Anna Kwiatkowska
Instytut Psychologii PAN
Joanna Roszak
Szkoła Wyższa Psychologii Społecznej
Renata Sikora
Uczelnia Techniczno-Handlowa im. Heleny Chodkowskiej
Ben Kuo
Uniwersyet Windsorski, Windsor, Kanada,
Konstantin Karpinskij
Państwowy Uniwersytet im. Janki Kupały, Grodno, Białoruś
Tatiana Gushchina
Państwowy Uniwersytet Techniczny, Kostroma, Rosja
Greta Gober
Uniwersytet w Oslo, Centrum Bada” Genderowych, Norwegia
Abstract:
The study sought to compare cultures differing in level of individualism and collectivism with regard to preferred coping strategies. Tested were hypotheses concerning cultural determinants of coping, i.e. relations between values, self-construals, self-esteem, and religiosity (explanatory variables), and engagement, collective and avoidance strategies (explained variables). Research was carried out in Norway, Poland, Belarus, and Russia (N = 759). The following instruments were employed: Schwartz and Bilskys Values Scale, Singeliss Self-Construals Scale, and Cross-Cultural Coping Strategies by Kuo, Rosysicar and Newby-Clark. In order to be able to compare cultures, measurement invariance (configural, metric and scalar) was tested. Predicted relationships between variables were tested by means of SEM. Structural models (assessed in the overall sample and in country subgroups) achieved sufficient goodness of fit in Norwegian, Polish and Belarusian samples, with regard to engagement (individualistic model) and collective strategies (collectvistic model), but not with regard to avoidance coping. Russian sample data were tested separately since there was no equivalence of the Cross-Cultural Coping Strategies, and in this sample four models were revealed instead of the expected three. Problems of universality and specificity of particular coping strategies were discussed, among other issues.
Keywords: stress, coping strategies, collectivism, individualism, SEM
Cite this article as:
Kwiatkowska, A., et al. (2014). Culture, stress and coping strategies. Cross-cultural study. Psychologia Społeczna, 28, 68–91. doi: 10.7366/189618002014280105