Is the Utility of Secondary Coping a Function of Ethnicity or the Context of Reception? A Longitudinal Study Across Western and Eastern Cultures

Abstract

Although cross-cultural research suggests that the development and functionality of secondary coping strategies are substantially influenced by the broader cultural context, research findings are not completely conclusive. Some studies indicate that secondary coping is more adaptive for Asian participants compared with Westerners, while others emphasize the adaptability of the coping style in Asian, but not Western, contexts. The main objective of the present study was to systematically test for ethnic and contextual differences in the effectiveness of secondary strategies (measured in the form of acceptance and positive reinterpretation) in reducing the negative effects of acculturative stress on somatic symptoms with samples of international students. A 3-month longitudinal study was conducted in two different contexts: (a) Asian and Western international students in China (Asians: n = 53, Westerners: n = 51) and (b) similar groups in New Zealand (Asians: n = 61, Westerners: n = 65). The data were subjected to a hierarchical regression analysis with changes in psychological symptoms functioning as the dependent variable. Findings indicated that stress, secondary coping, and cultural context significantly interacted in predicting changes in somatic symptoms. Specifically, secondary coping exacerbated the negative effects of acculturative stress on psychological adjustment in New Zealand. In contrast, secondary coping functioned as a buffer in China, such that it was effective at reducing the negative impact of stress over time. Findings indicated that ethnicity did not significantly moderate the stress–coping–adjustment relationship. Our results show that the effectiveness of secondary coping varies as a function of the cultural context.

Keywords

acculturative stress international students secondary coping somatic symptoms

In recent years, cross-cultural researchers have paid increasing attention to the role of culture in the stress-adjustment process (see the review by Kuo, 2011). According to the transactional model of stress and coping, “psychological stress is a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the individual as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her wellbeing” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 19). When people experience stressful situations, they assess the significance of the event, evaluate available resources, and activate coping strategies. Although aiming to provide a general framework for stress and coping, Lazarus and Folkman acknowledged that cultural values and beliefs can have a tremendous influence on how individuals appraise stress-provoking events and what types of coping strategies they apply to eliminate or control a particular stressor.

Cross-cultural research has focused mainly on the distinction between primary and secondary coping proposed by Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder (1982) and differences in the utilization of these strategies across ethnic groups and countries. When primary coping strategies are mobilized, one’s goal is to actively control the stressor by changing features of the environment to accommodate the person’s needs. While this definition of primary coping is generally accepted, there is no clear consensus regarding the conceptualization of secondary coping. Two main competing definitions exist in the literature (Morling & Evered, 2006). The control-focused definition postulates that when people fail to exert primary control, they turn to secondary strategies with the main objective of reestablishing primary control. This definition implies the temporal primacy of primary control.

The fit-focused definition, on the other hand, proposes that secondary control is about fitting in with the environment, and the aim of exerting secondary control is not to maintain or regain primary control but to create harmony between the self and the environment. Those who prefer secondary coping tend to use more inward-directed, self-focused strategies, such as positive reframing of negative life events and acceptance. As opposed to trying to exert control over the situation, secondary coping aims to adjust the self to establish harmony and concordance with the environment. From a fit-focused viewpoint, primary and secondary control are separate constructs that describe independent mechanisms (Morling & Evered, 2006).

According to Chang, Chua, and Toh (1997), the Asian context favors the development and use of secondary coping styles. Secondary coping fits in with Asian worldviews and belief systems (e.g., Taoism, Buddhism) in which adjusting the self to the existing reality is valued, and strategies promoting interpersonal harmony are considered to be socially appropriate. Relatedly, it is assumed that secondary coping styles are less adaptive and functional in Western, individualistic contexts. The primary objective of our investigation was to test the effectiveness of secondary coping to buffer the negative effects of stress in Asian and Western ethnic groups and cultural contexts. We adopted a fit-focused definition of secondary control and operationalized it in terms of acceptance and adjustment of the self.

Cross-Cultural Differences in the Use of Secondary Coping

Although theory suggests that the development and functionality of secondary coping strategies are substantially influenced by the broader cultural context, empirical findings are rather inconclusive. Some studies indicate that Asians rely on secondary coping to a greater extent than their Western peers. Trommsdorff and Essau (1998), for example, compared adolescents’ coping preferences and found that high school students in collectivistic cultures (Malaysia and Japan) scored significantly higher on secondary coping than their peers in individualistic societies (Canada, the United States, and Germany). A more recent study on coping in adolescents comparing 18 countries revealed that children in the West preferred active (primary) coping strategies, while Asian youth tended to use internal (secondary) coping to a greater degree (Persike & Seiffge-Krenke, 2016). In another study by O’Connor and Shimizu (2002), Japanese participants reported significantly more positive reinterpretation than their British counterparts. Similarly, Sasaki and Kim’s (2011) daily diary study with Koreans and North Americans of European descent indicated that Koreans used more secondary strategies to cope with daily stressors. When comparing coping strategies utilized by different ethnic groups in the United States, evidence suggests that European Americans score significantly lower on secondary coping than their Asian American peers (Lam & Zane, 2004; Peng, 1993).

On the other hand, there is a considerable body of research reporting contradictory findings regarding cultural differences in secondary coping. For instance, Chataway and Berry (1989) found that French Canadians used more positive thinking than English Canadians or Hong Kong Chinese. In another investigation by Sinha and Watson (2007), Indian participants scored significantly higher in positive reappraisal than Canadians. However, there was no difference between the two groups in levels of acceptance. Furthermore, a longitudinal study on coping undertaken with pregnant women revealed that European American expecting mothers endorsed acceptance as a coping strategy to the same extent as Japanese (Morling, Kitayama, & Miyamoto, 2003). Research by Tweed, White, and Lehman (2004) comparing Japanese, Asian Canadian, and European Canadian students also indicated that Japanese and Asian Canadians used more acceptance and self-control than European Canadians. However, European Canadians reported higher levels of positive reinterpretation than Japanese and Asian Canadians.

These findings suggest that, even though Asians have a tendency to apply secondary coping styles more frequently, they can also be found in the toolboxes of Westerners. Furthermore, oftentimes they use these strategies just as actively as Asians. In addition, it is important to recognize that mean differences in the utilization of secondary coping strategies do not indicate differential effectiveness across cultures or ethnic groups. In other words, just because a specific strategy is used to a greater (or lesser) extent in one group or context, it does not necessarily mean that the style is consistently more adaptive and functional in reducing the negative effects of stress in that particular group or context.

Effectiveness of Secondary Coping Across Cultures and Ethnic Groups

Although most studies provide supporting evidence for secondary coping as an adaptive strategy in response to stress, research findings cannot conclusively answer the questions of for whom and under what conditions acceptance and positive reinterpretation lead to positive outcomes during stressful life events. Sinha and Watson’s (2007) study comparing Indian and Canadian participants found that positive reinterpretation predicted higher levels of somatic symptoms, psychoticism, and paranoid anxiety in the Canadian sample. Their results indicate that secondary coping is associated with psychological problems for Westerners but is unrelated to psychological outcomes for Asians. In contrast, there is a handful of studies suggesting that secondary coping is an adaptive strategy for members of Asian ethnic groups in both Asian and Western contexts. For example, Chang et al. (1997) examined Chinese older adults in Singapore and found that secondary coping was particularly effective at reducing somatic symptoms and anxiety. Focusing on the effectiveness of coping strategies for Asians in a Western context, Wang et al. (2012) conducted a 4-point longitudinal study with Chinese international students living in the United States. Using latent growth mixture modeling, they identified four profiles: well-adjusted, culture-shocked, relieved, and constantly distressed. The well-adjusted group reported the highest levels of perceived helpfulness in applying acceptance and reframing at Time 2. At Time 3, the well-adjusted and relieved profiles scored significantly higher on acceptance and positive reinterpretation than the distressed group. In general, the distressed group reported the lowest level of secondary strategies.

A few studies have also been undertaken to examine the relationship between secondary coping and psychological outcomes for Westerners in Asian contexts. With a sample of British expats residing in Singapore, Ward and Kennedy (2001) demonstrated that low levels of positive reinterpretation, along with high levels of mental disengagement and venting, predicted increased levels of depression. Similarly, English, Zeng, and Ma’s (2015) study with international students in China suggested that secondary coping was beneficial in reducing the negative effects of acculturative stress on sociocultural adjustment for non-Asian students. These findings suggest that the lack of secondary strategies can have detrimental effects for the psychosocial well-being of Westerners residing in collectivistic, Asian contexts.

It is worth noting, however, that these studies did not make an explicit distinction between context and ethnicity. Some research suggests that secondary coping is effective in Asian, but not in Western, contexts, whereas other investigations tend to focus on ethnic differences within individualistic or collectivistic societies. To the best of our knowledge, no previous research has been undertaken to systematically examine ethnic and contextual differences in the efficiency of secondary coping strategies in terms of stress reduction and the prediction of psychological outcomes.

Secondary Coping and the Type of Stressor

In addition to the inconsistencies in the literature based on ethnicity and cultural context, research findings with respect to the usefulness of secondary strategies also vary depending on the type of stressor in focus. Some empirical evidence indicates that secondary coping can be an adaptive strategy for both Asians and Westerners; however, the efficiency of the coping style varies as a function of the stressor encountered. For example, McCarty et al. (1999) investigated secondary coping with Thai and American children. They found that Thai children applied more secondary coping when dealing with separation stress, whereas American children used more secondary strategies when coping with injury. In a study by Szabo, Ward, and Jose (2016), secondary coping reduced the negative effects of uprooting stress over time for both Asian and Western international students. They argued that secondary coping is generally effective when international students are dealing with a relatively uncontrollable aspect of transition stress.

Taken together, two main approaches can be observed in studies concerning culture and coping. The first line of research has examined coping styles (including secondary strategies) in response to daily stressors or general life stress with members of the national mainstream in different countries (e.g., Chang et al., 1997; McCarty et al., 1999; Sinha & Watson, 2007). These investigations were designed to explore by what means people in individualistic versus collectivistic cultures deal with everyday life challenges. The second line of research has focused on the effectiveness of secondary coping during cross-cultural transition, thus aiming to understand which coping styles provide adaptive strategies when people originating from individualistic (or collectivistic) cultures are exposed to the new norm and value system of a dominantly collectivistic (or individualistic) society (e.g., English, Zeng, & Ma, 2015; Szabo et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2012; Ward & Kennedy, 2001).

Schulz and Heckhausen (1999) have argued that secondary coping strategies are best researched during significant life transitions when the opportunities for exerting control are redefined or threatened. Under such conditions, successful adaptation depends on whether a person can apply culturally appropriate and effective coping strategies in response to stressors. Cultural transition is an increasingly common life experience, particularly among tertiary students, that allows for the study of secondary coping. Moving to a new country is inherently stressful as it presents major life challenges for international students. Difficulties arising during transition involve cultural (e.g., unfamiliarity with cultural norms and rules), social (e.g., discrimination), instrumental (e.g., financial difficulties), emotional (e.g., feelings of anxiety and uncertainty), and family (e.g., uprooting) stressors (Yakhnich, 2008). These sociocultural and personal changes experienced during transition often become taxing, thus leading to adaptation difficulties (Berry, 2006).

The Present Study

The current research investigates the effectiveness of secondary coping with Asian and Western international students studying in New Zealand (an individualistic context) and China (a collectivistic context). New Zealand is an attractive destination for international students with more than 100,000 international students being enrolled at educational institutions every year. Although students from all over the world come to study in New Zealand, approximately 70% of all international students originate from China, India, Japan, or other South-East Asian countries (New Zealand Education, 2015). International student enrollments in China have tripled over the last decade. In 2014, there were more than 377,000 international students studying in China with South Koreans, Japanese, and Americans forming the three biggest ethnic groups (English, Allison, & Ma, 2016; Institute of International Education, 2014).

The main objective of the present study was to test whether the effectiveness of secondary coping varied as a function of ethnicity (ethnicity hypothesis) and cultural context (context hypothesis). We expected to find the following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Higher levels of acculturative stress would predict increased levels of somatic symptoms.

In addition, moderation effects were examined.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): The ethnicity hypothesis indicates that secondary coping has the capacity to buffer the negative effects of stress for Asians but not for Westerners.

In contrast,

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The context hypothesis suggests that secondary coping is an effective strategy in response to stress in Asian contexts but not in Western contexts.

We tested both hypotheses by examining 2 three-way interactions in the prediction of somatic symptoms over time (i.e., Ethnicity × Stress × Secondary coping and Context × Stress × Secondary coping). In addition, we investigated a potential combined effect of ethnicity and context by including a four-way interaction into our analyses (i.e., Ethnicity × Context × Stress × Secondary coping). Specifically, with the four-way interaction, we were interested to see whether,

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Secondary coping was particularly effective for Asians when combating stress in a collectivistic context.

Method

Design and Sample

A 3-month longitudinal study was conducted with international students (N = 230) in two different contexts: (a) Asian (n = 53) and Western (n = 51) international students in China and (b) similar groups in New Zealand (Asians: n = 61, Westerners: n = 65).¹ Participants completed a paper-based survey in the classroom. Student ID numbers were collected to match the two survey responses. Researchers returned to the same classroom 3 months later to collect follow-up data. All participation was voluntary and confidential. Demographic characteristics of the samples are presented in Table 1. There were no significant differences between participants in New Zealand and China in terms of gender distribution, age, and length of stay. However, unequal variance t-tests indicated that Asian international students had stayed significantly longer in the host country compared with their Western peers both in China and New Zealand, t(65.7) = 2.74, p = .007, Cohen’s d = .68, and t(70.19) = 3.89, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .93, respectively. In addition, Asian international students in China were significantly older then Westerners, t(70.17) = 2.89, p = .005, Cohen’s d = .69.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Samples.

	Gender			Age (years)		Length of stay (days)
	N	Male (%)	Female (%)	M	SD	M	SD
China	104	44	56	23.34	5.77	134.61	267.82
Asians	53	43.5	56.5	24.87	7.23	202.98	343.07
Westerners	51	45	55	21.75	3.02	63.55	123.51
New Zealand	126	38	62	23.11	4.71	167.51	353.48
Asians	61	36	64	23.66	5.87	290.00	460.77
Westerners	65	40	60	22.60	3.24	52.81	132.62

Attrition analyses were performed in both contexts. In New Zealand, the drop-out rate was 55.7%. A significant age difference was found between those who did (M = 23.19, SD = 4.70) and did not (M = 21.65, SD = 2.74) complete the second survey, t(283) = −3.46, p = .001, Cohen’s d = .41. There were no additional differences in terms of age, length of stay, and the main study variables (i.e., acculturative stress, secondary coping, and psychosomatic symptoms at T1 and T2). For the Chinese sample, the attrition was 51%. There was no significant difference between those who completed both time waves and those who did not in terms of age, gender, length of stay, and the study variables. In New Zealand, the survey was administered in English, whereas in China, participants could choose to complete the questionnaire either in English, Mandarin, or Korean. The surveys were back-translated by researchers who were fluent in Korean and English or Mandarin and English.

Materials

Acculturative stress

The measure of stress used in the current study was adapted to international students by Jose, Ward, and Liu (2007). The scale consists of 37 items assessing a wider range of difficulties related to living in a host country, including problems with communication, adjusting to the pace of life, experiencing discrimination, cultural differences, uprooting difficulties, and daily stressors. Sample items are “Experienced a cultural misunderstanding with someone,” “Had difficulty making friends,” and “Was unable to find my way around the city.”² Participants rated the negative intensity of each event on a 4-point scale (anchored by 0 = none and 3 = a lot). Higher scores indicated greater levels of acculturative stress. The scale had acceptable reliability in both contexts (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of and Correlations Among the Study Variables.

	Correlations				China			New Zealand
	1	2	3	4	M	SD	α	M	SD	α
1. Acculturative stress		.04	.41***	.45***	0.48	.23	.88	0.55	.33	.85
2. Secondary coping	−.21*		.06	.02	3.01	.52	.78	2.98	.54	.79
3. Somatic symptoms T1	.40***	−.02		.49***	2.05	.60	.76	1.78	.55	.84
4. Somatic symptoms T2	.27***	−.02	.53***		1.97	.47	.70	1.73	.54	.77

Note. Correlations for New Zealand are presented above diagonal, and correlations for China are displayed below diagonal.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Secondary coping

Secondary coping was assessed with the acceptance and positive reinterpretation and growth subscales of the COPE Inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). Each scale comprised four items. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with statements such as “I look for something good in what is happening” (positive reinterpretation) and “I accept the reality of the fact that it happened” (acceptance) on a 4-point scale anchored by 1 = don’t do this at all and 4 = do this a lot. Items were prefaced with the following instruction: This section is concerned with how people respond when they confront difficult or stressful events such as those recent events described on the previous pages. These questions ask you to indicate what you did and felt when you experienced those stressful events. We are particularly interested in the strategies you are presently using and have used in the past month. Total scores were calculated with higher values indicating greater use of the secondary coping strategy. The composite measure demonstrated good internal consistency in both contexts (see Table 2).

Psychological symptoms

The Somatic Symptoms subscale of the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg & Willliams, 1988) was applied to measure psychological problems. Participants used a 4-point scale (1 = never and 4 = most times) to indicate how often they had experienced symptoms, such as “I have been getting pains in my stomach” or “I have been feeling perfectly well and in good health” (reverse scored), in the previous week. The scale revealed acceptable reliability at both time points in each country (see Table 2).

Data analysis

First, the equivalence of the measurements was tested across ethnic and cultural groups. To assess model fit, the chi-square and degree of freedom ratio (χ²/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with its confidence interval, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were examined. As recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), χ²/df lower than 2.5, CFI higher than .95, RMSEA lower than .06, and SRMR lower than .08 were considered to indicate acceptable fit to the data. After establishing configural/structural invariance, parameter constrains were added to test metric (weight parameters constrained to be equal) and scalar (weight parameters and intercepts constrained to be equal) invariance. Increasingly restrictive models were compared using the CFI difference test. More restrictive models were confirmed when the decrease in the CFI was .01 or less (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

Next, preliminary analyses were conducted to examine relationships among the study variables. Finally, longitudinal moderation analysis was employed to test our hypotheses (Jose, 2013a). The data were subjected to a hierarchical regression analysis with psychological symptoms at Time 2 functioning as the dependent variable. In the first step, we residualized the dependent measure (psychological symptoms) by entering the Time 1 variable and controlled for demographic variables, including ethnicity (0 = Asian and 1 = Western), cultural context (0 = China and 1 = New Zealand), and length of stay. Next, the main effects of acculturative stress and secondary coping were entered. The third step included the two-way interactions (i.e., Acculturative stress × Secondary coping, Acculturative stress × Cultural context, and Secondary coping × Cultural context, Acculturative stress × Ethnicity, Secondary coping × Ethnicity, Cultural context × Ethnicity), and was followed by the addition of the three-way interaction terms (i.e., Acculturative stress × Secondary coping × Cultural context, Acculturative stress × Secondary coping × Ethnicity, Acculturative stress × Ethnicity × Cultural context, and Secondary coping × Ethnicity × Cultural context), and last, the four-way interaction term (Acculturative stress × Secondary coping × Cultural context × Ethnicity) was introduced. Significant results from the hierarchical regression analysis were entered into ModGraph (Jose, 2013b), and simple slope analyses were performed to display longitudinal moderation effects.

Results

Measurement Equivalence

Fit indices and difference tests are reported in Table 3. First, equivalence across cultural contexts was examined. Analyses indicated configural and full metric equivalence for secondary coping, acculturative stress, and somatic symptoms. Full scalar invariance was established for secondary coping. For somatic symptoms, results yielded partial scalar equivalence, whereas for acculturative stress, partial scalar equivalence could not be established. Equivalence tests across ethnic groups revealed configural, full metric, and partial scalar equivalence for all measures. Full metric equivalence was established for every measure across all groups, which implies that score patterns can be compared between New Zealand and China and between Westerners and Asians (Fontaine, 2005).

Table 3.

Test for Measurement Equivalence Across Cultural Context and Ethnicity.

	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	RMSEA	90% CI	SRMR	Δχ²	ΔCFI
New Zealand vs. China
Secondary coping
Configural	51.17	38	1.35	.969	.039	[.000, .064]	.044	ns
Metric	56.17	44	1.28	.972	.035	[.000, .060]	.048	ns	−.003
Scalar	59.45	52	1.14	.983	.025	[.000, .051]	.048	ns	−.011
Somatic symptoms
Configural	61.28	38	1.61	.958	.052	[.026, .075]	.041
Metric	68.31	45	1.52	.958	.048	[.022, .070]	.052	ns	.000
Scalar	87.63	53	1.65	.938	.054	[.033, .073]	.053	p = .013	.020
Partial scalar (Intercepts 1 and 5 unconstrained)	78.30	51	1.54	.951	.048	[.025, .069]	.053	ns	.007
Acculturative stress
Configural	26.73	14	1.91	.982	.063	[.024, .099]	.035
Metric	29.68	19	1.56	.985	.050	[.000, .083]	.038	ns	−.003
Scalar^a	105.41	25	4.22	.884	.119	[.096, .143]	.043	p < .001	.101
Asians vs. Westerners
Secondary coping
Configural	61.92	38	1.63	.945	.053	[.027, .076]	.052
Metric	69.17	44	1.57	.943	.050	[.026, .072]	.062	ns	.002
Scalar	109.37	52	2.10	.869	.070	[.052, .088]	.063	p < .001	.074
Partial scalar (Intercept 1 unconstrained)	78.23	51	1.53	.938	.049	[.025, .069]	.063	ns	.005
Somatic symptoms
Configural	31.52	30	1.05	.997	.015	[.000, .053]	.056
Metric	43.96	37	1.19	.988	.029	[.000, .058]	.072	ns	.009
Scalar	81.77	45	1.82	.935	.060	[.039, .081]	.074	p < .001	.053
Partial scalar (Intercepts 1, 2, and 7 unconstrained)	51.93	42	1.24	.983	.032	[.000, .059]	.072	ns	.005
Acculturative stress
Configural	21.31	14	1.52	.993	.048	[.000, .087]	.016
Metric	32.57	19	1.71	.986	.056	[.019, .088]	.019	p = .046	.007
Scalar	63.18	25	2.53	.961	.082	[.057, .108]	.017	p < .001	.025
Partial scalar (Intercept 2 unconstrained)	39.13	24	1.63	.985	.053	[.018, .082]	.018	ns	.001

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

Partial scalar equivalence could not be established.

Preliminary Analyses

Bivariate correlations indicated that acculturative stress was moderately related to psychological symptoms at Time 1 and Time 2 in both cultural contexts. In addition, secondary coping was negatively correlated with acculturative stress in China. However, the respective association was nonsignificant in the New Zealand group. Psychological symptoms at Time 1 showed a moderately strong correlation with psychological symptoms at Time 2 in both countries (Table 3).

Longitudinal Moderation Analysis

A five-step hierarchical regression analysis was employed to test our predictions. It was expected that acculturative stress would increase psychological symptoms over time (H1). In addition to the main effect of stress, we examined whether the effectiveness of secondary coping was a function of cultural context (H2), ethnicity (H3), or the combination of the two (H4).

The five-step model explained 47.1% of variance in psychological symptoms at Time 2, F(17, 205) = 10.76, p < .001. The four-way interaction was nonsignificant, and therefore, results from the fourth step are interpreted (Table 4). The three-way interactions explained 4.3% of unique variance in residualized psychological symptoms, F(4, 206) = 4.20, p = .003. Results indicated a significant main effect for somatic symptoms at Time 1 (β = .37, p < .001), ethnicity (β = .31, p < .001), and country of reception (β = .25, p = .003). In line with the preliminary analyses, there was a significant Ethnicity × Country interaction (β = −.21, p = .028). In addition, ethnicity significantly interacted with stress (β = .25, p = .031) in predicting somatic symptoms at T2. The simple slope analysis indicated that acculturative stress was positively related to changes in somatic symptoms over time for Asians, but not for Westerners, t(219) = 5.22, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .71, and t(219) = 1.31, ns, respectively.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression of the Prediction of Change in Somatic Symptoms Over Time.

	Step 1			Step 2			Step 3			Step 4			Step 5
	ΔR²	β	t	ΔR²	β	t	ΔR²	β	t	ΔR²	β	t	ΔR²	β	t
Somatic symptoms T1	.341***	.45	7.80***	.043**	.36	5.81***	.039*	.36	5.85***	.043**	.37	6.04***	.004	.37	6.08***
Length of stay (days)		.07	1.15		.08	1.47		.07	1.11		.06	1.00		.06	1.02
Ethnicity (Westerners vs. Asians)		.21	3.54***		.20	3.48***		.31	4.07***		.31	4.12***		.31	4.14***
Country (New Zealand vs. China)		.12	2.03*		.16	2.85**		.27	3.32**		.25	2.98**		.25	3.02**
Acculturative stress					.23	3.82***		.13	1.24		.15	1.31		.14	1.27
Secondary coping					.06	1.04		−.02	−.27		−.07	−.81		−.07	−.80
Ethnicity × Country								−.18	−1.88		−.21	−2.22*		−.21	−2.18*
Ethnicity × Stress								.20	1.97*		.25	2.17*		.24	2.13*
Ethnicity × Secondary coping								.08	1.05		.15	1.56		.15	1.57
Country × Stress								−.10	−1.55		−.13	−.99		−.12	−.93
Country × Secondary coping								.01	.13		.01	.13		−.04	−.37
Stress × Secondary coping								.08	1.40		.07	.66		.11	.99
Ethnicity × Stress × Secondary coping											.14	1.30		.09	.77
Country × Stress × Secondary coping											−.27	−3.78***		−.45	−2.70**
Ethnicity × Country × Stress											−.10	−.76		−.09	−.68
Ethnicity × Country × Secondary coping											−.13	−1.10		−.07	−.60
Ethnicity × Country × Stress × Secondary														.21	1.21

Note. Dependent variable is somatic symptoms at T2.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Finally, results revealed a significant three-way interaction among stress, secondary coping, and country (β = −.27, p < .001). To interpret and graph these findings, we examined the Stress × Secondary coping interaction in China and New Zealand, separately. Additional analyses indicated that the Stress × Secondary coping interaction was significant both in China (β = −.28, p = .005) and New Zealand (β = .18, p = .017). To display the interactions, data were imputed in to ModGraph, and simple slope analyses were performed. Analyses showed that secondary coping buffered the negative effects of acculturative stress on psychological symptoms over time in China (Figure 1). Specifically, acculturative stress predicted increased levels of somatic symptoms under low levels of secondary coping, t(118) = 2.06, p = .042, Cohen’s d = .38. However, when participants used high levels of secondary coping, acculturative stress was associated with decrements in somatic symptoms, t(118) = −2.01, p = .047, Cohen’s d = .37. Under medium levels of secondary coping, the stress-somatic symptom relationship was not significant, t(118) = −0.59, ns.

Figure 1.

Secondary coping at Time 1 buffered the negative effects of acculturative stress at Time 1 on somatic symptoms at Time 2 in China.

In contrast, secondary coping functioned as an exacerbator in New Zealand (Figure 2). In particular, acculturative stress predicted higher levels of somatic symptoms over time under high and medium levels of secondary coping, t(118) = 4.35, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .80, and t(118) = 4.45, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .82. When low levels of secondary coping were used, acculturative stress was not significantly associated with changes in somatic symptoms, t(118) = 1.73, ns.

Figure 2.

Secondary coping at Time 1 exacerbated the negative effects of acculturative stress at Time 1 on somatic symptoms at Time 2 in New Zealand.

Discussion

The present research sought to investigate the impact of cultural context (China vs. New Zealand) and ethnicity (Asian vs. Western) on coping with acculturative stress in international students. In particular, we examined the role of secondary coping in the acculturative stress management process, a coping strategy that has received considerable attention in the literature in recent years (Morling & Evered, 2006; Sawaumi, Yamaguchi, Park, & Robinson, 2015; Skinner, 2007). Expanding on the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to test interaction effects among ethnicity, cultural context, acculturative stress, and secondary coping in the prediction of psychological problems over time. To our knowledge, our study is the first to systematically examine contextual and ethnic differences in the stress–coping–adaptation relationship.

The study revealed important findings on three counts. First, ethnic and contextual differences emerged in psychological adaptation. Western international students in New Zealand reported significantly lower levels of somatic symptoms over time than their Asian peers. This could be driven by the larger cultural dissimilarity experienced by Asians studying in New Zealand. Cultural distance has been shown to predict negative psychological outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, and somatic symptoms (Babiker, Cox, & Miller, 1980; Galchenko & van de Vijver, 2007; Suanet & van de Vijver, 2009; Ward & Searle, 1991). However, the same effect was not present in China. Although Asians (i.e., low cultural distance group) were expected to adapt better in the Chinese context compared with their Western counterparts, there was no difference between Western and Asian international students in China in somatic symptomatology over time. It is unclear whether international students in China experience unique challenges that the present study did not capture or this finding could be attributed to other factors, such as a response bias. Equivalence tests yielded only partial scalar invariance for somatic symptoms indicating a uniform bias for Items 1 and 5 across context and for Item 1, 2, and 7 across ethnic groups. While not a conclusive finding, it has been shown that Asians score higher on many self-reporting symptom inventories (e.g., depression and anxiety) compared with Caucasians (Chu & Sue, 2011; Okazaki, 1997).

Second, across both cultural contexts and for both ethnic groups, acculturative stress was related to more somatic symptoms both concurrently and longitudinally. While not a novel finding, it further supports the negative impact of stress on mental health during cross-cultural transition (Berry, 2006). Furthermore, acculturative stress interacted with ethnicity in the prediction of somatic symptoms. Regardless of the context of reception, acculturative stress was associated with more somatic symptoms for Asian international students. This could be a result of a culturally conditioned stress response, such that Asians somaticize stress reactions more than Westerners who may be more likely to display mood disorders (Dere et al., 2013; Ryder et al., 2008).

Ethnic differences in social support seeking could also explain the stronger stress–symptom relationship among Asian students. Social support is an important buffer of the negative effects of acculturative stress on psychological outcomes (Lee, Koeske, & Sales, 2004). However, it has been shown that Asians (both in Asian and Western contexts) are less likely to seek and receive social support when dealing with stressful life events (Taylor et al., 2004), including cross-cultural transition stress (Jose et al., 2007). Lack of social support is a possible mechanism through which acculturative stress leads to increased psychological symptoms in Asian international students. This explanation needs to be tested in future research.

Finally, we found that the effectiveness of secondary coping differed across sociocultural environments independent of ethnicity. A three-way interaction among acculturative stress, secondary coping, and country of reception indicated that secondary coping acted as a buffer in China and as an exacerbator in New Zealand. More specifically, for both international student groups in China, the utilization of secondary coping decreased the harmful effects of acculturative stress on psychological problems over time. In contrast, for students in New Zealand, the negative effects of acculturative stress on somatic symptoms were stronger when secondary coping strategies were used to a moderate or large extent.

The Stress × Secondary coping × Ethnicity interaction was not significant; thus, the utility of secondary coping did not vary as a function of ethnic affiliation. These results indicate that whether acceptance and positive reinterpretation are adaptive strategies to combat acculturative stressors is largely influenced by the cultural context (see the model for culture and contextual coping by Heppner, Weisz, Neville, & Kanagui-Muñoz, 2014). Furthermore, these findings support a person-to-culture fit approach (Ward & Chang, 1997), where one’s coping is aligned with the broader cultural context: A mechanism that has been widely documented with respect to other psychological processes such as emotional fit with culture (De Leersnyder, Mesquita, Kim, Eom, & Choi, 2014) and personality acculturation (Gungor et al., 2013).

Cross-cultural variations in the efficacy and utility of secondary coping could be explained by the interplay between the sociocultural context and the ability to exert control over the environment. The tight versus loose culture hypothesis (Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006) postulates that collectivistic cultures are more susceptible to obedience to group norms, insecurity, and lack of control; therefore, within a tight control society, behavioral inhibition is considered to be necessary for successful adaptation. In tight cultures, such as China, individuals must conform to group values, attitudes, and behaviors (Uz, 2015). On the other hand, in a more culturally loose society, such as New Zealand, a much wider range of different behaviors, values, and attitudes might be tolerated and socially accepted. Our findings indicate that applying secondary coping, which can be considered as a form of withdrawn control, in response to acculturative stress in a loose cultural environment, where exerting control is appropriate and expected, can lead to negative psychological outcomes. In contrast, secondary coping strategies are associated with reduced psychological problems in a tight cultural context, where active coping efforts are socially restricted. Furthermore, a recent study has demonstrated that, regardless of culture of origin, transitioning to a tight cultural environment is more stressful and leads to poorer adaptation (Geeraert, Li, Ward, Gelfand, & Demes, 2017).

In addition, differences in the perceived controllability of acculturative stress should be taken into account when interpreting our findings. In a context, such as New Zealand, with a long-standing policy for encouraging immigration, adapting to the local life style may mean that individuals develop a stronger sense of control and perceive more available resources. Whereas in China, which has a long-standing history of being closed and more ethnically homogeneous, international students may perceive acculturative stress as inevitable and unchangeable, and, therefore, utilize secondary coping as an effective coping mechanism. It has been previously demonstrated that secondary strategies are especially adaptive in low-control situations (McCarty et al., 1999; Szabo et al., 2016).

While our study has found unique differences in the benefits of secondary coping strategies across different contexts, it is necessary to replicate the present findings with domestic students and other cultural groups. In addition, it is also of extreme importance to explore within culture variations of coping across different regional and ethnic groups. For example, Jose and Schurer (2010) found differences in the preferred coping strategies of Māori youth in New Zealand compared with European and Asian New Zealanders based on their cultural orientation (idiocentrism vs. allocentrism). In a recent discovery in China, English and Geeraert (2017) found within culture variation based on (wheat vs. rice) province of origin in the efficacy of secondary coping during an intracultural transition. According to the rice theory (Talhelm et al., 2014), Chinese people in the northern wheat-cultivating areas were more individualistic and analytical compared with southerners who depend more on paddy rice cultivation. Rice cultivation fosters cooperation and reinforces social harmony, while wheat farming promotes independence and individualism (Henrich, 2014). These studies along with the present findings enrich our understanding of the interplay between the person and the environment.

Limitations and Strengths

The present study represents our effort to integrate current discussions in psychology regarding secondary coping and the impact of context and ethnicity during cross-cultural adaptation. Yet like with other studies, our research has several caveats. First, an important limitation is that for most measures, only partial scalar equivalence was established; therefore, findings regarding mean differences should be interpreted with caution. Also, ethnicity was measured in terms of Western versus Asian origin. Although the countries classified as Western and Asian share similarities in terms of cultural values and worldviews, we acknowledge that there is a great deal of heterogeneity in these categories, and it is fair to assume that differences exist across Asian (and Western) countries in terms of stress management and coping efficiency. The relatively small sample size, however, did not allow us to run analyses based on specific ethnic groups. Finally, the attrition rate was around 53%. High attrition can pose threat to validity and limit the generalizability of the findings. However, simulation studies have shown that regression weights are more robust and less affected by high attrition than mean-level comparisons (Gustavson, von Soest, Karevold, & Røysamb, 2012).

In spite of these limitations, the study possesses some important strengths. We used a longitudinal design that has been consistently encouraged in the field of cross-cultural psychology (see a recent review by Ward & Geeraert, 2016). Furthermore, coping researchers have long stressed the need to move away from a Western approach to coping and examine context-specific coping patterns (Heppner, 2008; Kuo, 2014). For this reason, our investigation is valuable, as we focused on international students in a Chinese context, which has received an influx in higher education enrollments in the last 5 years (Belyavina, 2013), and on similar groups in New Zealand, which has been a well-established study-abroad destination (Verbik & Lasanowski, 2007).

Implications and Concluding Comments

Taken together, we examined the effect of ethnicity and cultural context on the utility of secondary coping. Our findings support evidence for the context hypothesis, such that the effectiveness of secondary coping is a function of the sociocultural context independent of ethnicity. This is a novel finding and aligns with current trends in cross-cultural psychology investigating the relationship among environmental factors, behavior, and psychological processes (see Uskul, Kitayama, & Nisbett, 2008). For coping researchers, the present study reflects the need to examine the role of effective stress management strategies and ways in which coping specifically aids transitions to a new cultural context (Chun, Moos, & Cronkite, 2006). In further understanding the process of sojourner transitions, our investigation answers some questions about the impact of stress and coping on adjustment across time and continental boundaries. In conclusion, it is of great interest and hope that the present study serves as a gateway to stimulate more research and to further expand discussions about the stress-coping model and its role in the cultural adaptation process across unique samples and contexts around the world.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Data collection in New Zealand was supported by a grant from Victoria University of Wellington. Data collection in China was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant #71371166).

Notes

References

Babiker

I. E.

Cox

J. L.

Miller

P. M.

(1980). The measurement of cultural distance and its relationship to medical consultations, symptomatology and examination performance of overseas students at Edinburgh University. Social Psychiatry, 15, 109-116. doi:10.1007/Bf00578141

Belyavina

(2013). U.S. students in China: Meeting the goal of the 100,000 strong initiative. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

Berry

J. W.

(2006). Stress perspective on acculturation. In Sam

D. L.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 43-57). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511489891.007

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

Weintraub

J. K.

(1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267

Chang

W. C.

Chua

W. L.

Toh

(1997). The concept of psychological control in the Asian context. In Leung

Kim

Yamaguchi

Kashima

(Eds.), Progress in Asian social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 95-117). Singapore: John Wiley.

Chataway

C. J.

Berry

J. W.

(1989). Acculturation experiences, appraisal, coping, and adaptation: A comparison of Hong-Kong Chinese, French, and English students in Canada. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 21, 295-309. doi:10.1037/H0079820

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Chu

J. P.

Sue

(2011). Asian American mental health: What we know and what we don’t know. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 3, 3-18. doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1026

Chun

C. A.

Moos

R. H.

Cronkite

R. C.

(2006). Culture: A fundamental context for the stress and coping paradigm. In Wong

P. T. P.

Wong

L. C. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 29-53). Springer: New York, NY. doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1026

10.

De Leersnyder

Mesquita

Kim

Eom

Choi

. (2014). Emotional fit with culture: A predictor of individual differences in relational well-being. Emotion, 14, 241-245. doi:10.1037/a0035296

11.

Dere

Sun

Zhao

Persson

T. J.

Zhu

Yao

. . . Ryder

A. G.

(2013). Beyond “somatization” and “psychologization”: Symptom-level variation in depressed Han Chinese and Euro-Canadian outpatients. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 377. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00377

12.

English

A. S.

Allison

J. H.

(2016). Understanding Western students: Motivations and benefits for studying in China. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4, 44-55. doi:10.11114/jets.v4i8.1499

13.

English

A. S.

Geeraert

(2017). Beyond the Rice Theory: Stress coping and adaptation of Chinese internal migrants. Manuscript in preparation.

14.

English

A. S.

Zeng

Z. J.

J. H.

(2015). The stress of studying in China: Primary and secondary coping interaction effects. SpringerPlus, 4, Article 755. doi:10.1186/s40064-015-1540-3

15.

Fontaine

J. R. J.

(2005). Equivalence. In Kempf

L. K.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 803-813). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00116-X

16.

Galchenko

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2007). The role of perceived cultural distance in the acculturation of exchange students in Russia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 181-197. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.004

17.

Geeraert

Ward

Gelfand

Demes

K. A.

(2017). A tight spot: How personality moderates the impact of social norms on sojourner adaptation. Manuscript under review.

18.

Gelfand

M. J.

Nishii

L. H.

Raver

J. L.

(2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1225-1244. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1225

19.

Goldberg

Willliams

(1988). A user’s guide to the GHQ. Windsor, Ontario, Canada: NFER-Nelson.

20.

Gungor

Bornstein

M. H.

De Leersnyder

Cote

Ceulemans

Mesquita

(2013). Acculturation of personality: A three-culture study of Japanese, Japanese Americans, and European Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 701-718. doi:10.1177/0022022112470749

21.

Gustavson

von Soest

Karevold

Røysamb

(2012). Attrition and generalizability in longitudinal studies: Findings from a 15-year population-based study and a Monte Carlo simulation study. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 1-11. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-918

22.

Henrich

(2014). Rice, psychology, and innovation. Science, 344, 593-594. doi:10.1126/science.1253815

23.

Heppner

P. P.

(2008). Expanding the conceptualization and measurement of applied problem solving and coping: From stages to dimensions to the almost forgotten cultural context. American Psychologist, 63, 805-816. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.805

24.

Heppner

P. P.

Weisz

J. R.

Neville

H. A.

Kanagui-Muñoz

(2014). A cultural and contextual model of coping. In Leong

F. T. L.

Comas-Díaz

Nagayama Hall

G. C.

McLoyd

V. C.

Trimble

J. E.

(Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural psychology, Vol. 2: Applications and training (APA handbooks in psychology) (pp. 83-106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14187-005

25.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

26.

Institute of International Education. (2014). International students in China. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Services/Project-Atlas/China/International-Students-In-China#.V0JGxiGQKu-

27.

Jose

P. E.

(2013a). Doing statistical mediation and moderation. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

28.

Jose

P. E.

(2013b). ModGraph-I: A programme to compute cell means for the graphical display of moderational analyses: The internet version, version 3.0. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington. Retrieved from https://psychology.victoria.ac.nz/modgraph/modgraph.php

29.

Jose

P. E.

Schurer

(2010). Cultural differences in coping among New Zealand adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 3-18. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

30.

Jose

P. E.

Ward

Liu

J. H.

(2007). Cross-cultural adaptation of Asian and Western international students in New Zealand. In Liu

J. H.

Ward

Bernardo

A. B. I.

Karasawa

Fischer

(Eds.), Casting the individual in societal and cultural contexts (pp. 205-224). Seoul, South Korea: Kyoyook-Kwahak-Sa Publishing.

31.

Kuo

B. C. H.

(2011). Culture’s consequences on coping: Theories, evidences, and dimensionalities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 1084-1100. doi:10.1177/0022022110381126

32.

Kuo

B. C. H.

(2014). Coping, acculturation, and psychological adaptation among migrants: A theoretical and empirical review and synthesis of the literature. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: An Open Access Journal, 2, 16-33. doi:10.1080/21642850.2013.843459

33.

Lam

A. G.

Zane

N. W. S.

(2004). Ethnic differences in coping with interpersonal stressors: A test of self-construals as cultural mediators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 446-459. doi:10.1177/0022022104266108

34.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

35.

Lee

J. S.

Koeske

G. F.

Sales

(2004). Social support buffering of acculturative stress: A study of mental health symptoms among Korean international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 399-414. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.08.005

36.

McCarty

C. A.

Weisz

J. R.

Wanitromanee

Eastman

K. L.

Suwanlert

Chaiyasit

Band

E. B.

(1999). Culture, coping, and context: Primary and secondary control among Thai and American youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40, 809-818. doi:10.1017/S0021963099004059

37.

Morling

Evered

(2006). Secondary control reviewed and defined. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 269-296. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.269

38.

Morling

Kitayama

Miyamoto

(2003). American and Japanese women use different coping strategies during normal pregnancy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1533-1546. doi:10.1177/0146167203256878

39.

New Zealand Education. (2015). New Zealand international education. Retrieved from https://www.enz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2045-ENZ-SnapShot-Full-Year-Report-VISUAL.pdf

40.

O’Connor

D. B.

Shimizu

(2002). Sense of personal control, stress and coping style: A cross-cultural study. Stress and Health, 18, 173-183. doi:10.1002/smi.939

41.

Okazaki

(1997). Sources of ethnic differences between Asian American and White American college students on measures of depression and social anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 52-60. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.52

42.

Peng

(1993). Primary and secondary control in American and Chinese-American adults: Cross-cultural and life-span developmental perspectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.

43.

Persike

Seiffge-Krenke

(2016). Stress with parents and peers: How adolescents from 18 nations cope with relationship stress. Anxiety Stress & Coping, 29, 38-59. doi:10.1080/10615806.2015.1021249

44.

Rothbaum

Weisz

J. R.

Snyder

S. S.

(1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A 2-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5-37. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.5

45.

Ryder

A. G.

Yang

Zhu

Yao

Heine

S. J.

Bagby

R. M.

(2008). The cultural shaping of depression: Somatic symptoms in China, psychological symptoms in North America? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 300-313. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.117.2.300

46.

Sasaki

J. Y.

Kim

H. S.

(2011). At the intersection of culture and religion: A cultural analysis of religion’s implications for secondary control and social affiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 401-414. doi:10.1037/a0021849

47.

Sawaumi

Yamaguchi

Park

Robinson

A. R.

(2015). Japanese control strategies regulated by urgency and interpersonal harmony: Evidence based on extended conceptual framework. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 252-268. doi:10.1177/0022022114563749

48.

Schulz

Heckhausen

(1999). Aging, culture and control: Setting a new research agenda. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 54, 139-145. doi:10.1093/geronb/54B.3.P139

49.

Sinha

B. K.

Watson

D. C.

(2007). Stress, coping and psychological illness: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 386-397. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.14.4.386

50.

Skinner

E. A.

(2007). Secondary control critiqued: Is it secondary? Is it control? Comment on Morling and Evered (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 133, 911-916. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.911

51.

Suanet

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2009). Perceived cultural distance and acculturation among exchange students in Russia. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 182-197. doi:10.1002/Casp.989

52.

Szabo

Ward

Jose

P. E.

(2016). Uprooting stress, coping, and anxiety: A longitudinal study of international students. International Journal of Stress Management, 23, 190-208. doi:10.1037/a0039771

53.

Talhelm

Zhang

Oishi

Shimin

Duan

Lan

Kitayama

(2014). Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science, 344, 603-608. doi:10.1126/science.1246850

54.

Taylor

S. E.

Sherman

D. K.

Kim

H. S.

Jarcho

Takagi

Dunagan

M. S.

(2004). Culture and social support: Who seeks it and why? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 354-362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.354

55.

Trommsdorff

Essau

C. A.

(1998). Japanese and German adolescents’ control orientation: A cross-cultural study. In Trommsdorff

Friedlmeier

Kornadt

H.-J.

(Eds.), Japan in transition: Sociological and psychological aspects (pp. 198-211). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.

56.

Tweed

R. G.

White

Lehman

D. R.

(2004). Culture, stress, and coping—Internally- and externally-targeted control strategies of European Canadians, East Asian Canadians, and Japanese. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 652-668. doi:10.1177/0022022104270109

57.

Uskul

A. K.

Kitayama

Nisbett

R. E.

(2008). Ecocultural basis of cognition: Farmers and fishermen are more holistic than herders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 8552-8556. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803874105

58.

(2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 319-335. doi:10.1177/0022022114563611

59.

Verbik

Lasanowski

(2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends. World Education News & Reviews, 20, 1-16.

60.

Wang

K. T.

Heppner

P. P.

C. C.

Zhao

F. H.

Chuang

C. C.

(2012). Profiles of acculturative adjustment patterns among Chinese international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 424-436. doi:10.1037/a0028532

61.

Ward

Chang

W. C.

(1997). “Cultural fit”: A new perspective on personality and sojourner adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21, 525-533. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00023-0

62.

Ward

Geeraert

(2016). Advancing acculturation theory and research: The acculturation process in its ecological context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 98-104. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.021

63.

Ward

Kennedy

(2001). Coping with cross-cultural transition. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 636-642.

64.

Ward

Searle

(1991). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural-identity on psychological and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 209-225. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(91)90030-K

65.

Yakhnich

(2008). Immigration as a multiple-stressor situation: Stress and coping among immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 252-268. doi:10.1037/A0013002