Daily hassles, coping, and acculturation as predictors of psychological well-being among Korean American adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how perceived stress, coping, and acculturation were related to psychological well-being. This study hypothesized that low levels of perceived stress in the form of nonspecific daily hassles and acculturation-specific daily hassles, active or internal coping strategies, and acculturation either western identified or bicultural identified would predict the psychological well-being of Korean-American adolescents. The subjects of this study consisted of 200 Korean-American adolescents (101 males, 99 females) ranging in age from 12 to 19 years of age. Participants were recruited on a voluntary basis from various Korean churches, private schools, and local public middle and secondary schools in Bergen County, New Jersey. Adolescent participants were administered a data survey sheet, The Problem Questionnaire, The Coping Across Situations Questionnaire, The Bicultural Stress Scale, The Vancouver Index of Acculturation, and The Students' Life Satisfaction Scale. Data analysis included Pearson's Correlations and a hierarchical multiple regression. It was hypothesized that coping would be negatively related to the perceived stress of nonspecific daily hassles and acculturation-specific daily hassles. A significant negative relationship was found between nonspecific daily hassles and social support and between acculturation-specific daily hassles and social support. Conversely, three significant positive correlations were found between avoidance, mixed strategies, and withdrawal and perceived nonspecific daily hassles. Likewise, significant positive relationships were found between avoidance and acculturation-specific daily hassles and between mixed strategies and acculturation-specific daily hassles. Data were analyzed to ascertain the contribution of daily hassles, coping dimensions, and acculturation to the psychological well-being of Korean-American adolescents. Regression results indicated that the overall model significantly predicted psychological well-being and accounted for 23% of the variance. Detailed interpretation of results and implications for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".