Cultural Variations in Resilience Capacity and Posttraumatic Stress: A Tri-Cultural Comparison

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Ping Zheng, Matt J. Gray, Wenjie Duan, S. Ho, Mian Xia, Joshua D. Clapp
{"title":"Cultural Variations in Resilience Capacity and Posttraumatic Stress: A Tri-Cultural Comparison","authors":"Ping Zheng, Matt J. Gray, Wenjie Duan, S. Ho, Mian Xia, Joshua D. Clapp","doi":"10.1177/1069397119887669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Resilience capacity has been associated with individuals’ flexibility and adaptability in responding to potential trauma. Culture-related appraisals influence not only interpretations of etiology of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and perception of severity of PTSD symptoms but also flexible coping strategies. However, adequate research of the mechanisms on how culture may affect the relationship between resilience and PTSD does not yet exist. The present study focused on whether and how culture (America, Hong Kong, and Mainland China) moderated the relationship between resilience capacity and severity of posttraumatic distress. Data were collected at three research sites (America, Hong Kong, and Mainland China) where 558 trauma survivors were recruited. Measures included the Life Events Checklist (LEC-5), the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), and the Revised Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-R). The results of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that American participants were more resilient than the participants in Hong Kong and Mainland China. The results of multiple regression indicated that frequency of exposure to trauma was a weaker predictor of severity of PTSD symptoms at high versus low levels of resilience capacity. The results also indicated a weaker moderating effect of Hong Kong versus American culture on the relation between resilience capacity and PTSD. This pilot study highlighted East–West cultural differences in the baselines of resilience capacity and posttraumatic stress and may motivate clinicians and researchers to reevaluate Western diagnostic criteria to psychological trauma conceptualization and treatment for non-Western populations.","PeriodicalId":47154,"journal":{"name":"Cross-Cultural Research","volume":"54 1","pages":"273 - 295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1069397119887669","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cross-Cultural Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397119887669","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Resilience capacity has been associated with individuals’ flexibility and adaptability in responding to potential trauma. Culture-related appraisals influence not only interpretations of etiology of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and perception of severity of PTSD symptoms but also flexible coping strategies. However, adequate research of the mechanisms on how culture may affect the relationship between resilience and PTSD does not yet exist. The present study focused on whether and how culture (America, Hong Kong, and Mainland China) moderated the relationship between resilience capacity and severity of posttraumatic distress. Data were collected at three research sites (America, Hong Kong, and Mainland China) where 558 trauma survivors were recruited. Measures included the Life Events Checklist (LEC-5), the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), and the Revised Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-R). The results of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that American participants were more resilient than the participants in Hong Kong and Mainland China. The results of multiple regression indicated that frequency of exposure to trauma was a weaker predictor of severity of PTSD symptoms at high versus low levels of resilience capacity. The results also indicated a weaker moderating effect of Hong Kong versus American culture on the relation between resilience capacity and PTSD. This pilot study highlighted East–West cultural differences in the baselines of resilience capacity and posttraumatic stress and may motivate clinicians and researchers to reevaluate Western diagnostic criteria to psychological trauma conceptualization and treatment for non-Western populations.
弹性能力和创伤后应激的文化差异:一个三文化比较
恢复能力与个体在应对潜在创伤时的灵活性和适应性有关。文化相关评价不仅影响对创伤后应激障碍病因的解释和对创伤后应激障碍症状严重程度的感知,而且影响灵活的应对策略。然而,文化如何影响心理弹性与创伤后应激障碍之间关系的机制尚未得到充分的研究。本研究的重点是文化(美国、香港和中国大陆)是否以及如何调节心理弹性能力和创伤后应激严重程度之间的关系。数据收集于三个研究地点(美国、香港和中国大陆),共招募了558名创伤幸存者。测量包括生活事件检查表(LEC-5)、DSM-5创伤后应激障碍检查表(PCL-5)和修订康纳-戴维森弹性量表(CD-RISC-R)。单因素方差分析(ANOVA)结果显示,美国参与者比香港和中国大陆的参与者更具弹性。多元回归的结果表明,创伤暴露频率在高水平和低水平的恢复能力下是较弱的创伤后应激障碍症状严重程度的预测因子。香港文化与美国文化对心理弹性能力与创伤后应激障碍之间关系的调节作用较弱。这项初步研究强调了东西方文化在恢复能力和创伤后应激基线上的差异,并可能促使临床医生和研究人员重新评估西方对非西方人群心理创伤概念和治疗的诊断标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cross-Cultural Research
Cross-Cultural Research SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Cross-Cultural Research, formerly Behavior Science Research, is sponsored by the Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (HRAF) and is the official journal of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. The mission of the journal is to publish peer-reviewed articles describing cross-cultural or comparative studies in all the social/behavioral sciences and other sciences dealing with humans, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, economics, human ecology, and evolutionary biology. Worldwide cross-cultural studies are particularly welcomed, but all kinds of systematic comparisons are acceptable so long as they deal explicity with cross-cultural issues pertaining to the constraints and variables of human behavior.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信