pg.

 

-.......‘-. .‘

 

 

ATE RSITY LIBRARIES

lilil‘lllll Will 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,1 I‘
3 1293 [LOL76 15H81

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Culture, Control, and Coping:
The New Social Support Model

presented by
Belle Liang

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

#M A degree in Jiinicaleychology

J #—

V w v I

Major professor

Date leiqiq'

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LtBHARY
Michigan State-
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

.-,- lave}

"=3 12 2000

 

 

 

 

‘- '
[-'. \, T b ' i
r J 1“ U " b1

 

9;)
c. 0:

r4“;
00-n-

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

fif

 

{MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

cMWMJ-oi

CULTURE, CONTROL. AND COPIN G:
THE NEW SOCIAL SUPPORT MODEL

By

Belle Liang

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1991

ABSTRACT

CULTURE, CONTROL, AND COPING:
THE NEW SOCIAL SUPPORT MODEL

By

Belle Liang

Researchers contend that whether social support buffers stress or provides
direct benefits depends on how support is measured, as well as specific person
variables (e.g., locus of control). It is not known whether current research findings
generalize to cultures other than Anglo-Americans. This study integrates the issues of
measure type, personality, and cultural influence in a comprehensive comparison of
support utilization among Anglo-Americans and Chinese nationals. Measures
appropriate for testing the stress-buffering model of social support were given to 198
students in a Midwestern university and 200 students in mainland China. Both
measure type and locus of control orientation mediated the process of support
utilization in each culture, but not in the same manner across cultures. For Anglos,
stress-buffering effects of both perceived and received support were found only with
internals. For Chinese, direct effects and a buffering pattern from perceived support
were found with Chinese externals but not Chinese internals. The received support

measure yielded negative buffering effects with the latter culture.

To My Grandmother--
who inspires my faith
and love of culture

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincerest gratitude and affection are due Professor Anne Bogat - advisor,
critic, colleague, and friend. Also, I appreciate the guidance and encouragement of my
other Thesis Committee members, Professors Bob Caldwell and Dozier Thornton. I
owe a special thanks to Dr. Gordon Wood for his generous financial support and to
my faithful and exhausted research assistants and language translators for their
perseverance and humor. Finally, to my parents and brothers, who are a testament of

\
the power of family, w?) ai ni.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ........................................... vii-viii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. ix
INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1
Social Support: Stress-Buffering or Main Effect? ..................... 1
Ethnicity and Support Process .................................. 3
Chinese Support Resources ............................... 4

Chinese Support Process ................................. 6

Measurement of Buffering Effects .......................... 7

Locus of Control and Support Utilization .......................... 8
Support Availability vs. Utilization ......................... .9

Chinese Locus of Control ............................... ll

Locus of Control and Social Support by Stress Interaction .............. 13
Support and Network Scales ............................. 14

Measurement of Stress ................................ 15

Adjustment Index ..................................... 15

Locus of Control Measurement ........................... l6

Hypotheses .............................................. 16
METHOD .................................................... 18
Participants .............................................. 18
Measures ................................................ 18
Procedure ............................................... 22
RESULTS .................................................... 24
Univariate Between Group Comparisons .......................... 24
Multivariate Within Group Analyses ............................. 30

DISCUSSION ................................................. 51

Limitations of the Study ..................................... 55
Sample Biases ...................................... 55

Measmement Biases .................................. 56

Future Directions .......................................... 59
APPENDICES ................................................. 61
A: Internality, Powerful Others, Control Scale ................... 62-63

B: Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors .................. 64—65

C: Interpersonal Support Evaluation List ....................... 66-67

D: Social Relationship Chart ............................... 68-69

E: Density Chart .......................................... 70

F: Hassles Scale ....................................... 71-72

G: General Health Questionnaire ........................... 73-76

H: Consent Form ......................................... ‘77
REFERENCES .............................................. 78-87

LIST OF TABLES

Table ....................................................... Page
1. Pearson Correlations for US. Sample ........................ 25
II. Pearson Correlations for Chinese Sample ....................... 26
III. Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables ....................... 28
IV. Separate Two-Way Anova’s for Key Variables ................ 31-32

V. Hierarchical Regression With ISSB
Predicting to Adjustment: Anglos ......................... 36

VI. Hierarchical Regression With ISEL-Composite
Predicting to Adjustment: Anglos ......................... 37

VII. Hierarchical Regression With ISEL-Appraisal
Predicting to Adjustment: Anglos ......................... 38

VIII. Hierarchical Regression With ISEL—Esteem
Predicting to Adjustment: Anglos ......................... 39

IX. Hierarchical Regression With ISEL-Tangible
Predicting to Adjustment: Anglos ......................... 40

X. Hierarchical Regression With ISEL-Belonging
Predicting to Adjustment: Anglos ......................... 41

XI. Hierarchical Regression With ISSB Predicting to Adjustment: Chinese . .42

XII. Hierarchical Regression With ISEL-Composite
Predicting to Adjustment: Chinese ......................... 43

XIII. Hierarchical Regression With ISEL-Appraisal
Predicting to Adjustment: Chinese ......................... 44

XIV. Hierarchical Regression With ISEL-Esteem
Predicting to Adjustment: Chinese ......................... 45

XV. Hierarchical Regression With ISEL-Tangible
Predicting to Adjustment: Chinese ......................... 46

XVI. Hierarchical Regression With ISEL-Belonging
Predicting to Adjustment: Chinese ......................... 47

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ...................................................... Page
1. Regression of GHQ on HASSLES
for 3 values of ISSB: Anglo Externals ...................... 34
2. Regression of GHQ on HASSLES
for 3 values of ISSB: Anglo Internals ....................... 35
3. Regression of GHQ on HASSLES
for 3 values of ISSB: Chinese Extemals ..................... 49
4. Regression of GHQ on HASSLES
for 3 values of ISEL: Chinese Externals .................... 50
5. The New Social Support Model ............................. 56

INTRODUCTION

Virtually every segment of the American population is touched by
stress-inducing life experiences. Broadly defined, a stressful event is one that requires
some adaptation on the part of the individual, and may be one that requires greater
emotional, physical, or material resources than the individual generally possesses (cf.,
Dowrenwend & Dowrenwend, 1974; Seyle, 1956). Researchers now acknowledge,
however, that the effect of stressful life events on adjustment, life satisfaction, and
overall health is not invariant or universal. Gauging every individual’s risk for
disorder strictly by his or her level of exposure to stressful life events is an
over-simplification. Rather, individuals invoke varying resources and behaviors that
influence the actual outcome of adversity. Hence, the inquiry regarding psychological
and physiological outcomes of stressful life events has evolved into a more
complicated discussion of psychosocial mediators.

Social suppo_r_t: stress-buffering or main effect?
Much of this discussion has centered on social support as a stress-buffer.

Specifically, the perceived or actual functional and/or expressive provisions rendered

2
by formal and informal social relationships have been thought to alleviate the

potentially harmful effects of a significant yet undesirable life event. However,
scholarly efforts to elucidate and generalize the buffering effects of social support have
been frustrated by inconsistent findings across populations. While some studies have
shown that support moderates the impact of stressful circumstances (e.g., Caplan,
1974; Cohen & McKay, 1984; Eaton, 1978; Gore, 1981), others fail to find buffering
effects and demonstrate that social resources have an overall beneficial effect ("main
effect"), irrespective of stress level (Cohen, Struening, Muhlin, Genevie, Kaplan, &
Peck, 1982; Lin, Simeone, Ensel, & Kuo, 1979; Williams, Ware, & Donald, 1981).

In an oft-cited review of the literature, Cohen and Wills (1985) acknowledge
evidence for both processes. They contend that the detection of either buffering or
direct effects depends on the type of support, and ultimately, the mode of
measurement; that is, whether social network structure versus function is assessed, or
whether the measure assesses a specific structure/function versus combining several
structural/functional measures into an undifferentiated global index.

Buffering effects are expected when researchers employ specific functional
support scales which measure and find functional support relevant to the recipient’s
needs. For instance, the ISEL (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983) provides four separate
scores that assess the availability of (1) esteem, (2) tangible, (3) social companionship
or belongingness, and (4) appraisal or informational support. The ISSB (Banera,
Sandler, & Ramsey, 1981), which assesses actual receipt of social support, is also a

functional type measure.

3

While specific functional measures show more interaction effects, global
structural measures better detect main effects. The latter combine a variety of items
about connections with neighbors, relatives, and community organizations (e.g.,
frequency of talldng with friends/neighbors, degree of neighborhood cohesion).
Hence, global structural scales indicate social integration (i.e., large number of
relationships, embeddedness, and high network density); more socially integrated
individuals experience greater direct effects from support resources. Specific structural
measures that provide a quantitative count of social connections (e. g., number of
nearby relatives) typically do not show significant main effects unless they index the
presence of a significant interpersonal relationship (e.g., confidant measures), in which
case they may also yield buffering effects.

Ethnicig and sum process

Although this formulation seems sufficient to explain the presence and absence
of buffering effects with Anglo-American populations, whether the theory holds true
across cultures remains a question. In particular, the present study examines the
stress-mediating effects of social support among Chinese nationals.

In their review, Cohen and Wills (1985) included only one study of an ethnic
(Chinese-American) population (Lin et al., 1979). The lack of buffering effects
detected in this study (Lin et al., 1979) was attributed to the use of a "global," rather
than a "specific and appropriate" functional measure. In actuality, without fru'ther
evidence, one cannot conclude whether the lack of buffering effects is an artifact of

the support measure or is related to ethnic factors. For instance, it may be that

4

Chinese populations are less inclined than Anglos to utilize their social support in
times of difficulty. This latter interpretation would be corroborated if, in a
comparative study, Chinese indicated a lack of (or weak) buffering effects vis-a-vis
Anglos, despite comparable levels of functional support resources. In fact, there is
some evidence suggesting that precisely such results are likely.

Chinese support resources. While research explicitly comparing social
networks and support between Chinese and An glo-American populations is virtually
nonexistent, a number of inferences regarding social support and network differences
between these focal populations may be deduced from the related literature.

First, the emphasis on collectivism rather than individualism (Hsu, 1953;
Hwang, 1982; Kuo & Specs, 1983; Nuttal, Chieh, & Nuttall, 1988; Yang, 1981; Yu,
1980) and traditional Asian values have promoted strong extended family ties within a
system of mutual obligation in China (Bengtson, 1968; Chang, Chang, & Shen, 1984;
Hsu, 1953; Nuttall et al., 1988). In addition, lower levels of modernization,
technology, and subsequent decreases in mobility among Chinese contribute to the
establishment of geographically proximate social networks, which, in turn, lead to
greater network density and multiple-roled relationships. Conversely, the greater
mobility of American populations leads to geographically dispersed networks, limited
to immediate kin, and an increase in other social connections. Based on these
observations, Chinese populations should exhibit smaller networks of greater density, a

greater proportion of family members, and more multiple-roled relationships.

5

Determining the extent to which these relationships may provide particular
support functions, entails moving beyond structural assessments that merely describe
the existence of relationships. Hence, researchers have included the categories of
"source" (e.g., kin, friend, community) and "content" (e.g., instrumental or emotional)
of support into their analyses. Especially relevant in the comparison of Chinese and
American networks is the differentiation of generalist and specialist support. Support
generalists--versatile network members who provide multiple forms of support--render
different outcomes than support specialists who offer only a limited type of support.
Bogat, Caldwell, Rogosch, and Kriegler (1985) suggest that network size has less
influence on satisfaction than the consistency with which network members yield
support (i.e., support generalists). In their study, family members were found to be
the most consistent individuals in networks and thus represented support generalists:
Further, individuals whose networks consisted of a larger proportion of family
members reported greater satisfaction with support.

This research lends evidence to the importance of "multidimensionality," or the
quantity of functions served by a relationship (Mitchell & Trickett, 1980). The role of
a network member may range from strictly a coworker to a combination of functions,
such as tennis partner, confidante, classmate, and roommate. Studies assessing the
networks of college students (Hirsch, 1979, 1980) and parents (Cochran & Brassard,
1979) have found multidimensional relationships to be more satisfying and

stress-buffering. Relationships of this type demonstrate how a few quality friends and

6

relatives potentially supply more adequate and functional support than a large network
of superficial relationships.

Therefore, according to specialist-generalist and multidimensionality research,
Chinese, whose networks are expected to consist of a greater proportion of family
members and more multiple-roled relationships, should also have greater access to
functional support than Anglo-Americans. Hence, according to Cohen and Wills’
(1985) formulation, if both populations were administered a specific functional
measure, buffering effects comparable to or greater than those detected for Anglos
should also be detected for Chinese. 9

Chinese support process. Interestingly, research employing Chinese (Chan,
1986; Lin et. a1, 1979) and other Asian populations (Aldwin & Greenberger, 1987;
Graves & Graves, 1985; Uomoto, 1983; cited by Vaux, 1985) does not indicate that
tight-knit ethnic families provide more stress-buffering social support for their
members, nor that Asian college students provide higher levels of support to each
other. In fact, Lin et a1. (1979) failed to find a significant buffering effect between
stressors and illness for Chinese-American social support. Similarly, no buffering
effects from social support were detected for a Polynesian population (Graves &
Graves, 1985). Further, increased perceived crisis support not only did not buffer the
effects of stressful life events on the physical symptoms of Hang—Kong Chinese, but
even elevated psychological symptoms (Chan, 1986). Korean and Caucasian college
students showed no difference in level of parental support, and Korean students

reported confiding less often in their peers and receiving much less support from them

 

7
than did Anglo—American students (Aldwin & Greenberger, 1987). In a similar study,

Asian-Americans reported fewer supportive behaviors from family and friends, and
perceived their families as less supportive (Uomoto, 1983; cited by Vaux, 1985).
Social support research with African-American populations may further
corroborate these findings, since African-Americans generally share the Chinese
affinity for large, close-knit family networks (Ball, Warheit, Vandiver, & Holzer,
1979, 1980; Cauce, Felner, & Primavera, 1982; McTavish, 1971; Raymond, Rhoads, &
Raymond, 1980). Some research has demonstrated that low-income African-American
women have similar friendship networks and larger family networks than poor Anglo
women, but were less willing to utilize these resources during difficult circumstances
(Ball et al., 1979, 1980). In another study (Stewart & Vaux, 1983), Anglo- and
African-American college students reported remarkably similar support network
resources (in terms of size, composition, and characteristics of relationships); yet
African-American women reported friends as less supportive than did Anglo women.
Measurement of bufi’ering efi'ects. All of these studies place in question the
mediating effect of social support among Chinese and other ethnic groups possessing
functionally resourceful networks. However, not one of these studies can wholly
refute Cohen and Wills’ (1985) hypothesis on the relationship between functional
support and stress-buffering, because none uses functional measures of support that
Cohen and Wills (1985) have deemed "specific and appropriate." Instead, several
studies employed structural support measures (Ball et al., 1979, 1980; Graves &

Graves, 1985; Lin et al., 1979), and others utilized global functional measures (Chan

8
et al., 1986; Lin et al., 1979; Uomoto, 1983); neither of which are expected to detect

significant buffering effects. Specifically, Lin et al.’s (1979) social support measrue
consisted of a 9-item index that assessed feelings about neighborhood, frequency of
talking with friends and neighbors, and involvement in the community. Chan (1986)
employed a 5-item scale constructed by Andrews, Tennant, Hewson, and Vaillant
(1978) termed crisis support, consisting of such questions as "In an emergency do you
have friends/neighbors who would look after your family for a week?" and "If
everything went badly, how many people could you turn to for comfort and support "
Cohen and Wills (1985) categorize the former index as a "global structural support
measure" and the latter as a "global functional support measure."

A true test of Cohen and Wills’ (1985) stress-buffering hypothesis necessitates
a comparative design where analogous Chinese and American populations are assessed
by way of a "specific and appropriate functional measure." If, in this case, Chinese
still do not evidence the interaction effects of stress and social support while
Anglo-Americans do, the buffering hypothesis (Cohen & Wills, 1985) may require
some revision to incorporate ethnic factors.
Locus of control and suppgrt utilization

The possibility that Cohen and Wills’ (1985) theory may not pertain to certain
cultures is suggested by two studies (Lefcourt, Martin, & Saleh, 1984; Sandler &
Lakey, 1982) which take into account personality differences between individuals and
populations and their impact on social support. In bath studies, subjects were assessed

for their locus of control and the effects of their social support. Although a functional

9
support measure was administered to all subjects (ISSB), buffering effects were found

only with individuals having an internal locus of control.

Cohen and Wills (1985) attempted to explain this discrepancy in buffering
effects by suggesting that the ISSB "confounds the availability of support with the
need for and use of support." However, they also contended that "work with
compound but internally consistent functional measures provides evidence for the
buffering model when measures assess perceived availability of support, but not when
they assess use of support in the recent past." Hence, Cummins (1988) later replicawd
the studies and appended an additional functional support measure (i.e., the Social
. Provision Scale) which assessed the perceived availability of support. His results
indicated that received social support (ISSB) buffers the effect of stress on symptoms
for internals, just as was demonstrated in the previous research. Both perceived
reassurance of worth (esteem support) and perceived guidance (appraisal support)
failed to produce positive buffering effects for internals.

, Support availability vs. utilization. Since only received social support buffered
suess, these findings seem to indicate a distinction between the availability of
functional support and its actual utilization. Ball et al.’s (1979, 1980) study
comparing Anglo- and African-American low-income women corroborates this
distinction through the use of a measure assessing the availability of support resources
and respondents’ willingness to utilize them in times of difficulty. Their data indicate
that, despite larger family networks and similar friendship networks,

African-Americans are less willing to request help from family and friends than

10

Anglos. Because African-Americans generally indicate more external locus of control
tendencies than Anglo-Americans (Levenson, 1974; Strickland, 1971; Sue, 1978), a
plausible explanation for these results may be found in Sandler and Lakey’s (1982)
contention that while externals amass more support connections, internals better utilize
their available support.

Based on Schacter’s (1959) study that demonstrates the tendency for
individuals under stress to affiliate more, one might predict that externals would utilize
more support than internals, since extemals report greater stress and anxiety (Lefcourt,
1976; Nelson & Phares, 1971, cited by Phares, 1976). However, Sandler and Lakey’s
(1982) alternative view ensues from research demonstrating that although extemals
experienced more negative feedback in response to threat, internals more actively
sought resolution to the problem indicated by the feedback (Pth et al., 1968). The
inclination to act on their own behalf may prompt internals to avail themselves of
information; extemals have less need of information since they are more apt to rely on
competent others. In one interesting example, involving hospitalized tuberculosis
patients, internals exerted more effort in seeking out the cause and cure of their
disease, and then attempted to act on this information (Seeman & Evans, 1962).
Hence, based on a fund of literature indicating that internals are more active
information-gatherers and more effective consumers of the available information
(Lefcourt et al., 1973; Phares, 1968; Seeman, 1963; Strickland, 1978; Wolk &

DuCette, 1974), researchers theorized that internals in locus of control would be more

11

likely to utilize informational support as an aid to coping with and diffusing stress
(Lefcourt, Martin, & Saleh, 1984; Sandler & Lakey, 1982).

Cummins (1988) also argued the likelihood of internals to derive greater
benefit from esteem support, since internal attributions of negative events threaten
self-esteem, and in turn, lead to depression (Peterson & Seligman, 1984, cited by
Cummins, 1988). This deduction led Cummins (1988) to suggest that internals’
self-esteem support may act as a buffer from the possible depressive effects of
negative events.

Evidence that attests that internals are better able to utilize informational and
esteem support is apropos because these two types of support are most broadly
applicable to needs salient during times of stress, and thus, are most likely to produce
buffering effects. Corroborative data for this expected relationship between locus of
control and support utilization during stress was obtained when significant interactions
between negative life events and social support in predicting measures for
psychological disuess were detected for internals but not for externals.

Chinese locus of control. The lack of buffering effects detected for Chinese,
despite adequate functional support resources, is also consistent with Sandler and
Lakey’s theory, since Chinese, as a whole, are more likely to evidence an external
locus of connol.

The earliest cross-cultural comparison of locus of conu'ol with Chinese subjects
is that by Hsieh, Shybut, and Lotsof (1969). Based on Rotter’s (1966) LE scale,

Hang-Kong Chinese indicated a greater belief in external control of reinforcement than

12

American-born Chinese, who in turn indicated greater external control beliefs than
Anglo-Americans. Other studies (e.g., Tseng, 1972) have since corroborated the
finding of higher externality among Chinese. These results seem consistent with
research that purports a relationship between intemality and access to power, economic
opportunity, social mobility, and individualistic ideology (Cook & Chi, 1984; Lefcourt,
1982; Phares, 1976; Sue, 1978).

In a multidimensional analysis of Rotter’s I-E scale (Chan, 1989), Hong-Kong
Chinese demonstrated greater extemality on a general luck (or fate) factor, but not on
the achievement factor. Lao (1977) employed another multidimensional I-E Scale
developed by Levenson (1974) to measure the belief in powerful others, the belief in
internal control, and the belief in chance. Cross-cultural differences were found on all
but the last factor. On the first factor, Chinese were found to hold stronger beliefs in
powerful others than were Americans. Analysis of the second factor revealed
differences across culture and sex, in that American females had a greater tendency to
believe in internal events than Chinese females, while both male groups showed no
significant difference.

In another study (Lao, Chuang, & Yang, 1977), sex differences were found
only for Chinese subjects. Compared to females, Chinese males indicated greater
internal control on all three factors, and less conu'ol by chance. In contrast, American
females did not score lower on internality than American males.

Differences in locus of control between cultures have been attributed to varying

degrees of modernity. For instance, level of modernity correlates negatively to

13
Rotter’s (1966) LE scale; the more modernized tend to attribute causality to greater

personal effort, foresight, and acceptance of responsibility (Lefcourt, 1982). Further
support to this theory is provided by the study of ’yuan’ (Yang, 1982). This
exclusively Chinese concept represents a set of fatalistic beliefs in which almost every
interpersonal relationship or transaction is largely predetermined by fate, some
unknown force, or an individual’s conduct during a former life. In a large sample of
Chinese students, those scoring high on individual modernity were less inclined to
believe in ’yuan’. Since ’yuan’ exemplifies a type of external conu'ol belief, these
results may be interpreted as indicating a weaker tendency among the more
modernized to have external attributions.
Locus of wand and social sum x stress interaction

In view of explications evolving from locus of control research (Cummins,
1988; Lefcourt et al., 1984; Sandler & Lakey, 1982), Cohen and Wills’ (1985) formula
for predicting social support’s buffering effects appears to be an oversimplification.
Locus of control, as a moderator of social support’s buffering effects, may be a critical
variable missing from their equation. Such a conclusion would be especially germane
in comparisons between Chinese and Anglo-American populations, since both typically
fall on opposite poles of the Internal-External Locus of Control continuum, Chinese
tending toward externality, and Americans toward intemality. The lack of
stress-buffering effects found in Chinese populations could then be attributed to
externally-oriented individuals’ lesser utilization of functional support resources during

times of difficulty.

14

However, studies which examine the influence of locus of control on stress and
social support have yet to be replicated cross-culturally. By comparing data across
two different cultures, Chinese and Anglo—American, the present study attempted to
substantiate the cross-cultural applicability of Sandler and Lakey’s Locus of Control
hypothesis. This study employed six measures: a daily hassles inventory, eight
measures of social support, one of psychological adjustment, and a locus of control
scale.

Support and network scales. The ISSB was utilized in previous studies
(Cummins, 1988; Lefcourt et al., 1984; Sandler & Lakey, 1982); the latest of which
(Cummins, 1988) also included a measure of perceived availability of support, which
Cohen and Wills suggest to be more appropriate for assessing the buffering hypothesis.
Hence, the present study represents a replication and extension of these former studies
by employing a three-part social support questionnaire. First, a global structural
network measure was administered in order to assess multidimensionality, network
density, and composition. As discussed previously, these measures were used to
predict the potential availability of functional support. Second, the ISEL (Cohen &
Hoberman, 1983), a "specific functional support measure" appropriate for testing the
buffering hypothesis (Cohen & Wills, 1985), was used to assess the perceived
availability of support. These two scales were administered in conjunction with the
Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB) - a functional support measure
requiring respondents to report on support received in the last month. Making this

distinction between availability of and receipt of functional support is especially

15

apropos in the present study, because Chinese are predicted to have access to social
support, but to be less likely to utilize or receive it during times of stress.

Measurement of stress. Ethnic factors were also taken into account in the
selection of a life stress measure. To date, "episodic" life events indices have been
utilized extensively with ethnic populations following the seminal work of Holmes and
Rahe (1967). These authors reported substantial agreement in the rating of life events
across status groups differing in age, and in sociocultural and ethnic backgrounds. In
a study explicitly comparing life event scaling between a Chinese and Anglo
population, Chan, Chan-Ho, and Chan (1984) reported a general correspondence across
cultures in the degree of distress experienced from negative events. Although less
research has evaluated the cross-cultural validity of "ongoing" life events indices, the
present study utilizes a "Daily Hassles and Uplifts" measure (abridged version of
Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981), because chronic sources of stress better
predict psychological and somatic health-related outcomes (Burks & Martin, 1985;
Del.ongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1962).

Adjustment index. Traditionally, cross-cultural research indicated that Chinese
commonly experienced distress in somatic forms. However, more recent research
(e.g., Cheung, 1982, 1984; Kleinman, 1982) has suggested a distinction between
symptom presentation and manifestation. While the majority of Chinese depressives
initially presented with somatic complaints, when directly asked, most admitted having
some form of dysphoria. Hence, the tendency of Chinese to evince distress through a

mixture of affective and somatic complaints necessitates an adjustment measure that

16
assesses both psychological and physical symptomatology. The 60-item version of the

General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) was selected for its proven reliability and
validity with Chinese populations (Chan, 1983; 1985), as well as Anglo populations
(Vieweg & Hedlund, 1983).

Locus of control measurement. A number of cross-cultural studies (Bond &
Tomatzky, 1973; Hsieh et al., 1969; Mahler, 1974; Tseng, 1972) have utilized Rotter’s
(1966) Internality-Externality scale to assess locus of come]. However, critics of the
scale cast doubt on its validity with non-Anglo populations. First, contrary to Rotter’s
findings with an Anglo-American population, separate factors were detected for
. personal and general causality in the African-American sample. Taking into account
political factions, it seems also feasible that mainland Chinese would reveal some
disjunction between ways in which they perceive their own experience versus others’
of the "free worl " A second problem in the scale’s generalizability arises from the
varying impacts of diverse controlling agents. For instance, "control by chance" and
"control by powerful others" have often been regarded as separate factors. Levenson’s
(197 3) efforts to remedy both forms of multidimensionality in Rotter’s (1966) LE
scale, have produced a three-factor index termed "Internal, Powerful Others, and
Chance" (IPC) which refers strictly to personal outcomes.

Hymtheses

Part (I): Univariate comparisons between populations.

A. It was expected that Chinese, as compared to Anglos, would have higher scores on

density, and family composition, and subsequently higher scores on perceived

17
availability of social support as measured by the ISEL-Composite and ISEL-subscales.

B. Greater receipt of supportive behaviors as measured by the IS SB and higher
intemality, was predicted for Anglos, relative to Chinese.

Part (H): Multivariate comparisons within populations.
A. For Anglo and Chinese internals, it was predicted that significant effects would be
detected for the stress x social support terms (i.e., HASSLE-INTENSITY x ISSB,
HASSLE-INTENSITY x ISEL-Composite or ISEL-subscales).
B. For Anglo and Chinese externals, the stress x social support terms were expected

to be nonsignificant.

METHOD

Participants

Participants consisted of two samples of college students. The first group was
comprised of 198 Anglo-American students (45% male, 55% female) attending a
typical Midwestern university. The second group included 200 Chinese students (59%
male, 41% female) from six universities/colleges in Beijing, China and five
universities/colleges in Nanjing, China.

Measures

Levenson’s Multidimensional Locus of Control Scale (1981) was chosen to
assess perceptions of control (see Appendix A for a copy of the scale). This 244nm
index (three 8-item subscales) applies a 6-point Likert format (ranges from "strongly
disagree" to "strongly agree") and differentiates three dimensions of conuol:
Internality (1), Powerful Others (P), and Chance (C). All items are phrased in terms of
personal outcomes, rather than a generalized world view.

Reliability for the I, P, and C subscales ranges between .51-.67, .72-.82, and

18

19
.73-.79 respectively, with various populations (Levenson, 1973, 1974). In the present

study, I, P, and C reliabilities were .57, .73, and .77, for Anglos, and .50, .48, and .42,
for Chinese, respectively. Previous studies indicate that the correlation between the P
and C scales tends to fall between .41-.60, while the correlation between these two
subscales and the I subscale is only .19-.25 (Levenson, 1973).

The present study obtained a measure of high and low intemality by analyzing
only the Internality (I) subscale. The I factor is scored in the internal direction,
whereas the P and C factors are scored in the external direction.

The Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB; Barrera, Sandler, &
Ramsey, 1981) measures the receipt of supportive behaviors (see Appendix B for a
copy of the scale). In this 40-item, 5-point Likert scale (ranges from "not at all" to
"about every day"), respondents report the frequency of occurrence in the past month
of such support as "having had someone stay with you [the subject] in a stressful
situation" and "having had someone provide you with information to help you
understand your situation."

Barrera (1981) reported test-retest correlation coefficients for individual items
ranging from .44 to .91. Coefficient alphas of .93 and .94 confirmed the instrument’s
high internal consistency; this justifies the use of total composite scores by summing
frequency ratings across all forty items. (In the present study, the alpha coefficient of
the ISSB was .94 for both the Chinese and Anglos.) Additionally, the ISSB was
positively correlated with a qualitative index of support (i.e., perceived

supportiveness).

20
The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL--college student version;

Cohen & Hoberman, 1983) assesses perceived availability of potential support
resources (see Appendix C for a copy of the scale). This 48-item index differentiates
four types of social support (12-items per subscale): ISEL-Tangible (material aid);
ISEL-Appraisal" (help in defining, understanding, and coping with problematic
circumstances); ISEL-Esteem (sources confirming one’s worth and acceptance by
others); and ISEL-Belonging (companions to spend time with in leisure and
recreational activities). The respondent answers "probably TRUE" or "probably
FALSE" to items such as "There is really no one I can trust to give me good financial
advice" and "Most people I know think highly of me."

Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, and Hoberman (1985) found that the ISEL is
moderately correlated with the existing structural, past support, and perceived
availability measures. Second, both the total scale and subscales have evidenced
adequate internal and test-retest reliabilities in several samples. Furthermore, the
ISEL’s discriminant validity has been demonstrated by its lack of correlation with the
Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale and a social anxiety scale. In the present
study, the alpha reliability for the ISEL-Composite was .86 for Anglos and .76 for
Chinese. Alpha coefficients of ISEL-Tangible, ISEL-Belonging, ISEL-Appraisal, and
ISEL-Esteem were .62, .67, .81, and .46 for Anglos, and .46, .63, .60., and .30 for
Chinese, respectively.

Social networks or potential support resources were measured by a density

chart (Hirsch, 1979) and an assessment of multidimensional relationships developed

21

for this study (see Appendix D and E for copies of these instruments). Respondents
were required to list up to 20 names of currently significant friends or relatives,
including people with whom they interacted in a variety of activities (e.g., studying,
going to the movies, or sharing personal concerns) on a regular basis (at least once
during any 2- to 3- week period). Each of these relationships was placed in one or
more of the following categories of support: self-esteem, appraisal, tangible
assistance, and appraisal/informational. Density was calculated through the procedure
outlined by Hirsch (1979).

The Daily Hassles Scale (Kanner et al., 1980), in modified form, served as a
chronic stress index (see Appendix F for a copy of this measure). Only those items
germane to both Chinese and American cultures were included (e.g., "misplacing or
losing things," "not getting along with a frien "). Less relevant items were discarded
(e.g., "auto maintenance problems"). The respondent was instructed to check items,
and suggest any other hassles, that have occurred in the past month. They also rated
each hassle for severity (l=somewhat severe, 2=moderately severe, 3=extremely
severe).

For each subject, three summary scores were generated: (1) fiequency--a count
of the number of checked items; (2) cumulated severity-—the sum of the 3-point
severity ratings; and (3) intensity--the cumulated severity divided by the frequency.

The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1972) consists of 60
questions concerned with psychological distress or altered behavior (see Appendix G

for a copy of this scale). For each item, respondents compared their recent state (past

22

month) with their usual state; only those symptoms experienced more than usual are
scored. Sample items include, "Have you recently lost much sleep over worry" and
"...tended to lose interest in your ordinary activities?"

In a review of GHQ studies (Vieweg & Hedlund, 1983), internal consistency
reliability for the GHQ was reported to range from .78 to .95, test-retest estimates
ranged from .51 to .90, and concurrent validity coefficients ranged from .55 to .83.
The Chinese version of the 60-item GHQ (Chan, 1985) has demonstrated comparable
psychometric properties. In addition to high internal consistency, test-retest reliability,
and concurrent validity, factor analyses have revealed overall correspondence of the
factor structures for both versions of the GHQ. Data of the present study revealed an
alpha coefficient of .95 for Chinese and .96 for Anglos.

Procedure

Each of the measures were transcribed into Chinese by a translator of mainland
Chinese descent, except the GHQ which had previously been translated and used by
Chan (e.g., 1983, 1985, 1986). In order to validate the Chinese versions, two fluently
bilingual judges independently translated them back into English. These procedures
confirmed that the questionnaires were accurately translated.

Questionnaires were shipped to a primary contact person in Beijing and and
another in Nanjing, China. Both contact persons independently elicited the
cooperation of several faculty persons at each of six universities and colleges in
Beijing and five universities and colleges in Nanjing. These faculty members

announced the experiment to their classes and then distributed questionnaires to

23

students interested in participating. Another set of questionnaires was given to

Anglo-American Introductory Psychology students at Michigan State University in
exchange for extra course credit. After signing a consent form (see Appendix H),
each respondent was required to complete, in an anonymous fashion, one of three

randomly ordered questionnaires in his or her own native language.

RESULTS

Univariate Between Group Comparisons

Preliminary analyses revealed several significant relationships between
variables. These relationships can be seen on Tables I and II. For Anglos, internality
was significantly correlated with adjustment (r = .22, p < .01), negative life events (r
= .30, p < .01), ISEL-Appraisal (r = .32, p < .01), ISEL-Esteem (r = .38, p < .01),
ISEL-Tangible (r = .32, p < .01), and ISEL-Belonging (r = .35, p < .01). For
Chinese, internality was also significantly correlated to adjustment (r = .15, p < .05)
and negative life events (r = .16, p < .05), but it was only significantly related to two
perceived support subscales, ISEL-Appraisal (r = .16, p < .05) and ISEL-Tangible (r =
.17, p < .05). For both Anglo-Americans and Chinese, internal locus of control
individuals reported fewer negative symptoms and life events and more perceived
support. Regarding the dependent measure, the GHQ was not only related to
internality, but also overall perceived support (r = .40, p < .01 for Anglos; r = .24, p <

.01 for Chinese) and negative life events (r = .58, p < .01 for Anglos; r = .35, p < .01

24

8. v o.

 

 

 

8. v a.
-- “caaoemhma .o
.89 -- osacfihma .m
.8“. .na. .. Baum—Ame s
.mnm. .48. .em. -- anagram o
.48. .mom. a:. .Sm. -- mg .n
.5: .8? 2a.. .8? LE. -- sea: .4
.30- .8? .8? .58.- ”8.- .oR. -- one .m
an”. as. he. ex. «8. .8? 53.. -- 3.52... .N
N8. 2:. so. .3. :2. So. .98. 48. $50 ._

o a a o m 4 m N
295% .m.D new mega—ebony =8th .— 93:.

25

 

8. v o.

3. v a.
-- moeceomnma .o
.42. -- ozacesma— .w
.84. .wom. -- Begum—Amm— .4.
.5“. .nR. o2. -- amaoofinmm— o
.Em. .5. 2:. «so. -- mg .m
m:.- .5; 87 an..- .mfi. -- .23: .4
o:.- .42.- .w4_.- .80 :b. .5. -- 96 .m
82. ea. 8o. .5. o8. 14.2.- .§.. -- gases .N
o3. So. So. 8a.- o8. ms. .SN. .2? a".450 ._

 

m w A. c n v m N

 

295m 03:20 8m Seen—2.80 £5th .= «San.

26

27
for Chinese). Chinese and Anglos that indicated a greater number of symptoms, were

lower in perceived support and higher in negative life events. For Chinese, the
number of family members within an individual’s network was related to two types of
functional support, the ISSB (r = .26, p < .01) and ISEL-Appraisal (r = .25, p < .05).

Demographic differences between the Anglo and Chinese groups were assessed
by two separate 2 x 2 analyses of variance for Age and Gender with one between-
group factor (Culture). Significant differences were found for both Age [F(1,
334)=160.81, p < .001)] and Gender [F(1, 388)=7.10, p < .01)]. Chinese subjects M
= 21.17 yrs.) were significantly older than Anglo-American subjects M = 19.77 yrs.).
The Anglo sample consisted of more females (11 = 108) than males (n = 90) and the
Chinese sample was comprised of more males (n = 112) than females (n = 79).

In order to assess differences in social support level between the Chinese and
Anglo samples, nine separate 2 x 2 x 2 analyses of variance with two between factors
(Culture and Gender) were conducted on nine measures of social support as the
dependent variables (NUMBER OF SUPPORTERS, KIN RATIO, DENSITY, ISSB,
ISEL-Composite, ISEL-Appraisal, ISEL-Esteem, ISEL-Tangible, ISEL-Belonging).
See Table III for means and standard deviations of these variables. Significant culture
effects were detected for NUMBER OF SUPPORTERS [F(1, 386)=69.42, p < .001)],
DENSITY [F(1, 297)=9.64, p < .005)], the ISSB [F(1, 384)=20.17, p < .001], ISEL-
Composite [F(1, 385)=100.17, p < .001)], ISEL-Appraisal [F(1, 385)=43.59, p <
.001)], ISEL-Esteem [F(1, 385)=31.32, p < .001)], ISEL-Tangible [F(1, 386)=82.92, p

< .001)]. and ISEL-Belonging [F(1, 386)=69.99, p < .001)]. Anglos, relative to

 

 

 

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

«3 Re 28 me 86 N: Go :2 «season ama— ..
So 84 N3 8.. 25 e: a... e: same? nma ..
Ed ”2 43 ”2 43 of 43 8e 88am ama— ..
43 S; so we; 86 a: was Re Baa? nma ..
25 N3 25 .3 43 w: o; m: seasoo .59
one «2 3o 43 «.3 8n and _4.~ m2
2.“ 8.: 43. 8.2 $4 8.2 3.4 no: aoeooosm a
n3 :5 mac «8 «do 3c 36 as £28
to 43 23 one no one “3 Rd 25 .5.
8d 23 Go and one 84 So So 8.35
NE. was 84 ”non o4.4 when 8.4 Rom £3825
N46 no; So 4.: woo 43 Se 2: one
am 2 on 2 no. .2 em 2
mug—«Eon— 832 33:5”— 832
80:20 8&3.

 

use; no. no 83% 2.3.8.8 .E 2%...

29
Chinese, reported more social network members M = 14.98, M = 12.28; respectively),

network density M = .84, M = .72; respectively), actual receipt of support M = 2.54,
M = 2.28; respectively), perceived appraisal support M = 1.83, M = 1.68;
respectively), perceived esteem support M = 1.66, M = 1.58; respectively), perceived
tangible support M = 1.85, M = 1.68; respectively), perceived belonging support M =
1.72, M = 1.54; respectively). KIN RATIO was not significantly different across W
cultures. Significant gender differences were found for KIN RATIO [F(1, 297)=3.69, f
p = .05], the ISSB [F(1, 384)=8.61, p < .005], and ISEL-Appraisal [F(1, 384)=5.59, p

< .02]. Males for both groups, relative to females, indicated a smaller proportion of

 

family members in their social networks M = .24 for males, M = .28 for females) and
less actual receipt of support M = 2.33 for males, M = 2.49 for females), whereas
females had more perceived appraisal support M = 1.78 for females; M = 1.73 for
males). The Culture by Gender interaction was significant for ISEL-Appraisal [F(1,
386)=6.45, p < .02]. Anglo-American females M = 1.88) and Chinese males M =
1.68) perceived more availability of appraisal support than did Anglo males M =
1.77) and Chinese females M = 1.67).

A 2 x 2 (Culture by Gender) analysis of variance was conducted to determine
differences in internal locus of control. Findings revealed significant differences
between cultures for the I scale [F(1, 371)=172.55, p <.001] -- Anglos were more
internal than Chinese M = 36.74, M = 29.22; respectively). Significant gender
differences were also found [F(1, 371)=5.51, p <.02]. Males indicated more internality

that females M = 33.65, M = 64.61; respectively). Further, results indicated a

30
significant Culture by Gender interaction effect [F(1, 371)=5.80, p <.02]. Chinese

males M = 30.58) were more internal than Chinese females M = 27.86), whereas
Anglo males and females were not significantly different in their level of internality
M = 36.72, M = 36.75; respectively).

Although there was no significant culture difference for the GHQ, a significant
gender difference was found [F(1, 369)=l8.63, p <.001]. Findings revealed a greater {-
number of symptoms for females than for males in both cultures M = 1.95, M = 1.78;
respectively). Finally, no significant main effects or interaction were detected for the

stress variable (HASSLES-INTENSITY). Findings from these analyses of variance

 

.can be found in Table IV.
Multivariate Within Group Analyses

The direct and stress-buffering effects of received and perceived support for
internal and external individuals were tested through separate hierarchical multiple
regressions for each of the four locus of control groups (Anglo-intemal, Anglo-
extemal, Chinese-intemal, Chinese-extemal). Subjects were divided into these
respective internal and external groups using the average of the I scale means from
both populations as the mean split. In each of the regressions, Gender was entered as
the first variable, the Stress term (HASSLE-INTENSITY) was entered next, Social
Support (ISSB or ISEL-subscale) was entered third, and the product of the last two
terms (HASSLE-INTENSITY x ISSB or ISEL-subscale) was entered as the fourth
variable. A "main effect" for social support was indicated by significant effects for

the ISSB and ISEL terms, whereas a "buffering" effect was evidenced by significant

Table IV. Separate Two-Way Anova’s for Key Variables

 

i

 

Gender Culture
(G) (C) (G X C) Within
GHQ
MS 2.69 0.05 0.01 0.14
F 18.63” 0.37 0.10
Internality
MS 165.64 5183.43 174.31 30.04
F 5.51' 172.55” 5.80'
Hassles
MS 0.14 1.00 0.05 0.28
F 0.49 3.62 0.17
Kin Ratio
MS 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.03
F 3.69“ 0.01 0.08
Density
MS 0.12 0.94 0.17 0.10
F 1.24 9.31" 1.64
# Supporters
MS 5.71 582.29 76.26 22.74
F 0.25 25.61” 3.35

 

Note. df = 1 for gender, culture, and g x c

‘p < .05.
"p < .01.

31

Table IV. (cont’d).

 

 

Gender Culture
(G) (C) (G X C) Within

ISSB

MS 2.69 6.30 0.62 0.31

F 20.17” 8.61" 1.99
ISEL-Composite

MS 0.04 2.09 0.01 0.02

F 1.79 100.17" 0.64
ISEL-Appraisal

MS 0.29 2.23 0.33 0.05

F 5.59’ 43.59" 6.45’
ISEL-Esteem

MS 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.02

F 0.05 31.32" 0.01
ISEL-Tangible

MS 0.07 2.88 0.01 0.03

F 2.15 82.92” 0.18
ISEL-Belonging

MS 0.02 3.09 0.00 0.04

F 0.37 69.99" 0.04

 

Note. df = l for gender, culture, and g x c
‘ p < .05.
b p < .01.

32

 

33
effects for the interaction terms (I-lASSLE-INTENSITY x ISSB and HASSLE-

INTENSITY x ISEL-subscale).

Results for the regression analyses employing Anglo-American data are
presented in Tables V, VI, VII, VIII, D(, and X. For this population, the ISSB X
HASSLE-INTENSITY interaction was significant in the prediction of Adjustment
(GHQ) only for internal subjects (AR2 = .04, AF = 9.96, p < .01), not externals (see
Figures 1 and 2). Findings revealed that received social support (ISSB) buffers the
effect of stress on adjustment for Anglo internals as expected. Further, main effects
for received support were detected for only Anglo externals (AI?2 = .07, AF = 5.08, p
< .01). Those individuals who report greater receipt of social support indicate fewer
symptoms of negative adjustment, irrespective of suess level. Similarly, buffering
effects of perceived social support were found only for Anglo internals (ISEL-
Appraisal--AR2 =.042, AF = 10.17, p < .005; ISEL-Esteem--AR2 = .026, AF = 6.36, p
< .05; ISEL-Tangible—-AR2 = .028, AF = 6.46, p < .05; and ISEL-Belonging--AR2 =
.039, AF = 10.02, p < .002). Anglo internals also demonsu‘ated main effects for all
four types of perceived support--ISEL-Appraisal (AR2 =.03, AF = 6.90, p < .01), ISEL-
Esteem (AR2 = .052, AF = 12.18, p < .001), ISEL-Tangible (AR2 = .02, AF = 4.08, p <
.05), and ISEL-Belonging (AR2 = .07, AF = 16.45, p < .001). Extemals showed main
effects for only ISEL-Appraisal (AR2 = .08, AF = 6.03, p < .02) and ISEL-Esteem
(AR2 = .07, AF = 5.77, p < .02).

In comparison with the US. sample, Chinese data yielded strikingly dissimilar

results (see Tables XI, XII, XIII, )GV, XV, XVI). The ISSB X HASSLE-INTENSITY

10-

—-— HI SUPPORT (+1 sd)
9 ' —'r— MED SUPPORT (mean)

->lé- LO SUPPORT (.1 sd)

8...

 

DIG)

 

 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HASSLES Score

Figure 1. Regression of GHQ on HASSLES for 3 values of ISSB: Anglo Externals

34

10"

—-— HI SUPPORT (+1 sd)
' —l—- MED SUPPORT (mean)
->K— to SUPPORT (.1 sd)

DIG)
or
I

 

O i l t t i I t 1 l
O 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 O

5
HASSLES Score

Figure 2. Regression of GHQ on HASSLES for 3 values of ISSB: Anglo Internals

35

 

.svo.
.8. v o.

.mm. H Mn. .N»... u 4% d: u 2 :

.mfiuMdeuEéth.

 

 

 

8.7 43 .23 .44.4~ mma x seam

8...- :3 m2 .35 m2

who 48 .SS. .4~.o4 32.5

o; 43 .26 En nose
:«EEQE

So- 8... Se .91. m2 x see:

one- So ace .32 m5

one n2 .3: .3: woes:

woo mod .84 .84 base
.mREme

a «”2 "a a oases

 

SEE ”80:53:24. 9 mega»..— mmfl 5;? commmucwom 302883: .> 035.

36

 

.8v:.
.3 v a.
on n mu. «4. n a: o: u 2 ..
.3 u we .3 u E .R u 2.

 

 

 

cam- 43 .3: .32 4mm: on sea:

3? 3o .3: .23 4mm.

3:. 42 .32. .434 sea:

a; 4% 3n .2.“ _ .528
3.525

on: 85 :3 .3» 5mm: x .23:

one. So .53 .32 own:

one 3.. .3: .3: .23:

3e 3e .84 .34 house
.m—dF—me

n :2 "a a ozaea>

 

mo_w:< u.=o:em=_.e< o: manage: exogenous—mm: .33 Same—mom 333889: .—> 035.

37

.3. v a .
.3 v o .
3 n 8144. 0 Ne .84 u z ..
on u .213 u E .R u 2.

 

 

 

3:- 48: .:.S .88 3.288333: x 8.3.:

2d. 85 8o .88 2383.22

3c 48 .38 .484 Sea:

:5 So .26 .2.n .850
:«3525

85 3a 8.8 .22 3:38:82 x 8:2:

8.? 3o .32. .32 2.288453.

85 3o .3: .3: sea:

86 3o 8.4 .84 .880
.mBEExm

a .54 "a a 22.29

 

mo_w=< 2:253:54 o. weuomfia Gamay—$3.5m: 5m? Swamp—mom ~830th .=> 035,—.

38

I—

.8. vm.
.8. v a.

mm. H mm. W». n «k d: u 2 2
NM. u Mu. Q». n N-.~hu Z.

 

 

 

mo.m- 86 bad .awSN 83.5359 X 8.3mm

mud- mod .35 Beam 88.5559

and vmd awed. .vmdv 8.3mm

26 vod .26 .n~.m .8980
.255...—

2: Ed wad .2; Sneak—mm— X 3.3“:

56. Ed .28 $2: EooaNJmm—

and mud .35 .3." g 8.3“:

wmd mod bad 53. H.650
.m_an§m

n .m< "a m .32.;

 

mo_w=< u:o§«=€< Q wéfivfla EooaMJm—m— .23 asap—mom 782882: .—=> 035.

39

.33..
3::
3 "3.3 ".26: "2..
.3 "33"....Ru2.

 

 

 

37 3o .83 .83 oémcahda x 8.2.:

Ed- 86 .8... .33 usagefimm.

3o .3 .3fi .39. .23.:

2... 2:. .3n .flw .850
:mafies

2: 3o .2 .3» 2.35...-qu x 8.3.:

26. 3o 3. .3” 235....qu

one 28 .3: .3: 8:3:

”3 3o .8... .8... .850
.m—danxm—

a $2 .2 m o§E>

 

8&5... 3:08.83... 9 manomnpa ozmwcahfimm— FEB commmvaom 3028805 .5 «35,—.

4O

fin.» .. . .

.- ii.

.8. v5
.8. v...
3 u .8 .8. u E 8: u z ..
8m. "81% ".82"?

 

 

 

8.7 88 .88 .83 0385.38. x 8.8.:

:8- 88 .8... .28 28.8.8.de

88 £8 .88 .88.. «2.8:

28 88 .28 .28 .850
:mfiEoEH

888 88 § .68 2885.-ng x .22.:

£8- 88 82 .88 288.98%

and mmd .36.: .mcg fl 8.883

88 88 .83 .88... 58:5
.885me

n «Md "2 m oEwE>

 

88.2 855.33 e 88082.. 288.8-qu as, 88.283. 8.28282: 82 «3:.

4O

.8. V...
.8. v...
.8 u 8. .3 u .2 8: n z ..
8.. "88.. u Eduz.

 

 

 

5.7 3.0 88.9 35.8 wEwcofim—Jmm— X 8.883

88. 88 .88. .38 8.82.8808.

88 88 .32. .88.. 55.:

8.8 .88 .28 .28 .850
$352:—

88 88 :8 .88 8.828-008. x .25.:

£8. 88 8... .88 8.828.408.

88 88 .3: .3: 5.5.:

88 88 .8... .8... .850
.mREoim

8 .8 "a m 25.5

 

80—95. 3:253:08. 9 300%»... mamwcofimfim—m— .23 commmflmom 30288.85 .X 030,—.

41

.8. v...
.8. v...
.8. u .8 .8. u .0 .8 n 2 ..
8.. u .8 .3 u .2 82 u 2.

 

 

 

38 88 8.. 88 82 x 58...:

8.8 88 888 2.8 m8.

:8 88 83 88 58...:

:8 88 88 88 .850
3&8535

82 88 .38 .88 888. x 55.:

88- 888 88 .88 888.

88 :8 .858 .3: 5.38.

:8. 88 .888 .88 .850
.2580?”

8 .88 .8 8 288.3

 

80:20 08253.8(. 9 9.00? M59 .23 80.89%...”— 8029885 in 938,—.

42

 

 

 

NE 55 38 5o . Ea x 8.25

mod 86 ”3 «3 4mg

55 86 SN «3 “2%:

:d :8 v3 Ed .880
:2an5-

Va? 8o 86 a»? .5— x 3%:

8.? 35 a3 .32 4mm—

»? Ed .33 ‘3: 828:

ad mod .86 .36 350
.mEEoEm

n «”2 "a n. 2.3:;

 

80:20 Hangman}. 9 wave? camanoUJmm— SS, gammy—wow 3058805 fix 935.

43

.8. v a.

.8. v a.

3 "mug. "kahuz:
.3. u 313 u E5: u 2.

 

 

 

2.? 5o .3 c2 Eaaafaa x .22.:

:5 86 m2 9; 3.3.3.43.

«Nd mod wed 9..— . 3333

25 So «no :3 .850
.2582:—

3. 8... Ed .8... unsaniémm— x .225

on? 36 53 .35 Eangma

”no Ed .33 .83 3...“:

5. 3o .03 .8... .850
.mRESxm

n R< .2 m 03...;

 

.856 355.3%... 9 $3062.. Exaggfima .23 8&2me 302080.: .Ex 2%...

 

 

Enoamfim—m— x .2883

 

 

3... 8... 9... 8..

8.? 8... .8 8... 8.2.98...

.8... 8... 8.8 8.. 8......

8... a... 3... 9.... .880
332.52.:

R? 8... 8.... .8... 88.84.... x 8......

2.? :8 8.. .88. 83.8%...

8... 3... .588 .8... 8......

.8 8... .88 .8... .850
.mRESxm

a .8 .2. .. 03...;

 

80.....0 .

2258...... 9 «58...... 88.8.58 a... 88.2»... mango... Ex 2......

45

.8. v...

.8. v...

8. u .818. u .m .8 u 2..
8.. u 818. u .2 .8... u 2 .

 

 

 

8.. 88 8.... 888 8.8.88.8. x 8......

88 88 8.8 88 83.8.5.8.

88 88 8.. a... 8......

:8 88 88 .88 888..
:2an3—

8.? 88 88 .8... 8.8.88.8. x 8......

8.? 88 .88 .8... 0.8.8.8....

88 :8 .8... .8... 8......

88 88 .88 .88 8880
.m_8Eo.xm

8 w... .8 .. 83...;

 

80.....0 "Haggai 0. 8.8.3... o_s.w=.HJmm. 5.3 5.823”. 83:98.0... 5% 038,—.

 

 

 

 

.8. v a ._
.8. v a .
3 u .31.... n .2 .R u 2 ..
6.. u m. 5.. u .x .2 u 2.
a... 8... 3... .w... 3.8.3.3. x 8......
3... 8... 8... 8... 888....-.3.
.3 8... 2.. m... 8......
...o S... E... .2. 8.80
.....Eo.=.
and .cd 8.. Led w=.w:o_om-‘.mm. X .23....
8...- 8... 8.. .5: 3.8.333.
.8 E... .5... .8... 8......
...o 8... b... b... 8.8...
Massim—
._ Ny... .2 .. 2......

 

805.5 35.8.3.3. o. $50.3... mince—omimm. 5.3 8.32»...— ...o.._o......o.: .55. 03....

47

48

interaction was significant for externals rather than internals (AR2 = .05, AF = 8.65, p
< .01). Further, social support in this interaction acts as a negative buffer (see Figure
3). That is, the stress to negative adjustment relation is higher for Chinese externals
who received more social support than for those who lack such support. Although
Chinese revealed no significant buffering effects for the ISEL-Composite or ISEL-
subscales, significant main effects of ISEL-Appraisal (AR2 = .04, AF = 6.29, p < .02)
and ISEL-Tangible (AR2 = .024. AF = 3.96, p < .05) were found for Chinese externals.
Further, although the HASSLE-INTENSITY x ISEL-Composite term was not

significant for Chinese externals, the graph of regression lines (see Figure 4) indicates

 

a buffering pattern; individuals with high levels of perceived support (ISEL-

Composite) had few or no symptoms.

10-

—-- HI SUPPORT (+1 so)
9 ' —l— MED SUPPORT (mean)

->K- LO SUPPORT (.1 sd)
8 .-

DIG)
01
l

 

1r

 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HASSLES Score

Figure 3. Regression of GHQ on HASSLES for 3 values of ISSB: Chinese Exnemals

49

—

c—L

OD-FUIQVCDCDO

- + HI SUPPORT (+1 sd)
.. —:— MED SUPPORT (mean)
_ -7‘K— LO SUPPORT (-1 sd)

—

  

OIQ
N

 

 

 

 

 

O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 O
HASSLES Score

Figure 4. Regression of GHQ on HASSLES for 3 values of ISEL: Chinese Externals

50

DISCUSSION

The present study had two major purposes: (1) to examine cultural variations in

the structure of social networks and the perceived availability and actual receipt of

 

_functional support; and (2) to compare the support utilization process (i.e., the 1'"
presence of stress-buffering effects from social support) across cultures.

Su'ucturally, Anglos demonstrated larger and denser networks. The proportion
of family members in Chinese and Anglo-American social networks was equivalent,
but because Anglos had a greater total number of supporters, the number of family
members in their networks was greater than that for Chinese. These results may be an
artifact of the present research samples. Anglo students, who were younger then their
Chinese counterparts (m = 19 yrs., g = 21 yrs.; respectively) may report larger family
networks and more support received from this source due to developmental issues such
as "attachment." Extensive research indicates that adolescents rely heavily on parents
for assistance (see Hill & Holmbeck, 1986 for a review of the literature).

Functional support comparisons showed that, Anglos, relative to Chinese, reported

51

52
greater levels of received support (IS SB) as anticipated, but unexpectedly higher levels

of perceived support (ISEL). Correlational data for the Chinese sample corroborates
the generalist-specialist theory (Bogat et al., 1985) in that the number of family
members was positively related to the amount of received support and perceived
appraisal support. Therefore, the smaller number of family members in Chinese
networks may help explain their lower levels of perceived support.

In addition to differences in network structures, as well as perceived
availability and actual receipt of functional support, the present study found
differences in process of support utilization across cultures. Anglos generally
indicated greater stress-buffering effects from social support than Chinese. While
locus of control appears to mediate the predictive power of the stress by social support
interaction for adjustment in b0th cultures. the specific relationship between locus of
control and these three variables--stress, social support, and adjustment-~secms to vary
across cultures. Anglo results were in accordance with extant research that evidences
stress-buffering effects for only internal locus of control individuals (e.g., Cummins,
1988; Lefcourt et al., 1984; Sandler & Lakey, 1982). Interestingly though, neither
received nor perceived social support were directly or indirectly beneficial for Chinese
internals.

These findings not only suggest that the influence of social support is
differential across cultures, it also appears that the influence of locus of control is not
absolute. Instead, locus of control may interact with cultural norms and values to

affect behavior and experience differentially across ethnic groups. Being internal,

 

53

versus external, may have the universal effect of amplifying one’s ability or tendency
to respond actively and adaptively; but what is considered active or adaptive may be
relative to one’s own cultural climate.

Among Anglo-Americans, the more adaptive response to stress may involve
actively and effectually accruing and utilizing support resources. The Chinese cultural
ideal, which expects self-discipline from those with high education and high social
status, may prescribe more self-directed coping strategies (e.g., controlling oneself,
modifying personal expectations), rather than help-seeking. For instance, Wu (1982)
suggested that the dilution of stress for Chinese is associated with the ability to
"correct the mind and train the temperament" (p. 297). A study employing Hong
Kong university students demonstrated that in situations of mild distress, the most
prevalent strategies of active coping involved analyzing the problem, resetting goals,
and working harder (Cheung, Lee & Chan, 1983). Psychological endurance (i.e.,
telling oneself to be calm, to accept or forget the problem, and to control one’s
thoughts) was also a frequent coping strategy for individuals undergoing mild stress.
When problems became more severe, students consulted with medical professionals,
rather than family or friends. This behavior seems likely to be related to the
documented tendency for Asians to somaticize emotional distress or the need to "save
face" and protect the reputation of one’s family by concealing severe problems from
network members.

For Chinese extemals, received support was not only unrelated to better

adjustment, but also had a negative stress-buffering effect. That is, the stress-illness

54

relationship was strongest for Chinese externals who received the most social support.
The Chinese tendency to evince emotional restraint (Argyle, Henderson, Bond, Iizuka,
& Contarello, 1984; cited by Bond, 1986) may make stressful/difficult times less
readily detectable to others so that help is seldom initiated without a direct request
from an individual. Therefore, in order to receive help Chinese may be forced to
request it explicitly; this may be a stressful undertaking in itself. Among Chinese,
requesting assistance from others may signify exposing one’s vulnerability and/or
incompetence, and risking rejection. These potential consequences are antithetical to
seeking "face," the Chinese endeavor to enhance one’s social status by presenting
oneself as better adjusted, more competent, and possessing better social ties than may
actually be the case (Bond, 1986). The tendency for Chinese to act in accordance
with external expectations or social norms, rather than with internal wishes may
further explain their reluctance to request help in times of need (e.g., Yang, 1981).
Based on these theories, the cost incurred in soliciting support may well outweigh the
benefits gained from its receipt.

Perceived appraisal and perceived tangible support, however, had a beneficial
effect for Chinese extemals, irrespective of stress level. Perceived support also
exhibited a buffering pattern for this group. Hence, perceiving that these types of
support are available if needed may be more instrumental in alleviating the effects of
stress on adjustment than actually receiving support for Chinese.

The findings discussed thus far corroborate Cohen and Wills’ contention that

the detection of stress-buffering effects depends on the type of social support measure

55
employed. Specifically, the ISEL and ISSB were differentially successful in predicting

adjustment and yielding stress-buffering effects. Measure type alone, however, does
not account for the results of this study. A more precise social support theory would
incorporate the instrument’s interaction with the culture to which it is applied.
Specifically, a nonstatistical comparison of Anglo-American beta weights for received
versus perceived support suggests that received support (ISSB) is more stress-
buffering, whereas perceived support (ISEL-Composite) is more directly beneficial
(main effect). In contrast, the differential effects of received versus perceived support
were even greater for Chinese; received support is not only unhelpful during times of
high stress, but is related to greater negative adjustment under these circumstances.
Further, perceived availability of support, relative to actual receipt of support, is of
greater direct benefit (main effect) for the Chinese. Hence, despite the use of what
Cohen and Wills (1985) deem "appropriate" measures to detect buffering effects,
results of this study corroborate previous research that suggests a lack of bufi‘ering
effects among Chinese (e.g., Lin et al., 1979).

The present findings suggest a new, more complicated model for social
support utilization than those proposed by past studies (see Figure 5). While former
studies have acknowledged the separate influences of locus of control, culture, and
measure type, the present study demonstrates the interaction of these variables to
determine the presence of stress-buffering effects. Specifically, culture moderates the

influence of locus of control on social support process differentially across measure

types.

 

 

._.Zm_>_._.w3_..n_<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HmOnEDm ._<_OOm

 

 

 

/.

 

.d

 

 

 

MIPSDO \

 

 

 

Figure 5. The New Social Support Model

56

57
Limitations of the Study

The present research represents a first attempt to integrate former research on
social support models with measurement/methodology issues, person variables, and
ethnic or cultural influences. Future researchers should be advised of limitations
specific to this study, as well as those more generally inherent in cross-cultural
research.

Sample Biases

The Chinese sample may lack generalizability for two reasons. First, university
students make up a considerably smaller proportion of the population in China than in
America Entry into virtually any university in China is uncommon and limited to
only the most competent, most motivated, and perhaps the most independent
individuals who defy the standards of the status quo (as exemplified by historical
uprisings led by students in Beijing). Further, as a result of the scarcity of universities
in China, students are typically forced to relocate to cities that are geographically
removed from their hometowns. Family and other established support resources may
be less accessible to these individuals, than to American students who have relocated,
due to the lack of transportation and communication resources. Finally, the present
sample involves Chinese universities that are located in two of the most urbanized and
Westemized regions of the country. Hence, students in both of these locations,
relative to the whole of China, may be more apt to resemble American values and

qualities in their interpersonal relationships.

58
Mggmment Biases
Another methodological difficulty present in cross-cultural research is that

culture-based explanations can often be rivaled by those implicating measurement
artifacts. In this study, each structural and functional support finding may not only be
a result of cultural influences but also measurement biases. First, responses on the
structural assessment items may be unreliable for the Chinese sample due to the
inherent complexity of the instructions and because these types of measures are simply
less familiar to foreign populations. This hypothesis is supported by the low

completion rate of the structural measures among Chinese.

 

Second, substantially smaller reliability coefficients for the ISEL subscales —
among Chinese may also suggest an artifactual explanation for lower levels of
perceived support. Lower ISEL scores for Chinese may be due, in part, to the
presence of many items in this scale that are less germane to Chinese culture.
Because a number of items from the ISEL pertain to specific displays of support (e.g.,
"If I wanted a date for a party next weekend, I know someone at school or in town
who would fix me up"), this scale is highly susceptible to cultural bias. For example,
due to cultural mores that limit "casual dating" in China, it is less conventional for
Chinese than for Americans to "fix a fiiend up for a weekend date. " Other examples
of items less relevant to Chinese may be "I don’t know someone who would loan me
several hundred dollars to pay a doctor bill or dental bill" or "Even if I needed it my
family would (or‘could) not give me money for tuition or books," both because

Chinese typically have less financial resources and because the Chinese government

59

generally subsidizes medical care and tuition.

Third, the failure to find positive, buffering effects of received support among
Chinese may similarly result from a measurement artifact suggested by previous
research (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983; Sandler & Lakey, 1982; both cited by Cohen &
Wills, 1985). Specifically, the ISSB is likely to reflect increased use of support due to
psychological distress for certain populations. This theory is corroborated by both the
positive correlation between the ISSB and stressful life events (especially significant
for Chinese) and the presence of crossed interactions in each case where the 1883’s
buffering effects are detected (see Figures 2 and 3). For Anglos, the ISSB was
associated with lower levels of symptomatology for high-stress individuals and higher
levels of symptomatology for low-stress individuals. A negative relation between the
IS SB and symptomatology existed for Chinese individuals under low stress, but not for
those under high stress. Hence, because the ISSB confounds the availability of
support with the need for and use of support, it may not accurately reflect the positive
consequences of using available support among Chinese.

Finally, as previously mentioned, measures initially developed for Western
populations are potentially biased and insensitive to certain social support qualities
specific to Chinese. For example, government subsidies for medical care, tuition,
room and board, and job placement/security can be considered types of support
available to Chinese students that are not included in support measures developed for
Western populations. The present study corroborates previous research suggesting that

different attributes of social support may be beneficial in different cultures. In two

60
such studies (Cauce, Felner, & Primavera, 1982; Jung & Khalsa, 1989), lower levels

of depression were related to perceived family support for African-Americans, and
perceived friend support for Anglo-Americans. Unfortunately, the social support
measures employed in the present study fail to discriminate between perceived family
support and perceived friend support. Based on the similarities described earlier
between Asian and African-American social network characteristics and use of social
support, it is likely that Chinese, in comparison with Anglos, would report greater
perceived family support and stress-buffering effects from this type of support. Future
research may begin investigating this hypothesis by including Procidano and Heller’s
(1979) perceived support of family and friends scales.
Future Directions

The present study provides clear evidence of the need to implicate cultural
factors in future examinations of the provision, perception, receipt, and utilization of
social support. Not only would such a pursuit generate a broader information base
regarding social support in other countries, but it would also enhance
conceptualizations regarding social support across subcultures within America.
Therefore, the present research should be replicated with various ethnic populations.

A subsequent step may involve expanding two-culture comparisons to
multicultural comparisons for the purposes of minimizing plausible rival hypotheses.
For instance, in order to isolate ethnic influences from political, economic, and social
influences, futtue investigations should obtain a more representative sample of

mainland Chinese with which other segments of the Chinese population at large (e. g.,

61

Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore) can be compared. A more stringent
test of the present hypotheses would be affirmed if findings of this study generalized
in varying degrees, across the host of cultures outside of China that describe
themselves as "Chinese."

To assure cross-cultural validity of such studies, scale development is
recommended In particular, social support measures should be tailored for cross-
cultural relevance by the addition of items assessing Chinese displays of social support
and the exclusion of irrelevant items.

In sum, findings of the present study demonstrate the need to recognize the
unique (emic) features, as well as the comparable (etic) features of social relations in
various cultures. What is needed is a theory of cultural variation that can be
incorporated into existing theories regarding the relationship between stress, social
support, adjustment, and relevant person variables. The resulting theory would place
each ethnic group on some map of cultural dimensions, with groups that share social,
economic, or political qualities in closer proximity. In this way, we could begin
predicting how individuals fi'om cultures differing in known ways should differ from
one another in relevant behaviors and responses. Information about an individual’s
culture could then function like information about his or her personality (e. g., locus of

control, social competency) in generating predictions fiom theories of social support.

Appendix A

Directions: In this section you will find a series of attitude statements. Each represents
a commonly held opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably
agree with some items and disagree with others. We are interested in the extent to which
you agree or disagree with such matters of opinion. Read each statement carefully. Then
circle the number that best indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree. First
opinions are usually best. Give your opinion on every Statement.

X8.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

Strongly Agree = l
Disagree Somewhat = 2
Slightly Disagree = 3
Slightly Agree = 4
Agree Somewhat = 5
Strongly Agree = 6
Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability.
To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings.
I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people.

Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I
am.

When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.

Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests fiom bad luck
happenings.

When I get what I want, it’s usually because I’m lucky.

Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibility
without appealing to those in positions of power.

How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am.

I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.

My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others.

Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck.

People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interests
when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups.

62

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.
19.
20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

It’s not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to
be a matter of good or bad fortune.

Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me.

Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I’m lucky enough to be
in the right place at the right time.

If important people were to decide they didn’t like me, I probably wouldn’t make
many friends.

I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life.

I am usually able to prOtect my personal interests.

Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the orher driver.
When I get what I want, it’s usually because I worded hard for it.

In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of
people who have power over me.

My life is determined by my own actions.

It’s chiefly a matter of fate whether or n0t I have a few friends or many friends.

63

Appendix B

INSTRUCTIONS

We are interested in learning about some of the ways that you P
people have helped you or tried to make life more pleasant for
over the past four weeks. Below you will find a list of activitit
other people might have done for you, to you, or with you 5

weeks. Please read each item carefully and indicate how r .:
activities happened to you during the past four weeks.

Use the following scale to make your ratings:

A. Not at all

8. Once or twice

C. About once a week
0. Several times a week
ti. About every day

Make all of your ratings on the answer s' «as been provided.
If, for example, the item:

45. Gave you a ride to the docto'

happened once or twice during .our weeks. you would make
your rating like this:

A B C l) E
45.13 I D D r

Please read each ’ .t'ully and select the rating that you think is
the most accurr

During the past four weeks, how oflen did other peeple do t'
activities for you. to you, or- with you:

set-“t“.-

l5.
l6.
IT.
IS.
I9.

20.
2|.

22.
23.
24.
25.

26.
27.

28.
29.

30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

3f

37.
38.
39.
«l.

PPFP’9‘1“

Looked alter a family member when you were away.
Was right there with you (physically) in a stressful situ'

Provided you with a place where you could get away .e.
Watched after your possessions when you were away ants.
home, apartment, etc.).

Told you what she/he did in a situation that was .v yours.
Did some activity with you to help you get your ' if things.

Talked with you about some interests of yours

Let you know that you did something well.

Went with you to someone who could take I

Told you that you are OK just the way yo:

Told you that she/he would keep the th' you talk about
private ——just between the two of you.

. Assisted you in setting a goal for your
l3.
l4.

Made it clear what was expected of r
Expressed esteem or respect for a c .y or personal quality
of yours.
Gave you some information on i- something.
Suggested some action that you ake.
Gave you over $25.
Comfortcd you-by showing r physical affection.
Gave you some informatior ou understand a situation you
were in.
Provided you with some .atlon.
Checked back with you you followed the advice you were
given.
Gave you under 523.
Helped you unders you didn’t do something well.
Listened to you tr your private feelings.
Loaned or gave .nething (a physical object other than
money) that yo
Agreed that v wanted to do was right.
Said things ' .' your situation clearer and easier to under-
stand.
Told you ' ne felt in a situation that was similar to yours.
Let you ' t helshe will always be around if you need assist-
ance.
Eaprr rest and concern in your well-being.
Told . she/he feels very close to you.
To' to you should see for assistance.
T that to expect in a situation that was about to happen.
' ou over $25.
you how to do something.

you feedback on how you were doing without saying it was
go. or bad.
loked and kidded to try to cheer you up.
Provided you with a place to stay.
Pitched in to help you do something that needed to get done.
Loaned you under $25.

65

Appendix C

Directions: This scale is made up of a list of statements each of
which may or may not be true about you. For each statement we would like
you to enter T if the statement is true about you or P if the statement is
not true about you.

You may find that many of the statements are neither clearly true nor
clearly false. In these cases, try to decide quickly whether probably TRUE
or probably FALSE is most descriptive of you. Although some questions will
be difficult to answer, it's important that you pick one alternative or the
other. Remember to circle only one of the alternatives for each statement.

Please read each item quickly but carefully ' “ore responding.

 

 

Remember that this is not a test and there are r t or wrong answers.

70) I know someone who would loan me $50 to gr for the weekend.

71) I don't know anyone at school or in towr akes my problems clearer
and easier to understand.

72) Most of my friends have more control .nat happens to them than I.

73) I will have a better future than me er people will.

74) I hang out in a friend's room or ant quite a lot.

75) I don't talk to a member of my ’ at least once a week.

76) I can get a date who I enjoy r .9 time with whenever I want.

77) If I decided at dinner time a a study break this evening and go
to a movie, I could easily someone to go with me.

78) Most of my friends don't well as I do in school;

79) Most of my friends are atisfisd or happier with themselves than I
am.

80) I know someone at sr .r in town who would bring my meals to my room
or apartment if I ick.

81) If I needed it, ' ily would provide me with an allowance and
spending money

82) Most people v' .w me well think highly of me.

83) I don't kno' J. at school or in town who would loan me their
bicycle o' ror a couple of hours.

84) If I war date for a party next weekend, I know someone at school
or in no would fix me up.

85) Peop' ; out in my room or home during the day or in the evening.

86) I 8 .now anyone at school or in town who would get assignments
f from my teachers if I was sick.

87) La. 1, when I've been troubled, I keep things to myself.

88) I am not a member of any social groups (e.g., clubs, teams).

89) I don't often get invited to do things with other people.

90) I know someone who I see or talk to often with whom I would feel
perfectly comfortable talking about any problems I might have meeting
people.

91) Most people are more attractive than I am.

66

92) I know someone who I see or talk to often with whom I would feel
perfectly comfortable talking about any problems I might have making
friends.

93) I don't know anyone at school or in town who would help me study
for an exam by spending several hours reading me questions.

94) I know someone who I see or talk to often with wh' I would feel
perfectly comfortable talking about any difficul ith my social
life.

95) Lately, I often feel lonely, like I don't hav ne to reach out to.

96) I know someone who I see or talk to often w5 :m I would feel
perfectly comfortable talking about any prr I might have getting
along with my parents.

97) There isn't anyone at school or in town lhom I would feel
perfectly comfortable talking about my age of loneliness and
depression.

98) Most of my friends think that I'm s'

99) I don't usually spend two evenings .e weekend doing something with
others.

100) I know someone who I see or ta' often with whom I would feel
perfectly comfortable taking problems I might have budgeting my
time between school and my - life.

101) Most of my friends are mor .lar than I am.

102) Most of my friends have ' Justed to college as easily as I have.

103) Most people think I hav .od sense of humor.

104) I don't have friends 3 gel or in town who would comfort me by
showing some physica' .ction.

105) I don't feel frien? ih any teaching assistants, professors, campus
or student offici'

106) There are people ;hool or in town who I regularly run with,
exercise with, ay sports with.

107) Most of my fr are more interesting than I am.

108) I know somer : I see or talk to often with whom I would feel
perfectly table talking about any problems I might have
adjusting allege life.

109) I belong to a group at school or in town that meets regularly or does
things together regularly.

110) Even if I needed it my family would (or could) not give me money for
tuition or books.

111) I don't know anyone who would loan me several hundred dollars to pay a

doctor bill or dental bill.
*'*YOU SHOULD NOW BE UP TO LINE 112 ON YOUR ANSWER SHEET***

67

Appendix D

In the left hand column, list the initials of up to 20 people whom you consider important
in your life ml. with whom on are likely to interact at least once during any two week
griod. Next, mdicate whe er each person is male or female. Then, circ e 0 one
number that best indicates his/her relauonship to you (e.g. "friend," "immediate Tia—1:377
Remember, you can list Less than 20 people. '

 

  
 
 

nele (I) or
Female (7)? ’

 

 

Initials

i) ' r 1 2 . a 4 3 9 7 9 9
2) __ 1 r 1 2 a 4 s 9" ‘7 9 9
z) , r 1 z a 4 s 4 7 9.. 9
4) __ a r 1 z s 4 s 9 7 9 9 j
s) _____ l r 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 ,
5) l 7 1 2 3 4 3 G 7 O O
7) ‘ F 1 2 3 6 5 G 7 I 9
3) ‘ I 1 2 3 t 3 5 7 I 9
9) ' ‘ ’ 1 g 3 6 3 ‘ 7 O C
to) ._ x r t 2 3 ‘ 3 ‘ 7 ’ ’
11). .__ s r 1 2 3 9 5 ‘ ’ ' ’
.2, I Y 1 2 3 s 5 6 7 O 9
:3) __ s r 1 z 3 4 s -s z 9 9
:4) __ x r 1 2. a 4 s 4 7 9 9
is) __ x r i 2 3 9 3 ‘ ’ ' . ’
:0 __ s r t z 3 4 s 6 7 ‘ ’
-7) __ s r 1 2 3 4 5 ‘ 7 ' ’

a) __ s r 2 a 4 s 4 7 I 9

v) __ s r 1 z a 4 s 9 7 9 9

2 __ I! r 1 a a 4 s 4 7 9 9

68

Please think about your interactions with the people that you listed in the left hand
column. Of the cate ories described below, indicate which kind(s) of support each person

can give you. (CIR LE ALL THAT APPLY):

A.

B.

EMOTIONAL SUPPORT includes: listening to your troubles, being
understanding, comforting, and sympathetic.

ADVICE'& INFORMATION includes: sharing what they would do in a situation
like yours, hel ing you get the info you need to help yourself helping you think

through a prob em.

PRACTICAL ASSISTANCE includes: helping by doing things for you (for
example, running errands for you, taking notes for you, taking notes for you in

class), lending you money.

COMPANION SHIP includes: spending time with you in leisure and recreational
activities (for example, going with you to dinner or to the movies.
k M
1)
2)
3)

6)

5)

000000

6)
7)
8)
9)

10)

13)
14)
2.5:).
16)
17)
18)

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
19) D
D

A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
11) A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A 3
A D
A 3

00000000000000

20)

69

Appendix E

Label the columns and rows with the initials of up to ten people (from your
list on the previous page) whom you feel closest to. Then, indicate who of
these people know each other by placing an 'X' in the square where the two
names intersect. (Only fill in the unshaded squares.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For exam le° If 31. knows SR 5L SRHM BC
place anp'llt:1 in Ehe square ' 3'1, 7 X
where JL an SR ntersect.
SK (fig
. ./
Tfigéz '
BC (MC/A/
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\F\\\‘
\s
\ \

. i .
.....\\§-
\<
\\

 

 

10

 

Appendix F

Directions: Hassles ere irritants that can rang; from minor
annoyances to fairly major pressures, problems, or difficulties. They can
occur few or many times.

Listed below are a number of ways in which a person can feel hassled.
0n the answer sheet, indicate (by entering a i, 2. or 1) how SEVERE each
hassle has been for you in the past month. For as hassle that did lg:
occur in the last month, enter a five (5).

 

£2

1. S! 3 severe
HASSLZS 2. v .aly severe

1 . .ely severe

s. at occur
112) hisplacing or losing things
111) Troublesome neighbors
114) Social obligations
115) Inconsiderate smokers
116) Troubling thoughts about your
117) Thoughts about death .
116) Health of a family member
119) not enough money for cloth'
120) Concerns about owing mone
121) Concerns about money for ancies
122) Someone owes you money
121) Financial responsibil' someone who doesn't live with you

124) Smoking too much
125) Use of alcohol

126) Too many responait s

127) Concerned about t ning of life
128) Trouble relaxinr

129) Trouble making .ons

110) Prouiess gett sng with roommates
111) Don't like r area of study

112) Don't like ates

111) Not enouq' for basic necessities
l14) Not enou .y for food

115) Too men .ruptions

116) Unexpe ampany s

111) Too much as on hands

116) Having to wait

119) Concerns about accidents

71

140)
141)
142)
143)
144)
14:)
144)
147)
144)
149)
150)
151)
1:3)
153)
154)
155)
154)
157)
15a)
159)
140)
141)
142)
14:)
144)
145)

1“) '

167

171)
172)
17:)
174)
175)
174)
177)

Being lonely

Fear of confrontation

Financial security

Silly practical mistakes
Inability to express yourself
Physical illness

side effects of medication
Concerns about medical treatment
Physical appearance

rear of rejection

Concerns about health in general
hot seeing enough people
friends or relatives too far
Heating time

Being exploited

Not getting enough slec
Problems with aging r

Problems with your cant other
Overloaded with ' asponsibilities

Too many thingr

Unchallenginr

Concerns a' .ting high standards

Academic .es

Gossip

Cone sut weight

no’ 1 time to do the things you need to do

agh personal energy
:na about inner conflicts
l conflicted over what to do

agrets over past decisions
The weather
Nightmares
Concerns about getting ahead
Difficulties with friends
Not enough time for family
not enough money for transportation
Not enough money for entertainment and recreation

Concerns about news events

Appendix G

Please read this carefully:

Us would like to know if you have had any medical complaints. and
how your health has been in general, over tbs past few weeks.
Please answer ALL the questions on the following pages simply by
circling the answer which you think most nearly applies to you.
leaemher that we want to know about present and recent
complaints. not those that you had in the past.

It is impor‘ hat you try to answer ALL the questions.

Thank you vet \ for your cooperation.

RAVI YOU RWY:

 

' to get back to sleep?

73

t. — been feeling pale. tter Same Worse Much worse
well and in (and \ usual as usual than usual than usual
health?

2. — been feeling in need sli No more Rather more Much more
of “u "“0““ than usual than usual than usual

3. — aees leelia; Nt. No more Rather more Much more
and and than usual than usual than usual
exhausted?

4. —jelt that you are ill? Not at . 'o more Rather more Much more

n usual than usual than usual

5. — been telling any Not at all tore Rather more Much more
pains in your head? susl than usual than usual

6. — been getting a feel- Not at all . ~ Rather more Much more

' in; a] tightness or tl. ' than usual than usual
pnuncebyyuw
ham”

7. - been able to can- Better Same ”.ess Much less
emtrate on what- than ' as usuat \n usual than usual
nurymuVadhth uuufl

I. -— been afraid that you Not at all No more 4' more Much more
soars (sin; to col- than usual ‘ual than usual
knusnhspuufi:
place)

9. — been ltam'rq ltat or Not at all No more Rat. -. Much more
caltl spells) than usual than than usual

to. — been permit-in; Not at all No more Rather Much more
(meeting) a lot? than usual than ust. ‘tan usual

I t. - found yourself toab- Not at all No more Rather the Much more
in: early and unable than usual than usual than usual

 

IIAVI YOU “huh" i'LY:

t2. — been (cunt; up feel- Not at all No more
in: your sleep hasn't than usual
refreshed you?

13. — been feeling too tired Not at all No more
and exhausted even than usual
to eat?

14. — lost much sleep Not at all No more
oorr tuorrv’ than usual

15. — been fee tally Better Same
alert one than usual as usual
awake?

t6. — been feeling , Better Same
energy? than usual as usual

17. — had dalfiiculty in hit at all No more
(sun): of to slee, than usual

18. — had dtfiatlty in at all No more
stayt'm asleep arses than usual
you are 0.0?

19. -— been having 1* ‘ No more
frightening or than usual
unpleasant dreams?

20. — been having restless, Not a. No more
disturbed nights? ‘tan usual

2!. — been managing to More so no
keep yourself busy than usual mal
and occupied?

22. -— been taking longer Quicker
over the thugs you than usual a
do? .

a3. — tended to late Net at all No .
interest in your than \
ordinary activities?

24. — been losing interest Not at all No snore
in your personal than usual
appearance?

as. - been taking less More About
trouble nn'tlt your trouble same
clothes? than usual as usual

26. — been getting out of More Same
the house as mud! than usual as usual
as usual?

27. - been managing or Better About
well at most people than most the same
would in your shoes?

23. -—[elt on the toltole Better About
you were doing than usual the same

things well?

74

Rather more
than usual

Rather more
than usual

Rather more
than usual

Less alert
than usual

Less energy
than usual

Rather more
than usual

Rather more
than usual

Rather more
titan usual

Rather more
than usual

Rather less
than usual

Longer
than usual

Rather more
than usual

‘her more
usual

\uble

Les.
than

Rather
less well

Less well
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much more
titan usual

Much less
alert

Much less
energetic

Much more
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much less
than usual

Much
longer
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much less
trouble

Much less
than usual

Much
less well

Much
less well

29.

30.

3s.

32.

33-

35-

36.

37-

38.

39-

so.

as.

42.

43.

44-

- been late getting to
soorh, or gettitc
started on your
housesoorh?

— been satisfied with
the my you've
carried out your
task?

— been able to feel
unsrrrstls and qa'ec-
tion for those near
to you?

-— been finding it easy
to get on with
other people?

— spent much time
chatting with

push?

. — hept feeling afraid

to say anything to
people in case you
made a fool of
yourself?

- felt that you are play-

ing a useful part in
shims?

—- felt capable of
snahing decisions
about things?

— felt you're just not
able to snobs a start
on anythisu?

— felt yourself dread-
ing everything that
you have to do?

— felt constantly
under strain?

— felt you couldn't
overcome your
difiiculsies?

— been fittdit
struggle

- been I
your
to-day a.

— been tahing thiscs
hard?

— been gettisq edgy
and bad-tempered?

my
Jay-
Jities?

us?

Not at all

More
satisfied

Better
than usual

Better
than usual

More time
than usual

Not at all

More so
than usual

More so
than usual

Nos at al'

140'

at at all

Not at all

More so
than usual

Not at all

Not at all

No later
than usual

About
same as
usual

About sasne
as usual

About
same
as usual

About
same
as usual

No snore
than usual

Same
as us'

'0

more
.an usual

No more
than usual

No more
than usual

No more
than usual

No more
than usual

Same
as usual

No more
than usual

No more
than usual

75

Rather later
than usual

Less
satisfied
than usual

Less well
than usual

Less well
than usual

Less
thanv

Rr re

.ess useful
than usual

Lessso
thanusual

Rather more
than usual

Rather more
than usual

Rather more
than usual

Rather more
than usual

Rather more
than usual

Less so
than usual

Rather more
than usual

Rather more
than usual

Much later
than usual

Much less
satisfied

Much less
well

.688

Auch less
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much less
useful

Muchless

capable

Much more
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much less
than usual

Much more
than usual

Much more
than usual

IMVI YOU “GUN l'LY:

45. -— been getting seared Not at all No more Rather more Much nture
or pasu'chy for no than usual than usual than usual
good reason?

46. — been able to face up More so Same Less able Much less

to your problesns? than usual as usual than usual able
47. -— found everythisc Not at all No more Rather more Much more

getting on top of you? than usual than usual than usual

48. — had the feeling that Not at all No more Rather more Ms ch more
people were looking than usual than usual t' ‘ual
at you?

49. — been feeling unhappy Not at all No more Rather snort . snare
and depressed? than usual than usua’ .s usual

50. — been losing confi- Not at all No more Rather Auch more
dence in yourself? than usual than . than usual

5:. - been thinhing of Not at all No more Rs' 3 Much more
yourself as a than usual t’ 4 than usual
worthless person?

52. — felt that life is Not at all No more .-r snore Much more
entirely hopeless? than usu .s usual than usual

53. — been feeling hopeful More so About .css so Much less
about your own than usual sanv than usual hopeful
future? as

54. — been feeling reason- More so Less so Much less
ably happy. all than usual than usual than usual
things considered? ual

55. -— been feeling nervous Not at .s more Rather more Much more
and strum-up all .han usual than usual than usual
the time?

56. — felt that life isn't ’ . No more Rather snore Much more
worth living? than usual than usual than usual

57. — “.9”;- “r n, .u'tely I don't llas crossed Definitely
peeesasss e; s . think so my mind have
you as gbc or
tour 1 s I e r

58. — found at I' Not at all No more Rather more Much more
couldn't .ng than usual than usual than usual
becaus rues
were

59. — foun. self wish- Not at all No more Rather more Much more
ing you uere dead than usual than usual than usual
and away front is all?

60. -— found that the idea Definitely 1 don't Has crossed Definitely
of taking your own not think so my mind has

life hept causing
into your mind?

76

Appendix H

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PARTICIPATION CONSENT FORM

This project regards the social networks, health, and perspectives of college students.

You will receive 3 extra credit points for completing a questionnaire that will take

between 60-90 minutes to complete. Your answers will be totally anonymous and

confidential. PLEASE DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE.

We do ask, however, that you answer the questions honestly and thoughtfully. Thank

you for your time and consideration.

1) The study has been explained to me. I understand the explanation that has
been given and what my participation involves.

2) I understand that my participation is entirely voluntary and that I am free to
stop participating in the testing session at any time without penalty.

3) I understand that my responses on the questionnaire will be strictly confidential
and anonymous.

4) I understand that my participation in this research will not quarantee any direct
benefits to me.

5) I am at least 18 yrs. of age or have signed parental consent.

6) I understand that I can discuss any feelings about my participation in this study
with Belle Liang (52 Baker Hall, phone #: 355-7440).

7) I understand that I will no receive the 3 credits unless and until I participate in
my scheduled testing session.

8) My completion of the following questionnaire is proof of my consent to

partcipate in the research project.

77

REFERENCES

Aldwin, C., & Greenberger, E. (1987). Cultural differences in predictors of
depression. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 789-813.

Andrews. 6., Tennant, C., Hewson, D. M., & Vaillant, G. E. (1978). Life event
stress, social support, coping style, and risk of psychological impairment.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 166, 307-316.

Argyle, M., Henderson, M., Bond, M. H., Iizuka, Y., & Contarello, A. (1984). Cross-
cultural variations in relationship rules. Unpublished manuscript, Oxford
University.

Ball, R. E., Warheit, G. J., Vandiver, J. S., & Holzer, C. E. (1980). Friendship
networks: More supportive of low-income Black women. Ethnicity, 7, 70-77.

Ball, R. E., Warheit, G. 1., Vandiver, J. S., Holzer, C. E. (1979). Kin ties of

low-income blacks and whites. Ethnicity, 6, 184—196.

78

79
Barrera, M. (1981). Social support in the adjustment of pregnant adolescents:

Assessment issues. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed), Social networks and social support
(pp. 69-96). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Barrera, M., Sandler, I., & Ramsey, T. B. (1981). Stress and the environment.
Journal of Social Issues, 37, 435-447.

Bengtson, V. L., & Smith, D. H. (1968). Social modernity and attitudes toward aging:
A cross-cultural survey. Gerontologist, 8, 26.

Bogat, G. A., Caldwell, R. A., Rogosch, F. A., & Kriegler, J. A. (1985).
Differentiating specialists and generalists within college students’ social support
networks. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 23-35.

Bond, M. H. (1986). The psychology of the Chinese people. Hong Kong: Oxford
University Press.

Bond, M. H., & Tomatzky, L. G. (1973). Locus of control in students from Japan and
the United States. Psychologia, 16, 209-213.

Burks, N. B., & Martin, B. (1985). Everyday problems and life change events:
Ongoing versus acute sources of stress. Journal of Human Stress, 11, 27-35.

Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health. New York:
Behavioral Publications.

Cauce, A. M., Felner, R. D., & Primavera, J. (1982). Social support in high-risk
adolescents: Structural components and adaptive impact. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 10, 417-428.

80
Chan, D. W. (1985). The Chinese version of the General Health Questionnaire: Does

language make a difference? Psychological Medicine, 15, 147-155.

Chan, D. W. (1986). Psychosocial mediators in the life event-illness relationship.
International Journal of Psychosomatics, 33, 3-10.

Chan, D. W. (1989). Dimensionality and adjustment correlates of locus of control
among Hong Kong Chinese. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 145-160.

Chan, D. W., & Chan, T. S. (1983). Reliability, validity and the structure of the
General Health Questionnaire in a Chinese context. Psychological Medicine,
13, 363-371.

Chan, D. W., & Chan-Ho, M. W., Chan, T. (1984). Life event scaling: The Chinese
experience. Social Science Medicine, 3, 3-7.

Chang, B. L., Chang, A. L., & Shen, Y. (1984). Attitudes toward aging in the United
States and Taiwan. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 15 , 109-129.

Cheung, F. M. (1982). Psychological symptoms among Chinese in urban Hong Kong.
Social Science and Medicine, 16, 1339-44.

Cheung, F. M. (1984). Preferences in help-seeking among Chinese students. Culture,
Medicine and Psychiatry, 8, 371-380.

Cheung, F. M., Lee, S. Y. , & Chan, Y. Y. (1983). Variations in problem
conceptualizations and intended solutions among Hong Kong students. Culture,
Medicine and Psychiatry, 7, 263-278.

Cochran, M., & Brassard, J. (1979). Child development and personal social networks.

Child Development, 50, 601-616.

81
Cohen, R, Struening, E. L., Muhlin, G. L., Genevie, L. E., Kaplan, S. R., & Peck, H.

B. (1982). Community stressors, mediating conditions, and well being in urban
neighborhoods. Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 377-391.

Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of
life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99-125.

Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and buffering hypothesis: A
theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, J. E. Singer, & S. E. Taylor (Eds),
Handbook of psychology and health. Vol. 4. (pp. 253-267). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Cohen, 8., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

Cook, H., & Chi, C. (1984). Cooperative behavior and locus of control among
American and Chinese-American boys. Journal of Psychology, 118, 169-177.

Cummins, R. C. (1988). Perceptions of social support, receipt of supportive behaviors,
locus of control as moderators of the effects of chronic stress. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 685-700.

Delcngis, A., Coyne, 1., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1982). Relationship
of daily hassles, uplifts, and major life events to health status. Health
Psychology, 1, 119-136.

Eaton, W. W. (1978). Life events, social supports, and psychiatric symptoms: A
reanalysis of the New Haven data. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19,

230-234.

82
Fischer, C. S. (1982). The dispersion of kinship ties in modern society:

Contemporary data and historical speculation. Journal of Family History, 7,
353-375.

Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford
University Press: London.

Gore, 8. (1981). Stress-buffering functions of social supports: An appraisal and
clarification of research models. In B. S. Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend
(Eds), Stressfid life events and their contexts. New York: Prodist.

Graves, T. D., & Graves, N. B. (1985). Stress and health among Polynesian migrants
to New Zealand. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 8, 1-19.

Hill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence.
Annals of Child Development, 2, 145-189.

Hirsch, B. J. (1979). Psychological dimensions of social networks: A multimethod
analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 159-172.

Hirsch, B. J. (1980). Natural support systems and coping with major life changes.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 159-172.

Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three
regions. In J. B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds),
Explications in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 335-55). Lisse, Netherlands:
Swets and Zeitlinger.

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal

of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.

83
Hsieh, T. T., Shybut, J ., & Lotsof, E. J. (1969). Internal versus external control and

ethnic group membership: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1953). Americans and Chinese: Two ways of life. New York:
Abelard-Schuman.

Hwang, C. H. (1982). Studies in Chinese personality: A critical review. Bulletin of
Educational Psychology, 15 , 227-241.

Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of
two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life
events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1-39.

Kleinman, A. M. (1982). Neurasthenia and depression: A study of somatization and
culture in China. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 6, 117-90.

Kuo, S. Y., & Specs, E. R. (1983). Chinese-American life-styles: A comparative
study. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 111-117.

Lao, R. C. (1977). Levinsons IPC (internal-external control) scale: A comparison of
Chinese and American students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9,
113-124.

Lao, R. C., Chuang, C. J., & Yang, K. S. (1977). Locus of control and Chinese
college students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 299-313.

Lefcourt (197 6). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

84
Lefcourt (1982). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research, 2nd

edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lefcourt, H. M., Miller, R. S., Ware, E. E., & Sherk, D. (1973). Cognitive activity
and hypothesis formation during a double entendre word association test as a
function of locus of control and field dependence. Canadian Journal of
Behavioral Science, 5, 161-173.

Lefcourt, H. M., Martin, R. A., & Saleh, W. A. (1984). Locus of control and social

support: Interactive moderators of stress. Journal of Personality and Social

 

Psychology, 47, 378-389. E

Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept
of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 377-383.

Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 397-404.

Lin, N., Simeone, R. S., Ensel, W. M., & Kuo, W. (1979). Social support, stressful
life events, and illness: A model and an empirical test. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 20, 108-119.

Mahler, I. (1974). A comparative study of locus of control. Psychologia, I 7,
135-139.

McTavish, G. D. (1971). Perceptions of old people: A review of research
methodologies and findings. The Gerontologist, 11, 90-101.

Mitchell, R. E., & Trickett, E. J. (1980). Task force report: Social networks as

mediators of social support. Community Mental Health Journal, 16, 27-44.

85
Nelson, P. C., & Phares, E. J. (1971). Anxiety, discrepancy between need value and

expectancy, and internal-external control. Psychological Reports, 28, 663-668.

Nuttal, E. V., Chieh, L., & Nuttall, R. L. (1988). Views of the family by Chinese and
U.S. children: A comparative study of kinetic family drawings. Journal of
School Psychology, 26, 191-194.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for
depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91, 347-374.

Phares, E. J. (1968). Differential utilization of information as a function of
internal-external locus of control. Journal of Personality, 36, 649-662.

Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. NJ: Silver Burdett.

Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from
friends and from family: Three validation studies. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 11, 1-24.

Raymond, J., Rhoads, D., & Raymond. R. (1981). The relative impact of family and
social involvement on Chicano mental health. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 11, 1-24.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609).

Sandler, I., & Lakey, B. (1982). Locus of control as a stress moderator: The role of
control perceptions and social support. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 10, 65-80.

 

86
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychong of afiiliation: Experimental studies of the

sources of gregariousness. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Seeman, M. (1963). Alienation and social learning in a reformatory. American
Journal of Sociology, 69, 270-284.

Seeman, M., & Evans, J. W. (1962). Alienation and learning in a hospital setting.
American Sociological Review, 27, 772-783.

Stewart, D., & Vaux, A. (1983, May). Ethnicity and social support. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Strickland, B. R. (1971). Aspiration responses among Negro and white adolescents.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 315-320.

Strickland, B. R. (197 8). Internal-external expectancies and health-related behaviors.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1192-1211.

Sue, D. W. (1978). Eliminating cultural oppression in counseling: Toward a general
theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 419-428.

Tseng, M. S. (1972). Attitudes towards the disabled: A cross-cultural study. Journal
of Social Psychology, 87, 311-312.

Uomoto, J. (1983, April). Social support and the family environment of Asian
Americans. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological
Association, San Francisco, California.

Vaux, A. (1985). Variations in social support associated with gender, ethnicity, and

age. Journal of Social Issues, 41 , 89-110.

 

87'

Vieweg, B. W., & Hedlund, J. L. (1983). The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ):
A comprehensive review. Journal of Operational Psychiatry, 14, 74—81.
Williams, A. W., Ware, J. E., Jr., & Donald. C. A. (1981). A model of mental health,
life events, and social supports applicable to general populations. Journal of

Health and Social Behavior, 22, 324-336.

Walk, 8., & DuCette, J. (1974). Intentional performance and incidental learning as a
function of personality and task directions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 29, 90-101.

Wu, D. (1982). Psychotherapy and emotion in traditional Chinese medicine. In A. J.
Marsella & G. M. White (Eds.), Cultural conceptions of mental health and
therapy (pp. 285-301). Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.

Yang, K. S. (1981). The formation and change of Chinese personality: A
cultural-ecological perspective. Acta Psychological Taiwanica, 23, 39-55.

Yang, K. S. (1982). Yuan and its functions in modern Chinese life. In Proceedings
of the Conference on Traditional Culture and Modern ere (pp. 103-128).
Taipei: Committee on the Renaissance of Chinese Culture.

Yang, K. S., & Liang, W. H. (1982). Some correlates of achievement motivation
among Chinese high school boys. Acta Psychologica Taiwanica, 15 , 59-67.

Yu, L. C., & Harburg, E. (1980). Acculturation and stress among Chinese Americans

in a university town. International Journal of Group Tensions, 10, 99-119.

 

ICHIGRN STRTE U

HI 111 1111

V

I . LIBRRRIES
1 11111111111111
6 1 58 1

312 300 7