Next Article in Journal
On the Use of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence to Evaluate School Dropout
Previous Article in Journal
An Integrated Achievement and Mentoring (iAM) Model to Promote STEM Student Retention and Success
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/educsci12120844
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

External Locus-of-Hope and Collectivist Coping in Students from Three Asian Cities

by
Allan B. I. Bernardo
1,*,
Homer J. Yabut
1,
Tulips Yiwen Wang
2 and
Susanna S. Yeung
3
1
Department of Psychology, De La Salle University, Manila 1004, Philippines
2
Institute of Analytical Psychology, City University of Macau, Macao 999078, China
3
Department of Psychology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12(12), 844; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120844
Submission received: 30 September 2022 / Revised: 8 November 2022 / Accepted: 16 November 2022 / Published: 22 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Education and Psychology)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The positive education movement has called attention to the importance of student well-being and the role of positive constructs, such as hope, in the educational process. The external locus-of-hope dimensions, or positive cognitions about the role of external actors in the pursuit of important goals, positively predict student well-being, learning approaches, and achievement. However, external locus-of-hope dimensions were found to be associated with maladaptive coping styles among Asian students. In this study, we revisit this relationship between external locus-of-hope dimensions and coping among students, by focusing on collectivist coping strategies that are assumed to be more relevant to Asian students. A total of 780 university students from three Asian cities (Hong Kong, n = 295; Macau, n = 225; Manila, n = 260) were asked to complete a questionnaire on collectivist coping styles, internal and external locus-of-hope dimensions. Separate multiple regression analyses indicated that the coping style of acceptance/reframing/striving was mainly predicted by internal locus-of-hope in the three groups, but the coping styles of family support and religious coping were consistently predicted by external locus-of-hope dimensions in all three groups of students. The two other coping styles of avoidance/detachment and personal emotional outlets were also predicted by specific external locus-of-hope dimensions, but only in particular groups. The results are discussed in terms of how external locus-of-hope dimensions might evoke both adaptive and maladaptive coping among Asian students, which may be associated with primary and secondary control dimensions of the collectivist coping styles.

1. Introduction

In the past two decades, there have been advocates of positive education, which proposes that the goals of education should focus on the development of well-being and skills for happiness, in addition to the goal of developing the traditional academic skills [1,2,3]. Hope is one of the constructs that has been emphasized in positive education [4,5], but hope has been defined and studied in different ways in positive education. For example, hope has been studied as a positive prospective and activating emotion that activates students’ attention, motivation, and self-regulatory processes related to learning [6,7]. Hope has also been defined as character strength that involves optimism and future-mindedness, and this is associated with students’ life satisfaction and motivation [8,9]. But extensive research using Snyder’s hope theory that defines hope as positive cognitions about one’s ability and strategies to attain important goals [10] has shown how hope is associated with adaptive learning processes and well-being [11,12,13,14]. Hope as defined in Snyder’s theory was extended to distinguish between goal-related thoughts involving personal agency and strategies and those involving shared agency and strategies involving external forces (family, peers, supernatural forces), which are referred to as internal vs. external locus-of-hope dimensions [15]. The external locus-of-hope dimensions are assumed to be important hope cognitions in interdependent or collectivist cultures, were shared or conjoint models of agency are said to be important, and there is much evidence that shows how these external locus-of-hope dimensions are associated with important learning processes [16], achievement [17], and student well-being [18,19,20]. However, there are studies that show external locus-of-hope dimensions as being associated with maladaptive coping strategies of students in a cross-cultural sample of Asian students [21]. In this study, we investigate the relationship between external locus-of-hope and coping strategies of students by assessing coping strategies that are proposed to be more relevant to Asian students: collectivist coping styles [22,23]. We study the relationship between students’ self-reported use of collectivist coping strategies and their internal and external locus-of-hope dimensions, and we study these relationships in samples of students from three cities: Hong Kong, Macau, and Manila. In doing so, we wish to clarify how external locus-of-hope can be a resource for helping students deal with the various stressors in their environment.

1.1. Hope and Coping in Students

Hope theory defines hope as positive cognitions about a person’s expectations and capability to attain important life goals [10]. More specifically, the positive cognitions pertain to the person’s will and commitment to work towards achieving the goals and to the person’s strategies for achieving the goals. The positive relationship of hope and various indicators of well-being been documented in many life domains and in different populations [10,24], including students. Hope is demonstrated to be associated with students’ psychological well-being [25,26,27,28] and academic achievement [25,28,29]. However, hope theory has been considered incomplete as it assumes that goal-pursuit only involves individual or personal will and strategies; in collectivist societies, goal pursuit can involve shared agency and strategies involving significant others such as family and friends, and even supernatural forces [14]. In this regard, the locus-of-hope model extends the original hope theory by adding the locus-of-hope dimensions. Internal locus-of-hope pertains to hope as defined in hope theory [10], whereas external locus-of-hope refer to positive cognitions associated with the role of parents (external-family), friends (external-peer), and supernatural forces (external-spiritual) in goal pursuit [15]. Consistent with the proposal that external locus-of-hope is salient in collectivist societies, measures of external locus-of-hope are associated with a more collectivist orientation [15] and interdependent self-construals [30] among students. The external locus-of-hope dimensions are also associated with well-being of students [20,21,30], adaptive learning goals [31], collaborative learning intentions [16], and achievement [17].
Hope is considered integral to the coping process [32]; hope is a resource factor that helps the person to sustain the effort to cope [10,33,34]. The positive cognitions associated with hope makes and individual becomes more determined to overcome challenges in coping [35,36], and hope is associated with problem-focused coping [37,38,39] and other adaptive coping strategies [40] and negatively associated with maladaptive coping styles [41,42]. Studies suggest that coping mediates the relationship between hope and well-being [43], and that hope moderates the effects of maladaptive coping on distress [44], although hope and coping can also be seen as being reciprocally related to each other [45].

1.2. External Locus-of-Hope and Maladaptive Coping

A recent cross-cultural study [21] of Asian students replicated the positive associations between internal locus-of-hope and adaptive coping strategies, but also found positive associations between external-locus of hope dimensions and maladaptive coping strategies. In particular, in four cities studied (Johor Bahru, Hong Kong, Macau, and Manila), only internal locus-of-hope was associated with task-oriented coping, which is considered to be the adaptive coping style; none of the external locus-of-hope dimensions was associated with task-oriented coping. Instead, different external locus-of-hope dimensions were associated with the two maladaptive forms of coping: emotion-oriented and avoidance-oriented coping. For example, for the Malaysian sample from Johor Bahru, external-peer and external spiritual locus-of-hope were both positively associated with emotion-focused coping. For the Macau Chinese sample, external-family locus-of-hope was associated with both emotion-oriented and avoidance-oriented coping. For the Filipino sample from Manila, external-peer locus-of-hope was positively associated with emotion-focused coping. Internal locus-of-hope was not associated with the maladaptive coping styles in any of the four cultural samples.
The results of that one study could be seen as suggesting that external locus-of-hope dimensions are not resource factors to sustain an individual’s efforts to cope with difficulties the way internal locus-of-hope is [10,33,34]. If external locus-of-hope dimensions tend to be more associated with maladaptive coping, then these hope cognitions might not be a positive factor that would be useful to nurture among students. It is possible that as the external locus-of-hope dimensions relate to conjoint agency, these hope cognitions might not be strongly associated with the self-regulated processes that relate to adaptive problem-oriented coping, thus giving space for less adaptive forms of coping. We note, however, that the coping measure used in the above study [21] derived from the typical theories of coping styles used to study individuals in western and individualistic societies. There have been proposals to look at coping from a non-western perspective; in particular, from the perspective of persons in collectivistic societies. In the following section we discuss some cultural perspectives on coping.

1.3. Cultural Perspectives of Coping: Collectivist Coping Styles

Most research on coping is derived from Lazarus and Folkman’s theory [46], which defines coping as an individual’s attempts, either cognitively or behaviorally, to manage himself as he faces the external or internal demands of the environment. Coping is classified as either problem-focused or emotion focused coping [47]; the former focuses on changing the troubled person-environment relation causing the stress while the latter focuses on regulating emotions in relation to the stress. Problem-focused coping includes strategies wherein there are aggressive efforts to analyze and deliberate efforts to change the situation in solving the problem. The opposite of this type of coping is avoidance, where a person tries to avoid the problem or focus on managing the emotions associated with it [48]. In most research about coping, problem-focused coping is associated with positive outcomes unlike emotion focused-coping. But some more recent theories on coping emphasize the role of culture is coping experiences of individuals [49,50], where cultural contexts are assumed to shape primary and secondary appraisals of stressors, the selection of preferred coping strategies, and the helpfulness of coping [51,52]. Indeed, much research (see [53], for review) has observed differences in how cultural groups across [54,55,56] and within [57,58,59] nations vary in their use, preferences, and perceived effectiveness of different coping strategies. The cultural differences have been associated with cultural level differences in need for personal control [55], self-construals [60], and individualistic/collectivist orientations [61]. For example, coping patterns in collectivist cultures involve interdependent collectivistic norms, values, and tendencies that do not only involve individual efforts to address the sources of stress [53,62]. More specifically, people focus more on the needs of others (other-focused coping goals), which reinforces the relatedness and interdependence between self and others [48]. The collectivists’ focus on a more external self also tends to involve the use of secondary control coping goals where individuals alter their thoughts, feeling, and behaviors to fit the constraints in their social environment [48,49]; as such adaptive coping does not only depend on problem-oriented processes and may involve the use of both primary and secondary control processes.
One of the measures developed to measure collectivist is the Collectivist Coping Styles Inventory [23]. The scale has five factors: (a) Acceptance/Reframing/Striving (ARS)—reflects a combination of accepting the problem, reframing the meaning of the problem, and one’s perceived efficacy to solve the problem; (b) Family Support (FS)—reflects individuals’ efforts to seek family support and to draw from their trust and respect of their elders; (c) Religion/Spirituality (RS)—refers to strategies using religion or spiritual activities or referring to religious/spiritual beliefs and values; (d) Avoidance/Detachment (AD)—refers to strategies that involve detaching oneself from the problem and avoiding thoughts about the problem events for a short time; and (e) Private Emotional Outlets (PEO)—relates to solitary, anonymous or confidential coping strategies that are varied, but all involve dealing with the problem without involving significant others. The scale was developed inductively; the five factors were derived using exploratory factor analytic techniques instead of being constructed from precise theoretical definitions [23]. Thus, the items and the labels for each factor include clusters of distinct concepts (e.g., acceptance and striving; religion and spirituality) that form an empirically determined latent factor. However, three factors [ARS, FS, PEO] have items reflecting both primary and secondary control and two factors [RS, AD] feature items that only reflect secondary control [23].
The scale and its five-factor structure have been validated in different samples from collectivist societies [63,64]. Studies found that ARS and FS tend to be consistently associated with life satisfaction [19,63,65]; the two collectivist coping styles also tend to be reported more by individuals who are higher on individual-level collectivism [66], The emerging pattern arising from the few studies using the Collectivist Coping Styles Inventory is that there are coping styles different from problem-oriented coping styles that can relate to positive well-being among persons in collectivist societies.

1.4. The Current Study

We revisit the relationship between coping and external locus-of-hope in the current study. One previous cross-cultural research indicating the external locus-of-hope dimensions related to maladaptive coping among university [21], and we suggest that a more appropriate exploration should involve the assessment collectivist coping styles that befit the sample of Asian university students. In the current study, we explore the relationship between the different locus-of-hope dimensions and the five collectivist coping styles measured in the Collectivist Coping Styles Inventory. Based on previous studies we consider two collectivist coping styles (i.e., ARS and FS) as being adaptive. It may be safe to assume that the collectivist coping style of AD is maladaptive, there is no empirical evidence that could indicate whether RS and PEO are also maladaptive. In this current study, we refrain from making such assumptions and take an exploratory approach instead. We also do not propose specific hypotheses regarding how external locus-of-hope dimensions relate to the various collectivist coping styles. Instead, we pay attention to how all five coping styles that are associated with the external locus-of-hope dimensions. We explore these relationships in three Asian cities—Hong Kong, Macau, and Manila—where we recruited university students to answer short questionnaires that included the Collectivist Coping Styles Inventory and the Locus-of-Hope scales. We wish to clarify that the students were recruited to participate in the study long before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and as such, the students’ experiences of hope and coping were as yet untouched by the extensive impacts of the pandemic.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedures

Participants were 780 university students in Hong Kong (n = 295), Macau (n = 225), and Manila (n = 260). Majority of participants were female in each city (Hong Kong: 79.67%; Macau: 67.56%; Manila: 67.15%). The age of participants ranged from 18 to 25 years, with similar mean age in all cities (Hong Kong: M = 19.74, SD = 1.49; Macau: M = 19.26, SD = 1.27; Manila: M = 19.19, SD = 2.17). The students were recruited from the different classes that provided partial course credit for research participation. The students were told about the general nature of the study, that no known risks were involved, and that their responses will be kept anonymous and confidential. The research questionnaires were given only to the students who indicated their informed consent in writing.

2.2. Measures

For the Manila students, the original English language versions of the scales were used. For the Hong Kong and Macau students, existing Chinese versions of the scales. The locus-of-hope and life satisfaction scales were originally written in English, and validated with Chinese samples, the collectivist coping scale was originally written in Chinese (see below). All the Chinese scales were written in Traditional Chinese orthography commonly used in both Hong Kong and Macau. Sample items for the scales are indicated in the subsections below, and the complete set of items in English are provided in Table S1. The internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) for each of the scales for each sample are reported in Table 1. As further support for the structural validity of the scales, the results of confirmatory factor analysis of the scales are reported below.

2.2.1. Collectivist Coping Styles Inventory

This scale was created by Heppner et al. [23] to measure collectivist perspective on coping with stressful life events and was originally developed in Chinese with an English translation. As mentioned above, this questionnaire includes five factors. ARS consists of 11 items (e.g., ‘As a starting point, tried to accept the problem for what it offered me’) and FS comprises 6 items (e.g., ‘Followed the norms and expectations of my family about handling problematic events’). RS has 4 items (e.g., ‘Thought about the meaning of the problem from the perspectives of my religious beliefs’); AD includes 5 items (e.g., ‘Avoided thinking about the problem for a short time for the peace of mind’); and PEO consists of 4 items (e.g., ‘Chatted with people about the problem on the Internet in order to gain support’). Participants responded using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never used this strategy/not applicable) to 5 (a tremendous amount of help). The Chinese language scale has been previously validated among Hong Kong [63] and Macau [66] university students. The scale was used for the first time with Filipino students.
As shown in Table 1, the Cronbach α coefficient for the different subscales were mostly adequate, except for the PEO subscale which had internal consistency coefficients in the low 0.60 range in the Macau and Manila samples. For each city sample, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the five-factor structure of the scale. In each analysis, the five factors were assumed to be correlated, and when modification indices suggest it, residuals of items within a factor were covaried. In each analysis, the appropriate items indicated the latent factor; however, not all fit indices met the criteria. For the Hong Kong sample, the absolute fit indices were acceptable: χ2/df = 2.59; RMSEA = 0.073 [90% CI: 0.068, 0.079], but the incremental fit indices were below criteria: CFI = 0.84, TLI = 0.82; and there was the same pattern of results for the Manila sample: χ2/df = 2.12; RMSEA = 0.066 [90% CI: 0.059, 0.072]; CFI = 0.86, TLI = 0.84. But for the Macau sample, all absolute and incremental fit indices were acceptable: χ2/df = 2.75; RMSEA = 0.088 [90% CI: 0.082, 0.095], CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94.

2.2.2. Locus-of-Hope Scale

The scale comprises both internal and external locus-of-hope subscales [15]. Eight items for each of the four specific locus-of-hope subscales: internal (e.g., ‘There are lots of ways I can get around any problem’), external-family (e.g., ‘My family finds many ways to help me solve my problems’), external-peers (e.g., ‘My friends always support me in the pursuit of my life goals’), external-spiritual (e.g., ‘I will attain my life goals by trusting God’). Participants responded to the items using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (definitely false) to 4 (definitely true). The Chinese versions of the scale have been validated with Chinese university students [20,30,67]; the English version of the scale has also been previously validated with Filipino university students [15,18].
As shown in Table 1, the Cronbach α coefficient for the four subscales indicated generally adequate internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analyses were also conducted to test the four-factor structure of the scale. In each analysis, the four factors were assumed to be correlated, and when modification indices suggest it, residuals of items within a factor were covaried. All the results supported the structural validity of the scale. For the Hong Kong sample, the fit indices were good: χ2/df = 1.54; RMSEA = 0.043 [90% CI: 0.034, 0.051]; CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93; as was in the Macau sample χ2/df = 1.98; RMSEA = 0.066 [90% CI: 0.060, 0.072], CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, and the Manila sample: χ2(458) = 499.44, p = 0.088; χ2/df = 1.09; RMSEA = 0.019 [90% CI: 0.000, 0.029]; CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

The Collectivist Coping Styles Inventory and Locus-of-Hope Scale subscale scores for each student were first computed by averaging the scores for the items in each subscale. The descriptive statistics for all the important variables across all participants for each city are summarized in Table 1. Because we did not establish the metric equivalence of the measures across the three samples, we refrain from making comparisons across the cities. Instead, observe patterns in the descriptive statistics within each of the samples.
In Hong Kong, the highest locus-of-hope score is the internal locus-of-hope sample, and the same pattern is observed among the Macau students. But among the Manila students, external-spiritual locus-of-hope was the highest locus-of-hope score, and internal locus-of-hope has an average score that was lower than both external-spiritual and external-family locus-of-hope. As regards the collectivist coping styles, Hong Kong students on average reported highest use of ARS, and least use of PEO. This was the same pattern as with the Manila students; however, RS was also reported high use among the Manila students. Macau students also reported highest use of ARS, but least use of RS. The means do not directly inform the research question about how external locus-of-hope dimensions relate to collectivist coping, and so we refer to the regression analysis in the next section for the results that do address that question.

3.2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis

The study had a broad hypothesis that external locus-of-hope would be positively associated with some adaptive collectivist coping styles, but we did not formulate specific hypotheses for testing. As the aim was to explore the relationships among the collectivist coping styles and external locus-of-hope dimensions, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses. As a requirement for these analyses, we examined the correlations among the key variables to check if there is no multicollinearity. The summary of the intercorrelations is provided in Table S2, which shows that the significant correlations were low or moderate and that there are no concerns about multicollinearity. In each of regression analysis the dependent variable was one of the five collectivist coping styles. In the first step, age and sex were entered as predictors, as these were correlated with different coping styles in some of the samples as shown in Table S2. In the second step, internal locus-of-hope was entered as a predictor, and the three external locus-of-hope scores were entered as predictors in the third step of the hierarchical regression analysis. The change in R2 was computed and evaluated to ascertain whether each category of locus-of-hope (i.e., internal and external) significantly contributed to the model predicting each collectivist coping style. This analysis was conducted five times (for each collectivist coping style) for each of the three samples. The results of the 15 hierarchical regression analyses are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3. Table 2 presents the results for the two coping styles that are considered as adaptive coping styles; Table 3 summarizes the results for the other three collectivist coping styles.
Looking at ARS (see top of Table 2), we see partly similar patterns across all three cities. Age and sex do not significantly predict ARS, but the addition of internal locus-of-hope made the regression model significant in all cities. In the case of Macau, adding the external locus-of-hope dimensions did not improve the model; but in Hong Kong and Manila, the addition of these dimensions increased the R2 significantly. In Hong Kong, it was external-spiritual locus-of-hope that significantly predicted ARS, but it was external-peer locus-of-hope that significantly predicted ARS in the Manila sample.
We also observe partly similar patterns of results across the three cities related to FS. In all three sample, internal locus-of-hope significantly predicted FS in model 2, but this significant association became insignificant when the external locus-of-hope scores were added in model 3. In the final model, external-family locus-of-hope strongly predicted FS in all three samples. In addition, external-spiritual locus-of-hope predicted FS in the Macau and Manila samples.
So far, the results show specific but different external locus-of-hope dimensions predicting adaptive collectivist coping styles. We now consider how these dimensions relate to the other collectivist coping styles in Table 3. Not surprisingly, external-spiritual locus-of-hope predicted RS in all three samples. But in addition, external-family locus-of-hope positively predicted SR in the Macau sample.
For AD, we first note that the regression model for the Macau sample was not significant; none of the locus-of-hope dimensions were significantly associated with AD. However, in the Hong Kong sample, external-spiritual locus-of-hope positively predicted AD, and the overall model was significant. There was a similar result in the Manila sample, but in addition, internal locus-of-hope was surprisingly positively associated with AD, and the overall regression model was significant.
Finally, for PEO, the regression model for the Macau sample was also not significant, although external spiritual locus-of-hope dimensions were significantly associated with PEO. In the Hong Kong sample, external-spiritual locus-of-hope positively predicted PEO, whereas in the Manila sample, the external-peer locus-of-hope was positively associated with PEO. Both regression models for the cities were significant. The results of the last two collectivist coping styles to point to different specific associations between particular external locus-of-hope dimensions and maladaptive coping styles.

4. Discussion

This study was conducted to revisit the question on the relationship between external locus-of-hope and coping. Previous research using western-oriented definitions of coping found external locus-of-hope dimensions to be associated with maladaptive coping strategies. In the current study, we observed positive associations of the adaptive collectivist coping strategy of acceptance, reframing, striving (ARS) with external-peer locus-of-hope in students in Manila and with external-spiritual locus-of-hope in students from Hong Kong. In addition, the other adaptive collectivist coping style of family support (FS) was also positively associated with external-family locus-of-hope among students in Hong Kong, Macau, and Manila, and also with external-spiritual locus-of-hope among those in Macau and Manila. These results are significant in supporting the idea that external locus-of-hope dimensions, such as internal locus-of-hope, are also resource factors that help an individual to sustain the effort to cope [10,33,34]. But importantly, both ARS and FS involve coping that represents primary and secondary control strategies, so the positive associations of external locus-of-hope with adaptive coping styles was found using conceptualizations and measures of coping styles that are proposed to be more appropriate for describing the experiences of students in collectivist societies [23,48], which is consistent with the assumption that external locus-of-hope dimensions represent an important aspect of the hope cognitions of persons in collectivist societies [15]. Indeed, the collectivist coping styles are plausible mediators of the positive relationships between external locus-of-hope dimensions and positive well-being of students; and this suggestion should be tested in future research, a point which we will discuss further below.
Interestingly, the regression models on the association between the external locus-of-hope dimensions and the maladaptive collectivist coping strategies of avoidance, detachment (AD) and private emotional outlets (PEO) were both non-significant for the Macau students. However, external-spiritual locus-of-hope was positively associated with both AD and PEO for the Hong Kong students; whereas for the Manila students, external-spiritual locus-of-hope was positively associated with AD and external-peer locus-of-hope was positively associated with PEO. Thus, the results also point to the possible links of the external locus-of-hope dimensions to maladaptive coping, which my indicate that for specific cultures or societies, the external locus-of-hope dimensions could also involve less effective coping approaches. We note, however, that PEO items reflect both primary and secondary control coping strategies [23], and includes strategies that are not clearly maladaptive, such as, “Saved face by seeking advice from a professional I did know personally” and “Actively sought advice from professionals” [10]. These items involve steps to deal with the problem by engaging with helping professionals, such as counselors, social workers, or psychiatrists, and can be seen as potentially adaptive. However, in collectivist societies the privacy aspect of these coping styles indicates feelings of shame and may be construed less positively. So, we should be more cautious in definitively interpreting the results related to PEO as indicating a problematic correlate of external locus-of-hope.
The same point can be made in relation to the remaining collectivist coping style of religion, spirituality (RS). Although the developers of the scale [23] assert that RS involves secondary control strategies, there are items that suggest emotion-focused coping (e.g., “found comfort from my religion”), there are also items that suggest reframing the problematic situation (e.g., “thought about the meaning of the trauma from the perspective of my religious beliefs”). The question of whether RS is adaptive and maladaptive will need to be further studied by empirically examining its relationships with well-being.
While some of the results are consistent across the three student samples, there are findings that are specific to students in one city only. For example, it was only in the Macau that external-family locus-of-hope was associated with the RS coping style. Only in the Manila sample, external-peer locus-of-hope was associated both ARS and PEO, while only in the Hong Kong sample, external-spiritual locus-of-hope was associated both AD and PEO. We could speculate on the possible cultural process that could account for these city-specific results. For example, as Macau is a mostly secular society [68], the students who use coping that relate to religion and spirituality are likely to have learned this in their families. This interpretation is partly supported by the result that external-spiritual locus-of-hope also predicted the FS coping style, affirming the link between family and spiritual experiences. Hong Kong is another predominantly secular society, where some practices and rituals that have historical roots in Daoism and Buddhism are just viewed as part of the heritage culture [69]. In this context, thinking that supernatural powers have a role in attaining important life goals may represent a less normative belief, that unlike in Macau, is not supported within the students’ families. It is possible that this uncommon view leaves the students to less active and socially supported forms of coping subsumed under the category of avoidance, detachment, and private emotional outlets. As regards the seemingly important role of peer-related hope cognitions in the two types of collectivist coping strategies of students in Manila, this might reflect the relatively strong influence of same-age peers among Filipino students. We wish to underscore that these interpretations of the unique findings for each city are speculations on the part of the researchers and will need to be vetted in future research. However, these interpretations are consistent with cultural models of coping that characterize how cultural norms shape the selection of preferred coping strategies and the individuals’ perceptions of the helpfulness of coping. As the study did not involve gathering any cultural level data, such interpretations should be seen as educated speculations. Future research that seeks to understand cultural differences in such associations can draw from theories of stress culture, and coping [49,50,51,52] and measure the relevant cultural factors.
Related to this discussion point, as the study focused on three Asian cities that are known to have collectivist societies, it would be interesting to inquire into whether the collectivist coping styles will be relevant to students in more individualist societies or social groups, or even to other collectivist societies outside of Asia. The cultural dimension of the relationships between hope and coping were part of the premise of this study, but a fuller inquiry on the cultural dimensions of coping and hope would benefit from studies involving a more diverse range of cultures and educational systems.
Even as there is presently no full account of the cultural dimensions of hope and coping, the results of the current study are significant in highlighting how external locus-of-hope dimensions also seem to play a role in coping of the students in these three collectivist societies, which gives credence to the assumption that these external locus-of-dimensions are important resources of well-being for students and other individuals. The results provide some support for the idea that external locus-of-hope dimensions seem to relate to coping that involves primary and secondary control strategies (i.e., ARS, FS, and possibly in some cultures, RS), which are perceived to be helpful in collectivist societies. It is possible that hope cognitions that refer to the role of external agents in goal pursuit align with the notions of secondary control; positive thoughts regarding external agents’ roles in goal pursuit may make the specific secondary control strategies more viable.
It is also theoretically possible that the external locus-of-hope dimensions also support the primary control dimensions of the adaptive collectivist coping strategies. As the coping strategies represent a blending of primary and secondary control, it may not be necessary to conceptualize the influence of external locus-of-hope exclusively on secondary control strategies. Indeed, the theory underlying collectivist coping [22,23] assumes that in collectivist societies, both primary and secondary sources of control are important interacting dimensions of coping styles. Future research that involves explicit measures of primary and secondary control dimensions of coping can shed light on these theoretical possibilities.
Further to the theoretical point on interacting dimensions, the study explored the relationship of external locus-of-hope to collectivist coping while statistically controlling for the internal locus-of-hope measure. However, there is recent research showing how external-family locus-of-hope is an antecedent of internal locus-of-hope in a sample of North American students and that external-family locus-of-hope has both direct and indirect relationships with the students’ life satisfaction [70]. The results of that study point to several theoretical possibilities that were not explored in the current investigation. First, external and internal locus-of-hope dimensions may be working together (i.e., as mediators or moderators of the other) in relation to coping. Second, as mentioned earlier in this discussion, coping styles may be plausible mediators of the positive relationships between external (and internal) locus-of-hope dimensions and well-being of students. Third, and in relation to the first, the three external locus-of-hope dimensions may also be working together in relation to coping and well-being. As the scope and aspirations of our current investigation were very modest (i.e., to explore possible links between external locus-of-hope and collectivist coping styles), we were not guided with thoughtful theoretical premises to propose more complex hypotheses about the relationships between locus-of-hope dimensions, coping, and students’ well-being. To address such theoretical possibilities, research that also includes appropriate measures of student well-being (e.g., life satisfaction, positive affect, engagement) could be studied as outcome variables in an appropriately designed study, which ideally uses longitudinal research designs, to allow for a good test of the causal effects of coping and hope on students’ well-being. It would be also important to test these models in students from cultures that are not known to be collectivist in orientation [70,71].
While the limitations of the current study are notable considering the complex theoretical possibilities relating to the relationships among hope, coping, and students’ well-being, we believe that our results point to small but important steps forward, by providing some evidence to the idea that external locus-of-hope dimensions may be related to adaptive forms of coping, unlike what was shown in prior research [21]. This small step was grounded on a broader set of theoretical premises that constructed both coping and hope with reference to collectivist norms that emphasize shared agency and secondary control processes in important psychological functioning, in addition to personal agency and primary control that had been highlighted in much of the psychological literature on students’ coping and well-being. Even as the study was exploratory, the results point to the possible usefulness of external locus-of-hope building interventions in strengthening students’ coping resources. Such interventions should be anchored on some assessment of the students’ preferred coping styles as influenced by the students’ cultural contexts, and a determination of what types of hope cognitions are likely to bolster these coping styles.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/educsci12120844/s1, Table S1: Items in the Locus-of-hope scale and Collectivist Coping Style Inventory; Table S2: Summary of correlations among locus-of-hope and collectivist coping subscales.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B.I.B.; methodology, A.B.I.B.; materials preparation and translation, H.J.Y. and T.Y.W.; data gathering, A.B.I.B., H.J.Y. and S.S.Y.; data curation, A.B.I.B., H.J.Y. and S.S.Y.; formal analysis, A.B.I.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.I.B., H.J.Y. and T.Y.W.; supervision and project administration, A.B.I.B.; funding acquisition, A.B.I.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the University of Macau Research Development and Administration Office (Project No. SRG014-FSH13-ABIB) and the APC was funded by the De La Salle University Science Foundation, Inc.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The methods and materials used in this study were reviewed and approved by the University Research Ethics Committee of the University of Macau.

Informed Consent Statement

All participants gave their written informed consent before answering any part of the survey questionnaire, and consent forms were kept separate from the survey questionnaires to ensure that no personal identifying information was included in the data for analysis.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because of data restrictions indicated provisions in the informed consents forms.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge various forms of valuable assistance provided by Yishen Li (Eason) and Kong Hong Cheng (Kenneth) in various phases of the study in various phases of the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Coulombe, S.; Hardy, K.; Goldfarb, R. Promoting wellbeing through positive education: A critical review and proposed social ecological approach. Theory Res. Educ. 2020, 18, 295–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Seligman, M.E.P.; Ernst, R.M.; Gillham, J.; Reivich, K.; Linkins, M. Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Rev. Educ. 2009, 35, 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Terjesen, M.D.; Jacofsky, M.; Froh, J.; DiGiuseppe, R. Integrating positive psychology into schools: Implications for practice. Psychol. Sch. 2004, 41, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Halpin, D. The nature of hope and its significance for education. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 2001, 49, 392–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Idan, O.; Margalit, M. Hope theory in education systems. In Psychology of Hope; Katsaros, G.M., Ed.; Nova Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pekrun, R.; Goetz, T.; Titz, W.; Perry, R.P. Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educ. Psychol. 2002, 37, 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pekrun, R. Emotion and achievement during adolescence. Child Dev. Perspect. 2017, 11, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lounsbury, J.W.; Fisher, L.A.; Levy, J.J.; Welsh, D.P. An investigation of character strengths in relation to the academic success of college students. Individ Differ. Res. 2009, 7, 52–69. [Google Scholar]
  9. Park, N.; Peterson, C.; Seligman, M.E. Strengths of character and well-being. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2004, 23, 603–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Snyder, C.R. Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychol. Inq. 2002, 13, 249–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, J.; Huebner, E.S.; Tian, L. Longitudinal relations between hope and academic achievement in elementary school students: Behavioral engagement as a mediator. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2020, 78, 101824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Feldman, D.B.; Davidson, O.B.; Margalit, M. Personal resources, hope, and achievement among college students: The conservation of resources perspective. J. Happiness Stud. 2015, 16, 543–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ramazani, A.; Ahmadi, S. The effectiveness of positive education on students’ academic well-being, self-efficacy and hope. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022, 6, 3778–3786. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tomás, J.M.; Gutiérrez, M.; Georgieva, S.; Hernández, M. The effects of self-efficacy, hope, and engagement on the academic achievement of secondary education in the Dominican Republic. Psychol. Sch. 2020, 57, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bernardo, A.B.I. Extending hope theory: Internal and external locus of trait hope. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2010, 49, 944–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bernardo, A.B.I.; Salanga, M.G.C.; Khan, A.; Yeung, S.S. Internal and external loci-of-hope predict use of individual and collaborative learning strategies: Evidence from university students in four Asian cities. Asia-Pacific Educ. Res. 2016, 25, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lucas, R.I.G.; Ouano, J.A. Hope and academic achievement among young Filipino college indigent students. Asia-Pacific Soc. Sci. Rev. 2018, 17, 160–165. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bernardo, A.B.I. Hope in early adolescence: Measuring internal and external locus-of-hope. Child Indic. Res. 2015, 8, 699–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bernardo, A.B.I.; Wang, T.Y.; Pesigan, I.J.A.; Yeung, S.S. Pathways from collectivist coping to life satisfaction among Chinese: The roles of locus-of-hope. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2017, 106, 253–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Du, H.; Bernardo, A.B.I.; Yeung, S.S. Locus-of-hope and life satisfaction: The mediating roles of personal self-esteem and relational self-esteem. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2015, 83, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bernardo, A.B.I.; Yeung, S.S.; Resurreccion, K.F.; Resurreccion, R.R.; Khan, A. External locus-of-hope, well-being, and coping of students: A cross-cultural examination within Asia. Psychol. Sch. 2018, 55, 908–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Heppner, P.P. Expanding the conceptualization and measurement of applied problem solving and coping: From stages to dimensions to the almost forgotten fultural context. Am. Psychol. 2008, 63, 805–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Heppner, P.P.; Heppner, M.J.; Lee, D.G.; Wang, Y.W.; Park, H.J.; Wang, L.F. Development and validation of a collectivist coping styles inventory. J. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 53, 107–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Peterson, C.; Stephens, J.P.; Park, N.; Lee, F.; Seligman, M.E.P. Strengths of character and work. In Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work; Linley, P.A., Harrington, S., Garcea, N., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 221–231. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gilman, R.; Dooley, J.; Florell, D. Relative levels of hope and their relationship with academic and psychological indicators among adolescents. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2006, 25, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Marques, S.C.; Pais-Ribeiro, J.L.; Lopez, S.J. The role of positive psychology constructs in predicting mental health and academic achievement in children and adolescents: A two-year longitudinal study. J. Happiness Stud. 2011, 12, 1049–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. You, S.; Furlong, M.J.; Felix, E.; Sharkey, J.D.; Tanigawa, D. Relations among school connectedness, hope, life satisfaction, and bully victimization. Psychol. Sch. 2008, 45, 446–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Çelik, D.A.; Çetin, F.; Tutkun, E. The role of proximal and distal resilience factors and locus of control in understanding hope, self-esteem and academic achievement among Turkish pre-adolescents. Curr. Psychol. 2015, 34, 321–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Day, L.; Hanson, K.; Maltby, J.; Proctor, C.; Wood, A. Hope uniquely predicts objective academic achievement above intelligence, personality, and previous academic achievement. J. Res. Pers. 2010, 44, 550–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Du, H.; King, R.B. Placing hope in self and others: Exploring the relationships among self-construals, locus of hope, and adjustment. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2013, 54, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Peterson, S.J.; Gerhardt, M.W.; Rode, J.C. Hope, learning goals, and task performance. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2006, 40, 1099–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lazarus, R.S. Hope: An emotion and a vital coping resource against despair. Soc. Res. 1999, 66, 653–678. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bruininks, P.; Malle, B.F. Distinguishing hope from optimism and related affective states. Motiv. Emot. 2005, 29, 327–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Folkman, S. Stress, Coping & Hope. Psychooncology 2010, 19, 901–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kennedy, P.; Evans, M.; Sandhu, N. Psychological adjustment to spinal cord injury: The contribution of coping, hope and cognitive appraisals. Psychol. Health Med. 2009, 14, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hagen, K.A.; Myers, B.J.; Mackintosh, V.H. Hope, social support, and behavioral problems in at-risk children. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 2005, 75, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Danoff-Burg, S.; Prelow, H.M.; Swenson, R.R. Hope and life satisfaction in black college students coping with race-related stress. J. Black Psychol. 2004, 30, 208–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Elliott, J.L.; Frude, N. Stress, coping styles, and hopelessness in self-poisoners. Crisis 2001, 22, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Steffen, L.E.; Smith, B.W. The influence of between and within-person hope among emergency responders on daily affect in a stress and coping model. J. Res. Pers. 2013, 47, 738–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Irving, L.M.; Telfer, L.; Blake, D.D. Hope, coping, and social support in combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. J. Trauma Stress 1997, 10, 465–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Geffken, G.R.; Storch, E.A.; Duke, D.C.; Monaco, L.; Lewin, A.B.; Goodman, W.K. Hope and coping in family members of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. J. Anxiety Disord. 2006, 20, 614–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, J.; Gao, W.; Wang, P.; Wu, Z. Relationships among hope, coping style and social support for breast cancer patients. Chin. Med. J. 2010, 123, 2331–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lewis, H.A.; Kliewer, W. Hope, coping, and adjustment among children with sickle cell disease: Tests of mediator and moderator models. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 1996, 21, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Hassija, C.M.; Luterek, J.A.; Naragon-Gainey, K.; Moore, S.A.; Simpson, T. Impact of emotional approach coping and hope on PTSD and depression symptoms in a trauma exposed sample of veterans receiving outpatient VA mental health care services. Anxiety Stress Coping 2012, 25, 559–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Folkman, S. Stress, coping, and hope. In Psychological Aspects of Cancer: A Guide to Emotional and Psychological Consequences of Cancer, Their Causes and Their Management; Carr, B.I., Steel, J., Eds.; Springer Science: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal and Coping; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  47. Folkman, S.; Lazarus, R.S.; Gruen, R.J.; DeLongis, A. Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 50, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moos, R.H. Development and applications of new measures of life stressors, social resources, and coping responses. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 1995, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Aldwin, C.M. Stress, Coping, & Development: An Integrative Perspective, 2nd ed.; Guildford: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hobfoll, S.E.; Schröder, K.E.; Wells, M.; Malek, M. Communal versus individualistic construction of sense of mastery in facing life challenges. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2002, 21, 362–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wong, P.T.P. Effective management of life stress: The resource-congruence model. Stress Med. 1993, 9, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wong, P.T.P.; Reker, G.T.; Peacock, E.J. A resource-congruence model of coping and the development of the coping schemas inventory. In Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping; Wong, P.T.P., Wong, L.C.J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kuo, B.C.H. Collectivism and coping: Current theories, evidence, and measurements of collective coping. Int. J. Psychol. 2013, 48, 374–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Frydenberg, E.; Lewis, R.; Kennedy, G.; Ardila, R.; Frindte, W.; Hannoun, R. Coping with concerns: An exploratory comparison of Australian, Colombian, German, and Palestinian adolescents. J. Youth Adolesc. 2003, 32, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. O’Connor, D.B.; Shimizu, M. Sense of personal control, stress and coping style: A cross-cultural study. Stress Health 2002, 18, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sinha, B.K.; Watson, D.C. Stress, coping and psychological illness: A cross-cultural study. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2007, 14, 386–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bjorck, J.P.; Cuthbertson, W.; Thurman, J.W.; Lee, Y.S. Ethnicity, coping, & distress among Korean Americans, Filipino Americans, & Caucasian Americans. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 14, 421–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Constantine, M.G.; Alleyne, V.L.; Caldwell, L.D.; McRae, M.B.; Suzuki, M.B. Coping responses of Asian, Black, and Latino/Latina New York City residents following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States. Cultur. Divers. Ethnic Minor. Psychol. 2005, 11, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sheu, H.B.; Sedlacek, W.E. An exploratory study of help-seeking attitudes and coping strategies among college students by race and gender. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2004, 37, 130–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lam, A.G.; Zane, N.W. Ethnic differences in coping with interpersonal stressors: A test of self-construals as cultural mediators. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2004, 35, 446–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yeh, C.J.; Arora, A.K.; Wu, K.A. A new theoretical model of collectivistic coping. In Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping; Wong, P.T.P., Wong, L.C.J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chun, C.-A.; Moos, R.H.; Cronkite, R.C. Culture: A fundamental context for the stress and coping paradigm. In Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping; Wong, P.T.P., Wong, L.C.J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Siu, A.F.Y.; Chang, J.F. Coping styles and psychological distress among Hong Kong university students: Validation of the collectivist coping style inventory. Int. J. Adv. Couns. 2011, 33, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Altun, F. Traumatic experiences and collectivist coping styles of university students in Turkey. Int. J. Psychol. Educ. Stud. 2020, 7, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yue, S.; Zhang, W.; Huang, H.; Li, D. The adolescent’s subjective wellbeing and mental health and relationships with stress coping. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2006, 22, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hu, Q.; Bernardo, A.B.I.; Lam, S.W.; Cheang, P.K. Individualism-collectivism orientations and coping styles of cyberbullying victims in Chinese culture. Curr. Psychol. 2018, 37, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bernardo, A.B.I.; Nalipay, M.J.N. Social axioms as social foundations of locus-of-hope: A study in three Asian cultural groups. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2016, 95, 110–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Li, S.D.; Cai, T.; Wang, H.; Kuo, S.-Y. Macau Social Survey; Wu-Nan Book Inc.: Miaoli County, Taiwan, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  69. Bosco, J. Chinese popular religion and Hong Kong identity. Asian Anthropol. 2015, 14, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Munoz, R.T.; Quinton, K.A.; Worley, J.A.; Hellman, C.M. Locus of hope: External hope in parents/guardians as an antecedent of adolescents’ internal hope and life satisfaction. Child Indic. Res. 2019, 12, 1107–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dargan, S.; MacDonald, K.B.; Schermer, J.A. Exploring locus-of-hope: Relational tendencies, self-esteem, attachment, and gender. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Three Cities.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Three Cities.
Hong KongMacauManila
Locus-of-HopeαMSDαMSDαMSD
  • Internal
0.772.900.350.652.950.390.813.280.39
  • External-family
0.852.730.470.822.830.520.883.420.48
  • External-peer
0.812.740.370.752.790.430.842.980.48
  • External-spiritual
0.902.370.680.882.120.580.893.600.61
Collectivist coping
  • Acceptance, reframing, striving
0.713.260.580.762.470.600.723.740.58
  • Family support
0.812.870.920.832.100.910.823.371.04
  • Religion, spirituality
0.952.321.630.900.891.070.903.591.30
  • Avoidance, detachment
0.742.750.910.691.940.800.693.130.95
  • Private emotional outlets
0.781.811.210.641.140.910.622.331.19
Table
Table 2. Summary of regression analysis of adaptive collectivist coping styles.
Table 2. Summary of regression analysis of adaptive collectivist coping styles.
Acceptance, Reframing, Striving
Hong KongMacauManila
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3
Age0.090.070.10−0.000.040.040.030.030.05
Sex0.050.080.030.070.060.040.14 *0.090.06
Internal LOH 0.40 ***0.33 *** 0.51 ***0.44 *** 0.46 ***0.34 ***
External-family LOH 0.10 0.14 0.05
External-peer LOH 0.06 −0.02 0.18 **
External-spiritual LOH 0.15 ** 0.08 0.09
R20.010.160.200.010.260.280.020.230.27
F1.0018.66 ***12.11 ***0.5325.83 ***14.23 ***2.6123.0415.43
df(2, 291)(3, 290)(6, 287)(2, 222)(3, 221)(6, 218)(2, 253)(3, 252)(6, 249)
ΔR20.010.160.040.010.260.020.020.210.04
ΔF1.0053.62 ***4.83 **0.5376.07 ***2.212.6168.51 ***4.71 **
df(2, 291)(1, 290)(3, 287)(2, 222)(1, 221)(3, 218)(2, 253)(1, 252)(3, 249)
Family support
Hong KongMacauManila
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3
Age−0.10−0.11−0.06−0.07−0.04−0.04−0.04−0.040.03
Sex0.030.050.010.100.100.020.20 ***0.17 ***0.07
Internal LOH 0.19 **0.03 0.36 ***0.05 0.32 ***−0.03
External-family LOH 0.40 *** 0.55 *** 0.52 ***
External-peer LOH 0.06 0.03 0.06
External-spiritual LOH 0.05 0.12 * 0.15 **
R20.010.050.210.020.150.410.050.140.40
F1.995.1613.051.8512.60 ***25.36 ***5.97 **13.98 ***27.96 ***
df(2, 291)(3, 290)(6, 287)(2, 222)(3, 221)(6, 218)(2, 253)(3, 252)(6, 249)
ΔR20.010.040.160.020.130.270.050.100.26
ΔF1.9911.34 **19.94 ***1.8533.56 ***32.70 ***5.97 **28.69 ***36.09 ***
df(2, 291)(1, 290)(3, 287)(2, 222)(1, 221)(3, 218)(2, 251)(1, 250)(3, 247)
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; Note: LOH = locus-of-hope.
Table
Table 3. Summary of regression analysis of other collectivist coping styles.
Table 3. Summary of regression analysis of other collectivist coping styles.
Religion, Spirituality
Hong KongMacauManila
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3
Age−0.06−0.060.01−0.01−0.01−0.01−0.10−0.10−0.01
Sex0.110.11−0.050.020.02−0.100.100.07−0.02
Internal LOH −0.02−0.03 −0.04−0.10 0.28 ***0.01
External-family LOH −0.08 0.17 * 0.04
External-peer LOH 0.00 −0.11 0.03
External-spiritual LOH 0.75 *** 0.52 *** 0.72 ***
R20.020.020.550.000.000.300.020.100.56
F3.15 *2.1257.37 ***0.040.1215.43 ***2.929.18 ***53.10 ***
df(2, 291)(3, 290)(6, 287)(2, 222)(3, 221)(6, 218)(2, 253)(3, 252)(6, 249)
ΔR20.020.000.520.000.000.300.020.080.46
ΔF3.15 *0.10110.22 ***0.040.2630.70 ***2.7521.23 ***87.87 ***
df(2, 291)(1, 290)(3, 287)(2, 222)(1, 221)(3, 218)(2, 253)(1, 252)(3, 249)
Avoidance, detachment
Hong KongMacauManila
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3
Age0.070.070.10−0.02−0.01−0.02−0.10−0.10−0.10
Sex−0.08−0.08−0.14 *−0.01−0.01−0.03−0.00−0.02−0.01
Internal LOH 0.01−0.08 0.040.06 0.13 *0.19 *
External-family LOH 0.10 −0.07 −0.15
External-peer LOH 0.10 0.04 −0.09
External-spiritual LOH 0.20 ** 0.12 0.14 *
R20.010.010.080.000.000.020.010.030.06
F2.161.444.22 ***0.040.140.661.232.242.40 *
df(2, 291)(3, 290)(6, 287)(2, 222)(3, 221)(6, 218)(2, 253)(3, 252)(6, 249)
ΔR20.010.000.070.000.000.020.010.020.03
ΔF2.160.006.91 ***0.040.351.181.234.24 *2.51
df(2, 291)(1, 290)(3, 287)(2, 222)(1, 221)(3, 218)(2, 253)(1, 252)(3, 249)
Private emotional outlets
Hong KongMacauManila
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3
Age−0.02−0.020.010.060.060.06−0.21 **−0.21 ***−0.20 **
Sex−0.14 *−0.14 *−0.19 **0.020.02−0.02−0.01−0.02−0.05
Internal LOH 0.070.03 0.080.02 0.16 **0.00
External-family LOH 0.03 0.06 0.10
External-peer LOH 0.04 0.05 0.27 ***
External-spiritual LOH 0.19 ** 0.15 * 0.00
R20.020.020.060.000.010.040.040.070.15
F2.842.343.12 **0.380.741.685.88 **6.24 ***7.09 ***
df(2, 291)(3, 290)(6, 287)(2, 222)(3, 221)(6, 218)(2, 253)(3, 252)(6, 249)
ΔR20.020.000.040.000.010.030.040.030.08
ΔF2.841.343.84 *0.381.462.605.887 **6.68 **7.46 ***
df(2, 291)(1, 290)(3, 287)(2, 222)(1, 221)(3, 218)(2, 253)(1, 252)(3, 249)
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; Note: LOH = locus-of-hope.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bernardo, A.B.I.; Yabut, H.J.; Wang, T.Y.; Yeung, S.S. External Locus-of-Hope and Collectivist Coping in Students from Three Asian Cities. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 844. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120844

AMA Style

Bernardo ABI, Yabut HJ, Wang TY, Yeung SS. External Locus-of-Hope and Collectivist Coping in Students from Three Asian Cities. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(12):844. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120844

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bernardo, Allan B. I., Homer J. Yabut, Tulips Yiwen Wang, and Susanna S. Yeung. 2022. "External Locus-of-Hope and Collectivist Coping in Students from Three Asian Cities" Education Sciences 12, no. 12: 844. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120844

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop