Comparing Stress Perception, Stressors and Coping Mechanisms Among American and Jamaican College Undergraduates

Chapter 2: Cross-Cultural Literature Review

Purpose

This dissertation examines the issue of stress and student wellness from the standpoint of a cross-cultural analysis of American Jamaican psychology undergraduates. Implicitly and explicitly it understands stress as a universal psychological and physiological set of responses, emotions, and behaviors among individuals while it also views specific responses and coping mechanisms on part of the individual as being at least partially culturally determined. This study proposes to contribute to the research devoted to the issues associated with stress’s multi and cross-cultural dimensions and to provide research, insights, and observations in an issue that is currently underrepresented in the professional and theoretical literature. While studies such as the ones conducted by Liu & Spector (2005) have contributed to our understandings of the ways in which cultural factors determine an individual’s response and individual coping strategy to outside stressors, further cross-cultural research is necessary in order to properly determine how college students from diverse national and cultural backgrounds specifically understand, experience, and cope with stress. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of research devoted to individual sub-topics important to this work’s overall argument and theoretical approach. Specifically it will review the literature related to the issues of stress as a psychological and physiological concept; the various coping mechanisms and strategies theorized by Lazerous & Folkman (1984) and other theorists; review relevant findings in the areas of multicultural analyses of stress; and discuss how these other topics impact our potential understanding of stress and coping mechanisms among American and Jamaican undergraduate psychology students. Ultimately this chapter will contextualize the dissertation’s research design and methodology that will be explored in chapter 3.  

Theoretical Approach

Given the theoretical assumptions gathered from the specific areas of focus and analysis in this literature review, the following assumptions will undergird this present dissertation. First, this dissertation approaches the issue of stress in a dualistic sense as both a common human physical trait that is experienced in both physiological and psychological terms by a majority of the species as well as a phenomenon that is expressed through socially constructed and constituted mechanisms (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Backhurst, 2007). Secondly, it will contend that specific experiences and responses to stress are specifically coded and constituted through sociocultural mechanisms and specific cultural arrangements (Slavin, Rainer, Mccreary, & Gowda, 1991; Backhurst, 2007). Thirdly, it will surmise that Jamaican and American students experience and cope with stress in ways specifically informed by the specific nature of these respective societies; as a corollary to this observation, this study will also suggest that the forms of stress specifically experienced by Jamaican students are much more significant (Misra & Castillo, 2004; Longman-Mills 2015). Fourthly, the study will assume that the experiences of undergraduate students generally and psychology majors specifically are unique and can also be understood as a sociocultural mechanism influencing an individual’s stress patterns, neuroticism, impulse control, and coping mechanisms (Cheung, 2012; Myers et al., 2012). Finally, it will function under the assumption that a cross-cultural analysis can provide additional insights into the ways in which sociocultural components influence and determine an individual’s experience of stress and his/her specific response to environmental stressors (Backhurst, 2007; Wong, 2008).

Stress: Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations

 Individual human expressions and reactions to environmental stressors may indeed be contingent upon socio-cultural dynamics as may the individual nature of the stressors themselves (Bakhurst, 2007). However, researchers also maintain that despite the essential differences in the ways that individuals experience and react to stress, that ultimately stress can be regarded as a relatively universal human experience and phenomena. In their foundational work Stress, Appraisal and Coping, Lazarus & Folkman refer to stress as: “a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well being” (p. 21). This broad and inclusive analysis is in keeping with the larger purpose of their work that seeks to theorize and conceptualize stress as a common human psychological experience and as a valid theoretical concept. Lazarus & Folkman’s (1984) work can be regarded as a foundational study that has helped lay the groundwork for psychological studies of stress particularly in the arenas of multi and cross-cultural psychology. As we will see, Slavin et al. (1991) critiqued Lazarus & Folkman’s model for being Euro-centric in its approach and design. However, it is also important to note that the latter authors themselves anticipated the transition in theoretical analysis from the individual to the individual’s place with his/her larger sociological context even if their work did not approach the issue of multicultural psychology specifically. In any event, their study provides conceptual and theoretical frameworks that continue to be applied in a variety of contextual analyses and discussions of stress among specific population groups.

Early in their work, Lazarus & Folkman (1984) state that their study is primarily focused on stress as a psychological rather than a study of stress’s physiological effects. Later studies, however, have explicitly approached stress through an examination of both its physiological effects in addition to its psychological impact upon individuals. El-Ghoroury, Galper, Sawaqdeh, & Bufka (2011) explicitly analyze the physiological effects of stress upon psychology graduate students while Allwood & Berry (2006) examine human physiological commonalities in context of their discussions of indigenous forms of psychology. These studies help to contextualize stress as a broad and general human experience even as they set the stage for analyses that contend that individual reactions to outside stressors are directly impacted by considerations of an individual’s social and cultural context (Clayton & Zusho, 2015). Analyses that focus on stress’s impact on university students frequently point out how socio-cultural and environmental factors impact the psychological and physical dimensions of student health and well-being. Both Nelson (2001) and Myers et al. (2012) contend that psychology graduate students commonly experience negative health outcomes such as insomnia, diminished appetite,  lack of physical exercise, and increased blood pressure as a response to the particular stresses connected with advanced psychological study and coursework. All of this research, then, collectively illustrates that stress’s impact upon the human body and psychological mindset is fairly universal among different population groups. This research is useful to this present study’s analysis of stress’s impact upon American Jamaican undergraduate psychology even if the findings themselves will need to be re-contextualized within specific analyses of these population groups.

Much of the research devoted to stress’s psychological and physical impact relates to the discussion of individual psychology and analyses. In part, this reflects the sheer difficulty of researching stress in terms of its larger cultural impact. At the same time, however, cross-cultural and multicultural psychology has also succeeded in establishing a theoretical model of stress that views it as both an individual response to environmental stressors and as a phenomenon largely determined by contextual and cultural factors, not just a proclivity for mental illness. Slavin et al. (1991) established this trend in their foundational study Toward a Multicultural Model of the Stress Process. This study built upon Lazarus & Folkman’s (1984) study but also broadened their theoretical understandings so that they would be inclusive of cultural distinctions and nuances. This analysis has thus been crucial in building upon Lazarus & Folkman’s premise that stress has to be understood as a relational byproduct between an individual and his/her environment and in establishing a multicultural model of stress. Slavin et al.’s study (1991) also created a broader awareness among theorists that models and frameworks aiming to analyze human behavior have to be highly conscious of potential bias. This premise has functioned as an essential guidepost for later studies of stress: both in those analyses that seek to analyze stress in various contexts of American culture and experience and those works that specifically aim to articulate a specific model of stress associated with a given racial, ethnic or national population group (Barbatis, 2010; Hickling, 2012). 

This same premise derived from Slavin et al’s (1991) study has also directly impacted studies associated with studies of stress’s impact upon university students in a two-fold sense: first by creating a model of analyses that understands university students as fitting within a socio-cultural context, and in creating those models attuned to cultural differences and distinctions among student population groups in distinct global nations and cultures. In terms of the former category, the work of Aselton (2012), Misra & Castillo (2004), Bartiniach (2013) and Perna (2010) broadly outline the various degrees of stress that uniquely face university students despite their cultural national and ethnic distinctions. Substance abuse, for example, is cited as a stress-related concern for undergraduates in both the United States and in Jamaica. Aselton (2012) notes the prevalence of extreme alcohol intake and drug abuse among clinically depressed American students whereas Longman-Mills et al. (2015) view alcohol abuse as a culturally-determined dysfunctional approach to environmental stressors among both male and female Jamaican students. These studies help contextualize undergraduates as a unique population facing a unique set of socio-cultural determinants and stressors. Likewise, the work of El-Ghoroury et al. (2012), Nelson (2001), and Myers et al. (2012) subdivide psychology majors and students into a unique sub-grouping contending that these students face a set of unique stressors related to the complexities of their course of study and expectations of their academic performance. 

At the same time, however, Clayton & Zusho (2015) and Lowe, Lipps & Young (2009) contend that Jamaican university students face a unique set of stressors that accompany the usual risk factors facing undergraduates. Facing both unique forms of family and cultural pressure to succeed academically, Jamaican students are at an increased risk of experiencing acute and debilitating forms of stress that exceed the experiences of other undergraduates. While her study relates to beginning-level teachers rather than students, Betram (2012) nevertheless demonstrates that Jamaican teachers generally possess fewer resources to contend with professional stress and are at a greater likelihood to quit the teaching profession as a response to stressful conditions. Buddington (2012) likewise examines the sources of stress facing Jamaican international students in the United States, focusing on the ways in which their experiences of societal prejudice in the U.S. combines with the unique pressures facing university undergraduates in the country. While distinct in their orientation, subject, and approach, these analyses demonstrate how the specific cultural context of Jamaican society can impact an individual’s experience of stress. In this sense, they are crucial to this present study even if their findings have to be broadened and re-contextualized to fit within a broader discussion of stress’s impact upon Jamaican psychology majors.

 Coping Mechanisms and Multicultural Analyses

Theoretical discussions of stress as a psychological phenomenon are interrelated with discussions of coping mechanisms, their general efficacy for the individual adopting them, and the motivations underlying an individual’s selection of a particular approach. Just as the issue of stress is understood through a variety of critical lenses coping mechanisms are also viewed differently throughout research literature devoted to the issue. Evolutionary approaches view coping mechanisms as an inherited set of behavioral and psychological traits that promoted the survival of the human species across the period of early human evolution; personality psychology views approaches as a specific byproduct of individual personality traits (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). Multi-cultural analyses view coping mechanisms as both individually developed and culturally conditioned and reflective of a particular socio-cultural milieu (Longman-Mills et al., 2015); Coping mechanisms are thus understood under the rubric of individual psychology and the social psychology framework that understands an individual’s response to a specific set of stressors as contingent upon the conditions of his/her broader social environment. 

Despite the specific theoretical orientation of a particular theorist or researcher regarding the nature of coping mechanisms, however, discussions of the term generally rely upon a consensus of definition and basic classification of specific coping strategies and approaches. Essentially, a coping mechanism in regards to stress can be defined as a specific set of responses and reactions to a given set of environmental stimuli. Park, Ridley, & Synder (2012) more succulently characterize a coping mechanism as the interaction of an individual’s relationship with a stressor. This definition follows the general premise of Lazarus & Folksman’s (1984) understanding of stress as a reaction that occurs in a relational context between an individual and his/her environment. This definition also lends itself to an analysis of the ways in which an individual’s sociocultural context impacts his/her experience of stress and the specific coping mechanism the individual utilizes in response (Slavin et al., 1991). 

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) define three sub-categories and classifications of coping mechanisms: problem, emotion, and meaning-focused responses. As discussed in chapter one, problem-focused strategies seek to mitigate an individual’s stress level by identifying the underlying sources of a particular problem or issue. In this approach, individuals cope with stressful situations by engaging in proactive behaviors intended to resolve or curb an underlying problem or crisis. The efficacy of outcomes in this model depends upon the individual’s degree of mental health, and his/her competence and ability to determine the differences between reality and fantasy. Recent research has also sub-divided problem-focused approaches into three separate categories to help determine the differences between functional and dysfunctional coping strategies. These categories are classified as reactive, reflective, and suppressive. Reactive approaches, approaches that react impulsively to stressful conditions, are generally considered to be ineffectual and potentially dysfunctional in their efficacy and impact. Suppressive approaches are also considered dysfunctional in that they actively deny the existence of a problem-stressor: other theoretical works of literature term this approach-avoidance. Research, in contrast, views reflective approaches as both generally healthy and effective in that they depend upon responsible and thorough solutions to problems.  

Essentially, researchers contend that individuals who are more reflective, introspective and aware of the actuality of his/her environment are better equipped to proactively address the issue. This finding directly relates to university students. Those students who engage in either reactive or suppressive activities may experience less optimal outcomes than those who utilize reflective strategies as an approach to stressors (Julal, 2013). Multicultural analyses also quite frequently demonstrate that an individual’s ability or inability to effectively deal with a problem relates to his/her cultural orientation and framework. Jamaican students, for example, reflect a greater tendency to engage in reactive approaches; male students, in particular, may be more likely to be conditioned to react to stressors through violent means (Lynch, 2007). Similarly, American students prone to depression may be more oriented towards dysfunctional forms of reactive behaviors as a response to stressful conditions (Aselton, 2012). Contemporary college students are also more likely to rely upon the internet, social media, and other forms of electronic media as a form of escapism; this factor is common with both American students and college students among global populations (Deatherage, Servaty- Seib, & Aksoz, 2014).   

Whereas problem-focused behaviors relate to an individual’s attempt to change stressors in his/her environment, emotion-focused approaches relate to an individual’s strategy of transforming his/her approach to stressful conditions and situations. In total, these strategies reflect an effort to derive meaning from a situation and to adapt oneself accordingly to stressors (Slavin et al., 19991). As in the case of problem-focused approaches, emotion-focused approaches can be either functional and effective or dysfunctional and maladaptive depending upon the individual and his/her general mental health status. Healthy approaches in this regard might include exercise, yoga and meditation, or other spiritually-oriented approaches to stress. Unhealthy and dysfunctional approaches might include various forms of escapism including substance and alcohol abuse as a direct response. Studies suggest that college undergraduates in both Jamaica and in the United States are prone to this secondary and more dysfunctional approach (Aselton, 2012; Longman-Mills et al., 2015).   

Finally, meaning-focused approaches are approaches centered on the individual’s attempt to gain insight and meaning from a set of stressful and distressing events. Whereas the other two approaches focus on transformations of either environment or self as a response, researchers consider meaning-based approaches to be more integral to an individual’s adaptation and well-being. These approaches are particularly helpful when an individual is attempting to cope with a life-changing event or circumstances in that it invites the individual to consider the larger meaning of the event and how they intend to cope following the circumstance (Gua, Gan, & Tong, 2012). Although this approach is popular in clinical-based forms of therapy and consultation for individual patients, it also works effectively in a larger multicultural scenario (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). Gua et al (2012) and Longman-Mills et al. (2015) both identify meaning-based approaches as effectual for individuals dealing with lager sociopolitical events and traumas. Gua et al. (2012) contend that meaning-based approaches were particularly helpful for Chinese students dealing with the immediate aftermath of a major earthquake while Longman-Mills cite the approach as helpful for West Indian and Jamaican students dealing with large-scale forms of sociopolitical forms of violence and political trauma in that region. 

In total, multicultural-based analyses reveal a complex and somewhat contradictory attitude towards Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) model. On the one hand, Slavin et al.’s (1991) famous critique of the model as being predominantly Euro-centric in its orientation and bias still resonate with critics. Sutherland (2011) in particular is skeptical of the applicability of Western-based models for African and Caribbean patients believing that these models are not only culturally biased but equally inefficient in their ability to address the specific psychological needs of this culture. Others, however, contend for a more synthesized view that strikes a balance between Western-oriented models and global case studies and areas of focus. Slavin et al. (1991) began this observation by noting that any model is capable of exhibiting cultural bias but that more efficient and applicable models take this shortcoming into account. More recent scholarship also demonstrates how the Lazarus/ Folkman model can fit within a multicultural context. The work of Gua et al. (2012) and Moosa & Munaf (2012) are particularly helpful in outlining strategies for applying this model in a multicultural context and in demonstrating its potential efficacy in addressing culturally-specific topics. The model is also helpful in addressing university student approaches and coping strategies. The work of Julal (2013), de la Fuente et al. (2014) and Asleton (2012) all demonstrate how this model can be applicable when studying the adaptive behaviors of college students; the work of Longman-Mills et al. (2015) also illustrates how the model can address issues pertinent to multicultural students. Research analyzing stress’s impact on psychology students less directly addresses the issues of specific coping strategies and mechanisms; however, the work of Cheung (2012), provides insights that can nevertheless be applicable to an understanding of the specific environmental stressors relating to psychology students and their general approach and attitude to those conditions. 

Multicultural Approaches to Stress and Coping 

Beginning with Slavin et al’s (1991) work “Towards a Multicultural Model of the Stress Process,” researchers have endeavored to analyze how cultural and socio-cultural determinants impact how individuals experience, process and cope with stress. Slavin et al state that their intention in the article is to expand the Lazarus/Folkman model and to generate a model that specifically analyzes how stressful events, an individual’s responses to those events, “coping resources” and “strategies,” and “adaptive difficulties” are in turn experienced and processed by the individual undergoing stress processes (p. 156). In this sense, they endeavor to extend analyses of stress beyond traditional psychological and physiological paradigms and to examine it as a culturally impacted and determined; and in this sense, they better demonstrate Lazarus & Folkman’s (1984) contention that stress derives from relational interactions between the individual and his/her environment. In effect, they demonstrate that experiences of stress are widely determined by cultural factors in the ways that outside factors produce emotional and psychological stress within the individual; the avenues for stress relief and management that are socially acceptable and conditioned; and in the various forms of culturally-coded meanings that are attached to stressors and stress processes. Their study thus shifted critical focus away from the broader considerations of stress as a psychological phenomenon alone and towards a consideration of stress’s social and cultural dimensions. 

The work of Slavin et al. (1991) and other theorists in the field of cross-cultural psychology are either explicitly or implicitly informed by the theoretical work of Lev Vytgostky. As Backhust (2007) contends, Vytgostky’s theoretical paradigms allow the theorist to understand psychological manifestations as a byproduct of a particular set of cultural frameworks. An individual manifests certain behavioral and emotional traits as a byproduct of their lager psychological conditioning and definitive personality traits (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). At the same time, however, the individual’s specific emotional reactions and responses to outside stimuli are culturally informed by his/her larger sociocultural context (Backhurst, 2007). These reactions stem from a certain pendulum of experience that is socially constructed and conditioned by a given set of cultural expectations and guidelines. Multicultural discussions of stress thus focus on the specific ways in which these set of sociocultural dimensions impact an individual’s reaction to and expression of stress. Cheesman et al. (2006), Lynch (2007), Longman-Mills et al. (2015), and Lowe et al. (2009) all examine the specific ways in which Jamaican culture impacts an individual’s response to stress and evaluate how that cultural paradigm impacts the individual’s psychological state in that regard. Lynch (2007), Longman-Mills et al. (2015), Lowe et al. (2009) all examine stress’s more debilitating and negative aspects and its impact upon the individual while Cheesman et al. (2006) and Clayton & Zusho (2015) also examine how stress can benefit the Jamaican student’s performance by providing the student a culturally-informed model of motivation for personal and academic success. 

Studies of American college students also depend upon a similar framework in their analysis of the ways in which cultural paradigms inform the student’s specific experience of stress. This is particularly the case for studies focusing on groups of marginalized or differentiated students. Buddington’s (2012) analysis of Jamaican immigrant students in the United States functions as a case in point. However, the analysis provided by both Barbatis (2010) and Perna (2010) also demonstrate how specific population groups within a majority culture can also be viewed as a minority and marginalized group; Barbatis by examining academically unprepared community college students in terms of their academic stressors, and Perna in her analysis of the unique stresses faced by older, working, and non-traditional students. Finally, Misra & Castillo (2004) provide an explicit cross-cultural analysis of the differences in the ways in which American and students worldwide experience and cope with stress. In total, these analyses provide a theoretical framework that understands stress explicitly under the rubric of multicultural analysis and cross-cultural significance.   

These discussions also lend themselves to an analysis of the ways in which cultural paradigms influence an individual’s coping mechanisms in regards to stress. Slavin et al. (1991) observation about the cultural relevancies of stress models and coping mechanisms has prompted a plethora of analyses focusing on the cultural dimensions of specific coping strategies. As we have seen, Gua et al. (2012) and Moosa & Munaf (2012) provide discussions on the ways in which specific coping mechanisms—meaning-focused approaches in particular—fit within the broader cultural paradigms of various nations. In this regard, Bataniach (2013) also provides specific insights about the role of the Islamic religion as a source of comfort and stress relief for undergraduate students at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia; Thawabieh & Qaisy (2012) likewise provide insights about the specific coping mechanisms among Jordanian students. While these studies may ultimately prove to be distinct from analyses of Jamaican students, the theoretical paradigms that these authors utilize may also prove useful in understanding how cultural paradigms influence an individual’s specific coping strategy. 

The work of Hickling (2012), Hanely (2010), and Sutherland (2011) formulates a specific approach associated with Jamaican and Caribbean cultures and society. These works understand stress through the specific paradigms of these cultural frameworks and contend that Western-based models and theoretical discussions of both stress and coping mechanisms have to be re-contextualized to fit within the specific cultural milieu of these nations. The work of Clayton & Zusho (2015), Longman-Mills et al. (2015), Lowe et al. (2009), and Lynch (2007) likewise articulate a view of how the specific features of Jamaican society influence the choice of personal coping strategies. Barbatis (2010), Deatheredge (2010), de la Fuente (2014) and Sternback (2009) each focus on how undergraduates cope with stress generally and specifically; Cheung (2012), Myers et al. (2012) and Nelson (2001) likewise provide an in-depth analysis of how psychology students, specifically, cope with stressful situations. Collectively, these cross-cultural studies allow us to conceive of coping mechanisms as being influenced by both national and ethnic cultures as well as sub-cultures within those broader societies. American and Jamaican psychology students can thus be theoretically conceived of as individuals who are impacted by the specific nature of their national cultures but equally by the unique demands of the specific academic work expected from undergraduate students and psychology majors more specifically. The fundamental purpose of this study is to understand how each of these sociocultural factors and determinants impacts the specific ways in which both categories of students experience, comprehend, and respond to stressors (Backhurst, 2007.) 

Implications of Research: Descriptions of Specific Demographics and Their Respective Challenges.

Based on the previous studies cited in this chapter, we can make the following preliminary assessments of the population groups under discussion in this present study. Firstly, Jamaican and American psychology majors exhibit a number of important differences in the ways that these students experience, comprehend, and react to stress in their sociocultural environment; these differences are socially constructed and construed in ways specific to their larger cultural milieu (Misra & Castillo, 2004; Backhurst, 2007 ). Secondly, as a group, Jamaican students tend to reflect the specific historical and cultural conditions of their nation. Education has a high priority in Jamaican life as educational equity and reform movements have long been a concern related to social justice issues in the nation. Accordingly, Jamaican students who study at universities tend to be both motivated and stressed by the larger cultural factors associated with their academic success (Clayton & Zusho, 2015). As a homogenous body, American students reveal diversity in terms of their ethnic makeup and cultural distinctions. As a result, they tend to be more diverse in terms of how they experience stress and how they cope with stressors (Barbatis, 2010). Nevertheless, American students are generally regarded as unique from other demographics in terms of the ways in which they self-impose stressors upon themselves and in the ways that they reveal a diversity of coping styles and strategies (Misra & Castillo, 2004). Undergraduate students experience unique forms of stress associated with their specific academic demands; psychology majors, meanwhile, experience an even greater degree of stressors related to the unique demands of their discipline (El-Ghoroury, et al., 2012; Cheung, 2012). 

Conclusion

These discussions provide a theoretical background that underpins this dissertation’s focus and approach. Chapter three provides an in-depth discussion of this study’s research methodology and strategy.

Chapter 3: Research Design and Method

Chapter Overview

This study seeks to produce a cross-cultural analysis of the ways in which Jamaican and American psychology undergraduates experience stress. Specifically, it examines similarities and differences among the students in terms of their stress levels, the specific nature of the stressors that they encounter, and the coping mechanisms that they employ. This chapter details the research design and method that will be employed during the course of the study. The first section will outline the two research questions that guide this study and their related hypotheses: namely, the quantitative question relating to relative stress levels among the population group and the qualitative question related to the type of coping mechanisms favored among the groups when dealing with a variety of stressors. The second section will examine the research design in detail and will explain the rationale underlying the author’s use of a concurrent triangulation design. The third section will outline the population and sample studied among both the Jamaican and American segments. The fourth section will explain the author’s planned procedures for data collection and procedures for following up on initial findings. The fifth section discusses the study’s validity in terms of its qualitative and quantitative findings while section six discusses the study’s instrumentation in more detail. Sections seven and eight outline the dissertation’s limitations and ethical assurances. Section 9, finally, provides a summary of the design and method utilized. 

Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Relations

Research question 1 (quantitative): is there a significant difference in the overall stress level (Minimal Distress: 1-3; Moderate Distress 4-6; and Significant Distress: 7-10) of Jamaican psychology undergraduates in comparison with American psychology undergraduates? 

Ho1: Jamaican psychology undergraduates have significantly more stress than American Undergraduates. Rationale: Jamaican psychology undergraduates have significantly more stress than American undergraduates due to increased social and family pressures to succeed academically and due to the sociocultural factors surrounding their course of study generally (Longman-Mills et al., 2015). 

Research Question 2 (qualitative): What similarities and differences exist among Jamaican and American psychology undergraduates’ coping mechanisms (Problem-focused coping; Emotion-focused coping; and Meaning-focused coping) when dealing with stressful situations (school, parents, peers, romantic relations, self, future, leisure time, and future goals)? 

Research Design

This study relies on a concurrent triangulation design. This methodology enables the author to explore stress as a quantifiable phenomenon among both sets of students while also utilizing a qualitative approach to examine the differences and similarities in terms of both external/environmental and internal/motivational stressors as well as the similarities and differences among the coping mechanisms and strategies favored by both population groups. Measuring the psychology undergraduates’ stress levels will be essential to this study’s focus on how cultural factors might determine and impact the students’ experience of stress in both cultural contexts; i.e., whether or not Jamaican cultural determinants create higher levels of stress for psychology undergraduates in that culture. A qualitative research methodology, meanwhile, enables the researcher to explore how students in both cope with stressors and the exact nature of the stressors that they encounter. 

Population and Sample

The author will examine a total of 300 psychology undergraduates from both the University of the West Indies in Kingston (UWI), Jamaica and from the University of Central Florida in Orlando (UCF). This population group will consist of both male and female students. In quantitative terms, this population facilitates the study of a large controlled sampling of psychology undergraduates at both universities. This number will specifically facilitate the researcher’s ability to gather quantifiable and measurable data that will gauge stress levels across both population groups.  In terms of qualitative findings, samples from both population groups are large enough to accommodate a diversity of student types, both collective and individualistic. This will diversify the students questioned about both preferred stress coping strategies and the types of stressors encountered.      

Procedures

The researcher will visit both the UWI and the UCF campus at two critical points during the research and data-gathering process: at the outset of the study and towards the conclusion. The author will interview elected psychology undergraduates at both universities through two primary means of evaluation. Quantitative data will be gathered from a questionnaire asking the students to measure their stress levels numerically through a systemized survey questionnaire. At the same time, the author will utilize the Coping across Situations Questionnaire (CASQ) as an evaluation and measuring instrument. Data will then be analyzed and cross-analyzed to determine the validity of both sets of studies. The researcher will then confirm the findings gathered at the outset of the study by repeating the same process with a different cross-sampling of psychology undergraduates at both universities.

Validity

In terms of quantitative findings, external threats to validity potentially consist of students not accurately filling out numerical-based questionnaires. This may result from inadequate instructions on the part of the instructor or due to the student not understanding the questions. External threats might stem from the experimental setting: students, for example, may feel pressured to produce false information in order to project a more positive image. In both cases, the researcher can mitigate these possibilities by being present and overseeing the distribution of the questionnaires and by reminding students to be as honest as possible in answering questions. In terms of quantitative data, the researcher can ensure credibility and dependability by observing the entire questioning process and verifying that only the selected students are participants during the questioning procedure. The author can also verify confirmability by double checking findings and by requiring the students to be as accurate and truthful as possible. The transferability of this study relates to its ability to be replicated in other situations and similar research contexts. 

Instrumentation 

Two sets of data instrumentation will be employed during the research process. Quantitative findings will derive from numerically-generated scores that the psychology undergraduates under analysis will assign as they are asked questions about their personal stress levels. Qualitative findings will derive from the students’ response to the Coping Across Situations Questionnaire. The CASQ asks participants to identify which coping mechanism, out of twenty possible choices, that they prefer. It determines how they react to stressors stemming from 8 different domains including school, parents, peers, romantic relations, self, future, leisure time, and vocational goals. In keeping with the dissertation’s concurrent triangulation design, utilizing two separate modes of questioning enables the author to generate separate but interrelated sets of findings relevant to the study’s research questions and underlying hypothesis and assumptions.

Assumptions

This research methodology will proceed according to three key assumptions: first, it will assume a willingness to on the part of research subjects. Psychology undergraduates will be selected by both basic demographic data—data that confirms that they are undergraduate psychology majors—and by requesting an adequate number of volunteers to participate in the study. It secondly assumes that the participants’ willingness is at least partially predicated on their desire to promote the academic advancement of their given field as psychology majors. Finally, it functions under the premise that the participants will be as truthful as possible in responding to both sets of questionnaires. 

Limitations

The primary limitation of this study can be understood as a byproduct of its central focus. Because it intends to examine how psychology majors in both populations react specifically to stress, its research and data collection will not be attuned to individual differences and diversity among the groups themselves in terms of ethnicity and background. This may prove to be a greater limitation in its examination of American psychology majors specifically due to the broad racial and socioeconomic diversity in that nation’s universities (Buddington, 2012). This study is specifically limited to the two universities under its analysis. Its findings, however, may provide insights for future related studies.  

Ethical Assurances

In keeping with UWI’s ethics requirements, all participants will be presented with an informed consent form prior to research. Participants will also be a part of the study on a voluntary basis. Given the nature of research intended for this study, all participants will be confidential. Names and aliases will not be mentioned within the body of the research or will be alluded to through pseudonyms or descriptors.

Summary

Research methodology for this study will be conducted through a concurrent triangulation design that relies upon quantitative research to determine the differences and similarities between Jamaican and American psychology undergraduates in their stress levels and qualitative research to determine their similarities and differences in terms of stressor types and coping strategies. It will rely upon concurrent research methodologies in deriving both sets of data and will specifically utilize the Coping Across Situations Questionnaire in deriving its qualitative findings. The research is limited by its specific focus and functions under the assumptions that the subjects are willing participants contributing to the knowledge of their field. All participants will be confidential and provided with an informed consent form prior to the study.

References

Allwood, C., & Berry, J. (2006). Origins and development of indigenous psychologies: An international analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 41(4), 243-268. 

Aselton, P. (2012). Sources of stress and coping in American college students who have been diagnosed with depression. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 25(3), 119-123. 

Backhurst, D. (2007.) Vygotsky’s demons. In The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. H. Daniels, Cole & J.V. Werstch (Eds.).  New York: Cambridge University Press.

Barbatis, P. (2010). Underprepared, ethnically diverse community college students: factors contributing to persistence. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(3), 14-18.

Bataniach, M. Z. (2013). Academic stress among undergraduate students: the case of education faculty at King Saud University. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 2(1), 1-8.

Bertram, G. (2012). Degree of teachers stress in Jamaica and the United Kingdom. New York: Trafford. 

Buddington, S. (2012). Acculturation, psychological adjustment (stress, depression, self-esteem) and the academic achievement of Jamaican immigrant college students. International Social Work, 45(4), 447-464. 

Carver, C. & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review, 61(6), 679-704.

Cheesman, J., Simpson, N., & Wint, A. (2006). Determinants of student performance at university: reflections from the Caribbean. Mona, Jamaica: University of Mona.

Cheung, F.M. (2012). Mainstreaming culture in psychology. American Psychologist, 67, 721-730.

Clayton, K., & Zusho, E. (2015). A cultural heuristic approach to the study of Jamaican undergraduate students achievement motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 10(8), 1-29. 

Deatherage, M. S, Servaty- Seib, H., Aksoz, I. (2014). Stress, coping and internet use of college students. Journal of American College Health, 62(1), 40-46.  

El-Ghoroury, N., Galper, D., Sawaqdeh, A., & Bufka, L. (2012). Stress, coping, and barriers to wellness among psychology graduate students. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 6(2), 122-134. 

Fuente, de la J., Lopez, M., & Zapata, M. (2014). Competency to study and learn in stressful contexts: fundamentals of the e-coping with academic success utility. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 12(3), 718-738.

Gua, M., Gan, Y., & Tong, J. (2011). The role of meaning-focused coping in significant loss. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 1(16), 1-16. 

Hanley, M., Stone, & Noblit, G. (2010). Cultural responsiveness, racial identity, and academic success: a review of literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Hickling, F. (2012). Perspectives in Caribbean psychology. London: University of West Indies. 

Julal, F. (2013). Use of student support services among university students: Associations with problem-focused coping, experience of personal difficulty and psychological distress. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 41(4), 414-425.

Keith, K. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Contemporary themes and perspectives. West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Pub. 

Liu, C., & Spector, P. (2005). The relation of job control with job strains: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 325-336. 

Longman-Mills, S., Haye, W., Hamilton, H., Brands, B., Wright, M., Cumsille, F., & Khenti, A. (2015). Psychological maltreatment and its relationship with substance abuse among university students in Kingston, Jamaica. Texto Contexto - Enferm. Texto & Contexto, 24, 63-68. 

Lowe, G. A, Lipps, GE, & Young, R. (2009). Factors associated with depression in students at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica. West Indian Medical Journal, 58(1). 

Lynch, K-A. (2007). Masculine gender roles: stress and anger in Jamaican Men. Kingston: Lulu.   

Moosa, E., & Munaf, S. (2012). Emotion and problem-focused coping strategies: a comparative study of psychiatric patients and normal adults. IPER, 53(21), 96-100.

Misra, R. & Castillo, L. (2004). Academic stress among college students: comparison of American and international students. International Journal of Stress Management, 11(2), 132-148.

Myers, S., Sweeny, A., Popick, V., Wesley, K., Bordfeld, A., & Fingerhut, R. (2012). Self-care practices and perceived stress levels among psychology graduate students. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 6(1), 55-66.

Nelson, N. (2001). Stress, coping, and success among graduate students in clinical psychology. Psychological Reports, 88, 759-759. 

Perna, L. (2010). Understanding the working college student. Academe, 96(4), 30-32.

Ross, S., Niebling, B., & Heckert, T. (1990). Sources of stress among college students. College Student Journal, 33(2), 312-318.

Seiffge-Krenke, I., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J-E. (2009). Changes in stress-perception and coping during adolescence: the role of situational and personal factors. Child Development, 80(1), 259-279. 

Slavin, L., Rainer, K., Mccreary, M., & Gowda, K. (1991). Toward a multicultural model of the stress process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(1), 156-163. 

Sternbach, D. (2009). Stress in the lives of music students. Music Educators Journal, 94(3), 42-48. 

Sutherland, M. (2011). Toward a Caribbean psychology: An African-centered approach. Journal of Black Studies, 42(8), 1175-1194. 

Thawabieh, A. & Qaisy, L. (2012). Assessing stress among university students. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(2), 110-116.

Wong, P. (2008). Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping. New York: Springer.