BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Poster #95 - Familism Endorsement, Parental Relationship, and Individual Well-Being among Emerging Adults in Taiwan

Fri, March 22, 12:45 to 2:00pm, Baltimore Convention Center, Floor: Level 1, Exhibit Hall B

Integrative Statement

Familism, the reliance on kin for emotional and instrumental support, loyalty, and solidarity, has drawn increased attention in recent years (Unger et al., 2006). But does endorsing familism have a direct impact—whether positive or negative—on individual well-being, or an indirect impact through affection for parents and conformity to parents’ expectations? Bengtson’s (2001) theoretical model on intergenerational solidarity proposes that children’s greater endorsement of normative solidarity (e.g., familism) predicts greater affectual solidarity (i.e., affection for parents). Research suggests that affection for parents promotes individual well-being (e.g., reduced loneliness [Lee et al., 2016] and depression [Johnson et al., 2006]). But other research reveals that individuals endorsing familism often adhere to parental expectations regarding lifestyle, school, and career (Ghazarian et al., 2008). The Dual Filial Piety model (Yeh & Bedford, 2003) posits that authoritarian filial piety (i.e., conformity to parents’ expectations) may harm individual well-being (e.g., increased depression [Yeh, 2009] and loneliness [Mehrabian & Stefl, 1995]).
Using a large sample of emerging adults in Taiwan, this study examined the link between familism endorsement and individual well-being directly, and indirectly through affection for parents and conformity to parents’ expectations. Multifaceted well-being, including relational, mental, and physical health (Barr et al., 2013), was the criterion. Gender moderation also was explored. (See Figure 1.)
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 625 undergraduate students from several universities in four major cities in Taiwan (age M = 19.7 years; 75.2% female; 38.7% freshmen, 23.9% sophomores, 24.6% juniors, and 12.8% seniors). Participants completed measures of familism (The Attitudinal Familism Scale; Lugo Steidel, & Contreras, 2003), affection for mothers and fathers (Roberts & Bengtson, 1993), conformity to mothers’ and fathers’ expectations (Parent Behavior Measure; Peterson et al., 2004), loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale-short form; UCLA-8; Hays & DiMatteo, 1987), depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale; CES-D; Radloff, 1977), and self-rated physical health (one question). Reliabilities (alpha) ranged .77- .91.
Results and Discussion
Figure 2 presents results of the multiple-mediator models (conducted using PROCESS; Hayes, 2013) on the three dimensions of individual well-being, suggesting that the relationship between familism endorsement and individual well-being was not direct. Endorsing familism promoted affection for parents, which in turn predicted less loneliness and depression, and better physical health. Increased familism endorsement fostered conformity to parents’ expectations, which in turn predicted more loneliness and depressive symptoms, and worse physical health. These results extend intergenerational solidarity theory (Bengtson, 2001) and support dual filial piety (Yeh & Bedford, 2003) by explicating the indirect link between familism (normative solidarity) and individual well-being through two related, but distinct factors.
Gender moderated the direct association of familism with depressive symptoms (B = .40, SE = .11, t = 3.56, p < .001, 95% CI [.18, .62]), in that the negative relationship was found only for men. Gender also moderated the indirect relationship between familism and depressive symptoms through conformity to fathers’ expectations (B = -.21, SE = .11, t = -1.88, p = .06, 95% CI [-.43, .01]); for men (but not women), conformity to fathers’ expectations predicted depressive symptoms.

Authors