We investigated similarities and differences in clinical supervision in two cultures: South Korea and the United States The study had two parts: (1) a test of the cross-cultural equivalence of four supervision measures; and (2) a test of two competing models of cultural differences in the relations among supervisory style, role difficulties, supervisory working alliance, and satisfaction with supervision. Participants were 191 South Korean and 187 U.S. supervisees currently engaged in clinical supervision. The U.S. measures demonstrated sufficient measurement equivalence for use in South Korea. Cultural differences moderated the relations among supervisory styles, role difficulties, supervisory working alliance, and supervision satisfaction. Specifically, the relations among these variables were significantly stronger for U.S. than for South Korean supervisees. Implications for theory, research, and practice were discussed.

To provide cross-cultural empirical data for the advancement of supervisor competencies, we investigated differences in clinical supervision between South Korean and the United States from the supervisees’ perspective. Specifically, the comparative descriptive study had 191 South Korean and 187 U.S. supervisee participants receiving clinical supervision. Pursuing a hypothesis testing approach, comparative descriptive data across several variables suggested that there were more similarities than differences between supervision practices between the two cultures. Implications for theory, research, and practice were discussed.

To protect themselves from COVID-19, people follow the recommendations of the authorities, but they also resort to placebos. To stop the virus, it is important to understand the factors underlying both types of preventive behaviour. This study examined whether our model (developed based on the Health Belief Model and the Transactional Model of Stress) can explain participation in WHO-recommended and placebo actions during the pandemic. Model was tested on a sample of 3346 participants from Italy, Japan, Poland, Korea, Sweden, and the US. It was broadly supported: objective risk and cues to action showed both direct and indirect (through perceived threat) associations with preventive behaviours. Moreover, locus of control, decision balance, health anxiety and preventive coping moderated these relationships. Numerous differences were also found between countries. We conclude that beliefs about control over health and perceived benefits of actions are critical to the development of interventions to improve adherence to recommendations.

No abstract

No abstract