Culture and Stress Coping: Cultural Variations in the Endorsement of Primary and Secondary Control Coping for Daily Stress Across European Canadians, East Asian Canadians, and the Japanese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract People's daily stress experiences differ across cultures. The current study examined how people cope with daily stress by applying primary and secondary control coping and how people change their strategies across situations (actual vs. ideal situations). European Canadians ( n = 100), East Asian Canadians ( n = 98), and the Japanese ( n = 103) read 40 stress scenarios and judged their endorsement of stress coping strategies based on their actual primary and secondary control coping usage in the past, as well as their ideal preference of each coping strategy for each stress scenario. We examined whether primary versus secondary control coping usage differs across cultural groups. The results indicated the following. (a) European Canadians showed an overall usage for primary control coping over secondary control; however, there was no selection of primary control coping over secondary control coping for East Asian Canadians or the Japanese. (b) All cultural groups preferentially endorsed primary control coping over secondary control coping for their ideal preference of coping strategy. Nevertheless, the Japanese still showed more preference for endorsing secondary control coping as an ideal coping strategy compared to European Canadians. (c) There were mediational relationships between culture, independence, and the primary–secondary difference in control coping. (d) East Asian Canadians demonstrated a unique coping pattern, and we inferred that it reflected their multicultural identity. We discussed both academic and societal implications and assert that the present findings demonstrate significant relationships between people's culture and well‐being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".