Coping Strategies in Female Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse from Two Canadian and Two New Zealand Cultural Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals from some minority cultures are at greater risk of experiencing childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and are also at heightened risk of negative outcomes from abuse. Coping strategies, which may mediate the relationship between CSA and outcomes, are also impacted by culture. This study examined the use of coping strategies in female survivors of CSA across 4 cultural groupings from 2 countries-86 European Canadians, 40 Native Canadians, 129 European New Zealanders, and 35 Māori New Zealanders-who all completed the Coping Responses Inventory. The 4 groups differed significantly on 7 of the 8 Coping Responses Inventory scales (Logical Analysis, Positive Reappraisal, Problem Solving, Cognitive Avoidance, Acceptance or Resignation, Seeking Alternative Rewards, Emotional Discharge). Whereas New Zealanders differed significantly from Canadians (p<.001), Europeans did not differ significantly from indigenous cultural groups, nor did nationality and culture grouping interact (p>.05). The profile of coping in New Zealand Europeans was relatively flat, with average scores across coping types close to the mean of the t-score distribution. Māori New Zealanders produced a similar profile, with only slight increases on 2 scales of avoidant coping. The findings raise questions about the extent to which generalizations can be made about there being either a "Western/European" culture or a particular "indigenous" culture. This in turn also raises the issue of whether cross-validation and replication of findings are needed if the findings are to be applied outside of the country in which the data were gathered.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".