Stress and Filipinos: The Social And Cultural Dimensions of Stress

SOCIAL DIMENSION OF STRESS

In many situations humans are influenced by the behavior of other people and

their relationships with them. For example, in stressful situations supportive behavior of

other people as well as positive social relationships can act as powerful resources to

cope with stress.

Psychosocial stress precipitates a wide spectrum of diseases with major public-

health significance. The fight-or-flight response is generally regarded as the prototypic

human stress response, both physiologically and behaviorally. Given that having

positive social interactions before being exposed to acute stress plays a preeminent role

in helping individuals control their stress response, engaging in prosaically behavior in

response to stress (tend-and-befriend) might also be a protective pattern. Little is

known, however, about the immediate social responses following stress in humans.

Stress did not affect the readiness to exhibit antisocial behavior or to bear

nonsocial risks but instead stress triggers social approach behavior, which operates as

a potent stress-buffering strategy in humans

CULTURAL DIMENSION OF STRESS

The environmental system partly determines the pressures and demands on

individuals (ongoing stressors) and the social resources available to them. The cultural

context shapes these ongoing stressors and social resources. More specifically, in
individualistic societies, many of the ongoing stressors may stem from the pressure to

be autonomous and independent. These pressures occur in early adulthood, when a

person may not be ready to individuate or handle all responsibilities alone. The

emphasis on independence and autonomy may also be associated with fewer available

social resources. In contrast, in collectivistic societies, there is greater pressure to

remain interdependent on the in-groups and to meet their demands, sometimes at the

expense of the individual’s own welfare. In fact, such patterns are easily observable in

parent-child relationships. Asian American adolescents were found to be more sensitive

to pleasing their parents than Euro-American adolescents (Pang, 1991). Also, in New

Zealand parental pressure both motivated and hurt adolescents of Chinese descent

when such was not the case for adolescents of European descent (Chung, Walkey, &

Bemak, 1997).

Cultural context can also influence the social resources that are available to and

accessed by individuals. In individualistic societies, the social network tends to consist

of relatively loosely connected members, composed of the nuclear family and some

relatives, friends, and acquaintances (Triandis, 1988). Because the distinction between

ingroup and outgroup is not strong, social networks tend to be large and diverse, but

weak. In collectivistic cultures, family networks include the extended family, but the

boundary is often not clear because of its extensiveness. Thus, cross-cultural

researchers often face difficulties in appropriately defining a family or household in

Asian cultures, both in terms of memberships and residence (Knodel & Saengtienchai,
1999). The Asian household is often more fluid and co-residence among various family

members is common and on a continuum. Such cultural differences are manifested in

many different ways. For instance, young adults of Latin and Filipino American families

tended to live with and contribute financially to the family and reported stronger sense of

duty to family compared to their Euro-American counterparts (Fuligni & Pedersen,

2002). Young adults of Chinese- and Indo-Canadian families were also more likely than

their British-Canadian counterparts to report a positive attitude towards sharing a home

with an elderly parent (Mitchell, 2003).

Cultural differences in the dynamics within the nuclear family have implications

for who can provide needed support and resources. Spousal presence was significantly

more important for the well-being of American elders than of Japanese elders, whereas

presence of children was important only for the Japanese elders (Sugisawa, Shibata,

Hougham, Sugihara, & Liang, 2002). Older adults of other Asian cultures such as

Cambodia (Zimmer & Kim, 2001), Indonesia (Beard & Kunharibowo, 2001), Korea (Kim

& Rhee, 1997), and Thailand (Knodel & Saengtienchai, 1999) tend to live with their

adult children or live close to them. The opposite is true for elders in the U.S. where the

proportion of elderly living alone has dramatically increased over several decades.

Specifically, in 1988 at least half of elders in Korea (65%), Japan (50%), and Taiwan

(74%) lived with their adult children whereas only 10% of American elders and 5% of

Danish elders lived with their adult children (Korea Gallup, 1990, Japanese Prime

Minister’s Office, 1990, and Jacobs, 1998; all cited in Kwon, 1999). The majority of

elders in the U.S. (80%) and Denmark (90%) lived alone or with their spouse only. This

is in part due to the rising income of older adults, but preferences and income levels of
children also play an important role in why so many elders live alone (Kotlikoff & Morris,

1988).

REFERENCES:

Heinrichs M., 2012. The social dimension of stress reactivity: acute stress increases

prosocial behavior in humans. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22593119

Cronkite R., 2016. CULTURE: A Fundamental Context for the Stress

and Coping Paradigm. Retrieved from http://content.schweitzer-

online.de/static/catalog_manager/live/media_files/representation/zd_std_orig__zd_sch

w_orig/001/793/461/9780387262369_content_pdf_1.pdf

Frisch J., 2015. The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social

Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test. Retrieved from

http://europepmc.org/article/med/26649856