1
A Cultural and Contextual Model of Coping
Puncky Paul Heppner
University of Missouri
Meifen Wei
Iowa State University
Helen A. Neville
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champagne
Marlen Kanagui-Muñoz
University of Missouri
Heppner, P. P., Wei, M., Neville, H. A., & Kanagui-Munoz, M. (in press). A Cultural and
Contextual Model of Coping and Health. In F. T. L. Leong (Ed), The APA Handbook of
Multicultural Psychology: Theory and Research. American Psychological Association: Washington
DC.
2
A Cultural and Contextual Model of Coping
Coping has been among the most widely studied topics in psychology in the last two
decades (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). Consequently, a large body of research now clearly
indicates that how people cope with stressful life events is directly associated with psychological
and physical well-being; moreover, coping often moderates and/or mediates the relation between
stress and both psychological and physical well-being (e.g., P. Heppner, Witty, & Dixon, 2004;
Somerfield & McCrae, 2000; Zeidner & Endler, 1996). Most importantly, the literature indicates
that coping makes a difference in quality of life; people who cope more effectively with stressful
life events feel better in life, and for example, report a more positive psychological adjustment,
vocational adjustment, as well as physical health (e.g., Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; P.
Heppner, M. Heppner, Y.-W. Wang, & Lee, in press; P. Heppner et al., 2004; Somerfield &
McCrae, 2000). Due to inconsistent findings in the literature, different conceptualizations of
coping, methodological concerns (e.g., lack of longitudinal data), and narrow conceptual models
of coping detached from environmental factors, scholars have suggested that the coping literature
has not been as useful as expected (see Somerfield & McCrae, 2000).
Previous coping theories have focused on a number of variables concerning how people
cope with stressful events, such as the characteristics of the stressor (e.g., perceived threat or
challenge), personality characteristics of the individual (e.g., optimism), a wide array of coping
strategies (e.g., problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies), and various outcomes
(e.g., psychological well-being and distress). However, the role of the cultural context has been
largely ignored within the coping literature (e.g., P. Heppner, M. Heppner, Lee, Y.-W. Wang,
Park, & L.-F. Wang, 2006; Utsey, Adams, & Bolden, 2000; Wong, Wong, & Scott, 2006 ). In
essence, coping constructs based on the current dominant U.S. culture “do not tell the whole
3
story about coping for all cultural groups in the U.S.” (P. Heppner, 2008, p. 813). This omission
is quite striking given that cultural contexts have been broadly associated with a wide array of
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral strategies (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991). A great deal of
information is lacking about how people deal with stressful life problems within and across
different cultural groups; moreover, it is essential that coping with stressful problems be
understood within the individual’s larger sociopolitical environment and history; see for example
Walters, Simoni, and Evan-Campbell (2002) regarding effects of historical trauma (soul wound)
of American Indians at the individual and collective level. Most importantly, conducting
culturally inclusive coping research has great potential to expand the depth and richness of the
existing conceptual coping models and empirical knowledge bases (P. Heppner, 2008).
The primary purpose of this chapter is to propose a culturally responsive, individual x
environmental coping model for racial and ethnic minorities in the U. S. that may guide the
future work of both researchers and practitioners in the U.S. It is our strong belief that to more
fully understand coping, our theories must extend beyond the individual to recognize that coping
behaviors do not occur in isolation, but rather within the larger social and cultural context,
including the U. S. sociopolitical history. Our model builds upon the strengths of the existing
coping literature and addresses significant conceptual limitations in the existing empirical coping
literature. We will first provide an overview of the model, and subsequently illustrate the five
primary domains of the model by utilizing examples from the existing coping literature.
The Cultural and Contextual Model of Coping (CCMC)
The Cultural and Contextual Model of Coping (CCMC) is an individual x environmental
ecological coping model for American racial and ethnic minorities that emphasizes coping is an
act within a cultural context. Although some researchers have called for the development of
4
universal theories to describe the coping process, a wide array of evidence supports the notion
that coping exists within a cultural context (see Cheung, 2000; Chun, Moos, & Cronkite, 2006; P.
Heppner, 2008; Tweed & Conway, 2006; Wong & Wong, 2006). By the cultural context we are
referring to a highly complex, continually changing system of norms, customs, and values that
are transmitted across generations, and provide prescriptions for behavior (Triandis, 1995).
Cultural norms, customs, and values provide standards for acceptable/unacceptable behavior,
what is right or what is wrong, in any particular community or society. For instance, the cultural
context affects what is considered to be a stressful problem, the possible/allowable coping
strategies that one may use to attempt to alleviate the stress and achieve one's goals, perceived
acceptable solutions, and even appropriate indicators of psychological adjustment (see Cheung,
2000; P. Heppner, 2008; Moos, 1984, 2002; Pedersen, 2006; Y-W. Wang & P. Heppner, 2011;
Wong & Wong, 2006).
Consistent with Lewin (1936) and Moos (1984, 2002), we conceptualize coping
behaviors in large part as a function of the interactions between an individual and his or her
cultural environment, which includes a wide array of culturally ladened variables. In this manner,
coping is an act-in-context (see Landrine, 1995), or more specifically, an act within a cultural
context. Thus, our model contextualizes the coping process as occurring within an ecological
model consisting of three environmental nested systems (i.e., Immediate Relationships, Working
and Living Environments, Macro Sociocultural Context) as well as situation specific stressors.
For example, a recent qualitative study (Y.-W. Wang & P. Heppner, 2011) examining the coping
process of childhood sexual abuse survivors (CSA) in Taiwan found that a significant amount of
stress was related to gender-specific cultural values pertaining to virginity and chastity; one
survivor disclosed “defending my chastity was more important than being alive”(p.400). In
5
addition, cultural values of interpersonal harmony, saving face, and family respect greatly
influenced which coping strategies were deemed allowable in Taiwanese culture (Y.-W. Wang &
P. Heppner, 2011). In short, we join earlier scholars in coping (e.g., Chun, et al., 2006; Moos,
2002; Wong, et al., 2006) who have argued that we must conceptualize a person’s coping
behaviors as highly contextualized, and intricately interwoven with in a broader environmental
cultural context; thus, the cultural context plays a very significant role and central feature in the
CCMC.
More specifically, the CCMC consists of constructs within five domains: (a) Domain A:
Individual Factors, (b) Domain B: three levels of Environmental Factors, (c) Domain C:
Stressors, (d) Domain D: Coping, and (e) Domain E: Health Outcomes. Figure 1 depicts the five
domains. Domain A includes demographic variables and characteristics of individuals (e.g.,
personality traits). Consistent with Bronfenbrenner's ecological model (1977, 1995), as well as
others’ ecological models (e.g., Cook, Heppner, & O’Brien, 2003; Y.-W. Wang & P. Heppner,
2011). Domain B depicts three levels of nested environmental factors surrounding an individual.
Domain C reflects the types of stressors in a person's life. Domain D depicts the complex coping
process from the initial perceptions of the stressor to the functional impact of coping strategies.
Finally, Domain E reflects health outcomes. We briefly list several of the major constructs and
associated variables in each domain for illustrative purposes; constructs/variables may vary for
each person and across cultural groups. Please note that our list of constructs/variables in each
domain represent a fraction of the possible constructs/variables. Also note that the environmental
and individual factors may or may not be independent of each other. For example, macro level
cultural norms and values (e.g. familismo) likely affect an individual’s beliefs and values
pertaining to the role of family, although within any cultural group there may be differences
6
across individual’s beliefs and values. Thus, to more fully understand the coping of specific
groups of individuals, it may be useful to examine the role of particular cultural values at all
three environmental levels.
Our position is that constructs in all five CCMC domains (e.g., social identities, family
support, a person’s coping goals), all are affected by the respective cultural context of each
individual. Without taking into account coping strategies from a person's cultural context,
critically important information about how and why that person has learned to cope is excluded
(e.g., culturally influenced perceptions, beliefs, goals; cultural influences in the environment,
such as family members, which may influence viable coping strategies). Moreover, our model
hypothesizes bi-directional relations among the domains (see Figure 1). In addition, we postulate
that individual factors as well as the three environmental factors not only can directly affect the
coping process, but also a combination of these two factors are likely to moderate and mediate
perceptions of stress, coping, and consequently health outcomes. To facilitate research on this
model, Table 1 provides an overview of possible hypotheses among these domains.
The CCMC is also grounded in empirical findings and conceptual models in the existing
coping literature (e.g., Abrado-Lanza & Revenson, 1996; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007;
Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Lazarus, 2000; Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003;
McCreary, Cunningham, Ingram, & Fife, 2006; Padilla & Borrero, 2006: Utsey et al., 2000;
Wong & Wong, 2006). In addition, we draw on recent studies examining coping across situation
specific stressors (e.g., P. Heppner, Z. Wang, Tsai, Huang, M. Heppner, & He, in review) and
expand upon a coping model from a recent qualitative study (Y.-W. Wang & P. Heppner, 2011).
Our coping model goes beyond the dispositional coping styles that have been prevalent in the
general coping literature, and provides insight into some coping complexities across different
7
types of stressful events. We will now briefly describe the five domains of constructs in the
CCMC (see Figure 1), as well as provide illustrative examples and further describe relations
within the model.
Domains A and B: Individual and Environmental Factors
The first two domains consist of constructs which depict the intersection of the individual
and three levels of environmental contextual factors. We conceptualize these two domains
(Individual and Environmental) as independent, but transactional as they interact to influence the
coping process. Individual factors consist of a constellation of constructs associated with a wide
array of demographics and personality variables. Environmental factors consist of three levels
(i.e., immediate relational context, working and living context, and the macro sociocultural
context) around the individual. It is important to highlight the individual factors (e.g., problemsolving confidence, cognitive deficits) as well as the three levels of environmental factors (e.g.,
parental modeling of strong ethnic pride, instrumental support from co-workers and supervisors,
and institutional racism) can potentially provide a wealth of resources, or conversely, many
challenges that affect how an individual might cope with stressors.
Domain A: Individual Factors. Several constructs associated with an individual are
important to consider in coping with stress; in Figure 1, we list several examples of individual
variables within six categories (Demographic Variables, Personality Traits/Predispositions,
Social Identities, Social and Cultural Competencies, Personal Cultural Values and Beliefs, and
Cognitive and Affective Processes), but there are also others. All the individual and/or
environmental variables, as well as a combination of these two variables, can buffer or
exacerbate the associations among stress, coping, and health outcomes. For example, Latina/os
are more than three times as likely to live in poverty and have lower educational attainment than
8
their White and Asian counterparts (NCLR, 2008). Several studies have examined the predictive
nature of SES (Domain A) on Latina/o coping (Domain D), and found that both higher income
and levels of education were predictive of higher levels of active coping (Domain D: Bianchi,
Zea, Poppen, Reisen, & Echeverry, 2004; Ell & Nishimoto, 1989). McCreary, Slavin, and Berry
(1996) found that a positive racial identity was associated with positive psychosocial outcomes
in Black American adolescents. In another study using a sample of Chinese Christian immigrants,
Wei, Ku et al. (in press) found a significant interaction of avoidant attachment to God (i.e.,
perceiving God as distant, disinterested, and uncaring; Domain A) and perceived stress (Domain
C) on life satisfaction (Domain E). Specifically, high avoidant attachment to God exacerbated
the association between perceived stress and life satisfaction, whereas low avoidant attachment
to God buffered the association between perceived stress and life satisfaction. Another study by
Wei, P. Heppner, Mallen, Ku, Liao, and Wu (2007) found low maladaptive perfectionism and the
length of time in the U.S. (Domain A, individual variables) on the association between
acculturative stress (Domain C, a stressor) and depression (Domain E, an outcome variable) for
Chinese international students. Specifically, low maladaptive perfectionism buffered the effect of
acculturative stress on depression only for Chinese international students who have been in the
U.S. for a relatively long period of time (but not for those who have been in the U.S. for a shorter
period of time).
Domain B: Environmental Factors. Domain B consists of three nested levels of
environmental factors: Immediate Relationships, Working and Living Environments, and Macro
Sociocultural Context.
Level I: Immediate Relationships. Immediate Relationships depict the individual’s
immediate and intimate relationships, such as family, friends, and romantic partners. Examples
9
of variables within level I include instrumental and emotional support from family, friends, or
romantic partners, as well as family racial socialization messages (see Figure 1 for examples of
specific variables). The importance of the role of immediate relationships may vary across
cultural groups., For example, Latina/os may depend on their families for social support more
than their White (McMiller & Weisz, 1996; Munsch & Wampler, 1993) or Black American
counterparts (Anderson, et al., 2002; Culver, Arena, Antoni, & Carver, 2002), suggesting that the
importance of immediate relationships may vary across cultural groups.
Relationship variables can play a role in coping and subsequent health. For example, in a
study of Asian American students, Wei, P. Heppner, Ku, and Liao (2010) found that perceived
high helpfulness levels of family support (Domain B) reduced the impact of racial discrimination
stress (Domain C) on depression (Domain E). Since the family often plays a central cultural role
in many racial and ethnic minority cultures in the U.S. (e.g., McCreary, et al., 2006; Yeh, Arora,
& Wu, 2006), it seems Asian Americans may cope with racial discrimination stress by following
family norms of handling racial discrimination, trusting in the elders’ wisdom, and accepting
guidance from parents or elders. In short, the resources an individual has within his/her particular
relational environment can either lesson the impact of stressful life events on outcomes or
exacerbate the impact of stressful life events on outcomes.
How families socialize their children about race in the U. S. appears to be an important
relationship variable for many racial and ethnic minority youth and young adults. Parental
socialization messages can directly and indirectly influence psychological well-being. For
example, among a sample of Black college freshman, Bynum, Burton, and Best (2007) found
that the students who received proactive racial socialization messages from their parents or
messages instilling a positive sense of their racial/ethnic group (Domain B), reported
10
significantly lower levels of psychological distress (Domain E). Recent findings suggest this link
is more complicated. Barr and Neville (2011) found that the influence of parental racial
socialization on mental health was moderated by racial beliefs. Specifically, they found that
among Black college students who currently denied the existence of racism (Domain A) and who
received negative messages about race growing up (Domain B), reported the lowest levels of
mental health (Domain E).
Level 2: Working and Living Environments. The Working and Living Environments
depict an individual’s educational, work, living, social, and cultural environments, as well as
social class; see Figure 1 for examples of specific variables. Again, variables in these constructs
may positively or negatively affect an individual in varying degrees. For example, a number of
psychological theories and research studies suggest that relational perspectives in work/study and
living environments have a major impact on people's lives, as well as impact how they cope with
adversity (see Blustein, 2010). Specifically, working and living environments can include
campus climate, depressed economy, and attitudes toward diversity in the environment, such as
the color-blindness of co-workers or employers, racial climate, and so on (see details in Figure 1).
We proposed that variables in the Working and Living Environments can positively or
negatively affect the individual (e.g., self-esteem, see Domain A), all of which can influence
stress experiences (Domain C), the coping process (Domain D), and health outcomes (Domain
E).
For example, Kanagui-Muñoz, Garriott, Flores, Cho, and Groves (2011) found that
Latina/o food service workers reported that the quality of their interpersonal relationships with
their managers at the workplace (Domain B) affected their motivation to work (Domain E).
These findings support prior research linking the Latina/o cultural value of personalismo
11
(creating and valuing personal relationships: Domain A)) to workplace satisfaction (Domain E;
Falicov, 2001). Another study by Wei, Ku, and Liao (2011) found that a perceived positive
university environment (Domain B) was a significant mediator in the association between
minority stress (Domain C) and attitudes about college persistence (Domain E) among African
American, Latino, and Asian American students who attended a predominantly White university.
Also, a multiple-group comparison indicated that the magnitude of the mediation effect did not
differ across these three minority college students. A study with Black American adolescent girls
found a significant interaction between neighborhood cohesion and seeking support from adults
in predicting academic achievement (Allison, Belgrave, Butler, Edwards, & Plybon, 2003).
Another example is that Plaut and her colleagues (2009) surveyed nearly 5,000 workers in one
company, and found that the racial and diversity intolerant beliefs of White workers and
supervisors negatively influenced the psychological and work adjustment of their racial and
ethnic minority co-workers.
In sum, factors related to the living and working environments can facilitate or hinder
successful coping, and subsequently lessen or enhance stressful life events. There is an
increasing call for research to examine the work experiences of racial and ethnic minorities in
“blue collar” occupations as most career research in psychology has focused on the experiences
of White college students (Blustein, 2008). Much more research is needed to examine relations
among specific stressful problems (e.g., work-related stressful problems) and work/living
environment variables (e.g., relative percentage of similar racial and ethnic people in one's
neighborhood and workplace, percentage of racial and ethnic minorities of one's
employers/teachers/political leaders, racial attitudes of one's employer/teachers/political leaders,
etc.), and how those relations affect perceived stress, coping, and health outcomes. In addition,
12
we need to better understand the ways in which racial and ethnic minority co-workers’
worldviews and coping styles may mitigate racist perspectives of some people in their place of
employment.
Level 3: Macro Sociocultural Context. The Macro Sociocultural Context depicts a
broad Sociocultural system, including Norms and Customs (e.g., acceptable or unacceptable
behaviors), Macro Sociocultural Values (e.g., Afrocentric worldview), Discriminatory Attitudes
and Policies (e.g., institutional racism or hostile attitudes toward immigration), and Social
Political History (e.g., racial discrimination history). An individual might experience the
sociocultural environment of both the dominant U.S. culture as well as of the culture(s) of their
ethnic group(s).
At this time, much more attention is needed to examine the impact of the individual and
the three nested levels of environmental factors on coping across different cultural contexts.
Although the macro sociocultural system of cultural norms, customs, values, etc. may at times
seem ambiguous, the power of this system to impact people’s living and working environments,
and subsequently their coping, should not be overlooked. For example, Y.-W. Wang and P.
Heppner (2011) found that the macro cultural values around gender and family values (e.g., filial
piety, chastity, interpersonal harmony) were powerful determinants affecting the allowable
coping behaviors (e.g., do not be disloyal to parents, do not bring shame to the family by telling
others, do not cause interpersonal conflict in the family) of survivors of childhood sexual abuse
(CSA). In general, the study repeatedly found “interplay among the CSA-related events, her
problem appraisal, and (her) coping strategies and efficacy interacted with her individual
development, relationships with others, and the environment at large in affecting her eventual
coping outcomes. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023522.supp).
13
Domain C: Stressors. It is critical to recognize that there can be a wide array of stressors
in the lives of racial and ethnic minorities, such as generic stressors, unique stressors related to
racial and ethnic minorities, and an array of other stressors (e.g., other types of discrimination;
see Figure 1). First, it is important to consider the generic stressors such as academic stressors,
financial stressors, marital stressors, major negative and positive life events, or even daily hassles.
Second, there are unavoidable stressors unique to one's ethnic and minority status, such as
encountering racism or racial discrimination, acculturative stress, bicultural stress, and
intergenerational conflict due to acculturation. Third, there can be other stressors, such as those
related to sexism, classism, religious discrimination, heterosexism, ageism, or physical
disabilities. The combined impact of such stressors could result in double or triple the level of
stress than experienced by non-racial and ethnic minorities living in the same cultural context.
Thus, all of these stressors must be considered in a comprehensive understanding of stressors
experienced by racial and ethnic minorities (Harrell, 2000).
A number of studies in the field have explored the relative influence of generic and
unique stressors on various indicators of psychological and behavioral health. Several studies
have evidenced that after controlling for perceived generic stress, perceived racial discrimination
adds incremental variance in predicting psychological distress among African American men
(Pieterse & Carter, 2007) and Asian American men and women (e.g., Gee, Spencer, Chen, Yip,
& Takeuchi, 2007). The added stress may have negative implications for racial and ethnic
minority health. For instance, acculturative stress (Domain C) for U.S. Latina/os has been
negatively associated with active coping (Domain D) as well as mental/physical health (Domain
E: Bianchi, et al., 2004; Gloria, Castellanos, Scull, & Villegas, 2005; Hovey, 2000).
14
Additional research is needed to examine the Characteristics of Stressors experienced by
racial and ethnic minorities, such as the type, frequency, intensity, venue/context, severity, and
perceived meaning of stressors across individuals. The National Research Council (2004)
provided several helpful suggestions in examining perceived discrimination, which gets at the
issue of the characteristics of a specific stressor. Among their suggestions include exploring
multiple types of discrimination (i.e., both subtle and overt), the venue in which the
discrimination occurred (e.g., school, work), specific time period in which the stressor occurred
(making sure to avoid life-time “ever” questions). Additionally, the panel further suggested more
research is needed on the cumulative effects of racial discrimination as a specific stressor. For
example, what are the influences of intergenerational discrimination or discrimination that occurs
over time across a specific domain (e.g., early discrimination in schools and later school
experiences)?
Domain D: Coping. Coping is complex and multi-determined, and not surprisingly has
been defined differently by scholars over time. We define coping within a social learning,
cultural and transactional model as all cognitive, affective, and behavioral activities that
individuals have learned to respond to stressful events within a particular cultural context,
including relevant sociopolitical history. In Figure 1, we divide coping into four categories of
coping constructs: Perceptions of Stressors, Problem Appraisal and Coping Goals, Coping
Strategies, and the Function of Coping. How individuals appraise stressors reflects one’s
subjective appraisal of the severity of stress relative to their problem solving capacity (e.g.,
Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; P. Heppner & Krauskopf, 1987; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984); for
example, individuals who tend to perceive stressors as threats (as opposed to challenges) may
experience higher levels of anxiety and distress (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). How one
15
appraises a particular stressor, that is the meaning of a particular stressor, is closely intertwined
with that person's worldview and cultural context. Given a person's appraisal of a particular
stressor, one's subsequent coping goals reflect the objective(s) a person plans to achieve
(consciously or unconsciously) relative to his/her perceived abilities and personal control related
to the stressor. For example, a person may believe he/she has the ability (in conjunction with
their personal and social resources) to resolve a particular stressor with problem-focused coping
strategies, and subsequently establish relevant coping goals; another person does not believe it is
possible or appropriate to resolve a particular stressor with problem-focused coping, and
consequently may engage in changing the meaning of this stressor, perhaps through emotionfocused coping, secondary control strategies, or engaged in avoidant activities (e.g., denial,
blaming others or themselves).
Coping strategies represent a broad range of possible alternatives (e.g., taking time to
understand one’s feelings and the stressful situation at a deeper level) to achieve one's coping
goals, and in essence reflect one’s plan of action. There are a broad array of different coping
strategies (see Skinner et al., 2003 for an extensive review of different coping inventories and
coping strategies, largely from a white, Eurocentric perspective), although they may not always
to obvious to a person in the midst of coping with a stressful problem. Coping strategies can
reflect general dispositional coping styles (e.g., a general disposition of problem-solving
confidence) as well as a host of specific coping strategies (e.g., seeking family support,
religious/spiritual coping). Coping strategies are often affected by the values within a particular
cultural context (e.g., forbearance coping within a collectivist cultural context); thus, coping
strategies can be conceptualized along a collectivistic-individualistic dimension. Coping
strategies can also focus on resolving a problematic stressor (problem-focused coping), or on
16
controlling one's emotions (emotion-focused coping). Despite the magnitude of research on
coping strategies, relatively few coping inventories have been developed to assess contextually
sensitive coping strategies relative to the full range of stressors experienced by racial and ethnic
minorities in the US.
The CMCC depicts coping outcomes in four ways (see Figure 1). Coping outcomes are
reflected by the extent of problem resolution and reducing stress. Similarly, some scholars have
also conceptualized coping outcomes in terms of coping effectiveness (Heppner, Cook, Wright,
& Johnson, 1995; Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996). We also believe that positive coping outcomes
are often the result of culturally-congruent coping (i.e., successful coping outcomes often reflect
coping strategies that are appropriate within a particular cultural context). Finally, the Function
of Coping is hypothesized to affect Health Outcomes (see subsequent section).
We elaborate on four aspects of coping that merit additional consideration specifically for
racial and ethnic minorities: (a) contextualized stressors and coping goals within a cultural
context, (b) culturally-congruent coping, (c) coping as bi-directional and transactional processes,
and (d) situation-specific coping strategies.
Contextualizing Stressors and Coping Goals within a Cultural Context. It is essential to
examine how racial and ethnic minority individuals cope with different stressors within one’s
broader cultural context and worldview. One’s culturally laden values, worldview, and cultural
context gives meaning to the stressors that one experiences, and subsequently the coping goals
that they believe will most appropriately and effectively respond to the stressful situation.
However, relatively little research has examined how racial and ethnic minorities perceive
different types of stressors, and how those perceptions and subsequent coping goals affect
coping. For example, European Americans often conceptualize family support coping (or social
17
support in general) as talking about the problem/stressor with the intention of resolving the
problem; conversely, Asians and Asian Americans often conceptualize social support coping
more in terms of being with others, but without disclosing the stressor (see Taylor, Welch, Kim,
& Sherman, 2007). Thus, one's coping goals (being with family to feel their support as opposed
to talking with family members to resolve the problem) can result in not only very different
utilization of coping activities, but also very different coping outcomes (see Skinner et al.,2003).
Culturally-congruent Coping. Culturally influenced coping or culturally-congruent coping
refers to culturally-appropriate coping to deal with particular stressful situations within a
particular cultural context. Culturally-congruent coping often reflects a complex set of learned
behaviors that has a shared meaning among a racial, ethnic, or cultural group, such as collectivist
coping and collective coping (Wong, et al., 2006) and Chinese groups that reflect an
interdependent self-construal rather than independent self construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)
Culturally-congruent coping does not mean that other groups do not use similar
strategies, such as spiritual and religious coping strategies for example. Research indicates that
Black Americans (e.g., Ahrens, Abeling, Ahmad, & Hinman, 2010; McIlvane, 2007) and
Latina/os (e.g., Culver, Arena, Wimberly, & Carver, 2004; Edwards, Moric, Husfedlt,
Buvanendran, & Ivankovich , 2005; Padilla & Borrero, 2006) on average use spiritual and
religious coping strategies more so than their white American counterparts. Nearly eight-in-ten
Black Americans indicate that religion is very important in their lives (Pew Research Center,
2009), and Black Americans consistently report greater levels of religious coping (Domain D)
compared to White Americans and other racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Ahrens et al., 2010;
Chapman & Steger, 2010; McIlvane, 2007; True, et al., 2005). Similar data indicates Latina/os
use religious coping more frequently than White Americans (e.g., Copeland & Hess, 1995).
18
Moreover, the findings consistently indicate that religious coping (Domain D) positively affects
the adjustment process for both Latina/os and Black Americans (e.g., decreased stress [Domain
C], fewer psychological symptoms, and better physical health [Domain E)]; see Ahrens, Abeling,
Ahmad, & Hinman 2010; Herrera, Lee, Nanyonjo, Laufman, & Torres-Vigil, 2009).
Sometimes culturally-congruent coping strategies from a specific racial or ethnic group
are generalized inappropriately to other racial groups; John Henryism (JH: James, Hartnett, &
Kalsbeek, 1983) is one such example. JH emerges from African American folklore, and refers to
active coping efforts (Domain D) to manage persistent stressors associated with racial
discrimination, poverty and/or class exploitation (all Domain C); according to the JH hypothesis
these efforts play a taxing role on individuals because they expend high efforts to deal with
insurmountable conditions which ultimately have a deleterious effect on their physical health
(Domain E). The original JH hypothesis asserts that high JH (i.e., active coping efforts; Domain
D) has a negative effect on physical health (Domain E) only for people who are from low SES
(Domain A) backgrounds who have fewer resources (than their economically secure peers) to
confront the systemic nature of their stressors. A number of studies provide empirical support
for the original JH hypothesis (e.g., James and his colleagues,1983, 1994, and 1996) as well have
and more recently the effect on health outcomes such as nicotine dependence (Domain E;
Fernander et al., 2005) and cardiovascular disease (Domain E; Merritt, Bennett, Williams,
Sollers, & Thayer, 2004). However, when researchers applied JH to other racial, ethnic, and
social groups, the findings provided little support for the role of JH on the physical health of
people who are not Black Americans. Thus, the construct of JH seems appropriate for the
cultural context of lower income Black Americans, but not for other populations.
19
It is also important to highlight that individual factors such as lower SES as reflected not
only in low wages, but unemployment, a lack of savings and food reserves, and unsuitable
shelter (Domain A), can all affect the coping process (Domain D) across particular stressors
(Domain C), as well as affect physical and psychological health outcomes (Domain E). Thus,
consideration of culturally-congruent coping is very relevant for understanding allowable coping
strategies for individuals with varying level of resources (e.g., under employment or no
employment). Much more research is needed to examine the relations between an individual's
level of resources (Domain A and B) and congruent/allowable coping goals and strategies.
Coping as Bi-Directional and Transactional Processes. Following Y.-W. Wang and P.
Heppner (2011), we also conceptualize the coping process as both bi-directional and
transactional. The model is bi-directional in that the variables within the key constructs can have
reciprocal effects on each other (e.g., variables within the individual can impact variables in the
environmental context, and vice versa). For example, a student with high intercultural sensitivity
might be able to learn from a very diverse group of teachers and mentors. At the same time,
culturally insensitive teachers might adversely affect a student's development of intercultural
sensitivity, which may later influence the youth’s relationships with co-workers.
Likewise, the model is transactional in that coping strategies often add, remove, or
change the original context of the situation. That is, a coping activity might impact variables in
other constructs in the model (for better or worse), which in turn affects subsequent coping
strategies. For example, a particular coping activity, such as withdrawing from high school,
might negatively affect family relations, which could then prompt new coping strategies, such as
coping efforts to restore family relations; consequently, family relations might change (for better
20
or worse) as well as the choice of subsequent coping strategies that are needed at that particular
time.
To illustrate the transactional and reciprocal processes in coping, we include a narrative
summary of a qualitative study of CSA survivors in Taiwan (Y.-W. Wang & P. Heppner, 2011).
Please note this narrative does not describe any one individual case (and thus, confidentiality and
anonymity of the participants were ensured), yet it offers a vivid description of a typical CSA
survivor’s story and illustrates the complexities in coping over time with traumatic events related
to CSA (see http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023522.supp).
The stress related to the CSA events and her appraisals of herself and others
interacted with each other and affected her subsequent coping strategies. Her coping
strategies variably led to: (a) constructive outcomes, (b) short-term effective but longterm ineffective outcomes, (c) destructive long-term outcomes, or (d) mixed outcomes,
depending on whom she disclosed the events to, and their reactions…These coping
processes and outcomes resulted in varying levels of psychosocial adjustment, which, in
turn, affected her self-identity and relationships with others. When she chose to conceal
the sexual abuse, and dealt with the stress by repressing and enduring her feelings, these
coping behaviors led to a sense of loneliness and interpersonal isolation…
As she reached late adolescence and early adulthood, her low self-esteem and the
development of personal (e.g., sexual problems, posttraumatic stress symptoms) and
interpersonal (e.g., mistrust) difficulties further added to her stress level, and interacted
with her interpersonal relationships, which in turn made her susceptible to other stressors
(e.g., sexual revictimization in adulthood)... She also started wondering what kinds of
partners she should choose, whether or not she should tell her romantic partner about her
21
CSA experiences, and how self-disclosure would influence her romantic relationship…
Thus, as she faced different developmental tasks, her values, worldviews, and selfperceptions constructed around her CSA experiences were recurrently challenged. She
needed to make decisions around issues related to careers, relationships, marriage, and
having children, all of which made her rethink the impact of CSA events on her life
choices.
Despite facing so many stressful events related to the sexual abuse and the
disruption in her developmental process caused by these events, she also gradually
established a better self-image and rebuilt her trust towards others when she used
constructive coping strategies or received positive support from others (e.g., family
members, mental health professionals, and romantic partners). She learned to survive and
found new meanings for the experiences in her life. As she gained more energy and
developed additional strength, she was able to engage in more constructive coping
strategies and face additional challenges in life. She relearned how to connect with
herself, others, and the world... She decided to become a helping professional, helping
other survivors heal from the trauma and helping correct the cultural myths surrounding
CSA... As a whole, the interplay among the CSA-related events, her problem appraisal,
and coping strategies and efficacy interacted with her individual development,
relationships with others, and the environment at large in affecting her eventual coping
outcomes.” (See http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023522.supp).
Thus, similar to Y.-W. Wang and P. Heppner (2011), we conceptualize the constructs in
the CCMC as having transactional and reciprocal relationships among them, particularly as
constructs are examined within a cultural context. This suggests that coping may sometimes be a
22
unitary response, but more likely that coping with a complex stressful event will constitute
multiple coping strategies with complex transactional and bi-directional relations.
Situation-Specific Coping Strategies. There is enormous variability in the level of
difficulty stressors in people's lives. For example, some stressors may be relatively easy
problems or mild irritants (e.g., inadvertently locking one’s keys in their vehicle) and relatively
quickly resolved, while others such as childhood sexual abuse or experiencing extreme forms of
racial discrimination may be traumatic, occur numerous times, and remain stressful for years (see
P. Heppner & Krauskopf, 1987). Because of the complexity of coping across vastly different
stressors, researchers have suggested a need to examine coping related to specific stressors (or
situation-specific coping; e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1993, Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004, Somerfield
& McCrae, 2000; Tennen, Affleck, Armeli, & Carney, 2000). Not surprisingly, research suggests
that it is important to consider how people cope specifically with particular stressors (e.g.,
perceived discrimination). For example, research indicates that people cope differently across
different stressors (e.g., Allen & P. Heppner, 2011; Wei, P. Heppner, et al., 2010), and even that
people utilize strikingly different coping utilization rates (22-95%) across different stressors; for
example, participants who experienced an abortion or miscarriage, or unwanted sexual activity
tended to only use 27% and 47% (respectively) of the family support coping strategies;
conversely, 83% of those participants who experienced a personal illness used family support
coping strategies. In addition, the same coping strategies are seen as more or less helpful
depending on the type of stressor. For example, those students experiencing
abortion/miscarriage and unwanted sexual activity reported the highest percentage of
helpfulness for avoidance and detachment coping strategies (82%, 78% respectively).
Conversely, participants experiencing social isolation and ostracism from peers (59%) and
23
personal illness (61%) had the lowest percentages of helpfulness ratings for avoidance and
detachment (P. Heppner et al., in review).
We also know that both coping utilization and coping helpfulness ratings are sometimes
related to situation variables (e.g., high/low levels of perceived racial discrimination) and/or
individual variables (e.g., ethnic identity). For example, Yoo and Lee (2005) found that high use
of problem solving reduced the effects of perceived racial discrimination on negative affect only
for Asian Americans with a strong ethnic identity in a low racial discrimination condition (i.e., a
three-way interaction of problem solving coping × ethnic identity × perceived discrimination).
We proposed that the association between coping strategies (Domain D) and outcomes
(Domain E) can be moderated by individual factors (Domain A, see dotted line a1 in Figure 1)
and stressors (Domain C, see dotted line a2 in Figure 1). For example, in a recent study among
Chinese international students, Wei, Liao, P. Heppner, Chao, and Ku (in press) found the
association between forbearance coping (i.e., a culturally relevant coping strategy; Domain D)
and psychological distress (Domain E) depends on a person’s acculturation modes (i.e., stronger
vs. weaker identification with heritage culture; Domain A) and perceived acculturative stress
(Domain C). Specifically, for those with a weaker identification with their heritage culture, when
acculturative stress was higher, the use of forbearance coping was positively associated with
psychological distress. However, this was not the case when acculturative stress was lower. That
is, the use of forbearance coping was not significantly associated with psychological distress
when acculturative stress was lower. Likewise, for those with a stronger cultural heritage
identification, the use of forbearance coping was still not significantly associated with
psychological distress regardless of whether acculturative stress was high or low.
24
We also propose that a combination of individual variables (Domain A: see dotted line b1
in Figure 1) and coping strategies (Domain D: see dotted line b2 in Figure 1) can moderate the
association between stressors (Domain C) and outcomes (Domain E). For example, Wei, Ku,
Russell, Mallinckrodt, and Liao (2008) found the association between perceived discrimination
(Domain C) and depressive symptoms (Domain E) was moderated by self-esteem (Domain A)
and reactive coping (Domain D) among Asian international students (see dotted lines b1 and b2
in Figure 1). In particular, the results indicated a three way interaction in that the association
between perceived discrimination and depression was not significant when reactive coping was
infrequently used, but only for Asian international students with relatively high self-esteem (not
for those with relatively low self-esteem). Perhaps, low reactive coping serves as a protective
factor because it is congruent with the Asian cultural value of emotional self-control which
implies maturity in many Asian cultures (Kim, Li, & Ng, 2005). Asian international students
with high self-esteem may have more psychological resources (e.g., they may understand the
external factors of discrimination and do not engage in self-blame) than those with low selfesteem to protect them from the negative impact of perceived discrimination. Thus, stressful
problems like racial discrimination that evoke reactive coping (i.e., strong emotional responses)
may be particularly challenging for Asian international students because such a reactive coping
style is incongruent with the Asian value of emotional control.
Domain E: Health Outcomes. A wide array of health outcomes are depicted in Figure 1.
Research has clearly shown that coping significantly impacts a wide array of psychological and
physical health outcomes (e.g., Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). For example, a large body of
research supports the utility of one's general coping beliefs (e.g., problem-solving confidence;
Domain D) or general dispositional coping styles (e.g., approaching versus avoidant coping;
25
Domain D; e.g., P. Heppner, et al., 2004; Zeidner & Endler, 1996) not only affects how people
cope with stressful life events, but it is also associated with an array of health outcomes.
Several meta-analytic reviews document the stress-health outcome link for specific types
of stressors, particularly for diseases such as diabetes (e.g., Duangdao & Roesch, 2008). For
example, Moskowitz, Hult, Bussolari, and Acree (2009) conducted a meta-analysis examining
the effects of approach coping (e.g., direct action and positive reappraisal; Domain D) and
avoidant coping (e.g., use of drugs; Domain D) on the psychological and physical health of
persons with HIV; in short, there were small to medium effects between approach coping
(Domain D) and greater indicators of health (Domain E) and inversely avoidant coping strategies
(Domain D) were related to decreased health and well-being (Domain E). Meta-analytic reviews
on the overall effect of a specific type of coping on a range of health outcomes have also been
conducted. For example, Ano and Vasconcelles (2005) examined the link between positive/
negative religious coping and outcomes; they found that positive religious coping such as
behavioral religious reappraisal and seeking spiritual support (Domain D) were related to (small
to medium effects) increased self-esteem and lower depression and anxiety (Domain E), whereas
negative religious coping (Domain D) was related to poorer psychological adjustment (Domain
E).
In addition to having a direct effect on health outcomes, coping often buffers the negative
effects of stressful events. There is a long tradition in the coping literature documenting how
coping moderates the relations between a stressful event and health outcomes (see for example, P.
Heppner, et al., 2004; Zeidner & Endler, 1996). Emerging research is now being published
which examines both the direct and moderating role of culturally related coping on a range of
outcomes (e.g., Torres & Rollock, 2007). For example, Wei, Liao et al. (2010) examined the role
26
of perceived bicultural competence as a culturally related coping source in explaining the
relations between minority stress (Domain C) and depression (Domain E) among African
Americans, Latino Americans, and Asian Americans. Supporting their hypothesis, they found
that the link between minority stress (Domain C) and depression (Domain E) were lessened
among students with high levels of bicultural competence (Domain A). In fact, there were no
significant associations in the minority stress-depression link among students with high
bicultural competence, but a significant association among those with low levels of bicultural
competence.
Conclusions
Although coping has been among the most widely studied topics in psychology in the last
two decades (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000), and despite repeated calls in the literature to
conceptualize coping within a cultural context (e.g., Moos, 1984, 2002; Wong, et al., 2006),
there remains a dearth of information about the coping process within and across different
cultural groups. We believe that the lack of information about the many ways that the cultural
context affects the coping process has significantly hampered the development of coping
literature. Consequently, in this chapter we articulate a Cultural and Contextual Model of Coping
that may guide future research as well as the work of practitioners. This model advocates for the
study of coping within a cultural context to more adequately depict the complexity of the coping
process.
Based on the CCMC, we end this chapter with 10 recommendations that we believe at
this time will significantly enhance our knowledge bases about how racial and ethnic minorities
in the U.S. cope with stressful life events.
I. Coping as an Act-in-Context: The Cultural Context Affects All Aspects of Coping.
27
1. Study how key individual and environmental variables affect stress, coping, and health
outcomes for different racial and ethnic minority groups in the U.S.
Our model maintains that it is essential to consider individual variables (e.g., resiliency,
self-esteem, SES, education level, trauma history, etc.) and environmental variables (e.g.,
interdependent family structure, emotional or instrumental support, religious or spiritual
community, etc.) to more fully understand the coping process and health outcomes. For Asian
Americans, Liang, Nathwani, Ahmad, and Prince (2010) provide an example of such research;
they found that among South Asian Americans, second-generation women used more support
coping compared with first-generation women. In addition, problem-solving coping was
inversely related to age; avoidance coping was found to negatively predict subjective well-being
after controlling for age and generational status. In sum, individual and environmental variables
are often related to stressors, coping, and health outcomes (see solid lines between Domains A/B
and C, D, and E); additional research is needed to identify influential individual and
environmental variables that affect coping and health outcomes.
2. Study relevant cultural variables across the CCMC constructs to identify the most
salient variables for different racial and ethnic minority groups in the U.S.
Our model maintains that it is important to identify relevant cultural variables (e.g., racial
or ethnic identity, acculturation and enculturation, family interdependence, or perceived
bicultural competence) within the individual and environmental constructs to more fully
understand the coping process of racial and ethnic minorities as well as subsequent health
outcomes. For example, acculturation may influence how problems are appraised and framed
(Coon, et al., 2004). Sanchez, Rice, Stein, Milbourn and Rotheram-Borus (2010) found that more
acculturated Latina/os tended to show more risky behavior with regard to HIV positive status and
28
maladaptive coping than less acculturated Latina/os. Similarly, Farley, Galves, Dickinson, and
Perez (2005) found that Mexican citizens were more likely than Mexican-Americans to use
positive reframing, denial, and religion and less likely to use self-distraction or substance use to
cope. Similarly, Latina/o cultural values promote the creation of networks and interdependence;
not surprisingly, social support coping has been found to be an important coping tool among
Latina/os (Abraìdo-Lanza & Revenson, 1996; Abraìdo-Lanza, Vasquez, & Echerria, 2004;
Chiang, Hunter, & Yeh, 2004; Constantine, Alleyne, Caldwell, McRae, & Suzuki, 2005).
Latina/os may depend on their families for social support more than their White (McMiller &
Weisz, 1996; Munsch & Wampler, 1993) or Black American counterparts (Anderson, et al.,
2002; Culver, Arena, Antoni, & Carver, 2002). Generally, social support is correlated with
positive outcomes for Latina/os, such as lower depressive symptoms, increased meaning, and
decreased physical pain (Crean, 2004; Holahan, Moerkbak, & Suzuki, 2006; Hovey, 2000).
Thus, it is important to examine a broader array of cultural variables (e.g., family
interdependence) to accurately understand coping strategies related to minority stressors.
It is important to also note that the authors acknowledge the heterogeneity within the
cultural groups discussed in this chapter; for example, Latino culture is an umbrella term that
includes a wide array of nationalities, traditions, languages/dialects, and history which affect all
of the domains in the CCMC. We strongly recommend that future research be explicit regarding
the demographics of their samples, and exercise caution when making generalizations.
3. Identify and study important coping strategies that reflect the core cultural values
of different racial and ethnic minorities.
Cultural values affect a broad range of behaviors, including coping. Thus, it is imperative
to study how major cultural values affect coping strategies of particular groups of people. For
29
example, Gloria et al. (2009) found that Latinas (as opposed to Latinos) use direct and planning
coping strategies more frequently as well as venting and social support coping. The researchers
posited that these findings might be related to sociocultural gender norms for males within the
Latina/o culture that espouse self-reliance (Gloria et al., 2009). Further, both religion and
spirituality are core aspects of the identities of many Latina/os, Black Americans, Asian
Americans, and American Indians, and thus are likely key variables to study within our CCMC.
However, specific spiritual beliefs among individuals across these different race and ethnic
groups differs widely; for example, “spirituality permeates all aspects of Native life and
lifeways” (Waters, et al., 202, p. S112), and is connected the natural world of land, animals,
birds, plants, rock and water. There appears to be general agreement that such religious and
spiritual coping strategies serve as protective factors against illness and promote positive health.
However, there has been limited examination of between and within-group differences (e.g., age,
rural/city, region, SES) of religious and spiritual beliefs, and their correlates with various coping
strategies and health outcomes. Other coping strategies that reflect core values of racial and
ethnic minorities in the U.S. need to be identified and studied within the coping literature, such
as traditional healing practices in American Indian groups (e.g., healing ceremonies, consultation
with indigenous healers; see Buchwald, Beals, & Manson, 2000).
Researchers in the field of Black Psychology built upon the cultural importance of
spirituality in managing stressful life events by articulating culturally-influenced theories of
stress and coping. One area receiving increasing attention over the past decade is the concept of
African-centered coping. According to Utsey, et al. (2000), African-centered coping relies on the
cultural values and customs connected to Western African traditions that are practiced among
Black Americans today. These strategies include adopting a spirit-based schema and “collective
30
or group-centered approaches to establishing and maintaining harmony during stressful
encounters with the environment” (p. 197). Jackson and Sears (1992) are among the first scholars
to articulate an African-centered perspective to understanding the stress and coping process. In
their theoretical article they argued that incorporating an African-centered worldview in work
with Black women could serve as a strength-based and affirmative approach to helping the
women counter uninformed appraisals present in racially hostile environments.
Utsey and colleagues’ (2000) Africultural Coping Systems Inventory (ACSI) is the only
published measure to assess African-centered coping styles. The ACSI assesses four coping
behaviors: cognitive/emotional debriefing such as spending time doing group activities or
spending more time with friends; spiritual-centered behaviors including going to church,
praying, and meditating; collective coping strategies such as getting friends together to discuss
the problem and reflecting on lessons learned from parents or the struggles of other Blacks; and
ritual-centered behaviors including burning incense and lighting candles. Not surprising,
collective and spiritual-centered coping are conceptually and empirically related to problemfocused coping. Findings from the literature suggest that cognitive/emotional debriefing, like
other emotion-focused coping styles, is associated with greater levels of psychological distress
(Thomas, Witherspoon, & Speight, 2008), but it is unclear if this is simply an association (i.e.,
people engage in emotional debriefing when they are distressed) or if emotional debriefing
results in distress. Other studies have examined correlates of African-centered coping strategies
such as general religious participation (Constantine, Wilton, Gainor, & Lewis, 2002) and
experiences with discrimination (Lewis-Coles & Constantine, 2006). In sum, African-centered
coping is a newer albeit less developed research area. Findings offer promising culturallyinfluenced conceptual alternatives to understanding coping behaviors among Black Americans.
31
II. Coping is Complex and Multi-determined.
4. Study complex relations among individual and environmental variables, stress, coping,
and health outcomes for different racial minority groups.
The coping process must be conceptualized as complex and multi-determined. Our model
postulates that sometimes there are complex interactions among the individual and
environmental variables, stressors, and coping to predict health outcomes. As an example of this
complexity, consider social support. Although, generally, social support is correlated with
positive outcomes for Latina/os (e.g., lower depressive symptoms, increased meaning, and
decreased physical pain; Crean, 2004; Holahan, Moerkbak, & Suzuki, 2006; Hovey, 2000), some
studies have found that under certain conditions social support may increase distress if they had
multiple social support systems intact (e.g., Aranda, Castaneda, Lee, & Sobel, 2001). In short, in
some contexts the quality of the support provided may indeed positively affect the outcome, but
in other situations social support might serve as a burden. We postulate that the coping process
represents a highly complex process that can involve many different variables to accurately
represent the coping process, as well as its relationship to health outcomes. More research is
needed to examine complex moderation and mediation analysis among the individual and
environmental constructs within the model, stressors, coping processes, and differential health
outcomes.
5. Study the congruence between specific coping strategies and the cultural values of
specific groups of racial and ethnic minorities (culturally-congruent coping).
There are numerous culturally-sanctioned coping strategies. We suggest there may be a
higher likelihood of perceived effectiveness when coping strategies (e.g., religious/spiritual
coping) are congruent with one's cultural context (i.e., culturally congruent coping). For
32
example, how racial and ethnic minorities cope with race-related stress (see Carter, 2007)
exemplifies the complexity between the type of stressor and type of coping responses across
cultural groups. Noh, Beiser, Kaspar, Hou, and Rummens (1999) examined both Western,
individualistic ways of coping (e.g., confrontation coping) and Eastern, collectivistic ways of
coping (e.g., forbearance coping) in their studies on coping with racial discrimination. They
found that a culturally-congruent coping strategy forbearance coping, but not confrontation
coping, buffered Southeast Asian refugees from depression in the face of racial discrimination.
Later, Noh and Kaspar (2003) found that confrontation coping rather than forbearance coping
buffered the impact of perceived racial discrimination on depression for Korean Canadian
immigrants. These results seem to suggest when strong ethnic support is available, forbearance
coping (an Eastern culturally-congruent coping strategy) is functional in reducing depression in
the face of racial discrimination. Conversely, when Korean immigrants who were more
acculturated, personal confrontation (a Western culturally-congruent coping strategy) is
functional in reducing depression in the face of racial discrimination. Noh and Kaspar explained
that perhaps these immigrants have high education, stable jobs, and social resources that helped
them adopt a Western coping strategy (personal control) to lessen the negative impact of
perceived discrimination on depression. In a way, the cultural context seems to influence and
reinforce coping behaviors that are deemed effective in that particular environment. These two
studies suggest that individualistic and collectivistic coping strategies are both useful in
understanding the moderating role of coping strategies on the association between perceived
discrimination and depression, but they differ across different cultural groups, and thus across
cultural contexts. In sum, additional research is needed to more completely examine this
33
hypothesis regarding culturally congruent coping strategies, and particularly under what
conditions is this hypothesis supported.
6. Conduct longitudinal studies on coping with racial and ethnic minorities.
There are relatively few longitudinal studies of coping; longitudinal studies that have the
potential to greatly expand our knowledge bases about racial and ethnic minorities’ coping
processes. There are several ways to examine the longitudinal study from CCMC model (see
Table 1). For example, researchers can examine how coping strategies can predict the patterns of
outcomes over time (e.g., low distress at Time 1  low distress at Time 2 low distress at Time
3; high distress at Time 1  low distress at Time 2 low distress at Time 3; or high distress at
Time 1  high distress at Time 2  high distress at Time 3). Individual and/or environmental
factors at Time 1 (e.g., introvert or extrovert personality) may impact coping strategies used at
Time 2, which in turn to impact outcomes at Time 3. Moreover, future researchers could utilize
more complex analyses such as multi-level modeling approaches by using through using an
individual factor as level 1 and an environmental factor as level 2 on stressors, coping strategies
used, and outcomes. Or, simply, researchers can conduct a cross-lagged modeling to examine
whether perceived racial discrimination at Time 1 impacts psychological distress at Time 2 or
psychological distress at Time 1 impact perceived racial discrimination at Time 2.
III. Coping Varies across Different Stressors.
7. Study specific stressors across racial and ethnic minority groups to identify differential
coping patterns across stressors, and related relationships to health outcomes.
We maintain that the range of coping strategies utilized by U.S. racial and ethnic
minorities remains largely unexplored in the coping literature. There may be some stressors, such
as “soul wound” (Brave Heart, 1999; Domain C) that may elicit coping strategies that are not
34
reflected in any of the most frequently used coping measures. Mellor (2004) conducted a
qualitative study to explore how people cope with racial discrimination stress. He found that
some people used coping strategies (Domain D) that have already been addressed in the general
coping literature, such as ignoring the racist behavior, reinterpretation of the stress situation or
using social support. However, other coping strategies (Domain D) were also reported, such as
educating the racists, challenging others' ignorant beliefs, attempting to prove racists wrong,
revenge, asserting pride in their racial/ethnic identity, or denying one’s identity for selfprotection. Other researchers have argued that additional research is needed to more than fully
understand coping strategies associated with collectivistic ways of coping (Moore &
Constantine, 2005). Similarly, important belief systems in Latino culture, destino (fate) and
fatalismo (fatalism), or the belief that life events may be out of one’s control and/or in the hands
of God, have received considerably less attention in the coping literature (Comas-Diaz, 1989;
Falicov, 2000; Strug, Mason, & Auerbach, 2009). Thus if researchers only use general coping
measures, they are likely to miss important coping strategies that are used by various ethnic and
minority groups in the U.S. To our knowledge, existing general coping inventories do not
adequately assess the range of coping behaviors to assess all types of stressors, and particularly
those stressors often faced by racial and ethnic minorities.
It is also important for researchers to examine if some coping strategies are central in
responding to some particular stressors, but not others. Moreover, we suspect it is likely that
there may be similar coping patterns across ethnic minority groups with some coping strategies
and stressors, but not across other coping strategies and stressors. In sum, many questions remain
about the coping activities of ethnic and racial minorities in the U.S.
35
8. Study how racial and ethnic minorities cope with culturally-contextualized stressors
(e.g., race-based stressors).
Considerably less attention has been given to how people cope with different stressors; in
general the research indicates that people cope differently with different stressors (see Costa &
McRae, 1993; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Moreover, it is particularly important to study
race-related stressors, such as racial discrimination and prejudice, as these stressors include many
complexities (see Edwards & Romero, 2008; McCreary et al., 2006). For example, studies with
Latina/os have indicated that with race-and related stressors (Domain C), avoidant coping
strategies (Domain D) may be used (Edwards & Romero, 2008) and even adaptive for racial and
ethnic minorities such as Latina/os who are dealing with race-related stressors (Gonzales, Tein,
Sandler, & Friedman, 2001). Whether particular coping strategies can effectively reduce the
negative effects of minority stress on health outcomes may also depend on other individual
variables (e.g., ethnic identity, identification with the heritage culture and acculturation to U.S.
culture, etc). For example, Yoo and Lee (2005) found that high use of problem solving coping
(Domain D) reduced the effects of perceived racial discrimination (Domain C) on negative affect
(Domain E) only for Asian Americans with a strong ethnic identity (Domain A) in a low racial
discrimination condition (i.e., a three-way interaction of problem solving coping × ethnic
identity × perceived discrimination). These results suggest ethnic identity and approach-type
coping strategies may not always protect against discrimination for Asian Americans.
Conversely, another study with Black Americans which examined racial discrimination found
that neither problem-solving coping nor seeking social support (Domain D) were significantly
associated with life satisfaction and self-esteem (Domain E; Utsey, Ponterotto, Reynolds, &
Cancelli, 2000). In short, the above studies only have just begun the examination of the
36
complexity for coping with race-related stressors. In a recent study, Wei, Alvarez, Ku, Russell,
and Bonett (2010) developed a Coping with Discrimination Scale (CDS), which identified
unique coping strategies such as Education/Advocacy, Resistance, and Detachment for dealing
with racial discrimination stressors. Most importantly, the CDS predicted additional variance in
outcome variables (i.e., depression, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and ethnic identity) over and
above general coping strategies. These results underscore the utility of developing coping
inventories specifically related to stressors within the cultural context of racial and ethnic
minorities. More research is clearly needed to further understand the nature of coping with racerelated stressors.
IV. Assessment of Coping within Specific Cultural Contexts.
9. Develop new coping inventories that assess contextualized coping strategies within the
cultural context of different racial and ethnic minority groups.
Two decades ago, Cervantes and Castro (1985) called for a focus on coping behaviors of
Latina/os. Regrettably, there are still very few coping measures that have been developed
specifically for racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S.; there are a few notable exceptions such
as the Africultural Coping Systems Inventory (Utsey et al., 2000). For example, no inventories
have been developed specifically to assess coping strategies within the Latina/o cultural context
(Kanagui-Muñoz, 2012). Moreover, racial and ethnic minorities have not been included in the
norming and validation samples of the primary coping inventories used in the research literature.
In addition, the most widely used coping inventories are homogeneous with regard to race and
ethnicity, and largely consisted of White European American undergraduates. In short, there is a
clear need to develop coping inventories that focus on coping strategies tailored to the cultural
context of specific racial and ethnic minority groups in the U.S. and beyond.
37
V. Inclusion of a broader range of Cultural Contexts Will Strengthen Coping Research.
10. Study a broader range of cultural contexts in coping.
In sum, the research literature on coping with stress among racial and ethnic minorities is
rather limited. It is very apparent that much more research is needed in this area to better
understand how racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. cope with stressful life events as well as
aspire to achieve a wide range of goals in their lives. We encourage future researchers to
examine the cultural and contextual factors that surround the coping process for a broad range of
racial and ethnic minorities (e.g., American Indians, Polynesian Americans). Additional research
is needed to examine the direct associations of coping strategies as well as examine more
complex relations that include individual and environmental variables, match culturally
congruent coping strategies with cultural norms and practices, and develop coping scales that
specifically assess culturally relevant ways of coping. Conducting culturally sensitive research in
many cultural contexts will greatly expand the depth and richness of our knowledge bases and
theoretical models so they more accurately depict how a wide range of people resolve stressful
life events (see P. Heppner, 2008). In addition, although the current CCMC model was built
mostly on our knowledge related to racial and ethnic minority groups in the U. S., researchers are
strongly encouraged to also examine the flexibility of the CCMC outside the U. S. to confirm or
extend the model. We would expect that different cultural contexts and values associated with
various cultural groups around the world will greatly expand our knowledge about coping as well
as our theoretical models about coping.
38
References
Ahrens, C. E., Abeling, S., Ahmad, S., & Hinman, J. (2010). Spirituality and well-being: The
relationship between religious coping and recovery from sexual assault. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1242-1263. doi:10.1177/0886260509340533
Abraido-Lanza, A., & Revenson, T. (1996). Coping and social support resources among Latinas
with arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 9, 501-508. doi:10.1002/art.1790090612
Abraido-Lanza, A., Vasquez, E., & Echeverria, S. (2004). En las manos de Dios [In God's
hands]: Religious and other forms of coping among Latinos with arthritis. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 91-102.
Allen, G. E. K., & Heppner, P. P. (2011). Religiosity, coping, and psychological well-being
among Latter-Day Saint Polynesians in the US. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2,
13-24. doi: 10.1037/a0023266
Allison, K. W., Belgrave, F. Z., Butler, D., Edwards, L., & Plybon, L.E. (2003). Examining the
link between neighborhood cohesion and school outcomes: The role of support coping
among African American adolescent girls. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 393-407.
Anderson, K. O., Richman, S. P., Hurley, J., Palos, G., Valero, V., Mendoza, T. R., et al. (2002).
Cancer pain management among underserved minority outpatients. Cancer, 94(8), 22952304. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10414
Ano, G. G., & Vasconecelles, E. B. (2005). Religious coping and psychological adjustment to
stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 461-480. doi:
10.1002/jclp.20049
Aranda, M., Castaneda, I., Lee, P., & Sobel, E. (2001). Stress, social support, and coping as
predictors of depressive symptoms: Gender differences among Mexican Americans.
Social Work Research, 25(1), 37-48.
39
Aranda, M., & Knight, B. (1997). The influence of ethnicity and culture on the caregiver stress
and coping process: A sociocultural review and analysis. The Gerontologist, 37(3), 342.
Barr, S. C. & Neville, H. A. (2011). Racial socialization, color-blind racial ideology, and
psychological well-being among Black college students: An exploration of an ecological
model. Unpublished manuscript.
Bianchi, F. T., Zea, M. C., Poppen, P. J., Reisen, C. A., & Echeverry, J. J. (2004). Coping as a
mediator of the impact of sociocultural factors on health behavior among HIV-positive
latino gay men. [Article]. Psychology & Health, 19(1), 89-101. doi:
10.1080/08870440410001655340
Blustein, D. L. (2008). The role of work in psychological health and well-being: A conceptual,
historical, and public policy perspective. American Psychologist, 63, 228-240.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.4.228.
Blustein, D. L. (2010). A relational theory of working, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 1-17
doi:10,1016/j. jvb.2010.10.004
Brave Heart, M.Y. (1999). Gender differences in the historical trauma response among the
Lakota. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 10(4), 351-354.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32, 513-531. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future
perspective. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in
context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619-647). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10176-018
Buchwald, D., Beals, J., & Manson, S. M. (2000). Use of traditional health practices among
Native Americans in a primary care setting. Medical Care, 38 (12), 1191-1199.
40
Bynum, M. S., Burton, T., & Best, C. (2007). Racism experiences and psychological functioning
in Black American college freshmen: Is racial socilaization a buffer? Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 64-71..
Cervantes, R. C., & Castro, F. G. (1985). Stress, coping, and Mexican American mental health:
A systematic review. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 7, 1-73.
doi:10.1177/07399863850071001
Chang, E. C., Tugade, M. M., & Asakawa, K. (2006). Stress and coping among Asian
Americans: Lazarus and Folkman’s model and beyond. In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J.
Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping, (pp. 439455). NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-26238-5_3
Chapman, L. K., & Steger, M. F. (2010). Race and religion: Differential prediction of anxiety
symptoms by religious coping in African American and European American young
adults. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 316-322. doi:10.1002/da.20510
Carter, R. T. (2007). Racism and psychological and emotional injury: Recognizing and assessing
race-based traumatic stress. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 13-105.
doi:10.1177/0011000006292033
Cheung, F. M. (2000). What deconstructing counseling in a cultural context. The Counseling
Psychologist, 28, 123-132. doi:10.1177/0011000000281008
Chun, C.-A., Moos, R. H., & Cronkite, R. C. (2006). Culture: A fundamental context for the
stress and coping. In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 29-53). NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-262385_3
41
Comas-Diaz, L. (1989). Culturally relevant issues and treatment implications for Hispanics. In
D. R. Koslow & E. Salett (Eds.), Crossing cultures in mental health (pp. 25– 42).
Washington, DC: Society for International Education Training and Research.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A
meta-analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080-1107.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080
Constantine, M.G., Alleyne, V.L., Caldwell, L.D., McRae, M.B., & Suzuki, L.A. ( 2005).
Coping responses of Asian, Black, and Latino/Latina New York City residents following
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11(4), 293-308.
Constantine, M. G. Wilton, L., Gainor, K. A., & Lewis, E. L. (2002). Religious participation,
spirituality, and coping among African American college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 43, 605-613.
Cook E. P., Heppner, M. J., & O'Brien, K. M. (2003). Feminism and women's career
development: An ecological perspective. In S. Niles (3rd Ed). Adult career development
(pp. 169-189). Tulsa, OK: National Career Development Association.
Coon, D., Rubert, M., Solano, N., Mausbach, B., Kraemer, H., Arguelles, T., et al. (2004). Wellbeing, appraisal, and coping in Latina and Caucasian female dementia caregivers:
Findings from the REACH study. Aging & Mental Health, 8(4), 330-345.
Copeland, E. P., & Hess, R. S. (1995). Differences in young adolescents' coping strategies based
on gender and ethnicity. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 203-219. doi:
10.1177/0272431695015002002
42
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1993). Psychological stress and coping in old age. In L.
Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects
(pp. 403-412). New York: Free Press.
Crean, H. F. (2004). Social Support, Conflict, Major Life Stressors, and Adaptive Coping
Strategies in Latino Middle School Students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 657676. doi: 10.1177/0743558403260018
Culver, J. L., Arena, P. L., Antoni, M. H., & Carver, C. S. (2002). Coping and distress among
women under treatment for early stage breast cancer: Comparing African Americans,
Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. Psycho-Oncology, 11, 495-504. doi:10.1002/pon.615
Culver, J. L., Arena, P. L., Wimberly, S., M, H., & Carver, C. S. (2004). Coping among African
American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White women recently treated for early stage
breast cancer. Psychology and Health, 19, 157-166. doi:10.1080/08870440310001652669
Duangdao, K. M., & Roesch, S. C. (2008). Coping with diabetes in adulthood: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 291-300. doi 10.1007/s10865-008-9155-6
Edwards, L. M., & Romero, A. J. (2008). Coping With discrimination among Mexican descent
adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30, 24-39.
doi:10.1177/0739986307311431
Edwards, R. R., Moric, M., Husfeldt, B., Buvanendran, A., & Ivankovich, O. (2005). Ethnic
similarities and differences in the chronic pain experience: A comparison of African
American, Hispanic, and White patients. Pain Medicine, 6, 88-98. doi: 10.1111/j.15264637.2005.05007.x
Ell, K., & Nishimoto, R. (1989). Coping resources in adaptation to cancer: Socioeconomic and
racial differences. The Social Service Review, 63(3), 433-446.
43
Farley, T., Galves, A., Dickinson, L., & Perez, M. (2005). Stress, coping, and health: a
comparison of Mexican immigrants, Mexican-Americans, and non-Hispanic whites.
Journal of Immigrant Health, 7(3), 213-220.
Falicov, C. J. (2000). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Falicov, C. J. (2001). The cultural meanings of money. American Behavioral Scientist 45, 313328. doi:10.1177/00027640121957088
Fernander, A. F., Patten, C. A., Schroeder, D. R., Stevens, S. R., Eberman, K. M., & Hurt, R. D.
(2005). Exploring the association of john henry active coping and education on smoking
behavior and nicotine dependence among blacks in the USA. Social Science & Medicine,
60, 491-500. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.004
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 745-774. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456
Gee, G. C., Spencer, M. S., Chen, J., Yip, T., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2007). The association between
self-reported racial discrimination and 12-month DSM-IV mental disorders among Asian
Americans nationwide. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 1984-1996.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.013
Gloria, A., Castellanos, J., Scull, N., & Villegas, F. (2009). Psychological coping and well-being
of male Latino undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31, 317.
doi:10.1177/0739986309336845
Gonzales, N., Tein, J., Sandler, I., & Friedman, R. (2001). On the limits of coping. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 16, 372. doi:10.1177/0743558401164005
44
Harrell, S. P. (2000). A multidimensional conceptualization of racism-related stress: Implications
for the well-being of people of color. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70, 42-57.
doi:10.1037/h0087722
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, 803-816. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.805
Heppner, P. P., Cook, S. W., Wright, D. M., & Johnson, W. C., Jr. (1995). Progress in resolving
problems: A problem-focused style
of coping. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 279-293.
Heppner, P. P., & Krauskopf, C. J. (1987). An information-processing approach to personal
problem solving. The Counseling Psychologist, 15, 371-447.
doi:10.1177/0011000087153001
Heppner, P. P., Heppner, M. J., Lee, D., Wang, Y. W., Park, H., & Wang, L. (2006).
Development and validation of a collectivist coping styles inventory. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 53, 107-125. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.107
Heppner, P. P., Heppner, M. J., Wang, Y.-W., & Lee, D.-G. (in press). Creating a Positive Life:
The Role of Problem-Solving Appraisal. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive
Psychology Assessment: Handbook of Models and Measures. Washington, D. C.:
American Psychological Association.
Heppner, P. P., Witty, T. E., & Dixon, W. A. (2004). Problem-solving appraisal and human
adjustment: A review of 20 years of research using the Problem Solving Inventory. The
Counseling Psychologist, 32, 344-428. doi:10.1177/0011000003262793
45
Heppner, P., Wang, Z. Tsai, C-L, Huang, M., Heppner, M. J., He, Y. (in review). The SituationSpecific Nature of Coping with Stressful Life Events. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Herrera, A., Lee, J., Nanyonjo, R., Laufman, L., & Torres-Vigil, I. (2009). Religious coping and
caregiver well-being in Mexican-American families. Aging & Mental Health, 13, 84-91.
doi:10.1080/13607860802154507
Holahan, C., Moerkbak, M., & Suzuki, R. (2006). Social support, coping, and depressive
symptoms in cardiac illness among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white cardiac patients.
Psychology & Health, 21(5), 615-631.
Hovey, J. D. (2000). Acculturative stress, depression, and suicidal ideation in Mexican
immigrants. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6(2), 134-151. doi:
10.1037/1099-9809.6.2.134
Jackson, A. P., & Sears, S. J. (1992). Implications of an Africentric worldview in reducing stress
for African American women. Journal of Counseling & Development. Special Issue:
Wellness Throughout the Life Span, 71, 184-190.
James, S. A. (1994). John Henryism and the health of African-Americans. Culture, Medicine and
Psychiatry, 18, 163-182. doi:10.1007/BF01379448
James, S. A., Hartnett, S. A., & Kalsbeek, W. D. (1983). John Henryism and blood pressure
differences among black men. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 259-278.
doi:10.1007/BF01315113
James, S.A. (1996). The John Henryism scale for active coping. In Jones, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook
of Tests and Measurements for Black Populations (pp. 417–425). Cobb and Henry
Publishers, Hampton, VA.
46
Kanagui-Muñoz, M., Garriott, P. O., Flores, L. Y., Cho, S., & Groves, J. (2011). Latina/o food
industry employees work experiences: Work barriers, facilitators, motivators, training
preferences, and perceptions. Journal of Career Development. doi:
10.1177/0894845311400412
Kanagui-Muñoz, M. (2012). The development and validation of a scale for cultural wealth
coping with Latina/os. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Kim, B. S. K., Li, L. C., & Ng, G. F. (2005). The Asian American Values Scale Multidimensional: Development, reliability, and validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 11, 187-201. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.11.3.187
Landrine, H. (1995). Introduction: Cultural diversity, contextualism, and feminist psychology.
In H. Landrine (Ed.), Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology: Theory, research
and practice (pp.1-20). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
doi:10.1037/10501-001
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist, 55,
665-673. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.665
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology. NY: McGraw Hill.
doi:10.1037/10019-000
Lewis-Coles, M. E. L., & Constatine, M. G. (2006). Racism-related stress, Africultural coping,
and religious problem-solving among African Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 12, 433-443. doi 10.1037/1099-9809.12.3.433
Liang, C. T. H., Nathwani, A., Ahmad, S., & Prince, J. K. (2010). Coping and life-satisfaction of
South Asian American women.
47
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 38, 77-87.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
McCreary, M. L., Cunningham, J. N., Ingram, K. M., & Fife, J. E. (2006). Stress, culture, and
racial socialization: Making an impact. In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 487-513). NY:
Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-26238-5_3
McCreary, M. L., Slavin, L. A., & Berry, E. G. (1996). Predicting problem-behavior and selfesteem among African-American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 217236.
McIlvane, J. M. (2007). Disentangling the effects of race and SES on arthritis-related symptoms,
coping, and well-being in African American and white women. Aging & Mental Health,
11, 556-569. doi:10.1080/13607860601086520
McMiller, W. P., & Weisz, J. R. (1996). Help-Seeking Preceding Mental Health Clinic Intake
among African-American, Latino, and Caucasian Youths. [doi: DOI: 10.1097/00004583199608000-00020]. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
35(8), 1086-1094.
Mellor, D. (2004). Responses to racism: A taxonomy of coping styles used by aboriginal
Australians. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74, 65-71. doi:10.1037/00029432.74.1.56
Merritt, M. M., Bennett, G. G., Williams, R. B., Sollers, J. J., III, & Thayer, J. F. (2004). Low
educational attainment, john Henryism, and cardiovascular reactivity to and recovery
from personally relevant stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 49-55.
doi:10.1097/01.PSY.0000107909.74904.3D
48
Moore, J. L., & Constantine, M. G. (2005). Development and initial validation of the
collectivistic coping style measure with African, Asian, and Latin American international
students. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27, 329-347.
Moskowitz, J. T., Hult, J. R., Bussolari, C., & Acree, M. (2009). What works in coping with
HIV? A meta-analysis with implications for coping with serious illness. Psychological
Bulletin, 135, 121-141. doi:10.1037/a0014210
Moos, R. H. (1984). Context and coping: Toward a unifying conceptual framework. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 5-25.
Moos, R. H. (2002). 2001 Invited Address: The mystery of human context and coping: An
unraveling of clues. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 67-88.
Munsch, J., & Wampler, R. (1993). Ethnic differences in early adolescents coping with school
stress. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(4), 633-646.
National Council for La Raza (NCLR) (2008). Latino poverty and income in focus: Examining
the 2008 Census data.
National Research Council (2004). Measuring racial disrimination. Panel on Methods for
Assessing Discrimination. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.
Noh, S., & Kaspar, V. (2003). Perceived discrimination and depression: Moderating effects of
coping, acculturation, and ethnic support. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 232238. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.2.232
Noh, S., Beiser, M., Kaspar, V., Hou, F., & Rummens, J. (1999). Perceived racial discrimination,
depression, and coping: A study of Southeast Asian refugees in Canada. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 40, 193-207. doi:10.2307/2676348
49
Padilla, A. M., & Borrero, N. E. (2006). The effects of culture to stress on the Hispanic family.
In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on
stress and coping (pp. 299-317). NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-26238-5_13
Pedersen, P. B. (2006). Knowledge gaps about stress and coping in a multicultural context. In P.
T. P. Wong & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress
and coping (pp. 579-595). NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-26238-5_3
Pieterse, A. L., & Carter, R. T. (2007). An examination of the relationship between general life
stress, racism-related stress, and psychological health among Black men. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 54, 101-109. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.1.101
Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism of color-blindness better
for minorities? Psychological Science, 20, 444-446. doi: 10.1111/j.14679280.2009.02318.x
Sanchez, M., Rice, E., Stein, J., Milburn, N., & Rotheram-Borus, M. (2010). Acculturation,
Coping Styles, and Health Risk Behaviors Among HIV Positive Latinas. AIDS and
Behavior, 14(2), 401-409.
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of
coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping.
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216-269. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216
Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological
challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist, 55,
620-625. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.620
Strug, D., Mason, S., & Auerbach, C. (2009). How older Hispanic immigrants in New York City
cope with current traumatic stressors: Practice implications. Journal of Gerontological
Social Work, 52, 503-516. doi:10.1080/01634370902983195
50
Taylor, S.E., Welch, W., Kim, H.S., & Sherman, D.K. (2007). Cultural differences in the impact
of social support on psychological and biological stress responses. Psychological Science,
18, 831-837. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01987.x
Tennen, H., Affleck, G., Armeli, S., & Carney, M.A. (2000). A daily process approach to coping:
Linking theory, research and practice. American Psychologist, 55, 626-636.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.626
Thomas, A. J., Witherspoon, K. M., & Speight, S. L. (2008). Gendered racism, psychological
distress, and coping styles of African American women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 14, 307-314. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.14.4.307
Torres, L., & Rollock, D. (2007). Acculturation and depression among Hispanics: The
moderating effect of intercultural competence. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 13, 10-17. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.13.1.10
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
True, G., Phipps, E. J., Braitman, L. E., Harralson, T., Harris, D., & Tester, W. (2005).
Treatment preferences and advance care planning at end of life: The role of ethnicity and
spiritual coping in cancer patients. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 174-179.
doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3002_10
Tweed, R. G., & Conway, L. G., III. (2006). Coping strategies and culturally influenced beliefs
about the world. In P. T. P. Wong, & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
perspectives on stress and coping: International and cultural psychology series (pp.133153). Dallas, TX: Spring Publications.
51
Utsey, S.O., Adams, E. P., & Bolden, M. (2000). Development and initial validation of the
Africultural Coping Systems Inventory. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 194-215.
doi:10.1177/0095798400026002005
Utsey,S. O., Ponterotto,J. G., Reynolds, A. L., & Cancelli, A.A. ( 2000). Racial discrimination,
coping, life satisfaction, and self-esteem among African Americans. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 78, 72-80.
Walters, K. L., Simoni, J. M., & Evans-Campbell, T. (2002). Substance use among American
Indians and Alaska Natives: Incorporating culture in an “Indigenist” stress-coping
paradigm. Public Health Reports, 117, S1-S117.
Wang, Y-W., & Heppner, P.P. (2011). A qualitative study of childhood sexual abuse survivors in
Taiwan: Toward a Transactional and Ecological Model of Coping, Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 58, 393-409. doi:10.1037/a0023522
Wei, M., Alvarez, A. N., Ku, T.-Y., Russell, D. W., & Bonett, D. G. (2010). Development and
validation of a Coping with Discrimination Scale: factor structure, reliability, and
validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 328-344. doi:10.1037/a0019969
Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., Ku, T.-Y., & Liao, K.Y.-H. (2010). Racial discrimination stress,
coping, and depressive symptoms among Asian-Americans: A moderation analysis.
Asian-American Journal of Psychology, 1, 136-150. doi:10.1037/a0020157
Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., Mallen, M. J., Ku, T.-Y., Liao, K. Y.-H., & Wu, T.-F. (2007).
Acculturative stress, perfectionism, years in the United States, and depression among
Chinese international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 385-394.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.4.385
52
Wei, M., Ku, T.- Y., Chen, H.- J., Wade, N. G., Liao, K. Y.-H., & Guo, G.-J. (in press). Chinese
Christians in America: Attachment to God, stress, and well-being. Counseling and Value.
Wei, M., Ku, T.-Y., & Liao, K. Y.-H. (2011). Minority stress and college persistence attitudes
among African American, Asian American, and Latino Students: Perception of university
environment as a mediator. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 195203. doi:10.1037/a0023359
Wei, M., Ku, T. -Y., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Liao, K. Y.-H. (2008). Moderating
effects of three coping strategies and self-esteem on perceived discrimination and
depressive symptoms: A Minority Stress Model for Asian international students. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 55, 451-462. doi:10.1037/a0012511
Wei, M., Liao, K. Y-H., Chao, R. C., Mallinckrodt, B., Tsai, P.-C., & Botello-Zamarron, R.
(2010). Minority stress, perceived bicultural competence, and depressive symptoms
among ethnic minority college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 411-422.
doi:10.1037/a0020790
Wei, M., Liao, K. Y., Heppner, P. P., Chao, R. C., & Ku, T.-Y. (in press). Forbearance,
acculturative stress, and heritage cultural identification among Chinese International
students. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
Wong, P. T. P., & Wong, L. C. J. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of multicultural perspectives on
stress and coping. NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-26238-5_3
Wong, P. T. P., Wong, L. C. J., & Scott, C. (2006). Beyond stress and coping: The positive
psychology of transformation. In P.T.P. Wong, L.C. J. Wong, & W. J. Lonner, (Eds.)
Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 1-26). New York:
Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-26238-5_3
53
Yeh, C. J., Arora, A. K., & Wu, K. A. (2006). A new theoretical model of collectivistic coping.
In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.). Handbook of multicultural perspectives on
stress and coping (pp. 55-72). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-26238-5_3
Yoo, H. C., & Lee, R. M. (2005). Ethnic identity and approach-type coping as moderators of the
racial discrimination/well-being relation in Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 497-506. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.497
Zeidner, M., & Endler, N.S. (1996). Handbook of coping: Theory, research and applications.
New York: Wiley.
Zeidner, M., & Saklofske, D. (1996). Adaptive and maladaptive coping. In M. Zeidner & N.S.
Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research and applications (pp. 505-531).
New York: Wiley.
54
Figure 1: The Cultural and Contextual Model of Coping
A. Individual Factors
1. Demographics (e.g., age, sex, race, gender orientation, sexual
orientation, generation status, SES, education level, skin color,
suitable shelter, and length of time in the US, etc.)
2. Personality Traits/Dispositions (e.g., personality, emotional
management or emotional regulation, perfectionism, self-esteem,
internalized racism, resilience, openness, multicultural
personality, etc.)
3. Social Identities (e.g., ethnic and racial identity, acculturation
and enculturation, gender role attitudes, individualism and
collectivism, interdependent and independent self-construal,
internalization of the model minority myth, etc.)
4. Social and Cultural Competencies (e.g., cultural and social
competencies in one's primary culture, cultural competence in the
dominant culture, cultural empathy, bicultural competence,
number and quality of diversity and intercultural contact,
intercultural sensitivity, etc.)
5. Personal Cultural Values and Beliefs (e.g., filial piety, la
famila, future-oriented, interrelatedness, religious beliefs/spiritual
traditions, appreciating /fondness of racial legacy and history,
inter-generational interdependence, familia embeddedness,
rootedness in the land, community identification/bond, Tao (the
way of nature), contentment, tranquility, do-nothing, etc.)
6. Cognitive and Affect Processes (e.g., emotional regulation,
ability to cognitively process information, serious cognitive
Impairments, decision-making skills, creativity, etc.)
7. Etc.
Level 1:
Immediate Relationships
1. Family (e.g., emotional support,
instrumental support, values and beliefs,
parents’ marital status, family bond,
intergeneration conflict, racial socialization
messages, family monitoring/supervision,
adaptive childrearing, emotion focused
family interactions, parental attitudes,
SES, economic advantages or hardships,
etc.)
2. Friends (e.g., emotional support,
instrumental support, racial socialization
messages, values and beliefs, inter-racial
attitudes, values, coping abilities, etc.)
3. Romantic Partners (e.g., emotional
support, instrumentalist support, values
and beliefs, inter-racial attitudes, interracial
marriage, values, coping abilities, etc.)
4. Others: teachers, mentors,
employers, peers (e.g., emotional
support, instrumental support, values and
beliefs, cultural mistrust, racial attitudes,
etc.)
5. Etc.
B. Environmental Factors:
Level 2:
Working and Living Environments
1. Educational/Work Environment
(e.g., supportive or unsupportive
people (peers/teachers/supervisors),
campus climate, racial climate,
affirmative action, racial discrimination,
etc.)
2. Living Environment (e.g.,
supportive or unsupportive people
(peers/neighbors), Predominantly
White or ethnic minority neighborhood,
safety/physical dangers, attitudes
towards diversity, etc.)
3. Social and Cultural Environment
(e.g., color blindness of co-workers,
model minority stereotype, ethnopolitical conflict/history, institutional
racism, etc.)
4. Economic Environment (e.g.,
growth economy, depressed economy,
etc.)
5. Etc.
Level 3:
Macro Sociocultural Context
1. Norms and Customs (e.g., rituals,
acceptable/unacceptable behaviors, etc.)
2. Macro Cultural Values (e.g.,
race/gender/sexuality ideologies, filial
piety, la famila, future-oriented,
interrelatedness, religious
beliefs/spiritual traditions, appreciating
/fondness of racial legacy and history,
inter-generational interdependence,
familia embeddedness, rootedness in
the land, community identification/bond,
Tao (the way of nature), contentment,
tranquility, do-nothing, Africentric
worldview, etc.)
3. Discriminatory Attitudes and
Policies (e.g., societal disparities,
institutional racism, social justice, etc.)
4. Socio-political History (e.g., racial
discrimination history,
underrepresentation is legal and judicial
system, ethno-political conflict/history,
etc.)
5. Etc.
a1
C. Stressors
1. Types of stressors:
Generic stressors (e.g.,
Academic stress, relationship
stress, sexual abuse,
unemployment, poverty,
personal illness, etc.)
Unique stressors (e.g.,
racism, acculturative stress,
soul wound, intergeneration
conflict, etc.)
Other stressors (e.g.,
sexism, classism, heterosexism,
ageism, religious discrimination,
etc.)
2. Characteristics of stressors
(e.g., the frequency, intensity,
severity, and meanings of
stressors, etc.).
D. Coping
1. Perceptions
of Stressors
2. Problem
Appraisal
and Coping
Goals
3. Coping Strategies
a. general dispositional style and
situational specific coping strategies
b. individualistic and collectivistic coping
(e.g., Africultural coping, forbearance,
etc.)
c. problem-focused and emotionfocused coping
d. etc.
4. Function of Coping
a. cultural congruence
or appropriateness
b. impact on stressors
c. degree of problem
resolution
d. coping effectiveness
e. etc.
b1
b2
a2
Direct Effect and Mediation Effect
Morderation
Moderation Effect
E. Health
Outcomes
1. Psychological
Adjustment
2. Work Adjustment
3. Relationship
Adjustment
4. Well-being
5. Adaptability
6. Quality of Life
7. Meaning of Life
8. Substance Use
9. Physical Health
10. Etc.
55
Table 1: Examples for Possible Hypotheses
Hypothesis
Main Effects
Diagram
A and/or B
A and/or B
A and/or B
C
D
E
D
E after
controlling for A and/or B
C
E after
controlling for A or B
A or B
C
E
D
C
E
A, C, or A × C
Moderation Effects
D
E
A, D, or A × D
C
Mediation Effects
CDE
E
Examples
1. The main effects of individual and/or
environmental factors (Domains A and B) on
stress, coping or outcomes (Domains C, D,
or E).
Individual and/or environmental factors
(Domains A and B) can be covariates for the
association between coping and outcomes
(Domains D and E).
Individual and/or environmental factors
(Domains A and B) can be covariates for the
association between stress and outcomes
(Domains C and E)
Individual factors (Domain A: for example,
optimism) may moderate the association
between stress factors (Domain C: e.g.,
generic stress) and outcomes (Domains E:
e.g., life satisfaction)
Coping factors (Domain D: for example,
suppressive coping) may moderate the
association between stress factors (Domain
C: perceived discrimination) and outcomes
(Domains E: depression)
Individual factors (Domain A: for example,
heritage cultural identification) and stress
factors (Domain C; acculturative stress) can
moderate the association between coping
(Domain D: forbearance coping) and
outcomes (Domain E: psychological
distress).
Individual factors (Domain A: for example,
self-esteem) and coping factors (Domain C;
reactive coping) can moderate the association
between stress (Domain D: perceived racial
discrimination) and outcomes (Domain E:
depression).
Coping (Domain D: for example, avoidant
coping) may mediate the association between
stress (Domain C: perceived racial
discrimination) and outcomes (Domain E:
depression)
56
CBE
A Longitudinal
Design (e.g.,
Growth Curve
Modeling; CrossLagged Modeling)
Multi-Level
D T1
D T2
E T1
(T : Time)
E T2
Environmental factors (Domain B: for
example, perceived university environment)
may mediate the association between stressors
(Domain C: minority stress) and outcomes
(Domain E: attitudes of college persistence).
Coping at Time 1 may impact outcomes at
Time 2, also, outcomes at Time 1 may impact
coping at Time 2 (cross-lagged panel model).
Individual factor (Domain A) or
environmental factor (Domain B) at Time 1
A or B T1  D T2  E T3
may impact coping (Domain D) at Time 2,
(T : Time)
which in turn may impact outcomes (Domain
E) at Time 3 (a perspective design).
The effects of Level 1 (Domain A: for
example, individual factors) and Level 2
(Domain B: environmental factors) on stress,
coping, or outcomes (Domains C, D, or E)