Review of Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping.

PAUL T.P. WONG and LILIAN C.J. WONG (Eds.) Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping New York: Springer, 2006, 636 pages (ISBN: 0-387-26236-9, C$89.95 Hardcover) Reviewed by ANDREW G. RYDER, DONALD H. WATANABE, and ANGELA J. RING A major, but unavoidable, disadvantage to cross-cultural psychological research is its complexity. Human nature allows for an incredible range of psychological and cultural diversity; combining these two domains leads to a bewildering array of concepts, theories, hypotheses, and research findings. It is easy for us to secretly envy at times our colleagues who can act as though universality of their constructs is assumed beyond question. At same time, there has been a growing recognition that a science of human behaviour that ignores humans in interaction, or behaviour in context, will, at best, provide us with indigenous psychology of Western culture. Paul and Lilian Wong's edited Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping does not shy away from challenges inherent in cross-cultural work. In their opening chapter, they establish quickly that they are setting out to do more than simply compare cultures on established markers of stress and coping. In addition, perhaps primarily, they wish to broaden our very ideas of what stress and coping actually are by taking seriously ways in which these concepts are understood in different cultures. Particularly welcome in this regard is full consideration of religious, spiritual, and existential modes of coping, modes that are extremely common throughout world - and probably more common in the West than is commonly acknowledged by largely secular psychologists. Following introductory chapter, first section deals with a range of theoretical issues. Chapters 2, 3, and 7 provide good coverage of relevant theory, although there is considerable overlap. Chapters 4 and 5 are particularly interesting reviews of Buddhist and Taoist coping, whereas Chapter 6 provides a more general treatment of religious and spiritual coping. It is unfortunate that only a few traditions are represented and, in fact, one could easily imagine an entire book detailing notions of stress and coping from a variety of religious and spiritual perspectives. Chapter 8, in contrast, made for a confusing read. Complicated, but potentially valuable, ideas on a biosocioexistential model of posttraumatic responses were buried under unusually difficult prose. As some of other chapters also suffered from unclear writing, and even from frequent typographical errors, reader gets sense that more editorial control and intervention would have helped considerably. The first two chapters of second section, on methodological issues, provide a valuable overview of problems specific to cross-cultural research. Chapter 9 describes general cross-cultural issues such as measurement equivalence, translation, and scale development, whereas Chapter 10 examines problems with use of self-report stress and coping scales across cultures. Wong and colleagues contribute Chapter 10, a particularly long (60+ pages), but valuable look at Coping Schema Inventory. This chapter could easily have been divided into two or even three parts. The first part provides a thorough review of coping literature, including a critique of existing coping scales. Inclusion of this material as a separate chapter near beginning of book might have helped reduce overlap throughout. The authors then describe resource-congruent model of effective coping, another potential stand-alone chapter. Much of remaining material consists of a meticulously described three-stage research program, presented at a much greater level of detail than most of other chapters. The third section opens with a concise review by John Berry, leading acculturation researcher, on acculturative stress. He presents his acculturation framework at a culture-general level, setting stage for specific examples that follow. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.