Hobfoll Communal 2002

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/240296524
Communal Versus Individualistic Construction of Sense of Mastery in Facing

Life Challenges
Article in Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · October 2002

DOI: 10.1521/jscp.21.4.362.22596
CITATIONS READS
56 748
4 authors, including:
Stevan E Hobfoll Kerstin E E Schroder

Rush University Medical Center University of Alabama at Birmingham
300 PUBLICATIONS 37,026 CITATIONS 58 PUBLICATIONS 4,207 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Drive to Thrive Theory: Sustaining Everyday Life Fabrics and Structure View project
Co-Morbid Trauma and Pain Study (TAP Study) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kerstin E E Schroder on 20 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2002, pp. 362-399
HOBFOLL
SELF VERSUS
ET COMMUNAL
AL. MASTERY
COMMUNAL VERSUS INDIVIDUALISTIC

CONSTRUCTION OF SENSE OF MASTERY IN
FACING LIFE CHALLENGES
STEVAN E. HOBFOLL, KERSTIN E. E. SCHRÖDER, MELISSA WELLS,
AND MARY MALEK
Kent State University
We examined the concept of communal mastery, defined as the belief that one is
capable of successful goal attainment by virtue of being closely interconnected
with others. This was contrasted to definitions of personal agency (e.g., self-mastery
and self-efficacy), defined as the generalized tendency to view the self as responsi-
ble and capable of successful goal attainment through independent action. Com-
munal mastery is viewed as more socially interwoven, but having greater
individual costs than personal agency. In a series of four studies using North Ameri-
can samples we hypothesized that communal mastery would be more closely re-
lated to prosocial coping, cautious action, concern over others’ evaluation, and use
of social support. Personal agency was hypothesized to be more closely related to
asocial and even antisocial coping, decisiveness, and optimistic expectancies, and
lower psychological and physical distress. Both communal mastery and personal
agency were expected to lead to active coping and well-being. Findings generally
supported the communal versus individualistic distinction, but neither construct
was associated with antisocial coping.
Two broad cultural views of the self can be related to the coping process
(Hobfoll, 1998). The first may be called the independent or autonomous
self and the second the ensembled or socially interconnected self
(Helgeson, 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Kitayama, Markus,
Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997; Sampson, 1988; Triandis, 1989).
This research was made possible through the support of the NIMH Office of AIDS Re-
search, Grant #RO1 MH45669, and the Applied Psychology Center, which was founded
through the support of the Ohio Board of Regents.
We would like to thank Kristen Mickelson for her helpful comments.
Address correspondence to Stevan E. Hobfoll, Applied Psychology Center, Kent State
University, Kent, OH, 44242; E-mail: shobfoll@kent.edu.
362
SELF VERSUS COMMUNAL MASTERY 363
The independent and autonomous self is more common and representa-

tive in Western, European and American culture and envisions the self
as the progenitor of individual action and success. The ensembled or in-
ter-connected self is more representative of Eastern Confucian-based
cultures such as China, Korea, and Japan. This view of the self organizes
individuals in terms of their interconnectedness with others and attach-
ment to significant relationships such as family, workplace, and nation.
Although these two contrasting models of the self have been used
mainly to examine cultural affordances (i.e., the extent each culture pro-
motes the culturally consistent model), both are represented in any cul-
ture (Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; Holmberg, Markus, Herzog & Franks,
1996).
In the current series of studies we investigate whether a theory of the
ensembled self as the base for action and effectance (Guisinger & Blatt,
1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1991) can be applied to Western samples.
Specifically, we develop and test the concept of communal mastery
whereby individuals see themselves as able to be effective in achieving their
goals and coping with life challenges by virtue of their being attached to signifi-
cant others.
According to Shore (1996), as individuals are acculturated they de-
velop a certain set of philosophical and ontological assumptions that are
reflected in their patterned behavior, the way they construe themselves,
and the meanings they make. Moreover, these patterns are reflected in
their understanding of how they interpret their success and failure. This
opens an important link to the study of stress because it is in stressful sit-
uations that people are challenged to adapt in ways that lie outside of
their reflexive behavior, and hence must call on self-directed repertoires
to inform their actions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). As such, how individ-
uals perceive themselves as coping with life’s challenges may provide
special insight into the view of the self. Thus, although prior theoretical
and empirical work has focused on agenic versus communal orienta-
tions (Helgeson, 1994), we hope to expand this research to individuals
incorporating their agenic versus communal orientation with their sense
of how they successfully confront challenges and accomplish their goals.
PERSONAL AGENCY
Because the independent self is the primary Western ideological basis for
self-view, it is not surprising that stress research in North America and
Europe has focused primarily on personal control. Thus, many of the cen-
tral personal stress resistance resources that have been studied represent
individuals as independent actors who see themselves as responsible for
their own success. This includes self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1997;
364 HOBFOLL ET AL.
Schwarzer, Bäβler, Kwiatek, Schröder, & Zhang, 1997), mastery (Pearlin,

Lieberman, Menaghan, & Mullan, 1981), hardiness (Kobasa, 1979), and in-
ternal locus of control (Rotter, 1966; Levenson, 1981). These self attributes
have in common the tendency to see the self as in control of its success and
destiny (Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; Riger, 1993).
Viewing the independent self as the control agent also has been taken
to imply that dependence on others is a sign of weakness and ineffective-
ness (Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; Kitayama et al., 1997; Riger, 1993;
Sampson, 1988; Triandis, 1989). Collective action is viewed in the West-
ern context of stress research as somehow being of lower value than in-
dependent action, and the use of supportive social ties is seen as a sec-
ondary, even inferior, coping mechanism (Markus & Kitayama, 1994;
Riger, 1993).
Those high in variables related to personal agency (e.g., self-efficacy,
hardiness, mastery) have been found to be more action-oriented in coping
with problems, more likely to limit negative psychological reactions (e.g.,
depression, anxiety, anger) when confronted with stressful conditions,
more capable of rallying other resources in the service of stress resistance,
and more likely to achieve their goals (Bandura, 1997; Holahan & Moos,
1991; Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983; Schwarzer, 1992; Thoits, 1994). The
strength of this personal resource has been illustrated for a broad range of
stressful circumstances, ranging from the low-level chronic stress of burn-
out to traumatic stress of disaster and life-threatening circumstances
(Cherniss, 1993; Solomon, Mikulincer, & Benbenishty, 1989).
COMMUNAL MASTERY
Although individualism and the ideal of a defined crystallized self may
be the most common self-view among European Americans it is not the
only view represented in this culture (Baumeister, 1987; Guisinger &
Blatt, 1994). Bandura (2000) has, in fact, noted that there is much promise
in the study of people’s collective sense of agency, and Lyons,
Mickelson, Sullivan, and Coyne (1998) suggest that understanding com-
munal aspects of coping may be a key to further advances in examining
the stress process. In this regard, research has shown that women are
more likely than men to see themselves as interconnected with others
and to see their actions as socially interwoven (Eagly, 1987; Gilligen,
1982; Helgeson, 1994; Kessler, McLeod, & Wethington, 1985). Eagly
(1987) emphasizes that the genderized division of labor promotes
women’s being more socially oriented in order to do well in their labor
role (including family labor and paid employment). In addition, Ameri-
can culture is imbued with collectivist cultural themes through the input
of the more collectivist subcultures of African Americans, Italian Ameri-

cans, and Jewish Americans, each of whom have played major roles in
shaping American culture through their influence in the arts, music, me-
dia, and everyday American life (Fukuyama, 1995). Moreover, it should
be pointed out that high self-efficacy is not in any way antithetical to be-
ing socially involved. Indeed, several studies have shown that those
high in self-efficacy-related traits are more likely to benefit from social
support (Bandura, 1997; Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983).
Although the concept of communal mastery has not been directly
studied, some inferences can be made based on prior work on the collec-
tivist self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989) and on prosocial
coping (Hobfoll, Dunahoo, Ben-Porath, & Monnier, 1994). Those high in
communal mastery should be more likely to approach challenges by
problem solving in relation to others, rather than alone or in competition
with others (Dunahoo, Hobfoll, Monnier, Hulsizer, & Johnson, 1998).
This would translate to their greater use of social support and looking to
meet others’ needs as well as their own. Like those high in personal
agency, those high in communal mastery should be generally effective
copers, but the process by which they face challenges would be more so-
cially interactive on the behavioral and cognitive levels.
Being socially connected is largely beneficial in the coping process, but
it may come at a cost. As such, communal mastery might also have some
disadvantages relative to personal efficacy. A number of studies have
shown that social attachments expose individuals to others’ stress
through the processes of stress contagion (Almeida & Kessler, 1998;
Kessler et al., 1985; Riley & Eckenrode, 1986) and the pressure-cooker ef-
fect (Hobfoll & London, 1986). Through interconnections with others,
individuals are likely to find themselves empathizing with others’ pain,
sharing others’ burden, and having to deplete their own resources for
the sake of the social unit. The added costs to the individual of socially
interwoven coping suggests that a more independent style may be more
efficient for the self, but less effective for the group (Fukuyama, 1995;
Yamaguchi, 1994). Fritz and Helgeson (1998) also have found that
whereas a positive caring attitude toward others leads to well-being, a
focus on others to exclusion of the self is related to greater psychological
distress. A more interdependent style would more efficiently protect the
group, but in some sense be willing to sacrifice the individual (Clark,
Mills, & Powell, 1986; Yamaguchi, 1994).
THE CURRENT SERIES OF STUDIES

We compared the correlates and impact of personal agency and commu-
nal mastery. Four studies were conducted to test our theoretical argu-
366 HOBFOLL ET AL.
ments and to develop a new measure of communal mastery. The first

three studies focus on university populations, but the latter two of these
were conducted at semi-rural, branch campuses that largely serve some-
what older individuals in the work force who attend university
part-time and work either full-time or are homemakers. The first three
studies examine the correlates of personal agency and communal mas-
tery with variables identified with the stress process (e.g., personal re-
sources, coping, social support, and psychological distress) in order to
judge their distinctiveness and overlap. The fourth study examines how
self-mastery and communal mastery act as resources that contribute to
well-being among inner-city women over a nine month period.
We hypothesized the following:
(1) Personal agency will be more closely related than communal mas-
tery to individualized modes of coping such as aggressive action
and a more decisive-individualized action orientation, but less
strongly related to indicators of social coping such as use of social
joining to meet goals (i.e., coalition building) and levels of social
support.
(2) Communal mastery, in contrast, is hypothesized as being more
closely related to coping through greater use of social support and
forming coalitions, less aggressive/antisocial action, and a commu-
nal leadership style, such that the individual leads by example
rather than through use of authority. Compared to self-mastery,
communal mastery will be more strongly related to worries about
the needs and views of others.
(3) Less obvious, we predicted that personal agency would be more
closely related to optimism and more strongly (negatively) related
to psychological distress than communal mastery. This follows be-
cause those high in self-mastery can be more independent in their
coping and thus be less likely to share others’ troubles and sorrows
(Kessler et al., 1985; Riley & Eckenrode, 1986). This, in turn, would
be likely to limit their optimistic expectancies, on one hand, and in-
crease their psychological distress, on the other hand. Hence, al-
though we predicted that individuals with higher communal
mastery would have lower psychological distress and greater opti-
mism than those who are low in communal mastery, it would not be
as “efficient” in this regard as personal agency because it comes at
some costs and considers the outcomes for others as well as for the
self.
(4) We further predicted that both personal agency and communal
mastery would be positively related to assertive coping (as opposed
to aggressiveness) and negatively related to avoidance. This con-
trasts with stereotypical views of the communal self, which is envi-

sioned as weak and dependent (Riger, 1993; Sampson, 1988). Rather,
communal mastery is seen as an effective alternative view of the self
that is action-oriented.
(5) We predicted that women would not differ from men in personal
agency, but that women would be higher than men in communal
mastery. This stems from prior research that has found women to be
more linked with the commerce of social support and close, intimate
attachments than men. No such differences in self-mastery have
been consistently noted in prior research.
(6) We predicted that both personal agency (self-mastery) and com-
munal mastery would be related to well-being over and above the
impact of stressful circumstances, but that communal mastery
would be more strongly related to sustaining strong social support
during such a period.
In each of our predictions (with the exception of our hypothesis for gen-
der) we are referring to the strength of the relationships, not mean differ-
ences. Hence, for example, if communal mastery is more closely
associated with social support than is self-efficacy, then communal mas-
tery would be a better predictor of social support than would self-effi-
cacy. Because personal agency and communal mastery both reflect an
optimistic view toward attainment of desired goals, it will be important
to illustrate that the contribution of communal mastery is independent
of the contribution of personal agency.
STUDY 1
The psychometrics and criterion validity of the communal mastery scale
were examined among 298 undergraduates at a large, midwestern uni-
versity. We examined the correlates of self-mastery versus communal
mastery with indicators of individualistic versus communal coping
strategies, social support, and psychological distress (i.e., anger and de-
pressive mood).
METHOD
SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE
The sample consisted of 298 undergraduate students enrolled in psy-
chology courses. Descriptive information is provided in Table 1. The
sample was typical of undergraduate populations in age, mostly white,
and predominantly Catholic and Protestant. A majority of students were
368 HOBFOLL ET AL.
TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Three Samples
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3

n % n % n %
Gender
Male 92 30.9% 184 39.1% 93 27.7%
Female 206 69.1% 287 60.9% 243 72.3%
Education
Some high school — — 6 1.3% 9 2.7%
High school graduate — — 58 12.3% 54 16.1%
Some college — — 396 84.1% 254 75.6%
College graduate 1 0.3% 8 1.7% 15 4.5%
Freshman/Sophmore 279 93.6% — — — —
Junior/Senior 17 5.7% — — — —
Ethnicity
European American 272 91.3% 431 91.5% 304 90.5%
African American 19 6.4% 28 5.9% 16 4.8%
Other 7 2.4% 12 2.6% 13 3.9%
Religion
Protestant 81 27.2% 264 56.1% 134 39.9%
Catholic 125 41.9% 157 33.3% 87 25.9%
Other 92 29.8% 50 10.6% 105 31.3%
Marital Status
Married 18 6.0% 85 18.0% 66 19.6%
Living with partner 10 3.4% 24 5.1% — —
Single 263 88.3% 334 70.9% 126 37.5%
Divorced/Widowed 7 2.3% 28 5.9% 21 6.3%
Steady boy–/girlfriend — — — — 97 28.9%
Engaged — — — — 22 6.5%
Employed
Yes 184 61.7% — — 259 77.1%
No 114 38.3% — — 69 20.5%
Yearly Income (of household)
<$15,000 35 11.4% 68 14.4% — —
$15,001–$25,000 38 12.8% 55 11.7% — —
$25,001–$45,000 67 22.5% — — — —
$45,001–$70,000 89 29.9% — — — —
>$70,000 66 22.1% — — — —
$25,001–$40,000 112 23.9% — —
$40,001–$75,000 160 34.0% — —
>$75,000 74 15.7% — —
17–22 267 89.6% — — — —
>22 31 10.4% — — — —
M SD M SD
24.01 8.34 25.38 9.72
Note. Dashes represent questions that were not asked for that study.
employed and their reported family income reflects the University’s de-
mographics as representative of blue collar and lower income white col-
lar populations. Participants were tested in groups of ten to 25, after
informed consent. The questionnaires required about 30 minutes to
complete and students received course credit.
MEASURES
Communal Mastery. The target variable was measured by a newly de-
veloped 15-item measure adopted from commonly employed measures
of mastery (Pearlin et al., 1981) and self-efficacy (Schwarzer et al., 1997),
adapted to more collectivist statements. For example, “I can meet my
goals by helping others meet theirs,” “What happens to me in the future
mostly depends on my ability to work well with others,” “Friends, fam-
ily, and colleagues mainly get in the way of my accomplishing my goals”
(reverse coded). Items were answered on a four-point scale from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Following initial testing with
this sample, five items were deleted as having poor relationships with
the other items and lowering the scale’s internal reliability, leaving a
ten-item measure (α = .84; see Appendix A). This ten-item scale was ad-
ministered to a sample of 67 students over a two-week period and found
to have a test-retest reliability of .78.
Mastery. Self-mastery was measured with the widely used scale by
Pearlin et al. (1981). This seven-item scale (e.g., “I can do just about any-
thing I set my mind to do”) has been found to have sound psychometric
qualities and to be related to effective stress resistance (Bienenfeld,
Koenig, Larson, & Sherrill, 1997; Forest, Moen, & Dempster-McClain,
1996; Marshall & Lang, 1990). The scale is answered on a four-point scale
from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” and measures individuals’
belief in their ability to confront stressful challenges through their own
control (α = .73).
Individualistic versus Communal Coping. The Strategic Approach to
Coping Scale (SACS) was used to measure coping through individualis-
tic versus more collectivist means (Hobfoll et al., 1994). Based on prior
factor analysis and tests of its construct validity (Dunahoo et al., 1998;
Monnier, Hobfoll, Dunahoo, Hulsizer, & Johnson, 1998), the subscales
have been found to contain three factors: (1) aggressive-individualistic
coping, (2) prosocial coping, and (3) active-asocial coping (e.g., coping
that is active, but neither pro or antisocial).
Aggressive-individualistic coping was assessed through subscales
that tap aggressive action (five items, e.g., “Mount an all out attack, be
aggressive”) and antisocial action, (five items, e.g., “Look for others’
weaknesses and use them to your advantage”). Communal coping was
TABLE 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Alpha–Scores of the Scales Used within the Studies
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3

M SD α M SD α M SD α
Communal Mastery 31.37 5.29 .84 30.67 4.74 .80 31.43 5.08 .82
Self–Mastery 22.97 3.56 .73 22.37 3.72 .73 — — —
Self–Efficacy — — — — — — 31.00 4.60 .88
Active–Asocial Coping
Assertive Action 32.54 5.47 .70 32.71 5.64 .74 33.94 5.83 .81
370
Avoidant Action 15.94 5.1 .81 16.20 5.62 .83 — — —
Prosocial Coping
Social Joining 15.78 3.75 .74 16.47 3.51 .69 16.12 3.63 .73
Support Seeking 22.50 5.77 .85 23.09 6.16 .86 23.69 5.49 .85
Cautious Action 16.13 3.36 .65 16.83 3.26 .55 — — —
Communal Leadership 14.50 2.65 .66 15.23 3.54 .63 15.13 2.71 .72
Individualistic–Aggressive Coping
Antisocial Action 12.95 2.65 .66 15.23 3.54 .63 15.13 2.71 .72
Aggressive Action 13.05 3.93 .72 13.64 4.38 .78 — — —
Supportive Network 14.71 2.61 .83 21.58 5.17 .90 21.08 5.45 .92
Social Support Satisfaction 21.73 4.96 .88 30.50 6.09 .92 14.92 2.97 .89
Action Oriention: Decision — — — — — — 18.67 3.22 .80
Alienation: Social Relations — — — — — — 27.54 6.50 .88
Fear of Negative Evaluation — — — — — — 33.78 0.48 .91
Locus of Control
Internal — — — — — — 34.80 5.52 .69
Powerful Others — — — — — — 23.54 6.62 .79
Worry about Social Relationships 10.77 4.67 .82
Anger 21.21 7.37 .91 11.61 0.51 .91 20.70 6.45 .88
Depressive Mood 36.94 0.47 .90 38.63 2.18 .92 39.73 2.04 .90
Physical Symptoms 49.17 7.61 .92 — — —
Optimism 18.88 6.10 .87 — — —
Note. Dashes represent items not applicable to that study.
371
372 HOBFOLL ET AL.
assessed through subscales that assess support seeking (seven items,

e.g., “Turn to others for help”), social joining (five items, “Join together
with others to deal with the situation together”), communal leadership
action (five items, e.g., “I often achieve my goals by persuading others
that the task is important for them too”), and cautious action (five items,
“Move very cautiously, there may be a hidden agenda”). Cautious ac-
tion has been repeatedly found to load with other prosocial coping strat-
egies and is consistent with the fact that prosocial action requires careful
considerations of social settings. Two subscales assess active, asocial ac-
tion, and can be associated with either pro- or more antisocial strategies
or utilized without social regard. They are assertive action (nine items,
e.g., “ Be assertive and get your needs met”) and avoidance (reverse
coded; six items, e.g., “Back off and just let the smoke clear”).
The subscales of the SACS have been found to have sound construct
validity (Dunahoo et al., 1998; Monnier et al., 1998). The communal lead-
ership action subscale was added for the purpose of the present studies
because we were unable to find a coping scale that measured coping via
leading by example, which we thought to be an integral kind of commu-
nal coping. As expected, the communal leadership action subscale corre-
lated most highly with other prosocial/communal subscales of the
SACS. Internal reliabilities (see Table 2) compared favorably with other
multi-subscale coping measures (see Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub,
1989).
Social Support. The Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ-6) is a reliable
and valid six-item measure of support from intimate others (Sarason,
Sarason, Shearin, & Pierce, 1987). Respondents indicate the number of
supporters who provide each of six types of support (e.g., “How many
people accept you totally including your worst and best points?”). They
then indicate how satisfied they are with this kind of support (on a scale
from 1 to 3, “seldom,” “sometimes,” “always”). Sum scores of each of the
two subscales indicate amount of social support (α = .83) and satisfaction
with support (α = .88).
Psychological Distress. Two scales were used to assess aspects of psy-
chological distress/negative emotionality. Depressive mood during the
prior two weeks was measured by the widely used Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale (Radloff, 1977). The
20-item scale (e.g., “I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother
me”) is answered on a four-point scale from 1 = “rarely or none of the
time,” 2 = “some or little of the time,” 3 = “occasionally or a moderate
amount of time,” 4 = “most or all of the time” (α = .90). Anger was mea-
sured using the state version of Spielberger’s (1988) widely used
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Items were keyed to
feelings over the past week (e.g., “I felt furious”), answered on a
four-point scale from “not at all,” “somewhat,” “moderately so,” and

“very much so” (α = .91).
RESULTS
Correlations between communal mastery and the other variables are
presented in Table 3. Communal mastery was strongly significantly re-
lated to active and prosocial forms of coping, as expected and it was also
strongly significantly related to number of supporters and support satis-
faction. Communal mastery was unrelated to aggressive coping, but a
weak significant negative association with antisocial action was found;
it was also significantly negatively related to anger and depressive
mood. Self-mastery and communal mastery also were significantly cor-
related, but over 90% of the variance was unaccounted for in their associ-
ation, indicating that they are distinct measures.
In order to examine the “added value” of a new scale and concept of
communal mastery, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted
adding the value of central interest last in the regression model (Kazdin,
1992). In these analyses age and gender were entered first as control vari-
ables for a series of regressions on each of the criterion variables (e.g.,
coping indicators, social support, psychological distress). Next,
self-mastery was entered, followed finally by communal mastery. This
yields a final-∆R2 score for communal mastery indicating its “added
value” over and above the influence of self-mastery. This is a conserva-
tive estimate of a variable’s impact. Next, the order of the two mastery
variables was reversed, such that self-mastery was added following en-
try of communal mastery. This provides a final-∆R2 score for self-mas-
tery and indicates its added value after considering the influence of com-
munal mastery. Betas associated with self-mastery and communal
mastery are only presented once, as beta is independent of order of en-
try. Finally, we calculated the ∆R2-difference, which is the difference be-
tween the unique contribution of communal mastery and the unique
contribution of personal agency.
The results of these analyses are presented in Table 3. As predicted,
communal mastery showed significant increases in final-∆R2 in models
predicting active-asocial coping and prosocial coping, but not antiso-
cial/individualistic coping. Communal mastery also contributed to sig-
nificant increases in final-∆R2 for both social support indicators and de-
pressive mood, but did not contribute above the effects of self-mastery
for anger.
Self-mastery contributed a significant final-∆R2 for active-asocial cop-
ing, but made little contribution to communal coping or antisocial cop-
ing. Self-mastery had a significant final-∆R2 in the model predicting sup-
TABLE 3. Study 1: Communal Mastery and (Self–) Mastery as Predictors of Coping, Social Support, Resources, and Psychological Distress
Correlations and Multiple Regressions
2 2 2
Zero–Order Correlations R for ∆R for ∆R for β β
2
Self– Communal Age and Self– Communal ∆R Self– Communal
a b
Age Gender Mastery Mastery Gender Mastery Mastery diff Mastery Mastery
Assertive Action –.05 –.02 .42*** .42*** .003 .083*** .095*** –.012 .31*** .34***
Avoident Action –.09 –.00 –.23*** –.23*** .009 .025** .030** –.005 –.17** –.19**
Prosocial Coping
Social Joining –.10 –.02 .13* .27*** .010 .001 .059*** –.058*** .03 .27***
Support Seeking –.27*** .27*** .09 .40*** .144 .000 .093*** –.093*** –.02 .33***
Cautious Action –.13* .00 .22*** .21*** .017 .025** .019* .006 .17** .15*
Communal Leadership –.05 .00 .20*** .43*** .003 .003 .157*** –.154*** .06 .44***
374
Antisocial Action –.20*** –.27*** –.03 –.14* .115 .000 .008 –.008 –.02 –.10
Aggressive Action –.07 –.27*** .12* –.01 .081 .008 .000 .008 .10 .01
Supportive Network –.15* .11 .29*** .38*** .033 .033*** .072*** –.064*** .19*** .29***
Social Support Satisfaction –.21*** –.06 .21*** .41*** .048 .004 .129*** –.125*** .07 .39***
Anger –.06 –.02 –.32*** –.20*** .003 .074*** .011 –.063*** –.29*** –.11
Depressive Mood .01 .17** –.54*** –.32*** .029 .186*** .037*** .149*** –.46*** –.21***
Self–Mastery –.04 –.08 .32***
a 2 2 b 2 2
∆R represents ∆R for self–mastery or communal mastery when they are added on the last regression step. ∆R (self–mastery) – ∆R (communal mastery): positive differ-
ences reflect a dominance of self–mastery, negative differences a dominance of communal mastery in the predictions of the outcomes. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
port network, but not support satisfaction. Finally, self-mastery added

significantly above the impact of communal mastery to anger and de-
pression.
Comparing the contribution of self-mastery to communal mastery, it
can be noted that communal mastery was about as good an indicator of
asocial/active coping and a significantly better predictor of prosocial
coping and social support. Neither self- nor communal mastery were as-
sociated with aggressive/individualistic action. Self-mastery was a sig-
nificantly better predictor of psychological distress.
Finally, we considered the association of gender with self-mastery and
communal mastery. Men and women did not differ on self-mastery (t =
1.32, p > 10), but as predicted, women were higher in communal mastery
(t = 3.75, p < .000).
DISCUSSION
Our ten-item measure of communal mastery had sound psychometric
properties, although this may have been artificially boosted by elimina-
tion of five-items from the preliminary 15-item version. Internal reliabil-
ity was at a level usually considered acceptable for self-constructs
(Pearlin et al., 1981; Scheier & Carver, 1985; Schwarzer et al., 1997).
Whether the ten-item measure of communal mastery maintains these
psychometrical qualities will be further examined in Studies 2 and 3.
As predicted, communal mastery was a better predictor than self-mas-
tery of prosocial coping and social support, but an equally good predic-
tor of active-asocial kinds of coping. Also as predicted, communal mas-
tery was a poorer predictor than self-mastery of anger and depressive
mood. Those high in communal mastery were significantly lower in psy-
chological distress than those low in communal mastery, but the influ-
ence of communal mastery was not nearly of so high impact as that of
self-mastery. This finding is consistent with the view that communal
coping carries some costs (Kessler et al., 1985). The hypothesis that
self-mastery would be more strongly associated with aggressive/indi-
vidualistic coping was not supported. Two weak but significant correla-
tions did support this hypothesis; those high in self-mastery used signif-
icantly more aggressive coping and those high in communal mastery
used significantly less antisocial coping. However, these correlations
were not independent of age and gender. Women were more likely to re-
port higher communal coping, consistent with the view of women’s be-
havior as more socially involved (Eagly, 1987). A recent study by
Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, and Regalia (2001) also
found self-regulatory efficacy to be negatively related to transgressive
376 HOBFOLL ET AL.
behavior, further suggesting that self-mastery is not related to aggres-

sive action.
The superiority of self-mastery over communal mastery in some in-
stances and of communal mastery over self-mastery in other compari-
sons, generally in line with predictions, makes a stronger case for
discriminant validity (Kazdin, 1992). Importantly, although communal
mastery was derived, in part, from restructured self-mastery items, the
two constructs are clearly distinguishable, and their areas of non-over-
lap support each other’s construct validity.
STUDY 2
Study 2 extended Study 1 using a larger sample that was somewhat
older and more representative of the community. We also compared the
association of communal mastery and self-mastery with optimism and
physical symptoms. According to our general hypotheses, communal
mastery should be positively related to active-asocial coping, in a similar
manner to self-mastery. Communal mastery should be more strongly re-
lated to social processes such as prosocial coping and social support.
Self-mastery should be more strongly related to individualistic-antiso-
cial coping and optimism, lower psychological distress, and fewer phys-
ical symptoms. We used an index of physical symptoms because
somatic complaints are related to depressive mood and offer a measure
of somatization that is less likely to be confounded with self-mastery and
communal mastery items than other measures of emotional distress.
METHOD
Study 2 participants (n = 471) consisted of 287 mostly European American
women and 184 men whose mean age was about 24 years (see Table 1 for
demographics). A somewhat higher percentage of individuals were mar-
ried than found in typical university samples (18%), but the sample is nev-
ertheless considerably younger and more likely to be single than the
general population. Participants were tested in groups of ten to 25 people,
after informed consent. The questionnaire required under one hour for
completion. Students received course credit for participation.
MEASURES
The questionnaire included several measures described in Study 1 in-
cluding communal mastery, self-mastery, SACS coping subscales, social
support, and depressive mood. In addition, measures of dispositional

optimism, trait anger, and physical symptoms were included in Study 2.
Scale information is presented in Table 2 and the scales introduced in
Study 2 are described next.
Communal Mastery. The ten-item communal mastery scale described
in Study 1 was used again (α = .80).
Optimism. The widely used Life Orientation Test (LOT; Scheier &
Carver, 1985) was used to measure dispositional optimism. The LOT has
sound psychometric properties and has been shown repeatedly to be re-
lated to successful stress resistance and more positive well-being
(Andersson, 1996; Scheier & Carver, 1992; Schröder, 1997). It measures
generalized positive outcome beliefs and is composed of eight items and
four filler items. Items (e.g., “In uncertain times, I usually expect the
best”) were answered on a five-point scale from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree” (α = .86).
Physical Symptoms. The Wahler Physical Symptom Inventory (WPSI;
1983) has been found to be a reliable measure of physical and psychoso-
matic symptoms (Waters, Rubman, & Hurry, 1993). The instrument con-
sists of 42 symptoms (e.g., “nausea,” “headaches,” “chest pains,” “diffi-
culty sleeping”) that are responded to on a six-point scale from (0 =
“almost never” to 5 = “almost every day”). A sum score was computed
(α = .92).
Anger. The trait anger scale of the STAXI (Spielberger, 1988) has been
shown to be a reliable and valid indicator of people’s tendency to experi-
ence angry emotions (Spielberger et al., 1985). The ten-item trait anger
scale assesses the tendency to feel anger and express it using a four-point
scale from 1 = “almost never” to 4 = “almost always.” (α = .91;
Spielberger et al., 1985).
RESULTS
The ten-item communal mastery scale showed good internal reliability
(α = .80). The mean score (x = 30.67) was well above the midpoint, indi-
cating that respondents overall felt they were high on communal mas-
tery. The shared variance between communal mastery and self-mastery
was 13%, indicating that the two constructs are related but quite distinc-
tive. In contrast, for example, optimism and self-mastery shared about
35% of their variance, indicating almost three times more overlap.
Results of Study 2 are summarized in Table 4. The pattern of zero-or-
der correlations generally fit our hypotheses, with some exceptions.
However, as seen in Study 1, the most revealing information is yielded
by examining the final-∆R2s for self-mastery and for communal mastery
TABLE 4. Study 2: Communal Mastery and (Self–) Mastery as Predictors of Coping, Social Support, Resources, and Negative Emotions
2 2 2
2
a b
Assertive Action .16*** –.06 .43*** 33*** .034 .095*** .041*** .054*** .33*** .22***
Avoidant Action –.13** –.04 –.34*** –.23*** .017 .070*** .015** .055*** –.29 –.13**
Prosocial Coping
Social Joining .02 .09 .07 .39*** .008 .004 .146*** –.142*** –.07 .41***
Support Seeking –.16*** .15*** .04 .48*** .058 .014** .236*** –.222*** –.13** .52***
Cautious Action .07 .03 .15*** .25*** .005 .004 .044*** –.040*** .06 .23***
Communal Leadership .02 –.10* .18*** .30*** .01 .004 .070*** –.066*** .07 .28***
378
Antisocial Action –.25*** –.36*** –.10* –.12* .168 .005 .006 –.001 –.08 –.08
Aggressive Action –.04 –.30*** .11* .05 .089 .006 .001 –.005 .08 .03
Supportive Network –.13** –.09 .26*** .40*** .02 .017** .105*** –.088*** .14** .35***
Social Support Satisfaction –.03 .01 .29*** .39*** .002 .027*** .090*** –.063*** .18*** .32***
Anger –.15*** .01 –.39*** –.34*** .024 .074*** .048** .026*** –.30*** –.24***
Depressive Mood -.09 .13** -.52*** -.35*** .027 .164*** .033*** .131*** -.44*** -.20***
Physical Symptoms .01 .14** –.33*** –.25*** .018 .059*** .023*** .036*** –.26*** –.16***
Optimism .13** –.09* .59*** .46*** .031 .187*** .076*** .111*** .47*** .30***
Self–Mastery .09* –.06 — .36*** — — — — — —
a 2 2 b 2 2
after controlling for age and gender. As in Study 1, final-∆R2 is calculated

using hierarchical regression analyses by entering that variable (i.e., ei-
ther self-mastery or communal mastery) last, after controlling for age
and gender in Step 1, and self-mastery or communal mastery in Step 2
(Kazdin, 1992).
As predicted, both self-mastery and communal mastery significantly
added to the prediction of active-asocial coping strategies. However, in
contrast to Study 1, self-mastery was a significantly better predictor of
active-asocial coping than was communal mastery. As hypothesized,
communal mastery was a consistently significantly better predictor of
both prosocial coping indicators and social support indicators. This pre-
diction held for social joining, communal leadership, seeking social sup-
port, cautious action, number of supporters, and support satisfaction.
We also had predicted that both self-mastery and communal mastery
would be related to greater optimism and lower psychological distress
(i.e., anger, depression, physical symptoms), and this prediction re-
ceived consistent support. Further, the prediction that self-mastery
would be more strongly related to these variables also was supported by
the significantly greater unique contribution of self-mastery. For exam-
ple, for the two variables introduced in Study 2—physical symptoms
and optimism—the variance accounted for by self-mastery alone was
about two to five times greater than that accounted for by communal
mastery alone (i.e., 5.9% of the independent variance compared to 2.3%
of the independent variance for physical symptoms and 18.7% of the in-
dependent variance versus 7.6% of the independent variance for opti-
mism).
As in Study 1, the prediction that self-mastery would be related to in-
dividualistic-aggressive coping strategies did not receive support.
Finally, women and men did not differ in either self-mastery (t = 1.28, p >
.20) or communal mastery (t = .81, p > .40).
DISCUSSION
Study 2 provided further support for the psychometric properties and
construct validity of the communal mastery scale and concept. Commu-
nal mastery had reasonable internal reliability and could be distin-
guished empirically from self-mastery (i.e., discriminant validity).
Communal mastery was a consistently better predictor of prosocial cop-
ing and social support, as would be consonant with a more ensembled
rather than individualistic orientation (Baumeister, 1987; Sampson,
1988). In line with its conceptual underpinnings, self-mastery was a
stronger predictor of lower anger, depression, and physical symptoms.
This is interpreted as indicating the greater “efficiency” of personal
380 HOBFOLL ET AL.
agency compared with shared agency in advancing the goals of the inde-
pendent self. Communal mastery was also effective, but individuals can
more directly seek to protect their goals on their own than they can when
they entwine their goal-directed efforts with the needs of others
(Kitayama et al., 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989).
The stronger association of self-mastery to optimism is also notable.
When the self is tied closely with others, as can be expected in individu-
als high in communal mastery, conclusions about self expectancies may
be averaged with how well significant others are fairing, leading to less
optimistic expectations (Lyons et al., 1998). When individuals see them-
selves and their goals as intermingled with significant others, this may
decrease optimism because at any time it is inevitable that some mem-
bers of the social network are having life difficulties. If caring for a com-
munal fate entails caring for the extended family, it will involve concern
for the weakest links in the chain, which is likely to include frail elderly
members and those who are infirm. As in our other findings, communal
mastery also is favorably related to optimistic outcome expectancies, but
in a more tempered fashion than is self-mastery.
As in Study 1, neither self-mastery nor communal mastery were re-
lated to aggressive coping strategies. These approaches to coping may
be related more to angry, antisocial patterns, rather than individualistic
patterns (Dunahoo et al., 1998). This suggests that individualism should
not be vilified by necessarily associating it with pernicious or exploitive
individualism as was suggested by May (1953) or more recently by Hall
and Barongan (1997). That is, although capitalism and a survival of the
fittest social milieu may encourage these more antisocial forms of cop-
ing, they are not characteristic de facto of those who have an individualis-
tic goal-directed orientation. Hobfoll et al. (1994) have found, in fact, that
antisocial coping is an ineffective means of coping.
STUDY 3
In Study 3 we used a generalized measure of self-efficacy (Schwarzer et
al., 1997) that is today the most widely used measure of its type. Thus, we
could compare communal-mastery with a measure similar to self-mas-
tery conceptually, but which has a different item pool, allowing another
test of the conceptual distinction between individualistic versus com-
munal goal-directed orientations.
In Study 3 we again predicted that both self-efficacy and communal
mastery would be related to active-asocial coping. We further hypothe-
sized that communal mastery would be more closely related to prosocial
coping and receipt of social support. Similarly, we introduced a measure
of social alienation, and along the lines previously described concerning
the distinction between an individualistic and communal orientation,

we predicted that communal mastery would be more closely related to
social alienation (in the negative direction because of the way the alien-
ation instrument is keyed to indicate less positive social relations) than
self-efficacy.
We also added a set of more cognitive outcome variables. We pre-
dicted that self-efficacy would be more strongly related to decision-re-
lated action (or “initiative,” Kuhl, 1994). Research has consistently
shown that people high in communal orientation must be more cautious
because they must carefully consider the well-being of others and the
honor of all those involved in a setting (Fukuyama, 1995; Triandis, 1989).
Those with a more individualistic orientation toward goal directedness
tend to be quicker to decide and quicker to act. Consistent with this
thinking, we predicted that self-efficacy would be more closely, but neg-
atively, related to concern about the role of powerful others, worry about
social relationships, and fear of negative evaluation. That is, self-mas-
tery will be more closely related to not considering relationship factors.
METHOD
Questionnaires were completed by 336 mostly European American indi-
viduals enrolled in psychology courses at semi-rural branch campuses
of a midwestern university. Average age was about 25 years, indicative
of a young adult, rather than typical student population. Questionnaires
were administered in groups of one- to 50 people, after informed con-
sent and took about one hour to complete. Participants received course
credit.
MEASURES
The same instruments were used as in Studies 1 and 2 to assess commu-
nal mastery, coping strategies, social support, and depressive mood.
Scale statistics for these scales are presented in Table 2 and illustrate
good internal reliabilities. Further, the following variables were as-
sessed.
Communal mastery. Communal mastery was measured using the ear-
lier devised instrument. α for this sample was .82
Self-Efficacy. To assess generalized sense of self-efficacy the widely
used Schwarzer scale (1993, 1994) was employed. The ten-item scale as-
sesses individuals’ belief that they are able to solve their problems by
means of adaptive action (e.g., “I can always manage to solve difficult
382 HOBFOLL ET AL.
problems if I try hard enough”). Items are answered on a four-point scale

from “not at all true” to “exactly true” (α = .88). The psychometric prop-
erties and construct validity of this scale have been tested in a wide vari-
ety of settings and cultures (Schwarzer, 1994; Schwarzer et al., 1997) and
found good support for the measure and construct.
Locus of Control. Two subscales of Levenson’s (1981) locus of control
(LOC) scale were employed, measuring internal locus of control (eight
items, α = .69) and locus of control resting on powerful others (eight
items, α = .79). Items (“When I make plans, I am almost certain to make
them work”) are responded to on a six-point scale from “strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree.” The LOC is considered a reliable and valid mea-
sure of control beliefs (Hong & Bartenstein, 1982; Lachman, 1986;
Presson, Clark, & Benassi, 1997).
Prosocial and Proactive Coping. Four coping scales of the SACS,
which was presented in Study 1 were included to assess prosocial and
active coping (Dunahoo et al., 1998). They were: seeking social support
(α = .85), social joining (α = .73), communal leadership action (α = .72),
and assertive action (nine items, α = .85), as described more fully in
Study 1. We did not include the measures of individualistic-antisocial
coping because hypotheses regarding these subscales in Studies 1 and 2
were not supported.
Action Orientation. We relied on the 12-item “decision-related action
orientation” subscale of the Kuhl (1994) Action Control Scale which as-
sesses initiative vs. hesitation in situations calling for immediate deci-
sions. The scale has been shown to have sound psychometric properties
and construct validity (Beckmann & Kuhl, 1984; Kuhl, 1994). Each item
describes a situation calling for a decision, planning activity, or self-initi-
ated behavior (e.g., “When I have a lot of important things to do and they
must all be done soon...”), with two possible responses, one of them rep-
resenting more decisive action (“...I find it easy to make a plan and stick
to it” versus “I often don’t know where to begin”). The number of ac-
tion-oriented choices indicate the degree of decision-related action ori-
entation (α = .80). This scale belies a subtle difference between individu-
alistic and communal orientation because within cultural individualism
to act quickly is esteemed, whereas within a communal orientation to act
judiciously and cautiously is esteemed because there is an awareness of
the need to think about complicated social relationships and obligations
and the need to avoid shame (Triandis, 1989).
Fear of Negative Evaluation. The fear that others would sanction or
negatively evaluate the individual was assessed by a 12-item short form
of the Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE) scale (Watson & Friend, 1969).
This shortened version has been shown to be reliable and strongly corre-
lated with the original version (Leary, 1983, 1991). The items measure
the general tendency to worry about the impression and judgments oth-
ers might develop about oneself on a five-point scale from “not at all
characteristic of me” to “extremely characteristic of me.” Internal reli-
ability (e.g., “I am frequently afraid of other people noticing my short-
comings”) was .76.
Social Worries. A five-item subscale of the Worry Domains Question-
naire (WDQ; Tallis, Eysench, & Mathews, 1992) was included. The mea-
sure has been found to be reliable and to have good construct validity
(Tallis et al., 1992). The WDQ-Social Worries subscale assesses people’s
worries in the social domain (e.g., “I worry that I will lose close friends”),
answered on a five-point scale from “not all” to “extremely” (a = .82).
Social Alienation. The nine-item social alienation subscale of the
Alienation Test (Maddi, Kobasa, & Hoover, 1979) was employed to as-
sess the extent individuals felt alienated from social relationships. This
scale has good psychometic properties. Items (e.g., “Why bother to try to
love or care for people; they’ll only hurt you in the end”) are measured
on an 11-point response format (0 = “agree not at all,” 5 = “agree moder-
ately,” and 10 = “agree totally”). Internal consistency of the scale was .88.
RESULTS
Self-efficacy and communal mastery had about 10% shared variance, in-
dicating they were conceptually distinct. As predicted, men and women
did not differ on self-efficacy (t = 74, p > 40), but women were signifi-
cantly higher in communal mastery than men (t = 3.12, p < .002). The
communal mastery scale again showed good internal reliability (α =
.82), and participants tended to see themselves as high in communal
mastery, again suggesting that it is a characteristic with which Western
people can identify and see as consistent with their self views.
As in Studies 1 and 2, final-∆R2 was calculated using hierarchical re-
gression analysis by entering that variable (i.e., either self-efficacy or
communal mastery) last, after controlling for age, gender, and self-ef-
ficacy or communal mastery (Kazdin, 1992). Results are reported in
Table 5.
Examining the final-∆R2 s in Table 5, both self-efficacy and communal
mastery significantly contributed to assertive action. In this case, self-ef-
ficacy was significantly more strongly related to assertive action than
was communal mastery. This was contrary to our original prediction,
but consistent with the findings of Study 2. The unique contribution of
communal mastery was uniformly significantly larger than that of
self-efficacy for prosocial coping strategies (e.g., communal leadership
action, social joining, and social support seeking) and social support in-
TABLE 5. Study 3: Communal Mastery and Self–Efficacy as Predictors of Coping, Social Support, Resources, and Negative Emotions
2 2 2
2
a b
Coping
Assertive Action .1 .05 .62*** .30*** .014 .294*** .010* .284*** .58*** .11*
Social Joining –.04 .22*** .13* .28*** .052 .004 .043*** –.039*** .07 .23***
Support Seeking –.20*** .20*** .04 .29*** .079 .001 .060*** –.059*** –.03 .27***
Communal Leadership .07 .09 .37*** .47*** .014 .051*** .132*** –.081*** .24*** .39***
Supportive Network –.04 .13* .26*** .43*** .016 .019** .120*** –.101 .15** .37***
Social Support Satisfaction 4 19*** .24*** .41*** .035 .017** .105*** –.088*** .14** .35***
Action Orientation: Decision .20*** –.03 .49*** .25*** .042 .156*** .014* .142*** .42*** .13*
384
Alienation: Social Relationships –.05 –.17** –.27*** –.42*** .033 .021** .107*** –.086*** –.16* –.35***
Fear of Negative Evaluation –.17** 0 –.32*** –.14* .028 .074*** .003 .071*** –.29*** –.06
Locus of Control
Internal .09 –.01 .39*** .38*** .01 .071*** .076*** –.005 .29*** .30***
Powerful Others –.07 –.05 –.25*** –.16** .008 .046*** .006 .040*** –.23** –.08
Worry about Social Relationships –.22*** –.01 –.38*** –.30*** .049 .071*** .041*** .030** –.29*** –.22***
Depressive Mood –.29*** .05 –.35*** –.21*** .09 .063*** .020** .043*** –.27*** –.15**
Self–Efficacy .09 –.04 .32***
a 2 2 b 2 2
dicators. Also consistent with our expectations, communal mastery was

significantly more closely related to (lower) alienation than was self-effi-
cacy.
The cognitive framework that distinguishes self-efficacy from com-
munal mastery may be revealed to some greater extent in the remaining
analyses. Consistent with our hypotheses, self-efficacy was significantly
more closely related to a decisive decision orientation than was commu-
nal mastery. In contrast, self-efficacy was significantly more strongly
negatively related to fear of negative evaluation of others, social worries,
and external social control beliefs. As in other comparisons, both self-ef-
ficacy and communal mastery were potential stress-resistance resources
because they both had positive associations with these other variables
(e.g., both self-efficacy and communal mastery were associated with
lower fear of negative evaluation), but their relative contribution is con-
sistent with our theoretical arguments.
It is also notable that self-efficacy and communal mastery were both
related to an internal locus of control. As in prior analysis and as pre-
dicted, both self-efficacy and communal mastery were related to lower
depressive mood, but self-efficacy’s unique contribution to depressive
mood was significantly stronger.
DISCUSSION
Study 3 provided further support for the discriminant validity of self-ef-
ficacy and communal mastery. The findings are generally consistent
with those of Study 1 and 2 and suggest that self-efficacy is more closely
related to assertive coping strategies and decisiveness than is communal
mastery. In contrast, communal mastery is a consistently stronger pre-
dictor of prosocial coping strategies and obtaining social support than is
self-efficacy.
Our results also point to the cognitive underpinnings of these differ-
ences. Self-efficacy is related to less concern with social relationships,
less fear of negative censure of others, and less feeling that powerful oth-
ers are in control. Communal mastery appears to be related to greater
concern for others, less alienation from social relationships, and more
close attachments to a supportive social network from which satisfac-
tion can be derived. These results are quite consistent with theories com-
paring Eastern and Western cultural affordances and ways of viewing
the self that these allow (Sampson, 1988), and thus support our thesis
that these concepts apply well to a continuum of ways of seeing the self
within Western society.
386 HOBFOLL ET AL.
STUDY 4
Inner-city women are likely to undergo significant stressors due to
economic conditions and risk of violence (Belle, 1990; Seguin, Potvin,
St. Denis, & Loiselle, 1995). If African American, they are likely to be
further exposed both directly (e.g., personal exposure to racial slurs)
and indirectly (e.g., lack of employment opportunities in their neigh-
borhood) to the stress of racial prejudice (Belle, 1990; McLoyd, 1990).
However, the impact of stressful conditions for women and others
has also been found to be influenced by individual differences in their
possession of resources. For example, a recent study of pregnant, in-
ner-city women found that those who possessed greater sense of mas-
tery had more positive biological birth outcomes, controlling for the
impact of stressful events in their lives (Rini, Dunkel-Schetter,
Wadhwa, & Sandman, 1999). Similarly, Ennis, Hobfoll, and Schroder
(2000) found that inner-city women with greater self-mastery had less
depressive mood.
Both self-mastery and communal mastery might serve as resources
contributing to inner-city women’s well-being. Sense of self-mastery is
likely to aid women by affording them the expectation that they are ca-
pable and can successfully obtain their goals, and by leading them to the
enactment of goal-directed behavior despite stressful conditions
(Pearlin et al., 1981). Communal mastery may also aid women because it
opens those who possess this resource to see that they can successfully
obtain their goals through their being closely tied with significant others
(see Taylor & Roberts,1995). Because communal mastery is more closely
linked with social connectiveness, it would be expected that women
high in communal mastery would actively be involved in seeking and
maintaining a strong social network with which they can successfully
interact in problem solving and adjustment efforts. Thus, we would pre-
dict positive main effects of self-mastery and communal mastery on
well-being.
In this study we examined a number of outcome variables, including
depressive mood, anger, and social support. Most studies of individuals
experiencing stressful circumstances have examined psychological dis-
tress as the outcome variable. In particular, depressive mood has been
investigated because it is reactive to stressful conditions and is a good in-
dicator of psychological suffering and functioning (Gotlib, Lewinsohn,
& Seeley, 1995). Increased interest has also focused on anger, because an-
ger is also a likely manifestation of stressful conditions (Johnson, 1990).
Anger is a particularly important emotion to consider because studies
have shown that anger tends to alienate potential support (Lane &
Hobfoll, 1992).
Social support is a resource in the face of stressful conditions, but it

also can be an outcome variable. Sarason, Pierce, and Sarason’s (1990)
stress-support model and work by Kaniasty and Norris (1993) both sug-
gest that stressful conditions can dissipate support, making it unavail-
able exactly at a time it is needed. In their support deterioration model,
Kaniasty and Norris (1993) suggest and find evidence that those who
lose support are more vulnerable to the ongoing stress process that is
likely to occur for inner-city women.
We predicted (see Hypothesis 6) that both self-mastery and communal
mastery would have direct beneficial impact on depressive mood and
anger. We further predicted that communal mastery would be more
beneficial than self-mastery in preserving social support. This follows
because those high in communal mastery will wish to preserve their
close ties, which they see as integrally involved in goal achievement and
their successful functioning.
METHOD
We examined a group of 61 women over a nine-month period. Women
were interviewed at one of two community health clinics, and then
three months and nine months later. All women who came for clinic
care, who were single and free of serious chronic illness, were ap-
proached as part of a larger sample. The women in the current study
were selected as the last group of women entering the study during the
winter of 1998/1999, as we could add the communal mastery scale to
their interview protocol. Women were low income (82% with incomes
below $15,000 per year), average 20.80 years of age, and 63% had fin-
ished high school, with 33% not having completed high school. The
majority were African American (n = 41), with the remainder (n = 20)
being European American.
They were administered a broad battery of questionnaires during
three interviews (time-1, 3 months later, and 9 months later). These inter-
views included measures of stress (initial interview and 3-month inter-
view), depressive mood (initial and 9-month interviews), anger (initial
and 9-month interviews), social support satisfaction (initial and
9-month interviews), number of intimate supporters (initial and
9-month interviews), self-mastery (9-month interviews), and communal
mastery (9-month interviews). Means and standard deviations are re-
ported in Table 6.
388 HOBFOLL ET AL.
TABLE 6. Means and Standard Deviations for Predictor and Outcome Variables
among Inner–City Women (n = 61)
Standard
Mean Deviation
Self–Mastery 31.08 4.60
Communal Mastery 31.43 5.08
Depressive Mood–1 7.39 5.73
Depressive Mood–3 7.66 7.93
Anger–1 22.00 8.91
Anger–3 21.93 8.27
Number of Intimate Supporters–1 19.74 4.77
Number of Intimate Supporters–3 18.70 4.39
Support Satisfaction–1 15.28 2.24
Support Satisfaction–3 15.13 2.65
Economic Stress 66.05 11.13
MEASURES
Mastery. The self-mastery (α = .84 ) and communal mastery (α = .71)
scales described earlier were employed.
Stress. The Conservation of Resource Evaluation (COR-E) is a widely
used measure of stress (Hobfoll & Lilly, 1993). We used the material
stress subscale that measures people’s report of losses in the material do-
main over the prior three months. These include loss of transportation,
necessary appliances (e.g., washing machine, stove), loss of ability to
purchase proper clothing, etc. Prior studies have found resource loss to
be a strong predictor of stress outcomes (Freedy, Saladin, Kilpatrick,
Resnick, & Saunders, 1994; Freedy, Shaw, Jarrell, & Masters, 1992;
Ironson et al., 1997). We added material loss scores at Time-1 and Time-2
(α = .89) to assess women’s stress experience over this six month period.
Depressive mood. Depressive mood was assessed using the short
form of the Profile of Mood States (POMS) depression scale. The
POMS-short form depression scale has proven reliability and validity
and lends itself to large-scale administration (Malouff, Schutte, &
Ramerth, 1985). Participants rated their feelings of depressed mood on a
list of eight adjectives (e.g., “unhappy,” “worthless,” and “hopeless”).
For the present study, participants were asked to indicate their feelings
for the past week, rated on a scale from 0 to 4 (“not at all,” “a little,”
“moderately, ”quite a bit," and “extremely”; T-1 α = .86, T-2 α = .94). Al-
though depressed mood is not an indicator of clinical depression it is
considered to be a meaningful measure of emotional distress and func-

tioning (Gotlib et al., 1995).
Anger. The trait anger scale of the STAXI (Spielberger, 1988) de-
scribed earlier was employed (T-1 α = .92, T-2 α = .90).
Social Support. We utilized the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ-6;
Sarason et al., 1987) described earlier. For number of intimate supporters
α at both T-1 and T-3 was .88. For support satisfaction α at T-1 and T-3
was .74 and .83, respectively.
RESULTS
In order to determine the differential impact of self-mastery and com-
munal mastery on depressive mood, anger, and social support, we em-
ployed a series of hierarchical regression analyses. Regressing on each of
the four outcome variables in separate analyses, we entered ethnicity as
a control1, followed by the T-1 score on the criterion variable, followed
by women’s stress score. Next, communal mastery and self-mastery
were entered in two models, adding each mastery variable first and
again last in order to examine the impact of each. Significant effects for
communal mastery and self-mastery would indicate that they were re-
lated to the change in the outcome variable from T-1 to T-3, controlling
for the influence of ethnicity and stress levels.
The results of these analyses are presented in Table 7. Predicting de-
pressive mood-3, stress was related to increased depressive mood over
and above the impact of T-1 depressive mood. In addition, both
self-mastery and communal mastery were related to lower depressive
mood-3. However, neither mastery indicator made an independent in-
crease in the explained variance over the other. Likewise, predicting to
anger, stress was related to greater anger-3, controlling for anger-1. Both
self-mastery and communal mastery were related to lower anger-3. In
this case, each made a borderline (p < .10) independent contribution to
the explained variance after the other was entered.
Next regression models were evaluated for social support at T-3. First
we examined the impact of the predictor variables on support satisfac-
tion. Stress was not related to support satisfaction-3, controlling for sup-
port satisfaction-1. However, both self-mastery and communal mastery
were related to greater support satisfaction-3. In addition, inclusion of
communal mastery in the final model step had a borderline independent
effect, but self-mastery did not. Regressing the predictor variables on
1. There were too few individuals of each ethnic group to analyze ethnic differences.
TABLE 7. Impact of Self–Mastery and Communal–Mastery on Inner–City Women’s Depressive Mood, Anger, and Social Support
Outcome Variables
Depressive Mood Anger # Intimate Supporters Support Satisfaction
2 2 2 2
β ∆R β ∆R β ∆R β ∆R
Predictor Variables
(1) Outcome variable at Time–1 .179 .139** .195 .185*** .490*** .380*** .504** .376***
(2) Ethnicity++ –.226 .005 –.003 .006 .100 .003 –.040 .004
(3) Economic Stress –.289* .070* .285* .076* –.187‡ .037‡ .042 .002
390
(4) Self–Mastery –.339* .148** –.248 .119** .032 .027 .118 .053*
(5) Communal Mastery –.122 .010 –.217 .030‡ .261* .043* .215‡ .030‡
or
(4) Communal–Mastery –.122 .091** –.217 .030‡ .261* .069** .215‡ .073**
(5) Self–Mastery –.339* .066* –.248 .038‡ .032 .001 .118 .009
++Ethnicity is keyed 2 = black, 1 = white. ‡p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
number of intimate supporters-3, stress made a borderline negative con-

tribution over and above the contribution of number of intimate sup-
porters at T-1. In addition communal mastery, but not self-mastery, was
related to greater number of supporters-3. Further, communal mastery
had an independent influence on number of supporters-3, over and
above the influence of self-mastery.
DISCUSSION
In general the findings supported our predictions. Both self-mastery and
communal mastery were related to lower psychological distress over
this nine-month period. Neither mastery variable had a stronger influ-
ence on emotional outcomes than the other. This finding suggests that
the use of the self-aspect within mastery conceptualizations may not be
what prior studies have found to be important, contrary to self-efficacy
theory (Bandura, 1997). Rather, it may be the expectation of successful
outcomes, whether by self or communal processes, that are important in
preserving well-being.
The evidence suggests that communal mastery is more closely related
to preserving social support than is self-mastery. What cannot be said is
whether such support maintenance is a matter of perceptions or ad-
dresses the actual reality of support. Those who expect that support is
important to their success may merely believe that they have support be-
cause it is important to them. Nevertheless, research has repeatedly
found that perceptions of social support are a key stress-resistance re-
source (Sarason et al., 1990), and as such communal mastery appears to
be more closely related to these important perceptions.
This study has both strengths and limitations. It is limited by our not
having measures of both self-mastery and communal mastery available
before the final interviews. This problem is partially offset by our con-
trolling for the outcome variable at T-1, and thereby removing some of
the possible confounding between mastery and the outcome variables.
Second, we only had a sample of women, and hence cannot generalize to
men or for that matter to more middle-class samples.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our findings generally support a distinction between individualistic
and collectivist views of self-effectance. Although typically applied as a
comparison between East versus West (Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Kitayama et al., 1997; Sampson, 1988; Triandis, 1989) and sometimes
gender differences in self-views (Kashima, Yamaguchi, Kim, Choi, et al.,
1995), these concepts can be seen as applicable to a midwestern North
392 HOBFOLL ET AL.
American population that is steeped in the culture of individualism, as

well as to a low-income, inner-city sample of African and European
American women. This supports the contention that the almost sole reli-
ance on personal agency in the stress literature is not the only view that
can or should be applied in understanding how individuals view the self
vis à vis life’s challenges (see also Lyons et al., 1998). Moreover, our find-
ings indicate that the distinctions between problem- and emotion-fo-
cused coping and between the ways individuals seek social support in
their coping efforts (Aldwin, 1994) can be expanded to how individuals’
sense of connectiveness influences their expectations for coping.
Personal agency is more closely tied to assertive action, independence
from others, and less worry about social relationships. In contrast, com-
munal mastery is linked closely to social means of coping, gaining more
social support, and greater interdependence. The finding for personal
agency, however, does not suggest that individualistic views of agency
are linked to antisocial processes as Hall and Barongan (1997) suggested.
Personal agency is less communal, and in some ways more asocial, but it
is not linked to antisocial coping. In additions, a sense of self agency is
also correlated positively with socially involvement. Even in individual-
istic cultures people have deep social bonds, care for others, work with
others to achieve goals, and do poorly if they become socially isolated.
Markus and Kitayama (1991) have argued that Western psychology’s
monocultural view of the self as independent, self-contained, and auton-
omous may unnecessarily restrict our understanding of the self.
Construal of the different selves, one viewed more in isolation, and the
other viewed in a fashion more interwoven with others, offers insights in
the way the self constructs the world, and as this series of studies illus-
trated, how it confronts challenge. This should not be taken to lead to an
either-or dichotomy on theoretical or empirical levels. The independent
self is not a hermit, isolated from others and without close, loving ties,
thus coping alone. The ensembled self is not inextricably enmeshed with
others and entirely dependent, thus vulnerable to social whim
(Guisenger & Blatt, 1994). Rather, these concepts represent a continuum
along which “Within a given culture...individuals will vary in the extent
to which they are good cultural representatives and construe the self in
the mandated way” (p. 226; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; see also Yau-Fai
Ho & Chiu, 1994).
We studied generalized mastery tendencies that are decontextualized.
In contrast, Bandura (1997) has focused on self-efficacy vis à vis a target
goal. Our work falls more in line with seeing self-efficacy and self-mas-
tery as general personality traits or styles. Most of the research on mas-
tery, hardiness, and locus of control (as opposed to self-efficacy) actually
falls in line with our view (Pearlin et al., 1981; Thoits, 1994); hence indi-
cating that both the personality and person-in-context positions are

well-represented in the literature. Moreover, recent work by Schwarzer
(1992) has reconceptualized self-efficacy as a generalized personality
trait or style, and using his scale, this is being studied in Eastern and
Western cultures. It would be interesting to examine context-specific
communal mastery in order to examine in which contexts self-mastery
versus communal mastery are more strongly related to how people cope
and their resiliency in the face of different kinds of stressors.
A number of potential weaknesses of the current studies limit our firm
conclusions. The first three studies were cross-sectional and based on
self-report, thus limiting any inference of causal direction. These design
weaknesses also make it unclear as to whether these self-views would
translate to actions that are more individualistic or communal (Aldwin,
1994). The relatively young age and exposure to college of our first three
samples limit our findings, as the young and educated are likely to feel
higher self-mastery (Bandura, 1997).
There is also a potential for confounding, as our measure of communal
mastery in some ways may be construed as linked to already well-ac-
cepted concepts of social support. This potential confounding, however,
is unlikely because we did not ask people in our communal mastery
questionnaire how much support they received or perceived as avail-
able, but rather whether they saw their ability to meet challenges as in-
tertwined with their being encased in a network of significant others.
Nor were the correlations with social support (in the range of 14% to 18%
shared variance) of the magnitude that would support this conclusion.
Most critically, in Study 4, communal mastery predicted increases in so-
cial support, controlling for earlier support. This statistical control
would have removed the confounding influence. Finally, a prospective
study by Hobfoll, Jackson, Young, Pierce, and Hobfoll (in press) found
that Native American women high in communal mastery experienced
less increase in depressive mood and anger, especially when faced with
high stress circumstances, than women who were low in communal
mastery. This was independent of the levels of social support they re-
ceived and their self-mastery, indicating that communal mastery is dis-
tinguishable from social support.
In conclusion, we see communal mastery as a potentially valuable
construct for examining how people view their effectance. Even within
an individualistic culture, the ensembled self is represented in the way
many people view their confrontation with stressful challenges. Future
research might examine communal mastery in more traditionally collec-
tivist cultures in order to investigate how it impacts the stress process in
societies that are less individualistic. It would also be important to exam-
ine whether people who are high on either self- or communal mastery
394 HOBFOLL ET AL.
and low on the other construct more exactly typify the ends of the
crystalized self versus ensembled self continuum. Because so much of
stress involves social conditions (Hobfoll, 1998; Lyons et al., 1998), how
people rely on themselves intertwined with others may be a critical
stress resistance resource in their confrontation with the vicissitudes of
life stress.
APPENDIX A
COMMUNAL MASTERY SCALE ITEMS
1. By joining with friends and family, I have a great deal of control

over the things that happen to me.
2. Working together with friends and family I can solve many of the
problems I have.
3. There is little I can do to change many of the important things in my
life, even with the help of my family and friends (reverse coded).
4. Working together with people close to me I can overcome most of
the problems I have.
5. What happens to me in the future mostly depends on my ability to
work well with others.
6. I can do just about anything I set my mind to do because I have the
support of those close to me.
7. With the help of those close to me I have more control over my life.
8. What happens to me in the future mostly depends on my being sup-
ported by friends, family, or colleagues.
9. I can meet my goals by helping others meet their goals.
10. Friends, family, and colleagues mainly get in the way of my ac-
complishing goals (reverse coded).
REFERENCES
Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York:
Guilford Press.
Almeida, D. M., & Kessler, R. C. (1998). Everyday stressors and gender differences in daily
distress, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 670-680.
Andersson, G. (1996). The benefits of optimism: A meta-analytic review of the Life Orienta-
tion Test. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 719-725.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,
122-147.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Fremann & Com-
pany.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.
Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regalia (2001). Sociocognitive self-regula-
tory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 125-135.
Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological review of histori-
cal research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 163-176.
Beckmann, J., & Kuhl, J. (1984). Altering information to gain action control: Functional as-
pects of human information processing in decision making. Journal of Research in
Personality, 18, 224-237.
Belle, D. (1990). Poverty and women’s mental health. American Psychologist, 45, 385-389.
Bienenfeld, D., Koenig, H. G., Larson, D. B., & Sherrill, K. A. (1997). Psychosocial predictors
of mental health in a population of elderly women: Test of an explanatory model.
American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 43-53.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theo-
retically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.
Cherniss, C. (1993). Role of professional self-efficacy in the etiology and amelioration of
burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslash, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Re-
cent developments in theory and research (pp. 135-149). Washington, DC: Taylor &
Francis.
Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. C. (1986). Keeping track of needs in communal and ex-
change relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 333-338.
Dunahoo, C. L., Hobfoll, S. E., Monnier, J., Hulsizer, M. R., & Johnson, R. (1998). There’s
more than rugged individualism in coping. Part 1: Even the Lone Ranger had Tonto.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 11, 137-165.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ennis, N., Hobfoll, S. E., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2000). Money doesn’t talk, it swears: How
economic stress and resistance resources impact inner-city women’s depressive
mood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 149-173.
Freedy, J. R., Saladin, M. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., & Saunders, B. E. (1994). Un-
derstanding acute psychological distress following natural disaster. Journal of Trau-
matic Stress, 7, 257-273.
Freedy, J. R., Shaw, D. L., Jarrell, M. P., & Masters, C. R. (1992). Towards an understanding
of the psychological impact of natural disasters: An application of the conservation
of resources stress model. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 5, 441-454.
Fritz, H. L., and Helgeson, V. S. (1998). Distinctions of unmitigated communion from com-
munion: Self-neglect and over involvement with others. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 75, 121-140.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free
Press.
Gilligen, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gotlib, I., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Seeley, J. R. (1995). Symptoms versus a diagnosis of depres-
sion: Differences in psychosocial functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 63, 90-100.
Guisinger, S., & Blatt, S. J. (1994). Individuality and relatedness: Evolution of a fundamen-
tal dialectic. American Psychologist, 49, 104-111.
Hall, G. C., & Barongan, C. (1997). Prevention of sexual aggression: Sociocultural risk and
protective factors. American Psychologist, 52, 5-14.
Helgeson, V. S. (1994) Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and po-
tential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-428.
396 HOBFOLL ET AL.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community: The psychology and philosophy of stress.
New York: Plenum.
Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Ben-Porath, Y., & Monnier, J. (1994). Gender and coping: The
dual-axis model of coping. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 49-82.
Hobfoll, S. E., Jackson, A., Young, S., Pierce, C. A., & Hobfoll, I. H. (in press). The impact of
communal mastery versus self-mastery on emotional outcomes during stressful
conditions: A prospective study of Native American women. American Journal of
Community Psychology.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Lilly, R. S. (1993). Resource conservation as a strategy for community psy-
chology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 128-148.
Hobfoll, S. E., & London, P. (1986). The relationship of self-concept and social support to
emotional distress among women during war. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 4, 189-203.
Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Life stressors, personal and social resources and de-
pression: A four-year structural model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 31-38.
Holmberg, D., Markus, H., Herzog, A. R., & Franks, M. (1996). American selves: As inde-
pendent as we thought? International Journal of Psychology, 31, 295.
Hong, S., & Bartenstein, C. (1982). Dimensions of Levenson’s locus of control with Austra-
lian high school students. Psychological Reports, 5, 395-400.
Ironson, G., Wynings, C., Schneiderman, N., Baum, A., Rodriguez, M., Greenwood, D.,
Benight, C., Antoni, M., LaPerriere, A., Huang, H.S., Klimas, N., & Fletcher, M.A.
(1997). Posttraumatic stress symptoms, intrusive thoughts, loss, and immune func-
tion after Hurricane Andrew, Psychosomatic Medicine, 59, 128-141.
Johnson, E. H. (1990). The deadly emotions: The role of anger, hostility, and aggression in health
and emotional well-being. New York: Praeger.
Kaniasty, K., & Norris, F. (1993). A test of the social support deterioration model in the con-
text of natural disaster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 395-408.
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S. et. al. (1995). Culture, gender and self: A per-
spective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social
Kazdin, A. (1992). Research design in clinical psychology. New York: Oxford.
Kessler, R. C., McLeod, J. D., & Wethington, E. (1985). The costs of caring: A perspective on
the relationship between sex and psychological distress. In I. G. Sarason & C. R.
Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and application. The Hague: Martinus.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and
collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United
States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
1245-1267.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardi-
ness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.
Kobasa, S. C., & Puccetti, M. C. (1983). Personality and social resources in stress resistance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 839-850.
Kuhl, J. (1994). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the Action Con-
trol Scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action
versus state orientation (pp. 47-59). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Lachman, M. E. (1986). Locus of control in aging research: A case for multidimensional and
domain-specific assessment. Psychology and Aging, 1, 34-40.
Lane, C., & Hobfoll, S. E. (1992). How loss affects anger and alienates potential supporters.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 935-942.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer Pub-
lishing Company.
Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371-375.
Leary, M. R. (1991). Social anxiety, shyness, and related constructs. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.
Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological atti-
tudes. Measures of social psychological attitudes, vol. 1 (pp.161-194). San Diego: Aca-
demic Press.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In H.
M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct, vol. 1: Assessment methods
(pp.15-63). New York: Academic Press.
Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J., & Coyne, J. C. (1998). Coping as a communal
process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 579-605.
Maddi, S. R., Kobasa, S. C., & Hoover, M. (1979). An alienation test. Journal of Sociological
Malouff, S. M., Schutte, N. S., & Ramerth, W. (1985). Evaluation of a short form of the
POMS Depression Scale, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 389-391.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emo-
tion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for
selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568-579.
Marshall, G. N., & Lang, E. L. (1990). Optimism, self-mastery, and symptoms of depression
in women professionals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 132-139.
May, R. (1953). Man’s search for himself. New York: Norton.
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children:
Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Develop-
ment, 61, 311-346.
Monnier, J., Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Hulsizer, M. R., & Johnson, R. (1998). There’s
more than rugged individualism in coping. Part 2: Construct validity and further
model testing. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 11, 247-272.
Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356.
Presson, P. K., Clark, S. S., & Benassi, V. A. (1997). The Levenson Locus of Control Scales:
Confirmatory factor analyses and evaluation. Social Behavior and Personality, 25,
93-104.Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for re-
search in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurements, 1, 385-401.
Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, 21, 279-292.
Riley, D., & Eckenrode, J. (1986). Social ties: Subgroup differences in costs and benefits.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 770-778.
Rini, C. K., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Wadhwa, P. D., & Sandman, C. A. (1999). Psychological
adaptation and birth outcomes: The role of personal resources, stress, and
sociocultural context in pregnancy. Health Psychology, 18, 333-345.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of rein-
forcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, (Whole No. 609).
Sampson, E. E. (1988). The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the indi-
vidual and their role in personal and societal functioning. American Psychologist, 43,
15-22.
Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1990). Social support: The sense of acceptance
and the role of relationships. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.). So-
cial support: An interactional view (pp. 97-128). New York: Wiley.
Sarason, I., Sarason, B., Shearin, E., & Pierce, G. (1987). A brief measure of social support:
398 HOBFOLL ET AL.
Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4,

497-510.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and impli-
cations of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical
well-being—theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy Research,
16, 201-228.
Schröder, K. (1997). Self-regulation competence in coping with chronic disease. Münster, Ger-
many: Waxmann Verlag.
Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors:
Theoretical approaches and a new model. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy:
Thought control of action (pp. 217-243). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation.
Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy: Psychometric scales for cross-cul-
tural research. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, Instituit für Psychologie.
Schwarzer, R. (1994). Generalized self-efficacy: Assessment of a personal coping resource.
Diagnostica, 40, 105-123.
Schwarzer, R., Bäβler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of
optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions
of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46,
69-88.
Seguin, L., Potvin., L., St. Denis, M., & Loiselle, J. (1995). Chronic stressors, social support,
and depression during pregnancy, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 85, 583-589.
Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. New York:
Oxford.
Solomon, Z., Mikulincer, M., & Benbenishty, R., (1989). Locus of control and combat-re-
lated posttraumatic stress disorder: The intervening role of battle intensity, threat
appraisal, and coping. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 131-144.
Spielberger, C. D. (1988). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Research Edition.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Spielberger, C. D., Johnson, E. H., Russell, S. F., Crane, R. J., Jacobs, G. A., & Worden, T. J.
(1985). The experience and expression of anger: Construction and validation of an
anger expression scale. In M. A. Chesney & R. H. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostil-
ity in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders (pp. 5-30). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Tallis, F., Eysenck, M. W., & Mathews, A. (1992). A questionnaire for the measurement of
nonpathological worry. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 21-27.
Taylor, R. D., & Roberts, D. (1995). Kinship support and maternal adolescent well-being in
economically disadvantaged African American families. Child Development, 66,
1585-1597.
Thoits, P. (1994). Stressors and problem-solving: The individual as psychological activist.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 143-160.
Thomas, S. P. (1993). Women and anger. New York: Springer.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). Self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological
Review, 96, 269-289.
Wahler, H. J. (1983). Wahler Physical Symptoms Inventory manual. Los Angeles: Western Psy-
chological Services.
Waters, W. F., Rubman, S., & Hurry, M. J. (1993). The prediction of somatic complaints us-
ing the Autonomic Nervous System Response Inventory (ANSRI) and the Daily
Stress Inventory (DSI). Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 37, 117-126.
Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.
Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In U.
Kim, H. Triandis, Ç. Kâ(itçiba(i, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectiv-
ism: Theory, method and applications. Cross-cultural research and methodology series, vol.
18. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yau-Fai Ho, D., & Chiu, C.-Y. (1994). Component ideas of individualism, collectivism, and
social organization: An application in the study of Chinese culture. In U. Kim, H.
Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: The-
ory, method, and applications. Cross-cultural research and methodology series, vol. 18 (pp.
137-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
View publication stats

Hobfoll Communal 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hobfoll Communal 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hobfoll Communal 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Communal Versus Individualistic Construction of Sense of Mastery in Facing

Article in Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · October 2002

Stevan E Hobfoll Kerstin E E Schroder

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Co-Morbid Trauma and Pain Study (TAP Study) View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COMMUNAL VERSUS INDIVIDUALISTIC

The independent and autonomous self is more common and representa-

Schwarzer, Bäβler, Kwiatek, Schröder, & Zhang, 1997), mastery (Pearlin,

of the more collectivist subcultures of African Americans, Italian Ameri-

THE CURRENT SERIES OF STUDIES

ments and to develop a new measure of communal mastery. The first

trasts with stereotypical views of the communal self, which is envi-

TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Three Samples

Study 1 Study 2 Study 3

Study 1 Study 2 Study 3

assessed through subscales that assess support seeking (seven items,

four-point scale from “not at all,” “somewhat,” “moderately so,” and

port network, but not support satisfaction. Finally, self-mastery added

behavior, further suggesting that self-mastery is not related to aggres-

support, and depressive mood. In addition, measures of dispositional

after controlling for age and gender. As in Study 1, final-∆R2 is calculated

the distinction between an individualistic and communal orientation,

problems if I try hard enough”). Items are answered on a four-point scale

dicators. Also consistent with our expectations, communal mastery was

Social support is a resource in the face of stressful conditions, but it

considered to be a meaningful measure of emotional distress and func-

number of intimate supporters-3, stress made a borderline negative con-

American population that is steeped in the culture of individualism, as

cating that both the personality and person-in-context positions are

1. By joining with friends and family, I have a great deal of control

Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4,

View publication stats

You might also like