MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002609934 · doi:10.1037/cp2007_1_53

Review of Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping.

2007· article· en· W2002609934 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew G. Ryder, Donald H. Watanabe, Angela J. Ring

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMulticulturalismCoping (psychology)PsychoanalysisPsychotherapistPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207