↓ Skip to main content

The stress of studying in China: primary and secondary coping interaction effects

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
The stress of studying in China: primary and secondary coping interaction effects
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1540-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander S. English, Zhi Jia Zeng, Jian Hong Ma

Abstract

Answering the call for research on coping outside of the Western world, the present study confirms previous research that indicated Asians cope with stress differently from other ethnic groups. In the present study, we explore the stress-coping-adjustment model and its role in acculturation for educational sojourners in the People's Republic of China. Using a sample of 121 recent exchange students (Asian, n = 52; non-Asian, n = 69), we administered surveys in the Fall of 2013 and 90 days later to measure students' socio-cultural adaptation. Results indicate several significant findings. Acculturative stress and perceived cultural distance had no role in predicting adaptation. Non-Asians reported greater adjustment even though cultural distance was greater. As hypothesized, non-Asians used more primary and secondary coping compared to Asians. Moderation analyses indicate three-way interactions among stress × coping × group, showing that non-Asians benefit from high usage primary coping, while primary coping exacerbates the negative effects of stress on adjustment for Asians. Secondary coping proves to be beneficial for both groups and improves adjustment across low and moderate stress levels. Results support recent developments in collective coping, suggesting that primary and secondary coping may not be beneficial for all ethnic groups in all circumstances. Research implications and practical contributions are discussed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 20 25%
Psychology 16 20%
Arts and Humanities 9 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 8%
Linguistics 5 6%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 19 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,384,989
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#935
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,432
of 387,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#58
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 387,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.