Cited by 208Cultural Differences and ValuesRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchResilience and Mental Health

Culture’s Consequences on Coping: Theories, Evidences, and Dimensionalities

Open access
Kuo, Ben C. H.·2011·Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Abstract

While the influence of culture on coping has been implicated conceptually in the stress-coping literature for sometime, empirical research on cross-cultural coping has gained momentum only recently. The past two decades witnessed a significant growth in the research and the knowledge base of culture and coping, as well as an increased call by scholars for more culturally and contextually informed stress-coping paradigms. In view of this critical development, the present article intends to systematically review and take stock of the theoretical and empirical knowledge that has emerged from the cumulative cultural coping research. Specifically, this corpus of literature was summarized and analyzed in terms of (a) theoretical propositions, (b) empirical studies on cross-cultural coping variations, (c) cultural dimensions of coping, and (d) implications for future research. The results evidenced culture’s consequences on coping with respect to the identification of conceptual pathways through which culture affects stresscoping; cultural differences and specificities in coping patterns across national, ethnic, and racial groups; and the differential effects of acculturation, self-construals, and individualism-collectivism on coping. Conceptual and methodological recommendations are offered for future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022022110381126

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Moos, R. H. (2002). The mystery of human context and coping: An unraveling of clues. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 67-88.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuo, B. C. H.
Affiliations
University of Windsor (CA)
Corresponding author
Kuo, Ben C. H.
Venue
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Published
2010-09-09
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
1084-1100
ISSN
  • 0022-0221 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5422
OpenAlex
W2096654190
Cited by
207
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
Keywords
stress coping, acculturation, self-construal, individualism-collectivism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review