Irina A. Lysenkova

Background. The cognitive predictors of academic achievement are associated both with basic cognitive abilities such as the information processing speed, number sense and visuospatial working memory, as well as with general ability including nonverbal intelligence. However, the ratio between cognitive development and school achievement can depend on sociocultural conditions.

Objective. The results of a cross-cultural analysis of the relationship between cognitive development and academic achievement during primary education are presented. The analysis was conducted sampling schoolchildren from Russia and Kyrgyzstan, two countries that have a similar organization of the national education system but differ in the level of socioeconomic development.

Design. The study involved 732 schoolchildren aged 7.7 to 11.8 years studying in Russia and Kyrgyzstan. Information processing speed, visuospatial working memory, and number sense were assessed using each of “Choice Reaction Time,” “Corsi Block-Tapping Test,” and “Number Sense” computerized tests.

Results. According to the results, empirical data in both samples show that a model where in information processing speed signifies basic cognitive ability is a key predictor of nonverbal intelligence, working memory, and number sense, and each of these may contribute to individual differences in academic achievement. Notwithstanding the universality of this model, cross-cultural differences were seen to engender a reduction of schoolchildren’s academic achievements, given possible impacts of less favorable educational conditions.

Conclusion. In the relationship between cognitive abilities and academic success at the primary school education, there are both similarities and differences between schoolchildren studying in Russia and Kyrgyzstan.  

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has subjected people around the world to severe stress, evoking a variety of coping responses. Coping responses can be broadly classified into four strategies: 1) problem-focused coping; 2) emotion-focused coping; 3) socially supported coping; and 4) avoidance. While there is a wide variability of individual coping responses, to some extent they are also culturally specific.

Objective. This study aimed to compare the differences in the prevalence and factor structure of coping responses during COVID-19 pandemic in three countries: Russia, Kyrgyzstan, and Peru.

Design. The sample included 501 participants from Russia, 456 participants from Kyrgyzstan, and 354 participants from Peru. The mean age of participants was 28 years in Russia (SD = 13.5); 24 years in Kyrgyzstan (SD = 10.0); and 30 years in Peru (SD = 12.3). In Russia and Kyrgyzstan, coping strategies were assessed with an abbreviated Russian adaptation of the COPE (Coping Orientations to Problems Experienced) questionnaire. In Peru, coping responses were assessed using the Spanish version of the Brief COPE questionnaire. The average scores from fifteen COPE scales were used as the input data for linear modelling and factor analysis.

Results. The coping scores varied substantially within each country. Differences between countries accounted for 17.7% of the total variability in religious coping; 15.8% in acceptance; 13.9% in mental disengagement; and less than 7% in the other coping strategies. No difference in the prevalence of coping responses was found between Russian and Kyrgyz participants after accounting for age and gender. In all three countries the coping responses were associated with the same four coping domains: problem-focused coping, socially supported coping, avoidance, and emotion-focused coping. Four factors explained up to 44% of the total variation in the COPE scores. Religious coping and mental disengagement were classified into different coping domains in the three countries.

Conclusion. The results suggest that during the COVID-19 pandemic, people from different countries apply the full range of coping responses within the four universal coping strategies. Religious coping and mental disengagement differed the most across the countries, suggesting that some coping behaviors can take on different roles within the system of coping responses to stressful events. We attribute these differences to differing cultural and socioeconomic characteristics, and the different measures taken by governments in response to COVID-19.