Relationship Between Probationers’ Perceived Discrimination, Shame, and Social Alienation

While shame may mediate the effect of perceived discrimination on social alienation, the mediating effect may work (or at least partially) through other factors. In other words, not all probationers who experience discrimination will have feelings of shame that will exacerbate their social estrangement. As a result, it is important to investigate whether additional factors influence the link between perceived discrimination, shame, and social alienation among probationers.

Previous studies have shown that Zhongyong thinking – dialectical thinking embodying the overall concept and unity of opposites – plays a key role in one's ability to make adjustments in physical and mental health (Ji et al., 2010). Zhongyong thinking, also referred to as the Doctrine of the Mean, is a Confucian doctrine emphasizing moderation, rectitude, objectivity, sincerity, honesty, and propriety, with the guiding principle of never acting in excess, thus promoting interpersonal harmony and connection. Cognitive-affective processing system theory (Mischel & Shoda, 1995) states that two parallel but interactive processing systems exist in individuals, in which the “cold system” is a subtle cognitive network composed of numerous information nodes that are able to process external stimuli to promote rational behavioral responses. In contrast, the “hot system” is an automatic emotional response system that triggers individuals to make evasive or agreed behavioral responses when their emotions are activated by external stimuli (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999).

As a way of thinking, Zhongyong thinking constitutes a unique cognitive processing strategy for Chinese people. As a significant negative stimulus, an individual's perceived discrimination can activate the hot processing system, which brings negative emotional experience to probationers. Zhongyong thinking, however, as an efficient mode of cognitive thinking, can give full play to the cold processing system, so as to moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination, shame, and social alienation for probationers.

First, those whose thought is firmly established in Zhongyong thinking excel in pluralistic thinking. Thus, they are more likely to explore the roots of discrimination and its negative effects from various aspects when suffering from perceived discrimination. That is, rather than allowing such negative emotions to dominate their own actions, individuals with a strong level of Zhongyong thinking will view people and things around them from a dynamic and more positive perspective when encountering perceived discrimination, taking a forgiving attitude after cognitive reappraisal of behavioral consequences and maintaining a harmonious relationship with the community (Ho & Fung, 2011). This thereby reduces the possibility of social alienation. Second, even high Zhongyong thinkers may suffer from an increase in shame due to perceived discrimination. Yet, their pluralistic thinking can help them to quickly and effectively shift from an emotion-based hot processing system to a cognition-based cold processing system (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). This process moderates and controls their own negative emotional state, blocking the negative self-evaluation mechanism, reducing their sense of shame, and maintaining interpersonal harmony and physical and mental health (Wang et al., 2020). Therefore, individuals with high levels of Zhongyong thinking are less likely to feel shame when they perceive discrimination. Third, despite the sense of shame caused by discrimination, in order to maintain the relationship between individual, society, and others, high Zhongyong thinkers can actively constrain and resolve their negative emotional behavior, constantly improve their thoughts through self-reflection, and rationally evaluate real-world situations to act appropriately. In this manner, they maintain physical and mental health, and integrate into society smoothly, avoiding the emergence of social alienation (Chou et al., 2014; Ji et al., 2010). Accordingly, Hypothesis 3, Hypothesis 4, and Hypothesis 5 are proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Zhongyong thinking can negatively moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and social alienation. The higher the level of Zhongyong thinking, the weaker the positive relationship between perceived discrimination and social alienation.

Hypothesis 4: Zhongyong thinking can negatively moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and shame. The higher the level of Zhongyong thinking, the weaker the positive relationship between perceived discrimination and shame.

Hypothesis 5: Zhongyong thinking can negatively moderate the relationship between shame and social alienation. The higher the level of Zhongyong thinking, the weaker the positive relationship between shame and social alienation.

The Integrated Model

According to the above analysis, the relationship revealed by Hypotheses 1–5 can be further expressed as a moderated meadiating effect model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). To be specific, the higher one's level of Zhongyong thinking, the weaker shame's positive mediating effect on the relationship between perceived discrimination and social alienation. On the other hand, the lower one's level of Zhongyong thinking, the stronger shame's positive mediating effect on the relationship between perceived discrimination and social alienation. Based on this, Hypothesis 6, with the conceptual model shown in Figure 1, is proposed: Zhongyong thinking can negatively moderate the mediating role of shame on perceived discrimination and social alienation in the form of a moderated mediation model. That is, the mediating effect of the shame between the perceived discrimination and social alienation will decrease with an increase in Zhongyong thinking, and vice versa.

Figure 1.

A moderated mediation model of perceived discrimination, shame, Zhongyong thinking, and social alienation.

Methods

Participants

The data for the current study were collected between 2019 and 2020 using a three-stage stratified sampling technique (based on the stratified standard of “province/municipality directly under the central government – city/district – township/town/street judicial office”). To begin, four Chinese provinces/municipalities, including Jiangsu Province (Eastern), Guangdong Province (Southern), Yunnan Province (Western), and Beijing City (Northern), were chosen as representatives. Then, three municipal/district judicial bureaus from each province/municipality were chosen for examination, for a total of 12 municipal/district judicial bureaus. Finally, probationers from four township/town/street judicial offices (including two urban judicial offices and two suburban/rural judicial offices) in each municipal/district judicial bureau were chosen as participants, and probationers from a total of 48 judicial offices took part in the survey.

To confirm the legitimacy of survey results, we conducted an on-site anonymous survey on probationers. A total of 480 questionnaires were distributed, and 427 valid questionnaires were completed, with an effective response rate of 89.0%. The age distribution of probationers survey participants was 20–71 years, with an average age of 38.78 ± 10.38 years. Among them, 301 (70.5%) were males, and 126 (29.5%) were females. The primary age ranged from 26 to 55 years (n = 363, 85%), and more than 60% had a secondary school education or below (n = 274, 64.2%); 201 (47.1%) participants were married, and (52.9%) were single (unmarried, divorced, or widowed). The composition of the sample is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Description.

Individual characteristics	Category	Quantity	Percentage
Age	≦25	55	12.9%
	26–35	129	30.2%
	36–45	112	26.2%
	46–55	122	28.6%
	≧56	9	2.1%
Gender	Male	301	70.5%
	Female	126	29.5%
Education background	Primary school and below	78	18.3%
	Secondary school	196	45.9%
	High school	90	21.1%
	College and above	63	14.7%
Marital status	Married	201	47.1%
	Unmarried	150	35.1%
	Divorced	73	17.1%
	Widowed	3	0.7%

Note. N = 427; The tail difference of percentages is adjusted at the end of each item.

Procedure

Participants gave prior written consent to engage in the study. In addition, questionnaire distribution and data collection were carried out by trained graduate students with psychology and sociology backgrounds. All probationer volunteers were told that participation was completely voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time. At the same time, the questionnaire was anonymous, with no review by judicial departments such as prisons or community corrections institutions; the data collected were used only for academic research.

Measures

Perceived discrimination

The Perceived Discrimination Questionnaire (PDQ; Zhang & Ye, 2019) was used to evaluate the current degree of perceived discrimination in social life and work experienced by the surveyed probationers. This is a measurement tool composed of ten items on a five-point scale identifying the degree of discrimination perceived by probationers from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The higher the total score, the higher the discrimination perceived by the probationer. The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that: χ²/df = 2.95, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.02, indicating that the questionnaire has good construct validity.

Shame

The Shame Scale (SS; Qian et al., 2000) was used to assess the shame sensitivity of probationers. It is a 29 item measurement tool including four dimensions: personality shame, behavioral shame, physical shame, and family shame. Each item was rated on a scale of 4 (1 = none at all, 4 = often), with the higher the number, the higher the individual's sense of shame. The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that: χ²/df = 6.12, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.89, TLI = 0.88, SRMR = 0.03, which indicated that the scale had good construct validity.

Zhongyong thinking

The Zhongyong Thinking Scale (ZTS; Wu & Lin, 2005) was used to measure the level of Zhongyong thinking of probationers. This is a measurement tool composed of 13 items, including three dimensions: multi-faceted thinking, integration, and harmony. Each item was measured on a five-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). The higher the score, the higher the level of Zhongyong thinking. The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that: χ²/df = 4.89, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.02, indicating that the questionnaire has good construct validity.

Social alienation

The Social Alienation Scale (SAS; Yang et al., 2002) was used to measure the level of social alienation of probationers. It includes three subscales: the interpersonal alienation scale, social alienation scale, and environmental alienation scale. This study adopted the social alienation subscale, composed of 24 items and containing four dimensions: meaninglessness, self-alienation, oppression and restraint, and uncontrollability. Each item was measured on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The higher the score, the higher the level of social alienation. The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that: χ²/df = 5.35, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.02, indicating that the questionnaire has good construct validity.

Control variables

Five additional control variables were also included. Previous studies have indicated that individual and group/contextual factors such as age, gender, educational background, marital status, and social support are all associated with social alienation. First, when selecting participants, we controlled for age because research has shown that differences in social alienation can be partly explained by age (Martin et al., 1974). Second, we controlled for gender since studies have shown that women tend to report less social alienation than men (Lane & Daugherty, 1999). Third, we controlled for educational background as a variable that affects individual cognitive ability and knowledge, which can affect social alienation (Blumenkrantz & Tapp, 1977). Fourth, individual's marital status may influence social alienation (Whitehurst & Plant, 1971). Finally, we also controlled for social support factors (including three dimensions: family support (“if my family can give me practical and specific help”), friend support (“if I can rely on my friends in case of difficulties”), and other support (“if leaders, relatives, colleagues, and neighbors care about my feelings in my life”) (See Zimet et al., 1990). Here again, research indicates that the more an individual is supported by his family, friends, and significant others, the greater the readiness to integrate into society, thus lowering the experience of social alienation (Yu & Bang, 2015).

Statistical Analysis

In this study, confirmatory factor analysis was applied first to test the discriminant validity of latent variables, followed by descriptive statistical analyses of the variables. Next, MacKinnon (2008)'s four-step procedure was used to test the mediation model, and the moderated model was tested in accordance with principles from Muller et al. (2005). Finally, we verified the moderated mediation model according to a path analysis technique from Edwards & Lambert (2007).

Analysis and Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In order to investigate and confirm the discriminant validity of the variables, confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to examine the data on perceived discrimination, shame, Zhongyong thinking, and social alienation. The results showed that the hypothesized four-factor model (M1) fit well with the data, with χ²/df = 2.36, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.03. In addition, we also tested six alternative models (M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7) to examine whether a more parsimonious model might achieve an equivalent fit (Ng & Feldman, 2012). All the alternative models, by contrast, fit significantly worse than the four-factor model, and these indices fell short of the recommended standards (Table 2). Thus, it was concluded that the four factors were sufficiently distinct.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis by Comparing Alternative Measurement Models.

Model	Description	χ2	df	χ2/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
M0	PD;S;ZT;SA;CMV	5586.20	2698	2.07	0.05	0.94	0.93	0.03
M1	PD;S;ZT;SA	6534.59	2768	2.36	0.06	0.93	0.92	0.03
M2	PD + S;ZT;SA	11,413.21	2771	4.12	0.08	0.82	0.81	0.06
M3	PD + ZT;S;SA	12,224.55	2771	4.41	0.09	0.80	0.79	0.07
M4	PD + SA;S;ZT	13,042.42	2771	4.71	0.09	0.79	0.78	0.13
M5	PD;S + ZT;SA	10,568.38	2771	3.81	0.08	0.84	0.83	0.07
M6	PD + S + ZT;SA	15,412.26	2773	5.56	0.10	0.74	0.73	0.09
M7	PD + S + ZT + SA	24,441.63	2774	8.81	0.14	0.55	0.54	0.14

Note. N = 427; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI,tacker-lewis index; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; PD, perceived discrimination; S, shame; ZT, zhongyong thinking; SA, social alienation, CMV, common method variance; “ + ” represents that two factors are combined into one factor.

In addition, in order to avoid the common method variance that may arise from self-reporting of data, in addition to the anonymous survey and using a balanced item order, we used the unmeasured latent method factor technique to test for the problem of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). It was found that the five-factor model (M0) was a good fit after controlling for common method variance, as shown in Table 2, χ²/df = 2.07, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.03. The differences in values for the RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR for the five-factor model (M0) were all within a range of 0.02 from the values for the four-factor model (M1), indicating that the model after controlling for the common method variance was not significantly improved (Ng & Feldman, 2012).

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 3 shows that perceived discrimination was positively correlated to shame (r = 0.70, p < 0.001), shame was positively correlated to social alienation (r = 0.57, p < 0.001), perceived discrimination was negatively correlated to Zhongyong thinking (r = −0.58, p < 0.001), and Zhongyong thinking was negatively correlated to social alienation (r = −0.68, p < 0.001). These results are basically consistent with our theoretical expectation.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among the Variables.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Age	2.77	1.07	–
2. Gender	1.30	0.46	−0.004	–
3. Education Background	2.32	0.94	−0.005	0.31^***	–
4. Marital Status	1.71	0.77	−0.12^*	0.09	−0.22^***	–
5. Social Support	52.30	18.12	0.20	0.001	0.10	−0.001	–
6. Perceived Discrimination	29.18	14.44	0.003	−0.06	0.15^**	−0.03	−0.38^***	–
7. Shame	60.33	27.41	0.05	−0.08	0.08	−0.07	−0.26^***	0.70^***	–
8. Zhongyong Thinking	41.91	15.82	−0.06	0.01	−0.14^**	−0.02	0.18^***	−0.58^***	−0.74^***	–
9. Social alienation	71.94	32.25	0.10^*	−0.03	0.12^*	0.02	−0.07	0.48^***	0.57^***	−0.68^***	–

Note. N = 427; Age: ≦25 = 1, 26–35 = 2, 36–45 = 3, 46–55 = 4, ≧56 = 5. Gender: male = 1, female = 2. Education background: primary school and below = 1, junior high school = 2, high school = 3,diploma and above = 4. Marital status: married = 1, unmarried = 2, divorced = 3, widowed = 4. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,***p < 0.001.

Hypothesis Testing

To test the aforementioned hypotheses, we investigated the mediating and moderating effects using a multi-level regression model and creating six regression models. The results are summarized in Table 4. To avoid multicollinearity, all variables are zero-centered before the analysis.

Table 4.

Results for Multi-Level Regression Model.

Variables	Model 1(criterion: SA)	Model 2(criterion: S)	Model 3(criterion: SA)	Model 4(criterion: SA)	Model 5(criterion: S)	Model 6(criterion: SA)
Control Variables
Age	0.10^*	0.04	0.08^*	0.08^*	0.03	0.08^*
Gender	−0.02	−0.03	−0.01	−0.005	−0.01	0.001
Education Background	0.06	−0.03	0.07	0.05	−0.02	0.05
Marital Status	0.06	−0.05	0.09^*	0.03	−0.07^**	0.03
Social Support	0.13^**	0.01	0.13^**	0.10^**	−0.02	0.12^**
Independent Variable
Perceived Discrimination	0.52^***	0.70^***	0.20^**	0.63^***	1.04^***	0.35^*
Mediating Variable
Shame			0.46^***	−0.01		0.38^*
Moderating Variable
Zhongyong Thinking				−0.19^*	0.06	−0.05
Interaction
PD × ZT				−0.43^***	−0.61^***	−0.20
S × ZT						−0.26^*
R²	0.04	0.09	0.04	0.04	0.09	0.04
Adjusted R²	0.03	0.08	0.03	0.03	0.08	0.03
F	24.32^***	67.46^***	34.26^***	48.49^***	130.85^***	44.87^***

Note. N = 427; PD, perceived discrimination; S, shame; ZT, zhongyong thinking; SA, social alienation. All variables are zero-centered; Beta values are standardized coefficients. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,***p < 0.001.

The control variables, the independent variable, perceived discrimination, and the dependent variable, social alienation were all included in Model 1. It was found that perceived discrimination had a significant positive impact on social alienation (β = 0.52，p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Model 2 incorporated the control variables, the independent variable perceived discrimination, and the mediating variable, shame, in the regression model, and the findings indicate that perceived discrimination had a positive effect on shame (β = 0.70，p < 0.001). To explore the relationship between shame and social alienation, Model 3 added the variable shame as a mediating variable on the basis of Model 1. It was found that shame has a positive predictive effect on social alienation (β = 0.46, p < 0.001). At this time, the positive effect of perceived discrimination on social alienation was still significant (β = 0.20, p < 0.01), indicating that shame plays a positive mediating role between perceived discrimination and social alienation (MacKinnon, 2008). Finally, we tested the mediation model using the bias-corrected percentage bootstrap method. Through random sampling, 5,000 bootstrapping samples were created from the original database, and the results showed that the indirect effect of shame was 0.71 (p < 0.001), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [0.51, 0.92]. In the relationship between perceived discrimination and social alienation, the mediating effect accounted for 82.6% [0.71/(0.71 + 0.15)] of the total effect. Accordingly, Hypothesis 2 is supported.

To further test the moderating effect of Zhongyong thinking, we adopted the method proposed by Muller et al. (2005) for analysis. The moderating variable of Zhongyong thinking and the interaction between perceived discrimination and Zhongyong thinking are added to models 4 and 5. In model 4 (Path D), the interaction between perceived discrimination and Zhongyong thinking had a negative significant effect on social alienation (β = −0.43, p < 0.001), indicating that the influence of perceived discrimination on social alienation was negatively moderated by Zhongyong thinking. Hypothesis 3 is verified. In Model 5 (Path E), the interaction between perceived discrimination and Zhongyong thinking had a negative significant effect on shame (β = −0.61, p < 0.001), signifying that the influence of perceived discrimination on shame was negatively moderated by Zhongyong thinking. Hypothesis 4 is verified. Model 6 (Path F) includes an interaction term of shame and Zhongyong thinking, and the results showed that the interaction between shame and Zhongyong thinking also significantly negatively affected social alienation (β = −0.26, p < 0.05), which showed that the influence of shame on social alienation was also negatively moderated by Zhongyong thinking, supporting Hypothesis 5.

Furthermore, in order to demonstrate the moderating effect of Zhongyong thinking more clearly, we added one standard deviation and also subtracted one standard deviation from the moderating effect of Zhongyong thinking on the influence of perceived discrimination on social alienation, and drew a graph showing these two moderating effects (Preacher et al., 2006). As shown in Figure 2, the simple slope analysis illustrated that perceived discrimination has a strong impact on the social alienation of probationers with a low level of Zhongyong thinking (β = 0.29, SE = 0.05, t = 5.25, p < 0.001); but that perceived discrimination has no significant effect on social alienation by probationers with a higher level of Zhongyong thinking (β = −0.07, SE = 0.06, t = −1.15, p > 0.05). This indicates that high Zhongyong thinking can weaken the positive impact of perceived discrimination on social alienation.

Figure 2.

Simple slopes of the relation between perceived discrimination and social alienation scores at low (−1SD) and high (+1SD) zhongyongthinking. Perceived discrimination was dummy coded (0 = low perceived discrimination, 1 = high perceived discrimination).

Figure 3 shows the negative moderating effect of Zhongyong thinking on the relationship between perceived discrimination and shame. That is, when Zhongyong thinking improves, the positive predictive effect of perceived discrimination on shame is weakened (from β = 0.63, SE = 0.04, t = 15.30, p < 0.001 to β = 0.13, SE = 0.05, t = 2.84, p < 0.01). In other words, enhancing Zhongyong thinking can lower the positive predictive effect of perceived discrimination on shame. Figure 4 shows the moderating effect of Zhongyong thinking on the relationship between shame and social alienation. That is, when Zhongyong thinking improves, the positive predictive effect of shame on social alienation is weakened (from β = 0.22, SE = 0.05, t = 4.13, p < 0.001 to β = −0.20, SE = 0.09, t = −2.15, p < 0.05). In other words, enhancing Zhongyong thinking can lower the positive predictive effect of shame on social alienation. In conclusion, Zhongyong thinking can not only negatively moderate the direct predictive effect of perceived discrimination on social alienation, but also negatively moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and shame, and between shame and social alienation.

Figure 3.

Simple slopes of the relation between perceived discrimination and shame scores at low (−1SD) and high (+1SD) zhongyong thinking. Perceived discrimination was dummy coded (0 = low perceived discrimination, 1 = high perceived discrimination).

Figure 4.

Simple slopes of the relation between shame and social alienation scores at low (−1SD) and high (+1SD) zhongyong thinking. Shame was dummy coded (0 = low shame, 1 = high shame).

Hypothesis 6 concerns the moderated mediation model. According to the path analysis introduced by Edwards and Lambert (2007), we further tested the moderated mediation model, as shown in Table 5. For individuals with a low level of Zhongyong thinking (M-SD), the mediating effect of shame between perceived discrimination and social alienation is significant (indirect effect was 0.55, 95% CI was [0.08, 0.72]); for individuals with a high level of Zhongyong thinking (M + SD), the mediating effect of shame between perceived discrimination and social alienation is no longer significant (indirect effect was 0.01, 95% CI was [−0.11, 0.01]), the difference between the two groups was −0.54, which is significant (p < 0 .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is supported.

Table 5.

Conditional Indirect Effect of Perceived Discrimination on Socail Alienation at Low (−1 SD), Medium (Mean), and High (+1 SD) Levels of Zhongyong Thinking.

	Indirect Effect	SE	95%CI（LL,UL）
Low zhongyong thinking	0.55**	0.17	0.08, 0.72
Medium zhongyong thinking	0.004	0.04	−0.08, 0.08
High zhongyong thinking	0.01	0.03	−0.11, 0.01

Note. N = 427; SE, standard error. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,***p < 0.001.

Discussion

This study introduced a shaming theory variable (i.e., shame) and a cognitive-affective processing system theory variable (i.e., Zhongyong thinking) into mainstream labeling theory to form an integrated model of labeling theory for testing the proposed hypotheses. The results show that when probationers serve their sentences in the community, the influence of perceived discrimination caused by labeling on their social alienation can partly be explained by the indirect connection to shame. In addition, this kind of indirect connection has a stronger effect on probationers with a lower level of Zhongyong thinking. These findings are helpful in comprehensively investigating the mechanism underlying the effect of perceived discrimination caused by labeling on probationers’ social alienation and verifyimg the expanded applicability of an integrated mode of labeling theory in the Chinese cultural context. Generally speaking, this study's theoretical contributions that can enlighten judicial practice are as follows:

First, the findings indicate that the perceived discrimination of probationers positively predicts their social alienation, supporting that there is a risk that the labeling effect on an individual will lead to social avoidance and social alienation (Walsh et al., 2019), and providing empirical evidence for the application of labeling effect theory in the context of China (Motz et al., 2020). In addition, this investigation revealed that shame can significantly positively mediate the relationship between probationers’ perceived discrimination and social alienation. Specifically, increased perceived discrimination will raise a probationer's sense of shame, which will result in negative self-evaluation and exacerbate their experience of social estrangement. This finding suggests that shame, as a negative subjective feeling and evaluation of an individual, is caused by some traumatic or humiliating event, and is closely related to individual psychological adaptation problems (such as social alienation: Wang et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2021). In particular, discrimination is an important source of pressure for probationers because of the openness of information in China's community corrections work that excessively publicizes and disseminates criminal information about probationers. This leads to labeling the probationer in such a way that maximizes negative evaluations by others. When probationers are labeled as criminals, their personal values and personalities are completely devalued by society. The stronger the sense of discrimination, the lower one's general sense of self-worth and the more negative one's self-evaluation, culminating in the sense of shame. From this, it would become more difficult for the probationer to take constructive action in response to a variety of social settings, resulting in an increase in the level of social alienation (Huo, 2016; Ren, 2019; Wang et al., 2020). The current study demonstrates that shame can partially account for the process through which probationers’ perceived discrimination influences their social alienation, thus supporting the applicability of disintegrative shaming theory in the Chinese context, as well as enriching the integrated model of labeling theory.

Second, this research introduces and tests Zhongyong thinking as a means of emotional regulation. That is, it can not only negatively directly moderate the effect of perceived discrimination and social alienation, but also negatively moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and shame, the relationship between shame and social alienation, and the mediating role of shame between perceived discrimination and social alienation, – which is shown as a moderated mediation model. This finding illustrates that cognitive-affective processing theory variables can also be used to explain labeling theory, providing empirical evidence for an integrated mode of labeling theory (Ji et al., 2010). That is to say, the moderating effect of Zhongyong thinking provides clues for us to understand the mechanism of cultural values affecting social alienation. As mentioned earlier, Zhongyong thinking, as a feature of the way of thinking of most Chinese (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013), provides Chinese probationers with a high level of Zhongyong thinking to think more broadly when they perceive discrimination, to view people and things around them from a more positive perspective. The ability to pay attention to the relationship between themselves, society, and environment from an overall perspective, actively adjust their mentality, and adapt to a dynamic environment, enables them to have successful interactions with others and to avoid the appearance of social alienation in the outside world (Wei et al., 2020). Even if probationers are subjected to bad conditions such as stigmatization evaluations or social isolation while serving a sentence in the community, the high Zhongyong thinkers will reinterpret and assess the negative circumstances and take a forgiving attitude to treat and evaluate the people and things around them, blocking the negative self-evaluation mechanism, and then reducing the individual's sense of shame (Ho & Fung, 2011). As well, even if they suffer from the decrease in their self-evaluation due to the perception of discrimination and experience a sense of shame, probationers with a high level of Zhongyong thinking can perform cognitive re-evaluation from a positive perspective, and adopt a more comprehensive and flexible cognitive processing strategy that can better help them adjust their negative emotions and cognitive biases. This is conducive for them to transform an emotion-based hot processing system into a cognition-based cold processing system, realize the re-recognition and evaluation of self-worth (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999), and maintain physical and mental health – so as to maintain a better connection with society. Therefore, persons with high Zhongyong thinking are less likely to feel shame when they are subjected to discrimination or stressful environments which can further contribute to individual social alienation (Ji et al., 2010).

Third, this investigation also has some practical implications for community corrections programming for probationers. First, this research alerts community corrections officers to issues in the day-to-day management of probationers, such as the potential for perceived discrimination that may harm them, and the need to take effective measures to suppress the labeling effect by reducing the occurrence of such perceived discrimination. In light of this, a system to seal and purge information about probationers’ criminal records should be established in the future, with specific time limits set for inquiring into different criminal records and conversion of probationers’ criminal records from public to private information after a certain period of time. This is to suppress the effect of criminal labels at their root and thereby cut off the source of probationers’ perceived discrimination (Weaver, 2019).

Second, this study advises that when it comes to probationers’ sense of social alienation, community corrections authorities should pay close attention to the exact situations and actions that lead to feelings of shame. According to reintegrated shaming theory, community corrections institutions should assist humiliated probationers through forgiving language, behavior, or inclusive circumstances that erase offenders’ prejudiced identities and allow them to reintegrate into the community (Braithwaite, 1989; de Hooge et al., 2011). To alleviate probationers’ sense of social alienation and reduce their likelihood of recidivism, community corrections institutions should view probationers as persons of care and assistance on the basis of respecting their unique personalities while encouraging them to actively engage in prosocial behavior to become integrated into the community by reforming their concept of shame (Huo, 2016; Wang et al., 2020).

Third, Zhongyong thinking shapes a “good” personality that is widely advocated and pursued by Chinese people, one that can effectively help probationers formulate long-term plans, adapt to the ever-changing environment, and become more socially responsible (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). Consequently, community corrections officers should, with the aim of shaping probationers’ cultural values, carry out a series of cultural training to enhance their exposure to traditional cultural content and stories related to Zhongyong thinking, teach probationers how to evaluate the sense of discrimination they perceive in work and life in a holistic dialectic, and reasonably avoid and adjust the sense of shame and social alienation caused by perceived discrimination, in their journey to better societal reintegration (Pan & Sun, 2017; Zhou et al., 2019).

Finally, although this study has to a certain extent illustrated the mechanism by which perceived discrimination of probationers affects their social alienation, no study is perfect or exhaustive; this study still has some limitations. While this research is based on labeling theory and incorporates the elements of shaming theory and cognitive-affective processing system theory to expand and enrich an integrated model of labeling theory, it does not rule out the possibility of other potential factors. We hope that future research can examine other elements of criminal law, criminology, and psychological theory and explore more mediating and moderating variables, such as self-esteem and identity integration (Jackson et al., 2012) that might be added to an integrated model of labeling theory. Further, the research participants are from China, and the indirect relationship between perceived discrimination, shame, and social alienation of probationers was studied by using the cognitive-affective processing system theory variable of Zhongyong thinking as the moderated variable. As a result, the broader applicability of the mechanism of Zhongyong thinking as a unique element of Chinese culture needs further verification. In the future, cultural studies across the east and the west can be carried out to examine the feasibility of Zhongyong thinking's application in the context of Western culture.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research is supported by the Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of Guangzhou (No. 2022GZGJ203).

Author Biographies

Tun Xu, PhD, is an assistant research professor in the School of Law, China Jiliang University. His research emphasis is on criminal justice, law & psychology, and empirical legal studies.

Ling Tang, PhD, is a senior lecturer in the School of Law, China Jiliang University, Her research focuses on criminal law and justice, as well as empirical legal studies.

Xifen Lin, PhD, is a professor in the KoGuan School of Law and China Institute for Socio-Legal Studies, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. His research interests include criminal justice system in China, law & society, and empirical legal studies.

References

Abrah

P. B.

(2019). Labeling theory and life stories of juvenile delinquents transitioning into adulthood. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18787303

Bernburg

J. G.

Krohn

M. D.

Rivera

C. J.

(2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427805280068

Bhuptani

P. H.

Kaufman

J. S.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

Gratz

K. L.

Dilillo

(2019). Rape disclosure and depression among community women: The mediating roles of shame and experiential avoidance. Violence Against Women, 25(10), 1226–1242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218811683

Binswanger

I. A.

Stern

M. F.

Yamashita

T. E.

Mueller

Baggett

T. P.

Blatchford

P. J.

(2015). Clinical risk factors for death after release from prison in Washington state: A nested case-control study. Addiction, 111(3), 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13200

Bleakley

(2019). The data of deviance: Disintegrative shaming and exclusion in Queensland schools. Interchange, 50, 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-019-09374-0

Blumenkrantz

Tapp

J. T.

(1977). Alienation and education: A model for empirical study. Journal of Educational Research, 71(2), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1977.10885046

Braithwaite

(1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.

Brown

M. R.

Higgins

Paulsen

(2003). Adolescent alienation: What is it and what can educators do about it? Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512030390010101

Chou

L. F.

Chu

C. C.

Yeh

H. C.

Chen

(2014). Work stress and employee well-being: The critical role of zhong-yong. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12055

10.

de Hooge

I. E.

Zeelenberg

Breugelmans

S. M.

(2011). A functionalist account of shame-induced behaviour. Cognition & Emotion, 25(5), 939–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.516909

11.

Edwards

J. R.

Lambert

L. S.

(2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1

12.

Forsyth

Braithwaite

(2020). From reintegrative shaming to restorative institutional hybridity. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 3(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.5553/TIJRJ/258908912020003001002

13.

M. Y.

Fung

H. H.

(2011). A dynamic process model of forgiveness: A cross-cultural perspective. Review of General Psychology, 15(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022605

14.

Huo

J. G.

(2016). On theory of reintegrative shame from the community correction perspctive. Journal of Anhui Vocational College of Police Officers, 15(1), 84–90.

15.

Ifeagwazi

C. M.

Chukwuorji

J. C.

Zacchaeus

E. A.

(2015). Alienation and psychological wellbeing: Moderation by resilience. Social Indiactors Research, 120(2), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0602-1

16.

Jackson

D. B.

Hay

(2013). The conditional impact of official labeling on subsequent delinquency: Considering the attenuating role of family attachment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 300–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427812444931

17.

Jackson

K. F.

Yoo

H. C.

Guevarra

Harrington

(2012). Role of identity integration on the relationship between perceived racial discrimination and psychological adjustment of multiracial people. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(2), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027639

18.

J. Y.

(2019). Investigation and research on the current situation of community correction in Xining city. Journal of Taiyuan Urban Vocation College, 2, 178–179.

19.

L. J.

Lee

Guo

(2010). The thinking styles of Chinese people . In Bond

(Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (2nd Edn., pp. 155–167). Oxford University Press.

20.

Jiang

Jin

Xiang

Goodlin-Fahncke

Yang

Zhang

(2016). Punitive and rehabilitative orientations toward offenders among community correctional officers in China. The Prison Journal, 96(6), 771–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885516671867

21.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Jin

Xiang

Shi

Zhang

(2018). Correlates of organizational commitment among community correctional officers in China. The Prison Journal, 98(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517743706

22.

Jiang

Xiang

Chen

Huang

Yang

Zhang

Zhao

(2014). Community corrections in China: Development and challenges. The Prison Journal, 94(1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885513512091

23.

Jiang

Zhang

Lambert

E. G.

(2022). Views of community corrections supervision and their predictors: An officer and offender comparison. The Prison Journal, 102(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855211069305

24.

Lane

E. J.

Daugherty

T. K.

(1999). Correlates of social alienation among college students. College Student Journal, 33(1), 7.

25.

(2017). Penological developments in contemporary China: Populist punitiveness vs. penal professionalism. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 51, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.06.001

26.

K. W.

Wang

Y. Y.

Qian

M. Y.

Cao

G. J.

Liu

Z. Z.

S. J.

Zhong

(2011). Relation of antisocial personality disorders to childhood traumatic experiences and shame in prisoners. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 25(9), 686–690. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2011.09.012

27.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Taylor and Francis Group.

28.

Martin

W. C.

Bengtson

V. L.

Acock

A. C.

(1974). Alienation and age: A context-specific approach. Social Forces, 53(2), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/2576019

29.

Metcalfe

Mischel

(1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3

30.

Mischel

Shoda

(1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246

31.

Motz

R. T.

Barnes

J. C.

Gaspi

Arseneault

Cullen

F. T.

Houts

Wertz

Moffitt

T. E.

(2020). Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency? Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 58(2), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12236

32.

Muller

Judd

C. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852

33.

T. W. H.

Feldman

D. C.

(2012). Age and innovation-related behavior: The joint moderating effects of supervisor undermining and proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(5), 583–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1802

34.

Pan

Sun

L. Y.

(2017). A self-regulation model of zhong yong thinking and employee adaptive performance. Management and Organization Review, 14, 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2017.33

35.

Pascoe

E. A.

Richman

L. S.

(2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016059

36.

Pierce

J. R.

Aguinis

(2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39, 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410060

37.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Mackenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

38.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437

39.

Qian

M. Y.

Bernice

Zhu

R. C.

Wang

A. M.

(2000). The development of shame scale of Chinese college students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 14(4), 217–221.

40.

Ren

Y. Z.

(2019). The realistic path of labeling theory. Journal of Yunnan Police College, 2, 111–115.

41.

Smith

H. P.

Bohm

R. M.

(2008). Beyond anomie: Alienation and crime. Critical Criminology, 16, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-007-9047-z

42.

Tangney

J. P.

Stuewig

Martinez

A. G.

(2014). Two faces of shame: The roles of shame and guilt in predicting recidivism. Psychological Science, 25(3), 799–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613508790

43.

Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

(2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1502_01

44.

Walsh

S. D.

Kolobov

Simanovskaya

(2019). What is it about perceived discrimination that can lead immigrant adolescents to alcohol use and delinquency? The mediating role of feelings of alienation. Substance Use and Misuse, 54(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2018.1495738

45.

Wang

Y. L.

Chen

H. L.

Yuan

(2020). Effect of social exclusion on adolescents’ self-injury: The mediation effect of shame and the moderating effect of cognitive reappraisal. Journal of Psychological Science, 43(2), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20200211

46.

Weaver

A. M.

(2019). Survey of Illinois law: Section 5.2 of the criminal identification act: The expungement and sealing of Illinois criminal records. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 43(4), 889–916.

47.

Wei

J. R.

Chen

Y. T.

Zhang

Y. M.

Zhang

(2020). How does entrepreneurial self-efficacy influence innovation behavior? Exploring the mechanism of job satisfaction and zhongyong thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 708. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00708

48.

Whitehurst

R. N.

Plant

(1971). A comparison of Canadian and American university students’ reference groups, alienation and attitudes toward marriage. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 1(1), 75–82.

49.

J. H.

Lin

Y. Z.

(2005). Development of a zhongyong thinking style scale. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24, 247–300. https://doi.org/10.6254/2005.24.247

50.

X. Y.

J. J.

Zhen

(2021). Bullying victimization and adolescents’ social anxiety: Roles of shame and self-esteem. Child Indicators Research, 14, 769–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-020-09777-x

51.

Yang

Zhang

J. F.

Huang

X. T.

(2002). Adolescent students’ sense of alietation: Theoretical construct and scale development. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34(4), 407–413.

52.

J. Y.

Bang

K. S.

(2015). Perceived alienation of, and social support for, siblings of children with cancer. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 32(6), 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043454214563753

53.

Zhang

Irwin

D. D.

Jiang

Zhang

Huang

(2019). Staffing composition, offender profiles, and supervision in China’s community corrections. The Prison Journal, 99(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519836955

54.

Zhang

Y. W.

B. J.

(2019). The effect of parenting rejection styles on Chinese homosexuals’ suicide: The mediating role of perceived discrimination and the moderating role of coming out. Journal of Psychology Science, 42(1), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20190117

55.

Zhou

Sun

Guo

Zhao

(2019). The effect of zhongyong thinking on remote association thinking: An EEG study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 207. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00207

56.

Zimet

G. D.

Powell

S. S.

Farley

G. K.

Berkoff

K. A.

(1990). Psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3), 610–617. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5503&4_17