The Effect of Primary and Secondary Control on Social Anxiety in Latino and Asian American College Students

Past research has established that appropriate, successful use of both primary and secondary control is associated with fewer symptoms of anxiety in Whites, but there has been less research on the nature of this relationship in Latinos and Asian Americans. This study investigated how Latinos and Asian Americans differ in their use of primary and secondary control as well as how these differences are related to symptoms of social anxiety. The sample consisted of 142 Latino and 446 Asian American undergraduate students, who completed an online survey (e.g., measures assessing demographics, control, anxiety). Consistent with hypotheses, results showed that Latinos engaged in primary control to a greater extent than Asian Americans did, but Asian Americans tended to use secondary control to a greater extent than Latinos. As expected, Asian Americans scored higher on measures of social anxiety than Latinos, which may potentially be related to the importance of “face” in Asian culture. Results did not support the hypothesis that this difference in levels of social anxiety could be explained by ethnic differences in primary or secondary control. In both ethnic groups, less social anxiety was associated with higher usage of primary control, rather than secondary control. Future research should investigate the importance of primary control in lessening social anxiety as well as the influence of face loss concerns as an alternative explanatory factor. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONTROL 3 The Effect of Primary and Secondary Control on Social Anxiety in Latino and Asian American College Students Primary and secondary control are both forms of engagement coping, or methods of directly managing a stressor. The former entails actively changing a stressful situation (e.g., active coping), whereas the latter is a method of handling the stress by adjusting to the situation, to lessen distress (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982). There has been much research done on the relationship between the successful use of primary and secondary control and symptoms of anxiety. Researchers have established that the usage of primary and secondary control is associated with fewer symptoms of anxiety in White students (Calvete, Camara, Estevez, & Villardón, 2011; Connor-Smith & Compas, 2002). These White Americans generally rely on primary control; Asians tend to value secondary control more than they do (Weisz, Rothbaum, & Blackburn, 1984). This distinction may be significant in explaining why Asian Americans consistently score higher on measures of social anxiety than other groups (Lee, Okazaki, & Yoo, 2006; Mak, Law, & Teng, 2011; Okazaki, 1997; Okazaki, Liu, Longworth, & Minn, 2002). However, there has been less focus on how primary and secondary control coping relate to symptoms of anxiety in individuals of different ethnic groups, which may be important in establishing the existence of differences in rates of social anxiety. As such, this study compared the relationship between primary and secondary control and social anxiety in Asian Americans and Latinos. In the literature, active coping is often referred to as an example of primary control (in which one alters the situation itself; Gloria, Castellanos, & Orozco, 2005), whereas secondary control involves a focus on adapting one’s mindset to be more equipped to handle a stressful situation (Rothbaum et al., 1982). For example, if one is faced with an unalterable situation, then PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONTROL 4 adjusting one’s expectations may aid in lessening future disappointment; this is predictive control, a form of secondary control (Rothbaum et al., 1982). An alternative method of coping is vicarious control, which refers to aligning oneself with more powerful parties—ones who appear to have more control—an action that may entail submission to others. Another type of secondary control is illusory control, emphasizing the role of luck and chance (e.g., negative events result from bad luck). Finally, interpretive control results from predictive, illusory, and vicarious control and involves trying to understand why uncontrollable events occur, ideally leading to acceptance of them. For example, understanding why the September 11 terrorist attacks occurred and reinterpreting one’s personal risk in a positive, realistic light has been associated with reduced distress (Thompson et al., 2006). Another term for primary control is problem-focused coping (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). Those who define problem-focused coping in this way use the term ‘emotionfocused coping’ to signify secondary control. However, some researchers use the term ‘problemfocused coping’ to encompass both primary and secondary control (Bardi & Guerra, 2011; Gloria, Castellanos, Scull, & Villegas, 2009), whereas emotion-focused coping should be grouped with avoidant coping (e.g., denial, venting of emotions, behavioral disengagement). Unsurprisingly, such researchers did not find cultural differences in problem-focused coping (Bardi & Guerra, 2011). Thus, for the purposes of the present research, the former operationalization (in which problem-focused coping does not include secondary control) is more appropriate. The distinction between primary and secondary control is important to understand because it has implications for one’s ability to cope with stressors. Zea, Jarama, and Bianchi (1995) discusses how Latino and Asian cultures are both collectivist, meaning that they PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONTROL 5 emphasize the needs of the group over those of the individual. Individualist cultures, in contrast, value independence and the needs of the individual over those of the ingroup, along with an emphasis on personal autonomy (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). The distinction between collectivist and individualist cultures is necessary because of the values associated with the former, such as personal interdependence, empathy, and a willingness to sacrifice personal needs for the benefit of the ingroup. As such, nurturing interpersonal relationships are valued, which is in stark contrast to the confrontational and superordinated relationships that are valued in individualist societies (Marín & Marín, 1991). Regardless of the collectivist nature of Latino and Asian cultures, they may differ in coping styles. The present study addressed the dearth of research comparing Latino and Asian Americans in this regard. The research literature is unclear about the extent to which participants of Asian or Latino heritage use primary control in comparison to secondary control. Research on ethnic differences in coping strategies may illuminate ethnic differences in anxiety as well. It has implications for one’s ability to cope with stressors, which is intrinsically connected to anxiety. Using both primary and secondary control is beneficial in reducing anxiety in general (Calvete et al., 2011). In fact, Heckhausen and Schulz (1995) theorize that primary control is universally necessary. As mentioned previously, White Americans tend to use primary control, with some contextual exceptions (Morling, Kitayama, & Miyamoto, 2003). Asian populations similarly engage in primary control. For example, Zea and colleagues (1995) found that Asian American students used active coping when adapting to college, and it was more effective than adjusting one’s beliefs (i.e., secondary control). Furthermore, there is much research explicating how Latinos use primary control to cope with stressors (Edwards & Romero, 2008; Vázquez & García-Vázquez, 1995). Thus, this style of coping can be more adaptive, in certain cases. The PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONTROL 6 effectiveness of primary and secondary control strategies is dependent on the context of the situation and one’s cultural background (Deardorff, Gonzales, & Sandler, 2003). Thompson et al. (2006) demonstrated how context could be highly influential in the perceived effectiveness of primary control; actively working to reduce one’s risk of becoming a victim of a terrorist attack in the future was not particularly beneficial in lessening anxiety. Thus, although primary control generally reduces anxiety, it can be associated with more distress as well, especially when circumstances are uncontrollable. As mentioned previously, Asian Americans tend to value secondary control rather highly, using it more frequently than Whites (Azuma, 1984; Lam & Zane, 2004; Morling et al., 2003; Weisz, et al., 1984). This may point to the importance of yielding to others, whether to save face (the need to avoid shame and embarrassment in front of others), to display one's self-control, or to show empathy (Azuma, 1984). Additionally, the pressure to respect one’s elders or to maintain group (or interpersonal) harmony may also apply in that actively modifying a situation could negatively affect others in some way (Lam & Zane, 2004; Spector, Sanchez, Siu, Salgado, & Ma, 2004). All of these culturally influenced motivations may explain why one would be inclined to defer to others, rather than actively attempting to change one’s circumstances. Despite the collectivist nature of Latino culture, this ethnic group appears to be more similar to White Americans than Asian Americans in terms of coping strategies (Edwards & Romero, 2008; Vázquez & García-Vázquez, 1995). Zea et al. (1995) suggested that the culture of Latinos differs from that of Asians in that the former places a greater emphasis on the individual. For instance, there are several studies documenting Latinos’ tendency to rely on active coping (Gloria et al., 2005; Zea et al., 1995). Research has also revealed that active coping is associated with greater physical health in a Latino population (Vaughn & Roesch, 2003). Researchers have PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONTROL 7 found that Latinos used primary control to mitigate the effects of acculturative (referring to the stress experienced by an individual during the process of adapting the behaviors and values of another cult