Psych
Reeb79
FamilismThroughDevelopmentalLens.pdf
Familism Through a Developmental Lens
Gabriela L. Stein, Alexandra M. Cupito, Julia L. Mendez, Juan Prandoni, Nadia Huq, and Diana Westerberg
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
This article reviews an emerging literature examining the effects of familism across childhood and adolescence. Familism has been described as a Latino cultural value that emphasizes obligation, filial piety, family support and obedience, and its effects have been documented as primarily protective across childhood and adolescence. This review seeks to organize and critique existing research using a developmental science framework. Key tenets of this perspective that are highlighted in the review are close consideration of how familism develops within an individual across time, manifests itself at different points in development, and impacts child, adolescent, and family functioning. Forty-four articles were examined and categorized with results showing that the protective influence of familism is most evident during the period of adoles- cence. Consideration of expressions of familism and the impact of familism on outcomes during earlier and later periods of development is offered as a recommen- dation for deriving a more complete understanding of the function of familism in Latino families.
Keywords: familism, developmental science
Research conducted over the past 40 years finds that familial cultural values, primarily termed familism, function as one of the core cultural values guiding Latino families in the United States (e.g., Knight et al., 2010). While the roles of family and familism have been firmly established as impacting the lives of La- tinos (Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, VanOss Marín, & Perez-Stable, 1987), familism was primarily conceptualized and researched within adult populations. More recently, the construct has been extended downward and applied to research with younger populations as research- ers examine the role familism plays in predict- ing psychosocial and educational outcomes in Latino youth. However, despite this increased research activity, the majority of the current literature has overlooked the potentially dy-
namic nature of familism and has not consid- ered the construct from a developmental science perspective (see Calzada, Tamis-LeMonda, & Yoshikowa, 2013 for an exception).
To fill this critical gap in the literature, this article will apply a developmental science framework to the study of familism, with a focus on how familism develops, how it is per- petuated across development stages, and how it relates to outcomes within these stages. We begin by briefly summarizing the existing defi- nitions of familism, describing tenets of devel- opmental science, and proposing an organiza- tional framework for the study of familism. To better illustrate the relation between develop- mental principles and the emergence of familism, we review articles within develop- mental stage, and critique the findings accord- ing to an understanding of stage-salient issues differentially impacting children and adoles- cents.
Historical and Definitional Issues
Introduced in 1945 by Burgess and Locke (Burgess & Locke, 1945), the construct of familism was defined as a value that character- ized the social structure of traditional modern peasant-based societies as opposed to the indi-
Gabriela L. Stein, Alexandra M. Cupito, Julia L. Mendez, Juan Prandoni, Nadia Huq, and Diana Westerberg, Depart- ment of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Gabriela L. Stein, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 296 Eberhart Building, P.O. Box 26170, Greensboro, NC 27402-6170. E-mail: [email protected]
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
Journal of Latina/o Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 2, No. 4, 224 –250 2168-1678/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lat0000025
224
vidualism that was characteristic of modern ur- ban societies, and at this point, the value was not specific to Latinos. Although familism was discussed as an important value specific to La- tinos in the 1970s, it was not until the late 1980s that the first widely used familism scale was developed for Latinos (Sabogal et al., 1987). Familism was conceptualized as being com- prised of three factors: familial obligations (ob- ligation to provide material and emotional sup- port), perceived support from the family (the extent to which family members are reliable sources of support), and family as referents (the use of relatives as behavioral and attitudinal referents). In their revision of the familism con- struct, Lugo Steidel and Contreras (2003) ar- gued that past conceptualizations had failed to capture key aspects of familism (e.g., protecting the family name, family reciprocity and inter- connectedness, and the subjugation of self for the family), and incorporated these aspects in their new measure.
Although all of these conceptualizations were rooted in the experience of adult Latinos, new research has examined the definition of familism in younger populations, thereby estab- lishing its role in earlier in development. Fuligni and colleagues (1999, Fuligni & Pedersen, 2002) examined the salience of filial obligations in Latino youth, taking account the develop- mental tasks of adolescence. Similarly, in focus groups with Mexican American adolescents and their families, participants discussed three dis- tinct aspects of familism: the importance of close family relationships, obligations to the family, and the family serving as a referent (Knight et al., 2010). In a study with Dominican and Mexican origin mothers, Calzada and col- leagues (2013) reported that parents discussed the four factors of attitudinal familism sug- gested by Lugo Steidel and Contreras (2003). In summary, familism appears to be salient to younger populations and comprised of the same factors, but research has yet to consider how familism develops within the individual and how its development predicts psychosocial functioning.
Developmental Science
Developmental science offers a valuable per- spective to the study of familism and we pro- pose that using this perspective will further our
understanding of how familism develops over- time and also how it impacts developmental processes and outcomes. Masten (2006) out- lined six principles that can be applied to the study of familism. They included the impor- tance of a developmental perspective when ex- amining psychopathology, normative develop- ment within a historical and cultural context, existence of individuals within complex sys- tems, individual functioning dependent upon in- tegrated, multilevel systems from genetics to behavior to surrounding systems, individuals who are active agents in their own development, normal and abnormal outcomes or behaviors that are mutually informative and reveal how different trajectories arise in development, and finally, longitudinal research best illustrates the interplay among aspects of development and context over time. In our conceptual analysis, we seek to show how individual trajectories could be impacted by the cultural familial value of familism at different developmental stages. Moreover, we argue that examining familism without an appreciation of the context in which it occurs may result in flawed conclusions about the contributions that familism makes to even- tual adaptive or maladaptive outcomes for La- tino youth. Finally, this review highlights the clear need for specific longitudinal work that can capture how familism functions differently for youth, depending upon their earlier devel- opment, current level of risk and/or protection, as well as differentially across key contexts.
Integrating across the past literature on familism and the developmental science per- spective, we propose an organizational frame- work to guide future research and our current review (see Table 1). We posit that obligations, respect, support or cohesion, and family as ref- erent are four central components of familism that could be studied across each major stage of development. Further, we argue that the accu- rate study of this construct requires a consider- ation of both parental and child perspectives. Although some work distinguishes respeto from familism, we place respect along with obedi- ence in our framework for two reasons. We argue that respeto is a developmentally appro- priate component of familism evident in early childhood. The parenting practices designed to instill respeto serve as a foundation to the value of familism, primarily because respeto provides children with a role within the family and an
225FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 1
P ro
p o se
d O
rg a n iz
a ti
o n a l
F ra
m ew
o rk
fo r
th e
Im p a ct
o f
F a m
il is
m o n
C h il
d re
n a n d
P a re
n ts
T h ro
u g h o u t
D ev
el o p m
en t
E ar
ly ch
il dh
oo d
(2 –6
) M
id dl
e ch
il dh
oo d
(7 –1
1) A
do le
sc en
ce (1
2– 18
)
C hi
ld P
ar en
t C
hi ld
P ar
en t
C hi
ld P
ar en
t
F am
il is
m P
ri m
ar il
y be
ha vi
or al
m an
if es
ta ti
on s
P ar
en t
la ys
fo un
da ti
on fo
r cu
lt ur
al va
lu es
an d
ex pe
ct at
io ns
; pr
im ar
il y
fo cu
se d
on re
sp et
o an
d be
ha vi
or al
co m
pl ia
nc e
C hi
ld st
ar ts
in te
rn al
iz in
g va
lu es
th at
un de
rg ir
d be
ha vi
or s
P ar
en ts
co nt
in ue
em ph
as iz
e ob
ed ie
nc e,
co m
pl ia
nc e,
re sp
ec t;
st ar
t in
cr ea
si ng
ob li
ga ti
on s
de m
an ds
V al
ue s
in te
rn al
iz ed
an d
im pa
ct be
ha vi
or s
P ar
en t
ex pe
ct s
in te
rn al
iz at
io n
of va
lu es
an d
co ng
ru en
t be
ha vi
or
O bl
ig at
io ns
A tt
it ud
in al
E m
er gi
ng O
bl ig
at io
ns to
ot he
r fa
m il
y; ne
ed to
he lp
ot he
rs
D ev
el op
s un
de rs
ta nd
in g
of th
in gs
sh ou
ld be
do in
g in
th e
ho m
e
C on
ti nu
at io
n of
de m
an ds
in ea
rl y
ch il
dh oo
d; gr
ea te
r ex
pe ct
at io
ns of
ob li
ga ti
on s
fo r
ch il
dr en
In te
rn al
iz ed
va lu
e of
ob li
ga ti
on s;
so ph
is ti
ca te
d O
bl ig
at io
ns an
d ex
pe ct
at io
ns th
e gr
ea te
st
B eh
av io
ra l
C om
pl y
w it
h pa
re nt
al re
qu es
ts fo
r as
si st
an ce
(e .g
., se
t th
e ta
bl e)
A dd
it io
na l
ad ul
ts in
ho m
e; ti
m e
sp en
t w
it h
ot he
r fa
m il
y m
em be
rs ;
so ci
al iz
in g
ob li
ga ti
on s
th ro
ug h
m od
el in
g
T im
e sp
en t
do in
g ch
or es
, he
lp in
g fa
m il
y m
em be
rs ,
in te
rp re
ti ng
C on
ti nu
at io
n of
de m
an ds
in ea
rl y
ch il
dh oo
d; re
qu es
ts of
ch il
d’ s
ob li
ga ti
on an
d so
ci al
iz at
io n
ob li
ga ti
on s
ve rb
al ly
In cr
ea se
d ob
li ga
ti on
s in
th e
ho m
e du
e to
ag e
(c ar
et ak
in g,
co ok
in g,
an d
cl ea
ni ng
)
O bl
ig at
io ns
co m
m un
ic at
ed to
ch il
d
R es
pe ct
A tt
it ud
in al
E m
er gi
ng un
de rs
ta nd
in g
of be
ha vi
or al
ex pe
ct at
io ns
in th
e ho
m e
G ui
de ex
pe ct
at io
ns fo
r ch
il dr
en ’s
be ha
vi or
in ho
m e
In te
rn al
iz ed
va lu
es of
ob ed
ie nc
e or
re sp
ec t
E xp
ec t
ch il
dr en
to be
bi en
ed uc
ad os
an d
ha ve
in te
rn al
iz ed
re sp
et o
In te
rn al
iz ed
va lu
es of
ob ed
ie nc
e E
xp ec
t ch
il dr
en to
de m
on st
ra te
re sp
ec t,
no t
di sa
gr ee
or ar
gu e
B eh
av io
ra l
P ri
m ar
y fo
rm fa
m il
is m
m ay
be ex
pr es
se d;
ob ed
ie nt
, qu
ie t,
re sp
ec tf
ul to
ad ul
ts
P ar
en t
so ci
al iz
at io
n m
es sa
ge s
di re
ct an
d in
di re
ct ;
m od
el re
sp et
o to
el de
rs
C on
ti nu
es to
de m
on st
ra te
re sp
et o;
be ha
vi or
al co
m pl
ia nc
e ex
te nd
ed to
ot he
r co
nt ex
ts ;
fe w
er ex
te rn
al iz
in g
pr ob
le m
s
C on
ti nu
at io
n of
ea rl
y ch
il dh
oo d
m es
sa ge
s C
om pl
ia nc
e w
it h
pa re
nt al
ru le
s, lo
w le
ve ls
of ex
te rn
al iz
in g
be ha
vi or
s, le
ss op
en di
sa gr
ee m
en t
w it
h pa
re nt
s, lo
w le
ve ls
of co
nfl ic
t w
it h
pa re
nt s
if co
m pl
y bu
t hi
gh le
ve ls
if no
t ex
hi bi
te d
C on
ti nu
e to
pr ov
id e
so ci
al iz
at io
n on
re sp
et o
or ob
ed ie
nc e;
lo w
co nfl
ic t
if ch
il d
co nf
or m
s bu
t hi
gh co
nfl ic
t if
pa re
nt al
ex pe
ct at
io ns
fo r
re sp
ec t
no t
be in
g m
et S
up po
rt or
co he
si on
A tt
it ud
in al
E m
er gi
ng F
ee l
su pp
or t
by ot
he rs
as pa
re nt
; ne
ed to
pr ov
id e
su pp
or t
to ot
he rs
; ne
ed to
be a
go od
pa re
nt
D ev
el op
s an
un de
rs ta
nd in
g of
ne ed
in g
to pr
ov id
e su
pp or
t fo
r ot
he rs
C on
ti nu
at io
n of
ea rl
y ch
il dh
oo d
be li
ef s
In te
rn al
iz ed
va lu
es of
pr ov
is io
n of
su pp
or t
P ro
vi de
su pp
or t
to ch
il d
as tr
an si
ti on
to ad
ul th
oo d
226 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 1
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
E ar
ly ch
il dh
oo d
(2 –6
) M
id dl
e ch
il dh
oo d
(7 –1
1) A
do le
sc en
ce (1
2– 18
)
C hi
ld P
ar en
t C
hi ld
P ar
en t
C hi
ld P
ar en
t
B eh
av io
ra l
D ev
el op
m en
t of
at ta
ch m
en t;
de ve
lo pm
en t
of si
bl in
g or
fa m
il y
cl os
en es
s (e
.g .,
ti m
e sp
en t
w it
h si
bl in
gs )
S up
po rt
in g
at ta
ch m
en t;
se ns
it iv
e pa
re nt
in g;
pr ov
id ed
w it
h so
ci al
su pp
or t;
m od
el so
ci al
su pp
or t
or w
ar m
th
R el
at io
ns hi
p m
ea su
re s
of pa
re nt
-c hi
ld re
la ti
on sh
ip ;
de ve
lo ps
w ar
m ,
ca ri
ng re
la ti
on sh
ip w
it h
pa re
nt
C on
ti nu
es to
bu il
d a
st ro
ng em
ot io
na l
re la
ti on
sh ip
w it
h ch
il d;
pr ov
id es
su pp
or t
to ot
he rs
; so
ci al
iz at
io n
m es
sa ge
s of
un it
ed ,
st ro
ng fa
m il
y
W ar
m re
la ti
on sh
ip w
it h
pa re
nt s,
si bl
in gs
, fa
m il
y; hi
gh le
ve ls
of fa
m il
y co
he si
on ;
sa ti
sf ac
ti on
w it
h pa
re nt
s
C on
ti nu
e to
sh ow
po si
ti ve
re la
ti on
sh ip
ch ar
ac te
ri st
ic s:
w ar
m th
, su
pp or
t ca
ri ng
F am
il y
as re
fe re
nt A
tt it
ud in
al E
m er
gi ng
V ie
w in
g fa
m il
y as
ex pe
rt s
in pa
re nt
in g;
vi ew
s ch
il d
co m
po rt
m en
t as
re fl
ec ti
on of
pa re
nt in
g se
lf
D ev
el op
s an
un de
rs ta
nd in
g th
at pa
re nt
s ar
e ul
ti m
at e
au th
or it
y; be
ha vi
or at
sc ho
ol re
fl ec
ts on
fa m
il y
C on
ti nu
at io
n of
ea rl
y ch
il dh
oo d
be li
ef s
In te
rn al
iz ed
va lu
es ;
vi ew
pa re
nt s
as le
gi ti
m at
e au
th or
it y
B el
ie ve
ul ti
m at
e au
th or
it y,
ex pe
ct po
si ti
ve be
ha vi
or as
re fl
ec ti
on of
fa m
il y
B eh
av io
ra l
B eh
av e
in se
tt in
gs to
re fl
ec t
w el
l on
th e
fa m
il y
T ak
in g
ad vi
ce fr
om fa
m il
y ab
ou t
pa re
nt in
g de
ci si
on s;
gi ve
s m
es sa
ge s
th at
be ha
vi or
re fl
ec ts
fa m
il y
C om
m un
ic at
io n
w it
h pa
re nt
s; se
ek in
g ad
vi ce
; be
ha vi
or al
co m
pl ia
nc e
or ac
ad em
ic su
cc es
s as
re fl
ec ti
on of
fa m
il y
P ro
vi de
ch il
d w
it h
di re
ct m
es sa
ge s
re ga
rd in
g be
ha vi
or re
fl ec
ti ng
fa m
il y
an d
pa re
nt al
au th
or it
y
L es
s op
en di
sa gr
ee m
en t
w it
h pa
re nt
s, pe
rf or
m w
el l
in sc
ho ol
, le
ss in
vo lv
em en
t in
ne ga
ti ve
be ha
vi or
s
C on
ti nu
ed m
es sa
ge s
pr ov
id ed
to ch
il dr
en ;
co nfl
ic t
if pa
re nt
al ex
pe ct
at io
ns fo
r be
ha vi
or no
t m
et P
ri m
ar y
st ag
e- sa
li en
t is
su es
th at
m ay
re la
te to
fa m
il is
m
A tt
ac hm
en t
D ev
el op
m en
t of
pe er
re la
tio ns
In di
vi du
at io
n an
d id
en ti
ty S
el f-
re gu
la ti
on T
ra ns
it io
n to
sc ho
ol D
at in
g an
d re
la ti
on sh
ip s
In di
vi du
at io
n fr
om ca
re gi
ve r
A ca
de m
ic sk
il ls
P re
pa ra
ti on
fo r
hi gh
er ed
uc at
io n
B ur
ge on
in g
in de
pe nd
en ce
V al
ue s
in te
rn al
iz at
io n
P ot
en ti
al ri
sk P
eo pl
e in
ho m
e ov
er cr
ow di
ng ;
S el
ec ti
on of
da yc
ar e
C ar
in g
fo r
ot he
r fa
m il
y m
em be
rs (fi
na nc
ia ll
y, em
ot io
na ll
y) st
ra in
of ca
re ta
ki ng
O be
di en
t, re
sp ec
tf ul
be ha
vi or
le ad
s to
le ss
as se
rt iv
en es
s in
se tt
in gs
; re
ce iv
e U
ni te
d S
ta te
s m
ai ns
tr ea
m m
es sa
ge s
po te
nt ia
l co
nfl ic
t w
it h
pa re
nt s
C ar
in g
fo r
ot he
r fa
m il
y m
em be
rs (fi
na nc
ia ll
y, em
ot io
na ll
y) ;
st ra
in of
ca re
ta ki
ng ;
m es
sa ge
s di
ff er
en t
fr om
U ni
te d
S ta
te s
m ai
ns tr
ea m
cu lt
ur e
In te
rn al
iz in
g pa
th ol
og y;
hi gh
le ve
ls of
gu il
t or
sh am
e; ex
tr em
e le
ve ls
of ob
li ga
ti on
s; cu
lt ur
al va
lu es
ga p
C ar
in g
fo r
ot he
r fa
m il
y m
em be
rs (fi
na nc
ia ll
y, em
ot io
na ll
y) ;
st ra
in of
ca re
ta ki
ng ;
m es
sa ge
s di
ff er
en t
fr om
U ni
te d
S ta
te s
m ai
ns tr
ea m
cu lt
ur e;
cu lt
ur al
va lu
es ga
p P
ot en
ti al
pr ot
ec ti
on F
ou nd
at io
n of
pr os
oc ia
l be
ha vi
or ;
co m
pl ia
nc e;
fo un
da ti
on of
po si
ti ve
pa re
nt –c
hi ld
re la
ti on
sh ip
s se
cu re
at ta
ch m
en t
le ad
s to
em ot
io n
re gu
la ti
on
S oc
ia l
su pp
or t
pr ov
id ed
to pa
re nt
s; fi
na nc
ia l
su pp
or t
pr ov
id ed
to pa
re nt
s
O be
di en
t an
d pr
os oc
ia l
sk il
ls fa
ci li
ta te
in te
ra ct
io ns
ou ts
id e
th e
ho m
e (e
.g .,
w it
h pe
er s
an d
te ac
he rs
)
S up
po rt
pr ov
id ed
by ot
he rs
; ch
il d
ex hi
bi ts
co m
pl ia
nc e
an d
re sp
et o
an d
in te
rn al
iz es
va lu
es
S en
se of
pu rp
os e,
po si
ti ve
et hn
ic id
en ti
ty ,
m ot
iv at
e sc
ho ol
en ga
ge m
en t;
an d
ac ad
em ic
pe rf
or m
an ce
H ig
h le
ve ls
of m
on it
or in
g, w
ar m
re la
ti on
sh ip
s w
it h
ch il
d, co
ng ru
en t
va lu
es at
ne ig
hb or
ho od
or sc
ho ol
227FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
expected behavior to which to conform, that also serves to promote family cohesion during the early childhood years (Calzada, Fernandez, & Cortes, 2010). Second, adolescent familism research suggests that there may be a theoretical overlap among the constructs as obedience, def- erence and respect for adults, and family as referent are included in their definitions (e.g., Fuligni et al., 1999; Lugo Steidel & Contreras, 2003). In adolescent studies examining familism and respeto separately, there are high correlations between the constructs further sug- gesting conceptual overlap (e.g., Esparza & Sanchez, 2008; Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2012). By placing respeto and familism within a de- velopmental organizational framework, this re- view applies a developmental science model to guide longitudinal studies that are necessary to characterize how the emergence of these aspects of familism relates to one across development, and to important stage salient outcomes. How- ever, we acknowledge that the relationship of respeto and familism across time needs to be studied longitudinally to ascertain whether they indeed operate as one construct across develop- ment.
Our framework also organizes existing re- search by a closer consideration of attitudinal and behavioral aspects of familism as they emerge in development (e.g., Sabogal et al., 1987; Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994). Attitu- dinal familism refers to the actual beliefs and values, whereas behavioral familism refers to the behavioral expression of those beliefs. This distinction is particularly useful as many have used behavioral and attitudinal measures inter- changeably leading to confusion in the litera- ture. We argue that it is important consider the interplay of behavioral and attitudinal familism throughout development. It is possible that be- havioral manifestations of familism would be more predictive of functioning in a preschooler but that attitudinal familism becomes more rel- evant in adolescence as children become more cognitively advanced and develop greater awareness of the values that undergird their behavior. The behavioral expression of familism likely results from attitudinal beliefs interacting with contextual factors (Calzada et al., 2013), and these need to be considered carefully. Within each stage, we consider whether research has examined the impact of familism on important stage salient issues as
well the contextual factors that may influence its effects as outlined below.
Method
We identified qualitative and quantitative ar- ticles by using Google Scholar and PsycInfo databases for all years up to 2013. We used the following search terms: familism, familial cul- tural values, familismo, family, family values, affiliative obedience, respeto, filial obligation, and family obligation, and located 55 articles within our age range. Given that our focus was on the development of familism, we selected 44 articles that fell into early childhood (birth to 7), middle childhood (8 –12), and adolescence (12– 18) and measured an aspect of familism with a Latino sample (the majority of studies had 100% Latino participants; only four studies had multiethnic samples and examined Latino par- ticipants in separate analyses or was a signifi- cant portion of the participants). Table 2 pres- ents the salient demographic information, age of child population, familism measure, reporter, and main findings. The majority of studies were conducted in adolescence (73%) and involved attitudinal measures of familism (84%).
Studies examining familism have been con- ducted with Latinos from different countries of origin demonstrating that this value cuts across subethnicity. However, much of this work has been conducted with Mexican origin samples as seen in Table 2 (43% of samples Mexican American). Although not a focus of this review, future work should examine whether these val- ues operate differently across Latino subethnici- ties.
Results
Early Childhood (Birth to 7)
Literature review. The majority of re- search on familism at this stage focuses on understanding the parenting practices and goals of Latino parents, and only two articles were located examining familism in particular, and thus, we include articles examining respeto. This reflects our conceptualization of the role of respeto, as we argue that it is an early manifes- tation of familism and that parenting aimed at instilling respeto lays the foundation for the internalization of familism later in develop-
228 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
R ev
ie w
A rt
ic le
s
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
E ar
ly ch
il dh
oo d
C al
za da
, F
er na
nd ez
, an
d C
or te
s (2
01 0)
Im m
ig ra
nt M
ex ic
an ,
Im m
ig ra
nt D
om in
ic an
an d
U .S
.- bo
rn D
om in
ic an
m ot
he rs
of pr
es ch
oo le
rs (a
ge s
3– 6)
C h il
d g en
er a ti
o n
st a tu
s n o t
p ro
vi d ed
.
48 Im
m ig
. M
ex �
31 .4
7 ye
ar s
(5 .6
6) Im
m ig
. D
om .
� 35
.2 6
ye ar
s (9
.4 7)
U .S
.- bo
rn D
om .
� 28
.7 1
(4 .8
2)
M ot
he r
F oc
us gr
ou ps
w it
h op
en en
de d
qu es
ti on
s ab
ou t
cu lt
ur al
va lu
es .
A cr
os s
gr ou
ps ,
a fo
cu s
on fa
m il
y de
sc ri
be d
as bo
th su
pp or
t an
d cl
os en
es s
to fa
m il
y m
em be
rs (“
ex te
nd ed
fa m
il y
se rv
in g
a pr
im ar
y ro
le in
pr ov
id in
g so
ci al
an d
em ot
io na
l su
pp or
t” )
an d
in pr
ox im
it y
(“ B
ey on
d fa
m il
y as
a su
pp or
t sy
st em
, m
ot he
rs ta
lk ed
ab ou
t fa
m il
y li
vi ng
an d
sp en
di ng
ti m
e to
ge th
er ”)
.
C al
za da
, T
am is
-L eM
on da
, an
d Y
os hi
ka w
a (2
01 3)
11 M
ex ic
an an
d 12
D om
in ic
an fa
m il
ie s
C h il
d g en
er a ti
o n
st a tu
s n o t
p ro
vi d ed
.
23 dy
ad s
C hi
ld ag
e ra
ng ed
fr om
3– 36
m on
th s
or 10
– 12
ye ar
s
O bs
er va
ti on
by fi
el dw
or ke
r C
ar eg
iv er
B eh
av io
ra l
R es
ul ts
al so
sh ow
ed th
at fr
eq ue
nt an
d re
gu la
r in
te rp
er so
na l
co nt
ac t,
in cl
ud in
g li
vi ng
w it
h ex
te nd
ed ki
n, is
no rm
at iv
e in
L at
in o
fa m
il ie
s. R
es ul
ts id
en ti
fi ed
fi ve
ar ea
s in
w hi
ch be
ha vi
or al
fa m
il is
m o
m an
if es
ts ,
in cl
ud in
g fi
na nc
ia l
su pp
or t,
sh ar
ed da
il y
ac ti
vi ti
es ,
sh ar
ed li
vi ng
, sh
ar ed
ch il
dr ea
ri ng
, an
d im
m ig
ra ti
on .
G am
bl e
an d
M od
re y-
M an
de ll
(2 00
8) F
am il
ie s
of M
ex ic
an de
sc en
t (8
6% of
m ot
he rs
w er
e fi
rs t
ge ne
ra ti
on M
ex ic
an A
m er
ic an
)
55 dy
ad s
M ag
e �
57 .5
m on
th s
(S D
� 4.
94 )
Y ou
ng er
si bl
in g
� 36
m on
th s
(1 3.
09 )
O ld
er si
bl in
g �
72 m
on th
s (3
8. 04
)
M ot
he r
12 -i
te m
su bs
ca le
fr om
th e
fa m
il y
re la
ti on
sh ip
s va
lu es
Q -s
or t
m ea
su re
of cu
lt ur
al co
ns tr
uc ts
am on
g M
ex ic
an -A
m er
ic an
s (W
oz ni
ak ,
S un
g, C
ru m
p, E
dg ar
-S m
it h,
& L
it zi
ng er
, 19
96 ).
It em
s w
er e
co nv
er te
d to
a L
ik er
t sc
al e.
(a tt
it ud
in al
)
F am
il is
m w
as fo
un d
to ac
t as
a m
od er
at or
, w
he re
w ar
m th
an d
cl os
en es
s in
fa m
il y
re la
ti on
sh ip
s co
up le
d w
it h
th e
en do
rs em
en t
of fa
m il
is m
w as
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
m or
e op
ti m
al fu
nc ti
on in
g in
pr es
ch oo
l cl
as sr
oo m
s (e
m ot
io na
l ad
ju st
m en
t, pe
er ac
ce pt
an ce
, lo
w er
in te
rn al
iz in
g pr
ob le
m s)
.
(t a b le
co n ti
n u es
)
229FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
V al
dé s
(1 99
6) M
ex ic
an A
m er
ic an
pa re
nt s
10 N
ot re
po rt
ed M
ot he
r Q
ua li
ta ti
ve da
ta ab
ou t
ho w
pa re
nt s
us e
st ra
te gi
es to
te ac
h ch
il dr
en ab
ou t
ap pr
op ri
at e
in te
ra ct
io ns
w it
h ad
ul ts
, re
pr es
en ti
ng th
e va
lu e
of re
sp et
o .
M ot
he rs
re po
rt ed
th at
th ey
pr ef
er re
d to
le av
e ch
il dr
en w
it h
re la
ti ve
s in
st ea
d of
no nr
el at
iv e
ca re
, w
hi ch
w as
up se
tt in
g, th
ou gh
ac ce
pt ab
le .
C hi
ld ca
re us
e K
ar ol
y an
d G
on za
le z
(2 01
1) F
am il
ie s
w it
h a
ch il
d or
on e
pa re
nt bo
rn in
an y
co un
tr y
ou ts
id e
th e
U .S
. (i
m m
ig ra
nt )
F am
il ie
s w
it h
ch il
dr en
an d
pa re
nt s
bo rn
in th
e U
.S .
(n at
iv e)
N A
U se
is lo
ok ed
at fo
r ch
il dr
en ag
e 0–
2 ye
as ,
3– ye
ar s,
an d
4– ye
ar s
N A
T he
su rv
ey s
ex am
in ed
ch il
dc ar
e us
ag e
(b ot
h no
np ar
en ta
l ho
m e-
ba se
d ca
re an
d ce
nt er
- ba
se d
ch il
dc ar
e)
Im m
ig ra
nt ch
il dr
en of
al l
ag es
w er
e le
ss li
ke ly
to be
in ce
nt er
-b as
ed ca
re or
no np
ar en
ta l
ho m
e- ba
se d
ca re
(b ot
h re
la ti
ve an
d no
nr el
at iv
e) .
M ul
li ga
n, B
ri m
ha ll
, an
d W
es t
(2 00
5) C
hi ld
re n
un de
r 6
in th
e U
.S .
(g ro
up ed
by W
hi te
(6 1%
), B
la ck
(1 5%
), H
is pa
ni c
(1 8%
), an
d O
th er
(6 %
)) C
o u n tr
y o f
o ri
g in
n o t
p ro
vi d ed
N A
B ir
th –6
N A
C hi
ld ca
re us
ag e
H is
pa ni
c ch
il dr
en w
er e
le ss
li ke
ly to
pa rt
ic ip
at e
in no
np ar
en ta
l ca
re at
le as
t 1
ti m
e pe
r w
ee k,
co m
pa re
d w
it h
W hi
te an
d B
la ck
ch il
dr en
. O
f th
os e
H is
pa ni
c ch
il dr
en w
ho di
d pa
rt ic
ip at
e in
ch il
dc ar
e, ra
te s
fo r
re la
ti ve
ba se
d ca
re an
d ce
nt er
ba se
d ca
re w
er e
co m
pa ra
bl e.
Y es
il -D
ag li
(2 01
1) H
is pa
ni c
pr es
ch oo
l ag
e ch
il dr
en C
o u n tr
y o f
o ri
g in
n o t
p ro
vi d ed
65 7
36 –5
9 m
on th
s N
A D
em og
ra ph
ic va
ri ab
le s
an d
ch il
dc ar
e us
ag e
T he
da ta
su gg
es te
d th
at us
e of
ce nt
er -b
as ed
ch il
dc ar
e is
m or
e fr
eq ue
nt th
an us
e of
pa re
nt al
ca re
, re
la ti
ve ca
re ,
or no
nr el
at iv
e ca
re .
In ge
ne ra
l, fa
m il
y po
ve rt
y st
at us
, m
ot he
r’ s
ed uc
at io
n, ho
us eh
ol d
co m
po si
ti on
, m
ot he
r’ s
w or
k st
at us
, an
d ac
cu lt
ur at
io n
ar e
al l
si gn
ifi ca
nt pr
ed ic
to rs
of ce
nt er
-b as
ed ch
il dc
ar e
us e.
230 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
M id
dl e
ch il
dh oo
d C
al de
ró n-
T en
a, K
ni gh
t, an
d C
ar lo
(2 01
1) M
ex ic
an A
m er
ic an
; 29
% of
yo ut
h U
.S .
bo rn
(5 4%
of th
ei r
pa re
nt s
fo re
ig n
bo rn
); 51
% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
A ri
zo na
20 4
M ag
e �
10 .9
(S D
� 0.
84 )
(9 –1
3) C
hi ld
-r ep
or t;
P ar
en t-
re po
rt F
am il
is m
su bs
ca le
(M A
C V
S ;
K ni
gh t
et al
., 20
10 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
M ot
he rs
’ fa
m il
is m
va lu
es pr
ed ic
te d
pr os
co ci
al pa
re nt
in g
w hi
ch in
tu rn
pr ed
ic te
d pr
os oc
ia l
be ha
vi or
al te
nd en
ci es
in ad
ol es
ce nc
e, C
hi ld
fa m
il is
m va
lu es
pa rt
ia ll
y m
ed ia
te d
th e
re la
ti on
be tw
ee n
ad ol
es ce
nt s’
pe rc
ep ti
on of
pr os
oc ia
l pa
re nt
in g
pr ac
ti ce
s an
d pr
os oc
ia l
be ha
vi or
al te
nd en
ci es
.
M or
ci ll
o, D
ua rt
e, S
he n,
B la
nc o,
C an
in o,
an d
B ir
d (2
01 1)
P ue
rt o
R ic
an ch
il dr
en ag
e 5
to 13
li vi
ng in
th e
B ro
nx ,
N Y
an d
S an
Ju an
an d
C ag
ua s,
P ue
rt o
R ic
o an
d th
ei r
ca re
gi ve
r
N Y
� 1,
13 8
dy ad
s P
R �
1, 35
3 dy
ad s
M ag
e �
9. 2
(S D
� 0.
1) P
ar en
ta l
A bb
re vi
at ed
ad ap
te d
ve rs
io n
of th
e S
ab og
al F
am il
is m
S ca
le (1
0 it
em s
on a
4- po
in t
L ik
er t
sc al
e; at
ti tu
di na
l) ch
il d
fa m
il is
m di
d no
t ha
ve go
od in
te rn
al co
ns is
te nc
y (�
0. 30
)
P ar
en ta
l fa
m il
is m
w as
pr ot
ec ti
ve ag
ai ns
t an
ti so
ci al
be ha
vi or
s in
gi rl
s at
ea ch
st ag
e. F
or bo
ys ,
pa re
nt al
fa m
il is
m w
as on
ly pr
ot ec
ti ve
in 5-
to 9-
ye ar
-o ld
s. T
he pr
ot ec
ti ve
ef fe
ct of
pa re
nt al
fa m
il is
m on
an ti
so ci
al be
ha vi
or s
w as
m ed
ia te
d by
ca re
gi ve
r st
ru ct
ur in
g an
d w
ar m
th .
R om
er o,
R ob
in so
n, H
ay de
l, M
en do
za ,
an d
K il
le n
(2 00
4)
4t h
gr ad
e st
ud en
ts an
d th
ei r
m ot
he rs
w ho
id en
ti fi
ed as
M ex
ic an
21 9
dy ad
s M
ag e
� 9.
5 (S
D �
0. 37
) M
ot he
r C
hi ld
M ot
he r
fa m
il is
m :
A sc
al e
de ve
lo pe
d fo
r co
ll ec
ti vi
st ic
gr ou
ps (M
ar ku
s &
K it
ay am
a, 19
91 )
ch il
d fa
m il
is m
: F
am il
y Im
pa ct
S ca
le (1
1 it
em s
as se
ss in
g va
lu es
an d
be ha
vi or
s (C
ol on
, 19
98 ;
at ti
tu di
na l
an d
be ha
vi or
al )
H ig
he r
pa re
nt ed
uc at
io n
w as
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
hi gh
er m
at er
na l
fa m
il is
m .
C hi
ld pr
ef er
en ce
fo r
E ng
li sh
or bi
li ng
ua li
sm w
as re
la te
d to
hi gh
er ch
il d
fa m
il is
m .
T ay
lo r,
L ar
se n-
R if
e, C
on ge
r, an
d W
id am
in (2
01 2)
M ex
ic an
or ig
in ;
30 %
of yo
ut h
M ex
ic o-
bo rn
; 51
% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
C al
if or
ni a
54 9
tr ia
ds M
ag e
� 10
.8 5;
ag e
ra ng
e 10
–1 2
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; P
ar en
t- re
po rt
16 -i
te m
fa m
il is
m sc
al e
(M A
C V
S ;
K ni
gh t
et al
., 20
10 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
P ar
en ts
’ fa
m il
is ti
c va
lu es
w er
e ne
ga ti
ve ly
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
in te
rp ar
en ta
l co
nfl ic
t fo
r bo
th m
ot he
rs an
d fa
th er
s. P
ar en
ts ’
fa m
il is
ti c
va lu
es w
er e
al so
in di
re ct
ly as
so ci
at ed
w it
h pa
re nt
in g
th ro
ug h
th e
m ar
it al
re la
ti on
sh ip
. (t a b le
co n ti
n u es
)
231FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
W hi
te ,
Z ei
de rs
, G
on za
le s,
T ei
n, an
d R
oo sa
(2 01
3)
M ex
ic an
or ig
in fa
m il
ie s;
78 .6
% m
ot he
rs an
d 79
.9 %
fa th
er s
bo rn
in M
ex ic
o; 48
.1 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; S
ou th
w es
t
46 2
m ot
he r,
fa th
er ,
yo ut
h tr
ia ds
M ag
e �
10 .4
(S D
� .5
5) C
hi ld
-r ep
or t;
P ar
en t-
re po
rt (b
ot h
m ot
he r
an d
fa th
er )
M ex
ic an
A m
er ic
an C
ul tu
ra l
V al
ue s
S ca
le (K
ni gh
t et
al .,
20 10
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
P ar
en ts
’ cu
lt ur
al va
lu es
w er
e as
so ci
at ed
w it
h th
e li
ke li
ho od
of us
in g
a re
sp on
si ve
an d
de m
an di
ng pa
re nt
in g
st yl
e co
m pa
re d
w it
h ot
he r
le ss
in vo
lv ed
pa re
nt in
g st
yl es
. A
do le
sc en
ce A
yó n,
M ar
si gl
ia ,
an d
B er
m ud
ez -P
ar sa
i (2
01 0)
M ex
ic an
an d
C en
tr al
A m
er ic
an de
sc en
t pa
re nt
-c hi
ld dy
ad s;
pa re
nt s:
94 %
m ot
he rs
; 87
.3 %
im m
ig ra
nt pa
re nt
s; ad
ol es
ce nt
s: 60
% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
55 %
U .S
.- bo
rn ;
S ou
th w
es t
15 0
dy ad
s M
ag e
� 15
.5 0
(S D
� 1.
25 )
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; P
ar en
t- re
po rt
6 it
em s
fr om
th e
fa m
il is
m sc
al e
us ed
by G
il ,
W ag
ne r,
an d
V eg
a (2
00 0)
an d
de ve
lo pe
d by
O ls
on an
d co
ll ea
gu es
(1 98
3) .
It em
s as
se ss
at ti
tu de
s of
re sp
ec t
an d
lo ya
lt y
to w
ar ds
on e’
s fa
m il
y (a
tt it
ud in
al )
F am
il is
m w
as as
so ci
at ed
w it
h de
cr ea
se d
m en
ta l
he al
th sy
m pt
om at
ol og
y am
on g
fa m
il ie
s, an
d fa
m il
is m
di d
no t
re du
ce th
e ne
ga ti
ve ef
fe ct
s of
di sc
ri m
in at
io n.
B ám
ac a-
C ol
be rt
, U
m añ
a- T
ay lo
r, an
d G
ay le
s (2
01 2)
M ex
ic an
or ig
in ;
7t h
gr ad
er s:
62 .1
% U
.S .-
bo rn
; 10
th gr
ad er
s 60
.6 %
U .S
.- bo
rn ;
10 0%
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; S
ou th
w es
t
27 1
dy ad
s 7t
h gr
ad er
s: M
ag e
12 .2
6 (S
D �
0. 46
); 10
th gr
ad er
s: M
ag e
15 .2
0 (S
D �
0. 43
)
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; M
ot he
r- re
po rt
B eh
av io
ra l
au to
no m
y ex
pe ct
at io
ns T
ee n
T im
et ab
le Q
ue st
io nn
ai re
(F el
dm an
& Q
ua tm
an ,
19 88
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
M ot
he r–
da ug
ht er
au to
no m
y ex
pe ct
at io
n di
sc re
pa nc
ie s
w er
e po
si ti
ve ly
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
m ot
he r–
da ug
ht er
co nfl
ic t,
bu t
th is
as so
ci at
io n
w as
fo un
d on
ly am
on g
ea rl
y ad
ol es
ce nt
s.
B au
m an
n, K
uh lb
er g,
an d
Z ay
as (2
01 0)
L at
in a
(7 3%
U .S
. bo
rn ;
32 %
P ue
rt o
R ic
an ,
28 %
D om
in ic
an ,
15 %
M ex
ic an
, 11
% C
ol om
bi an
); 10
0% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
51 %
ha d
at te
m pt
ed su
ic id
e; N
or th
ea st
16 9
dy ad
s M
ag e
� 15
.1 9
(S D
� 1.
87 )
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; M
ot he
r- re
po rt
F am
il is
m S
ca le
(L ug
o- S
te id
el an
d C
on tr
er as
, 20
03 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
F am
il is
m ga
ps pr
ed ic
te d
le ss
m ot
he r–
da ug
ht er
m ut
ua li
ty an
d m
or e
ex te
rn al
iz in
g be
ha vi
or s
in th
e ad
ol es
ce nt
s.
B er
ke l
et al
. (2
01 0)
M ex
ic an
A m
er ic
an (7
4. 3%
of m
ot he
rs an
d 79
.9 %
fa th
er s
fo re
ig n
bo rn
); 49
% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
A ri
zo na
71 1
M ag
e �
10 .4
2 (S
D �
0. 55
) at
T im
e 1
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; P
ar en
t- re
po rt
T he
M ex
ic an
A m
er ic
an C
ul tu
ra l
V al
ue s
S ca
le (K
ni gh
t et
al .,
20 10
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
D is
cr im
in at
io n
pr ed
ic te
d gr
ea te
r M
ex ic
an A
m er
ic an
va lu
es w
hi ch
th en
pr ed
ic te
d le
ss in
te rn
al iz
in g
sy m
pt om
s an
d be
tt er
ac ad
em ic
ou tc
om es
.
232 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
B us
h, S
up pl
e, an
d L
as h
(2 00
4) M
ex ic
an yo
ut h
li vi
ng in
M ex
ic o;
55 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h
53 4
M ag
e �
13 .4
3 (S
D �
1. 31
) C
hi ld
-r ep
or t
T he
B ar
di s
F am
il is
m S
ca le
(B ar
di s,
19 59
; at
ti tu
di na
l) A
ge an
d pa
re nt
al ed
uc at
io n
ne ga
ti ve
ly re
la te
d to
fa m
il is
m .
E m
ot io
na l
co nn
ec ti
on to
pa re
nt s
re la
te d
to fa
m il
is m
in gi
rl s
bu t
no t
bo ys
. P
ar en
ta l
m on
it or
in g
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
fa m
il is
m bu
t no
t af
te r
ta ki
ng in
to ac
co un
t pa
re nt
al au
th or
it y.
P ar
en ta
l le
gi ti
m at
e au
th or
it y
w as
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
fa m
il is
m .
D el
ga do
, U
pd eg
ra ff
, R
oo sa
, an
d U
m añ
a- T
ay lo
r (2
01 1)
M ex
ic an
or ig
in (6
6 an
d 67
% of
pa re
nt s
fo re
ig n
bo rn
; 62
% of
ta rg
et yo
ut h
U .S
. bo
rn );
ta rg
et yo
ut h
(7 th
gr ad
er s)
51 %
fe m
al e;
ol de
r si
bl in
gs :
50 %
fe m
al e;
A ri
zo na
24 6
tr ia
ds T
ar ge
t ch
il dr
en :
M ag
e �
12 .8
(S D
� .5
7) ;
ol de
r si
bl in
gs M
ag e
� 15
.7 0
(S D
� 1.
50 )
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; P
ar en
t- re
po rt
16 -i
te m
fa m
il is
m sc
al e
(M A
C V
S :
K ni
gh t
et al
., 20
10 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
P at
er na
l at
ti tu
di na
l fa
m il
is m
pr ed
ic te
d fe
w er
de vi
an t
pe er
as so
ci at
io ns
, ad
ol es
ce nt
fa m
il is
m as
so ci
at ed
bi va
ri at
el y
w it
h le
ss de
pr es
si ve
sy m
pt om
s, ri
sk y
be ha
vi or
s, an
d de
vi an
t pe
er s.
E as
t an
d W
ei sn
er (2
00 9)
M ex
ic an
A m
er ic
an ;
85 %
of yo
ut h
U .S
. bo
rn ;
60 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; ol
de r
si bl
in gs
in sa
m pl
e ha
d te
en ag
e pr
eg na
nc y;
so ut
he rn
C al
if or
ni a
11 0
dy ad
s M
ag e
� 13
.9 (S
D �
1. 83
) C
hi ld
-r ep
or t
5 it
em s
on fa
m il
ia l
ob li
ga ti
on s
sc al
e by
S ab
og al
, M
ar ín
, O
te ro
-S ab
og al
, V
an O
ss M
ar ín
, an
d P
er ez
-S ta
bl e
(1 98
7; at
ti tu
di na
l) ca
re gi
vi ng
ho ur
s to
ba by
(b eh
av io
ra l)
C ar
eg iv
in g
pr ed
ic te
d an
in cr
ea se
in sc
ho ol
ab se
nc es
an d
di sc
ip li
na ry
pr ob
le m
s. F
am il
y ob
li ga
ti on
s w
er e
no t
pr ot
ec ti
ve ag
ai ns
t ca
re gi
vi ng
st re
ss bu
t, ra
th er
, fu
rt he
r co
m pr
om is
ed yo
ut hs
’ w
el l-
be in
g fo
r th
os e
w ho
w er
e hi
gh ly
in vo
lv ed
in th
ei r
fa m
il y’
s ca
re .
E sp
ar za
an d
S án
ch ez
(2 00
8) 42
% ;
M ex
ic an
or ig
in 39
% P
ue rt
o R
ic an
or ig
in ;
16 %
ot he
r L
at in
o; 3%
bi ra
ci al
; 32
% 1s
t ge
ne ra
ti on
; 51
% 2n
d ge
ne ra
ti on
; 52
% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
ur ba
n ar
ea s
14 3
17 .8
7 ye
ar s
(S D
� 0.
66 )
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t T
he F
am il
is m
S ca
le (L
ug o-
S te
id el
& C
on tr
er as
, 20
03 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
H ig
h at
ti tu
di na
l fa
m il
is m
pr ed
ic te
d gr
ea te
r ac
ad em
ic ef
fo rt
. A
ls o,
w he
n m
ot he
rs ’
ed uc
at io
na l
le ve
l w
as lo
w ,
at ti
tu di
na l
fa m
il is
m w
as po
si ti
ve ly
as so
ci at
ed to
st ud
en ts
’ G
P A
.
(t a b le
co n ti
n u es
)
233FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
F ul
ig ni
an d
P ed
er so
n (2
00 2)
34 %
F il
ip in
o, 15
% E
as t
A si
an ,
26 %
L at
in A
m er
ic an
, 25
% E
ur op
ea n
A m
er ic
an ;
53 %
fe m
al e
74 5
M ag
e �
20 .1
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t F
am il
y ob
li ga
ti on
sc al
es :
fa m
il y
re sp
ec t,
cu rr
en t
as si
st an
ce ,
an d
fu tu
re su
pp or
t (F
ul ig
ni ,
T se
ng ,
& L
am ,
19 99
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
F am
il y
ob li
ga ti
on s
in cr
ea se
d in
la te
ad ol
es ce
nc e
an d
w er
e re
la te
d to
be tt
er em
ot io
na l
w el
l- be
in g
an d
ed uc
at io
na l
pe rs
is te
nc e
fo r
ad ol
es ce
nt s
re ce
iv in
g lo
w to
m od
er at
e gr
ad es
in 12
th gr
ad e.
F ul
ig ni
, T
se ng
, an
d L
am (1
99 9)
38 %
F il
ip in
o or
ig in
, 13
% C
hi ne
se or
ig in
, 15
% M
ex ic
an or
ig in
, 12
% C
en tr
al /S
ou th
A m
er ic
an or
ig in
, 23
% E
ur op
ea n
or ig
in ;
29 %
1s t
ge ne
ra ti
on ;
44 %
se co
nd ge
ne ra
ti on
; 27
% 3�
ge ne
ra ti
on ;
54 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; so
ut he
rn C
al if
or ni
a
82 0
10 th
gr ad
er s
(M ag
e �
15 .7
ye ar
s) ;
12 th
gr ad
er s
(M �
17 .7
)
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t F
am il
y ob
li ga
ti on
sc al
es :
fa m
il y
re sp
ec t,
cu rr
en t
as si
st an
ce ,
an d
fu tu
re su
pp or
t (F
ul ig
ni ,
T se
ng ,
& L
am ,
19 99
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
A ll
th re
e sc
al es
as so
ci at
ed gr
ea te
r pa
te rn
al an
d m
at er
ia l
co he
si on
an d
be tt
er co
m m
un ic
at io
n w
it h
fa m
il y.
A ll
th re
e sc
al es
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
gr ea
te r
st ud
y ti
m e,
an d
re sp
ec t
an d
cu rr
en t
as si
st an
ce as
so ci
at ed
w it
h ed
uc at
io na
l as
pi ra
ti on
s an
d ex
pe ct
at io
ns .
C ur
vi li
ne ar
as so
ci at
io n
w it
h gr
ad es
su ch
th at
th e
m od
er at
e en
do rs
em en
t of
cu rr
en t
as si
st an
ce m
os t
pr ot
ec ti
ve .
G er
m án
, G
on za
le z,
an d
D um
ka (2
00 9)
M ex
ic an
or ig
in fa
m il
ie s;
di d
no t
re po
rt %
fo re
ig n
bo rn
; 50
.6 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; 79
.1 %
U .S
.- B
or n
ad ol
es ce
nt s
P ho
en ix
, A
ri zo
na
59 8 a
do le
sc en
ts ,
57 3
m ot
he rs
, 33
1 fa
th er
s
M ag
e �
12 .3
; (a
ge ra
ng e
� 11
–1 4)
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; P
ar en
t- re
po rt
16 it
em s
w er
e ta
ke n
fr om
th re
e fa
m il
is m
su bs
ca le
s fr
om th
e M
ex ic
an A
m er
ic an
C ul
tu ra
l V
al ue
s S
ca le
(K ni
gh t
et al
., 20
10 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
A do
le sc
en t,
m at
er na
l, an
d pa
te rn
al fa
m il
is m
va lu
es in
te ra
ct ed
pr ot
ec ti
ve ly
w it
h de
vi an
t pe
er af
fi li
at io
ns to
pr ed
ic t
lo w
er le
ve ls
of te
ac he
r re
po rt
ed ex
te rn
al iz
in g
pr ob
le m
s. T
he se
re la
ti on
s w
er e
no t
fo un
d w
it h
pa re
nt re
po rt
s of
ad ol
es ce
nt ex
te rn
al iz
in g
pr ob
le m
s al
th ou
gh th
es e
m od
el s
sh ow
ed a
di re
ct ,
pr ot
ec ti
ve ef
fe ct
of m
at er
na l
fa m
il is
m va
lu es
.
234 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
G il
, W
ag ne
r, an
d V
eg a
(2 00
0) 40
% C
ub an
s; 13
% N
ic ar
ag ua
ns ;
47 %
ot he
r L
at in
o; A
ll m
al e
sa m
pl e;
52 %
fo re
ig n
bo rn
; S
ou th
F lo
ri da
2, 01
9 6t
h an
d 7t
h gr
ad er
s fo
ll ow
ed 3
ye ar
s C
hi ld
-r ep
or t
7- it
em fa
m il
is m
m ea
su re
(O ls
on an
d co
ll ea
gu es
, 19
83 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
A cc
ul tu
ra ti
on an
d ac
cu lt
ur at
iv e
st re
ss as
so ci
at ed
w it
h in
cr ea
se d
al co
ho l
us e
th ro
ug h
th e
de te
ri or
at io
n of
L at
in o
fa m
il y
va lu
es ,
at ti
tu de
s, an
d fa
m il
is ti
c be
ha vi
or s.
T he
re la
ti on
sh ip
be tw
ee n
ac cu
lt ur
at iv
e st
re ss
an d
al co
ho l
us e
w as
in fl
ue nc
ed by
na ti
vi ty
.
G ui
la m
o- R
am os
et al
. (2
00 7)
70 %
D om
in ic
an an
d 30
% P
ue rt
o R
ic an
; 80
% m
ot he
rs fo
re ig
n bo
rn ;
50 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; B
ro nx
, N
Y
63 m
ot he
r- ad
ol es
ce nt
dy ad
s
11 –1
4 ye
ar s
ol d
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; M
ot he
r- re
po rt
F oc
us gr
ou ps
(a tt
it ud
in al
an d
be ha
vi or
al )
C on
te nt
an al
ys is
of pa
re nt
s’ fo
cu s
gr ou
ps re
ve al
ed fi
ve es
se nt
ia l
L at
in o
pa re
nt in
g pr
ac ti
ce s
de sc
ri be
d by
bo th
yo ut
h an
d th
ei r
m ot
he rs
.
K ia
ng an
d F
ul ig
ni (2
00 9)
41 %
L at
in A
m er
ic an
38 %
A si
an ,
an d
21 %
E ur
op ea
n; 50
% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
L os
A ng
el es
ar ea
67 9
M ag
e �
14 .8
7 (S
D �
0. 40
) C
hi ld
-r ep
or t
F am
il y
re sp
ec t
(F ul
ig ni
et al
. 19
99 );
fa m
il y
ob li
ga ti
on s
sc al
e (F
ul ig
ni et
al .
19 99
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
E th
ni c
id en
ti ty
w as
m or
e st
ro ng
ly re
la te
d to
fa m
il y
re sp
ec t
an d
ob li
ga ti
on s
th an
co he
si on
. A
do le
sc en
ts fr
om L
at in
A m
er ic
an an
d A
si an
ba ck
gr ou
nd s
re po
rt ed
si gn
ifi ca
nt ly
hi gh
er le
ve ls
of ob
li ga
ti on
an d
as si
st an
ce as
co m
pa re
d w
it h
ad ol
es ce
nt s
w it
h E
ur op
ea n
ba ck
gr ou
nd s,
an d
th es
e et
hn ic
di ff
er en
ce s
w er
e m
ed ia
te d
by et
hn ic
id en
ti ty
.
D ai
ly di
ar y
da ta
fo r
co m
pl et
io n
of 8
fi li
al ob
li ga
ti on
ta sk
s (b
eh av
io ra
l)
K ni
gh t
et al
. (2
01 1)
M ex
ic an
A m
er ic
an (7
4. 3%
of m
ot he
rs an
d 79
.9 %
fa th
er s
fo re
ig n
bo rn
); 49
% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
A ri
zo na
75 0 a
do le
sc en
ts an
d m
ot he
rs ,
46 7
fa th
er s
M ag
e �
10 .4
2q a
(S D
� 0.
55 )
at T
im e
1
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; P
ar en
t- re
po rt
M ex
ic an
A m
er ic
an C
ul tu
ra l
V al
ue s
S ca
le (M
A C
V S
; K
ni gh
t et
al .,
20 10
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
T he
so ci
al iz
at io
n of
M ex
ic an
A m
er ic
an va
lu es
w as
pr im
ar il
y a
fu nc
ti on
of m
ot he
rs ’
M ex
ic an
A m
er ic
an va
lu es
an d
et hn
ic so
ci al
iz at
io n.
F at
he rs
va lu
es or
so ci
al iz
at io
n no
t re
la te
d to
yo ut
h en
do rs
em en
t.
(t a b le
co n ti
n u es
)
235FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
K uh
lb er
g, P
eñ a,
an d
Z ay
as (2
01 0)
L at
in a
(7 2%
U .S
. bo
rn ;
35 %
P ue
rt o
R ic
an ,
28 %
D om
in ca
n, 12
% M
ex ic
an ,
10 %
C ol
om bi
an ;
15 %
ot he
r) 10
0% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
53 .5
4% su
ic id
e at
te m
pt er
s; N
or th
ea st
22 6
M ag
e �
15 .4
7 (S
D �
2. 01
) C
hi ld
-r ep
or t
F am
il is
m S
ca le
(L ug
o S
te id
el &
C on
tr er
as ,
20 03
; at
ti tu
di na
l) F
am il
is m
w as
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
lo w
er le
ve ls
of pa
re nt
–a do
le sc
en t
co nfl
ic t,
bu t
hi gh
er le
ve ls
of in
te rn
al iz
in g
be ha
vi or
s. N
ot as
so ci
at ed
w it
h su
ic id
e at
te m
pt hi
st or
y.
K up
er m
in c,
Ju rk
ov ic
, an
d C
as ey
(2 00
9) L
at in
o (6
5. 3%
M ex
ic an
or ig
in ;
16 .3
% C
en tr
al A
m er
ic an
12 .2
% C
ar ib
be an
; 6.
1% S
ou th
A m
er ic
an )
74 %
yo ut
h fo
re ig
n bo
rn ;
64 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; S
ou th
ea st
12 9
M ag
e �
16 .8
(S D
� 1.
15 )
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t F
il ia
l R
es po
ns ib
il it
y S
ca le
-Y ou
th (F
R S
-Y ;
Ju rk
ov ic
, K
up er
m in
c, S
ar ac
, &
W ei
ss ha
ar ,
20 05
; be
ha vi
or al
)
F il
ia l
ob li
ga ti
on s
re la
te d
to le
ss ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
di st
re ss
, m
or e
so ci
al co
m pe
te nc
e, an
d gr
ea te
r se
lf -e
ffi ca
cy ;
P er
ce iv
ed fa
ir ne
ss of
ob li
ga ti
on s
al so
a pr
ed ic
to r
of ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
di st
re ss
.
L or
en zo
-B la
nc o
et al
. (2
01 2)
H is
pa ni
c (8
4% U
.S .
B or
n; 84
% ha
d M
ex ic
an pa
re nt
s; 9%
E l
S al
va do
ri an
pa re
nt s,
6% G
ua te
m al
an pa
re nt
s) ;
53 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; S
ou th
er n
C al
if or
ni a
1, 92
2 9–
11 th
gr ad
e st
ud en
ts ;
86 %
of sa
m pl
e w
as 14
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t T
hr ee
of th
e it
em s
fr om
th e
fa m
il is
m sc
al e
S ab
og al
et al
. (1
98 7)
, an
d on
e it
em ca
m e
fr om
th e
fa m
il is
m sc
al e
de sc
ri be
d by
C ue
ll ar
, A
rn ol
d, an
d G
on za
le z
(1 99
5) an
d C
ue ll
ar ,
A rn
ol d,
an d
M al
do na
do (1
99 5)
. F
ou r
it em
s as
se ss
ed th
e cu
lt ur
al va
lu e
of re
sp et
o (U
ng er
et al
., 20
02 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
F am
il is
m an
d re
sp et
o w
er e
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
hi gh
er fa
m il
y co
he si
on an
d lo
w er
fa m
il y
co nfl
ic t,
an d
th is
ef fe
ct w
as st
ro ng
er fo
r gi
rl s
th an
bo ys
. B
ot h
ac cu
lt ur
at io
n an
d en
cu lt
ur at
io n
w er
e re
la te
d to
gr ea
te r
fa m
il is
m an
d re
sp et
o.
M ar
si gl
ia ,
P ar
sa i,
an d
K ul
is (2
00 9)
M ex
ic an
de sc
en t;
56 %
bo rn
in th
e U
.S .;
60 %
fe m
al e;
A ri
zo na
an d
N or
th C
ar ol
in a
15 1
M ag
e �
15 .5
3 (S
D �
1. 25
) C
hi ld
-r ep
or t
T he
F am
il is
m S
ca le
(G il
, W
ag ne
r, &
V eg
a, 20
00 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
F am
il is
m is
pr ed
ic te
d le
ss ag
gr es
si ve
be ha
vi or
, co
nd uc
t pr
ob le
m s,
an d
ru le
br ea
ki ng
. F
am il
is m
an d
co he
si on
di d
no t
in te
ra ct
to pr
ed ic
t fu
nc ti
on in
g.
N ol
le ,
G ul
ba s,
K uh
lb er
g, an
d Z
ay as
(2 01
2) S
ub -s
am pl
e of
K uh
lb er
g et
al .
(2 01
0) ;
88 %
bo n
in th
e U
.S .
or P
ue rt
o R
ic o;
50 %
at te
m pt
ed su
ic id
e; N
or th
ea st
24 tr
ia ds
(y ou
th ,
m ot
he r,
fa th
er )
M ag
e �
15 C
hi ld
-r ep
or t;
P ar
en t-
re po
rt Q
ua li
ta ti
ve in
te rv
ie w
s. (a
tt it
ud in
al an
d be
ha vi
or al
) F
am il
is m
em er
ge d
as a
th em
e fo
r bo
th at
te m
pt er
s an
d no
n- at
te m
pt er
s. F
or at
te m
pt er
s w
ho ex
pr es
se d
a de
si re
to ki
ll th
em se
lv es
in th
ei r
at te
m pt
re po
rt ed
w an
ti ng
to m
ak e
th in
gs be
tt er
fo r
th ei
r fa
m il
ie s.
236 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
P eñ
a et
al .
(2 01
1) 35
.7 %
P ue
rt o
R ic
an ,
29 .6
% D
om in
ic an
, 10
.2 %
M ex
ic an
, 10
.2 %
C ol
om bi
an ,
14 .4
% ot
he r
H is
pa ni
c; 50
% su
ic id
e at
te m
pt er
s; 10
0% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
N ew
Y or
k C
it y
21 6
M ag
e �
15 .5
(S D
� 2.
0) C
hi ld
-r ep
or t
F am
il is
m S
ca le
(L ug
o S
te id
el &
C on
tr er
as ,
20 03
; at
ti tu
di na
l) F
am il
is m
po si
ti ve
ly as
so ci
at ed
w it
h ad
ol es
ce nt
s be
in g
pa rt
of ti
gh t-
kn it
fa m
il ie
s, an
d ad
ol es
ce nt
s in
th es
e fa
m il
ie s
w er
e si
gn ifi
ca nt
ly le
ss li
ke ly
to at
te m
pt su
ic id
e co
m pa
re d
w it
h le
ss ti
gh tl
y kn
it fa
m il
ie s.
P ol
o an
d L
op ez
(2 00
9) M
ex ic
an or
ig in
(5 2%
of yo
ut h
U .S
. bo
rn );
50 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; L
os A
ng el
es ar
ea
15 9
dy ad
s M
ag e
� 13
.2 C
hi ld
-r ep
or t;
P ar
en t-
re po
rt T
he A
ffi li
at iv
e O
be di
en ce
ve rs
us A
ct iv
e S
el f-
A ffi
rm at
io n
m ea
su re
(D ía
z- G
ue rr
er o,
19 94
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
G re
at er
ch il
d- re
po rt
ed af
fi li
at iv
e ob
ed ie
nc e
pr ed
ic te
d fe
w er
de pr
es si
ve sy
m pt
om s
an d
in te
rn al
iz in
g pr
ob le
m s
co nt
ro ll
in g
fo r
de m
og ra
ph ic
ch ar
ac te
ri st
ic s.
S m
ok ow
sk i
an d
B ac
al la
o (2
00 7)
13 %
M ex
ic o,
21 %
C en
tr al
A m
er ic
a, 21
% S
ou th
A m
er ic
a; 97
% bo
rn ou
ts id
e th
e U
.S .;
51 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; N
or th
C ar
ol in
a
32 3
M ag
e �
15 (S
D �
1. 8)
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t F
am il
is m
M ea
su re
(G il
, W
ag ne
r, &
V eg
a; 20
00 ;
ba se
d on
O ls
on et
al ,
19 83
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
F am
il is
m as
so ci
at ed
w it
h fe
w er
in te
rn al
iz in
g pr
ob le
m s
an d
hi gh
er se
lf -e
st ee
m .
T he
pr ot
ec ti
ve ef
fe ct
of fa
m il
is m
on in
te rn
al iz
in g
pr ob
le m
s w
as m
ed ia
te d
by pa
re nt
- ad
ol es
ce nt
co nfl
ic t.
S m
ok ow
sk i,
R os
e, an
d B
ac al
la o
(2 01
0) L
at in
o (6
6% of
ad ol
es ce
nt s
fo re
ig n
bo rn
); a
su bs
am pl
e of
S m
ok ow
sk i
et al
. (2
01 0)
34 9
dy ad
s M
ed ia
n gr
ad e:
10 th
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; P
ar en
t- re
po rt
(9 0%
m ot
he rs
)
F am
il is
m m
ea su
re (G
il ,
W ag
ne r,
& V
eg a,
20 00
; ba
se d
on O
ls on
et al
, 19
83 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
A tt
it ud
in al
fa m
il is
m as
so ci
at ed
w it
h fe
w er
in te
rn al
iz in
g sy
m pt
om s
an d
hi gh
er se
lf -
es te
em ac
ro ss
ti m
e an
d ef
fe ct
s m
ed ia
te d
by pa
re nt
– ch
il d
co nfl
ic t.
S te
in ,
G on
za le
z, C
up it
o, K
ia ng
, an
d S
up pl
e (2
01 3)
L at
in o
yo ut
h: 78
% M
ex ic
an -o
ri gi
n, 2%
N ic
ar ag
ua n,
2% D
om in
ic an
, 2%
S al
va do
ri an
, an
d 8%
L at
in o
m ix
ed ;
53 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; N
or th
C ar
ol in
a
17 3
M ag
e �
14 .0
8 C
hi ld
-r ep
or t
18 -i
te m
A tt
it ud
in al
F am
il is
m S
ca le
(L ug
o S
te id
el &
C on
tr er
as ,
20 03
)
F am
il is
m as
so ci
at ed
w it
h po
si ti
ve ps
yc ho
so ci
al an
d ed
uc at
io na
l ou
tc om
es ,
bu t
it di
d no
t m
od er
at e
th e
ne ga
ti ve
ef fe
ct s
of pe
rc ei
ve d
pe er
di sc
ri m
in at
io n
on th
es e
ou tc
om es
.
(t a b le
co n ti
n u es
)
237FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
S te
in an
d P
ol o
(2 01
3) M
ex ic
an or
ig in
(5 2%
of yo
ut h
U .S
. bo
rn );
50 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; L
os A
ng el
es ar
ea
15 9
dy ad
s M
ag e
� 13
.1 (S
D �
.7 3)
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; M
ot he
r- re
po rt
T he
A ffi
li at
iv e
O be
di en
ce ve
rs us
A ct
iv e
S el
f- A
ffi rm
at io
n m
ea su
re (D
ía z-
G ue
rr er
o, 19
94 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
C ul
tu ra
l va
lu e
ga ps
on ob
ed ie
nc e
re la
te d
to ad
ol es
ce nt
de pr
es si
ve sy
m pt
om s,
an d
th is
re la
ti on
sh ip
w as
m os
t pr
on ou
nc ed
fo r
ol de
r ad
ol es
ce nt
s.
T el
ze r,
F ul
ig ni
, L
ie be
rm an
, an
d G
al va
n (2
01 3)
M ex
ic an
ba ck
gr ou
nd s;
56 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h (n
o ot
he r
in fo
rm at
io n
pr ov
id ed
); so
ut he
rn C
al if
or ni
a
48 14
to 16
.5 ye
ar s
(M ag
e �
15 .2
3) C
hi ld
-r ep
or t
12 -i
te m
F am
il y
O bl
ig at
io ns
S ca
le (c
ur re
nt as
si st
an ce
; F
ul ig
ni et
al .,
19 99
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
F am
il y
ob li
ga ti
on w
as as
so ci
at ed
w it
h de
cr ea
se s
in ne
ur ol
og ic
al ly
ev id
en ce
d re
w ar
d se
ns it
iv it
y an
d en
ha nc
em en
ts in
co gn
it iv
e co
nt ro
l, th
er eb
y re
du ci
ng ri
sk -t
ak in
g be
ha vi
or s.
U m
añ a-
T ay
lo r,
A lf
ar o,
B am
ac a,
an d
G ui
m on
d (2
00 9)
L at
in o
(7 7%
M ex
ic an
or ig
in ,
15 %
L at
in o/
H is
pa ni
c; 6%
P ue
rt o
R ic
an );
49 .9
% fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
M id
w es
t
32 3
M ag
e �
15 .2
1 (S
D �
0. 73
) C
hi ld
-r ep
or t
T he
C ul
tu ra
l V
al ue
s S
ca le
(U ng
er et
al .,
20 02
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
G en
er at
io na
l st
at us
w as
no t
di re
ct ly
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
ad ol
es ce
nt s’
re po
rt s
of fa
m il
is ti
c va
lu es
, bu
t it
s ef
fe ct
w as
fu ll
y m
ed ia
te d
by fa
m il
ie s’
et hn
ic so
ci al
iz at
io n
pr ac
ti ce
s. A
rg ue
d th
at fa
m il
is m
m ea
su re
d su
pp or
t no
t ob
li ga
ti on
s.
U pd
eg ra
ff ,
M cH
al e,
W hi
te m
an ,
T ha
ye r,
an d
D el
ga do
(2 00
5)
M ex
ic an
A m
er ic
an (7
0% of
pa re
nt s
bo rn
ou ts
id e
th e
U .S
.) ;
51 %
fe m
al e
yo ut
h; A
ri zo
na
23 4
si bl
in g
dy ad
s O
ld er
si bl
in gs
M ag
e �
15 .7
(S D
� 1.
6) ;
yo un
ge r
si bl
in gs
M ag
e �
12 .8
(S D
� 0.
58 )
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t 17
-i te
m fa
m il
is m
sc al
e (M
A C
V S
; K
ni gh
t et
al .,
20 10
; at
ti tu
di na
l) an
d ti
m e
sp en
t w
it h
ad ul
t- ki
n, si
bl in
gs (b
eh av
io ra
l)
A tt
it ud
in al
fa m
il is
m as
so ci
at ed
w it
h be
tt er
si bl
in g
re la
ti on
sh ip
qu al
it y
(g re
at er
in ti
m ac
y an
d le
ss ne
ga ti
vi ty
) bu
t no
t w
it h
ti m
e sp
en t
to ge
th er
.
U pd
eg ra
ff ,
U m
añ a-
T ay
lo r,
P er
ez -B
re ña
, an
d P
fl ie
ge r
(2 01
2)
D at
a us
ed is
fr om
U pd
eg ra
ff et
al .
(2 00
5) ;
M ex
ic an
or ig
in fa
m il
ie s;
62 %
of ad
ol es
ce nt
s U
.S .-
bo rn
; 51
% fe
m al
e yo
ut h
S ou
th w
es t
24 0
fa m
il ie
s M
ag e
� 12
.8 (S
D �
05 8)
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t; P
ar en
t- re
po rt
F am
il is
m va
lu es
an d
tr ad
it io
na l
pa tr
ia rc
ha l
ge nd
er ro
le at
ti tu
de s
m ea
su re
d us
in g
su bs
ca le
s of
th e
M ex
ic an
A m
er ic
an C
ul tu
ra l
V al
ue s
S ca
le (K
ni gh
t et
al .,
20 10
; at
ti tu
di na
l)
F am
il ie
s en
do rs
in g
tr ad
it io
na l
ge nd
er ed
pa re
nt in
g ro
le at
ti tu
de s
di sp
la ye
d th
e hi
gh es
t le
ve ls
of fa
m il
is m
. M
or e
ac cu
lt ur
at ed
fa m
il ie
s di
sp la
yi ng
co ng
ru en
t pa
re nt
in g
ro le
at ti
tu de
s re
po rt
ed si
gn ifi
ca nt
ly lo
w er
le ve
ls of
fa m
il is
m .
238 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
T ab
le 2
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
C it
at io
n D
em og
ra ph
ic s
S am
pl e
si ze
C hi
ld ag
e R
ep or
te r
M ea
su re
us ed
(a tt
it ud
in al
vs .
be ha
vi or
al )
M ai
n fi
nd in
gs
U pd
eg ra
ff ,
U m
añ a-
T ay
lo r,
M cH
al e,
W he
el er
, an
d P
er ez
-B re
na (2
01 2)
D at
a us
ed is
fr om
U pd
eg ra
ff et
al .
(2 00
5) ;
M ex
ic an
or ig
in fa
m il
ie s;
62 %
of ad
ol es
ce nt
s U
.S .-
bo rn
; 51
% fe
m al
e yo
ut h
S ou
th w
es t
P ha
se 1
� 24
6 fa
m il
ie s
P ha
se 2
� 18
4 fa
m il
ie s
P ha
se 1
(M ag
e �
12 .8
) P
ha se
2 (M
ag e
� 17
.7 5
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t F
am il
is m
va lu
es an
d tr
ad it
io na
l pa
tr ia
rc ha
l ge
nd er
ro le
at ti
tu de
s m
ea su
re d
us in
g su
bs ca
le s
of th
e M
ex ic
an A
m er
ic an
C ul
tu ra
l V
al ue
s S
ca le
(K ni
gh t
et al
., 20
10 ;
at ti
tu di
na l)
F em
al es
sh ow
ed st
ee pe
r de
cl in
es in
tr ad
it io
na l
ge nd
er ro
le at
ti tu
de s
th an
di d
m al
es .
O ve
ra ll
, al
l ad
ol es
ce nt
s de
cl in
ed in
fa m
il is
m va
lu es
, ti
m e
sp en
t w
it h
fa m
il y,
an d
in vo
lv em
en t
in M
ex ic
an cu
lt ur
e. F
ou nd
bi di
re ct
io na
l re
la ti
on sh
ip s
be tw
ee n
cu lt
ur al
or ie
nt at
io ns
an d
ad ju
st m
en t
so m
e of
w hi
ch w
er e
m od
er at
ed by
ad ol
es ce
nt na
ti vi
ty an
d ge
nd er
.
V al
en zu
el a
an d
D or
nb us
ch (1
99 4)
84 %
A ng
lo an
d 16
% M
ex ic
an or
ig in
; pr
im ar
il y
ad ol
es ce
nt s
w it
h U
S bo
rn pa
re nt
s 52
% M
ex ic
an -o
ri gi
n fe
m al
e yo
ut h;
S an
F ra
nc is
co ar
ea
3, 15
8 H
ig h
sc ho
ol st
ud en
ts ;
sp ec
ifi c
ag e
of th
e sa
m pl
e no
t re
po rt
ed
C hi
ld -r
ep or
t 1-
it em
be ha
vi or
al fa
m il
is m
(t al
k to
no np
ar en
ta l
ki n)
; 1-
it em
st ru
ct ur
al fa
m il
is m
(r el
at iv
es in
pr ox
im it
y) ;
14 -i
te m
at ti
tu di
na l
fa m
il is
m sc
al e
(4 it
em s
fr om
K ee
fe ,
19 84
; at
ti tu
di na
l an
d be
ha vi
or al
)
W he
n hi
gh le
ve ls
of at
ti tu
di na
l fa
m il
is m
w er
e co
up le
d w
it h
hi gh
le ve
ls of
pa re
nt al
ed uc
at io
n, th
e in
te ra
ct io
n w
as as
so ci
at ed
w it
h se
lf -
re po
rt ed
hi gh
er gr
ad es
. T
hi s
re su
lt w
as on
ly fo
un d
fo r
th e
M ex
ic an
-o ri
gi n
pa rt
ic ip
an ts
.
239FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
ment. For example, in her study of respeto, Valdés (1996) found that parents used verbal and nonverbal strategies to teach children about appropriate interactions with adults, such as greeting elders politely, not challenging elders’ points of view, and not interrupting adults. Val- dés (1996) explained that these behaviors rep- resented the value of respeto that specifically teaches children about how they should defer to adults and their role in the family as a daughter, son, sister, and so forth. Similarly, Latino moth- ers voiced the importance of teaching their chil- dren about Latino cultural values, including the centrality of family, religious beliefs, and res- peto (Calzada et al., 2010). Finally, research on social behavior for Mexican American children at home and school points to the role of respeto in fostering “bien educado” in Latino children, which is defined as appropriate social compe- tencies such as comportment and obedience within the family and other settings. Indeed, researchers studying the transmission of cul- tural values during early childhood point to respeto as creating cooperation and cohesion among members of the family, which is closely linked to the development of attitudinal familism (Bridges et al., 2012).
While instilling cultural values are a central parenting goal for Latino parents, familism may also serve to foster positive parent– child inter- action and promote adaptive social behavior. Because these values emphasize familial inter- connectedness, support, and cohesion, parents may demonstrate high levels of warmth, foster positive attachment, and spend time with their children (see Table 1). One study directly ex- amined this question in early childhood and established that mothers who report high levels of familism report greater warmth and closeness (Gamble & Modry-Mandell, 2008). Moreover, familism moderated the relation between mater- nal-child closeness and children’s emotional ad- justment as rated by teachers, such that chil- dren’s adjustment scores were significantly lower when mothers reported low levels of familism, despite higher levels of mother— child closeness. Maternal familism also pre- dicted emotional and peer adjustment in the context of high levels of sibling warmth. Thus, maternal familism related to behavioral adjust- ment of children at school, thereby illustrating the saliency of examining two important social- ization contexts of home and school.
Empirical literature examining familism in early childhood across key contexts is limited (only two studies located). For example, studies have examined how familism may relate to pa- rental decision-making about childcare usage and relative care. National studies have sug- gested that Latino parents utilize out of home childcare, including center based care, at a lower rate than non-Hispanic White and Black families (Karoly & Gonzalez, 2011), but other studies have found comparable rates of center based care among Latinos (Mulligan, Brimhall, & West, 2005; Yesil-Dagli, 2011). Limited data are available to inform whether Valdés’ (1996) observation that mothers preferred to leave chil- dren in the care of relatives because of familism values remains accurate today, as other factors are likely involved in childcare access, such as financial and language barriers and awareness of resources (Karoly & Gonzalez, 2011; Mulli- gan et al., 2005). In the domain of neighborhood and community factors and familism, a qualita- tive study by Calzada and colleagues (2013) observed that frequent and regular interpersonal contact is normative for Latino families. Partic- ipants in her study spent extended periods of shared living arrangements with extended kin. However, they also found examples of the be- havioral expression of familism that may either influence families positively (e.g., child rearing support, financial support) or negatively (e.g., overcrowding, financial strain of other rela- tives). Taken together, these studies suggest that parental familism attitudes may impact day-care selection, living arrangements, and contact with extended kin, which in turn likely predicts psy- chosocial outcomes. Greater exploration of these relations over time (during early child- hood) is needed.
Critical synthesis and future directions. Research conducted at this stage in develop- ment suggests that Latino families may be ex- pressing the importance of familism, primarily via the messages involving respect for adults within the family; however, we contend that the roots of familism as expressed within families with young children is less well understood. Studies have not precisely examined how pa- rental attitudinal familism influences parental socialization at this stage, and the only study that examined familism impact on parenting behaviors relied solely on self-report. More re- search is necessary to understand how familism
240 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
values influences parental behaviors using ob- servational methodology to rule out single- method bias. The research on the selection of child-care is flawed in that the large-scale stud- ies assume that familism may influence selec- tion but no large-scale studies have specifically measured this question. More research needs to examine how parental attitudinal familism pre- dicts behavioral manifestations (e.g., selection of childcare, parenting practices) especially within different contexts (e.g., urban vs. rural, economic stress). For example, familism influ- ences housing arrangements in urban environ- ments (Calzada et al., 2013), but understanding how a range of community characteristics could play a role in the expression of behavioral familism among families with young children is necessary especially as it relates to housing, childcare selection, and the transition to school.
Middle Childhood (Ages 7–11)
Literature review. During the period of middle childhood, children may start internaliz- ing the values and beliefs that underpin the construct of familism and their behavior may be influenced by their own beliefs in addition to parental directives. However, only five studies were located examining familism solely at this stage. Four studies focused on parental attitudi- nal familism predicting parent behaviors, such that parental attitudinal familism was associated with less interparental conflict (Taylor, Larsen- Rife, Conger, & Widaman, 2012), more respon- sive, warm, and structured parenting (Morcillo et al., 2011; White et al., 2013), and parenting practices aimed at promoting prosocial behav- iors (Calderón-Tena, Knight, & Carlo, 2011), confirming that these values shape the familial context at this stage in development. Two of these studies linked these values and practices to outcomes. In a longitudinal examination across childhood, parental attitudinal familism was associated with lower levels of parent re- ported antisocial behavior over the two yearly follow-ups, controlling for other environmental and child risk factors, parental warmth and structure were found to mediate these relation- ships (Morcillo et al., 2011). However, only one of these studies examined the impact of these parenting practices on child behaviors via child familism values such that maternal attitudinal familism was directly and indirectly associated
with child prosocial behavior partially through child familism values (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011). One other article at this stage examined family contextual predictors finding that higher levels of parental education were associated with higher maternal familism, and also surpris- ingly, preference for English or bilingualism was also associated with higher child familism (Romero, Robinson, Haydel, Mendoza, & Kil- len, 2004).
Critical synthesis and future directions. Although studies increased in frequency, mid- dle childhood is an underdeveloped stage for familism research relative to adolescence. In general, the majority of studies focused on pa- rental familism values, despite the fact that youth at this stage of development (particularly the latter period of middle childhood) have be- gun to internalize these values. Although it is clear that parental attitudinal familism impacts parental behavior, it is less clear how parental familism impacts the internalization of child familism. The only study linking parental and child attitudinal familism at this stage (Calde- rón-Tena et al., 2011) was limited in that the prosocial parenting scale appeared to include items directly associated with familism expec- tations (e.g., “My mother expects me to take care of younger siblings”) and was cross- sectional. In a rare longitudinal investigation, consistent with a developmental science per- spective, Morcillo et al. (2011) was innovative in its design, but unfortunately, it did not mea- sure child attitudinal familism to link whether the internalization of these values also contrib- utes to its positive effects.
Moreover, the manifestation of attitudinal versus behavioral familism at this stage may be particularly important to clarify. In addition to predicting parental behaviors, attitudinal paren- tal familism may also predict child manifesta- tions of behavioral familism (e.g., compliant behavior), which has not been examined at this stage in development. Additionally, studies have intermixed both behavioral and attitudinal components in its measurement making it dif- ficult to disentangle whether it was the internal- ization of these values or the behavioral enact- ments that lead to positive outcomes (e.g., Romero et al., 2004). Therefore, a developmen- tally appropriate measure of attitudinal and be- havioral familism needs to be developed that can guide these questions at this stage, and to
241FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
critically examine the interplay of these two aspects of familism throughout development (e.g., their alignment vs. misalignment). Addi- tionally, contextual factors need to be consid- ered more fully. For example, the behavioral manifestation of familism may also pose a risk in school contexts if the child shows overly deferential behavior toward adults. Thus, re- search at this stage should be mindful of how attitudinal and behavioral child familism influ- ences the development of relationships outside of the home context (e.g., peer, teachers).
Adolescence (12–18)
Literature review. We located 32 studies examining familism values in adolescence that will be discussed below.
Family functioning. Contrary to work ear- lier in development, research conducted in ad- olescence examines how familism manifests it- self from both a parent and adolescent perspective. Across studies, Latino mothers demonstrate parenting strategies that are consis- tent with familism: closely monitoring their children, controlling their activities, having ex- pectations of obedience, and maintaining warm and supportive relationships that foster inter- connectedness (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007; Updegraff, Umaña-Taylor, Perez-Brena, & Pflieger, 2012). Adolescents often interpret these parental behaviors as the manifestation of familism; for example, they report feeling that parents should closely monitor them and spend time with them, viewing this behavior as being driven by parental love and concern (Guilamo- Ramos et al., 2007). Latino adolescents also demonstrate many behaviors consistent with familism as evident with studies documenting time spent interpreting for parents (Sy, 2006), completing household chores (Raffaelli & On- tai, 2004), caring for siblings (Hafford, 2010), and time spent with siblings and other family members (Updegraff, McHale, Whiteman, Thayer, & Delgado, 2005).
Not surprisingly, familism has been associ- ated with a positive parent– child relationship (Delgado, Updegraff, Roosa, & Umaña-Taylor, 2011; Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2012; Taylor, Larsen-Rife, Conger, & Widaman, 2012). Ado- lescents who value familism reported greater feelings of connectedness and cohesion with the family and better parent– child communication
(Fuligni et al., 1999; Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2012), and families high in familism were char- acterized as having high cohesion (Peña et al., 2011). Adolescent familism also predicted low levels of parent-adolescent conflict (e.g., Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallao, 2010), and con- flict served to mediate the positive effects of attitudinal familism. However, consistent with tenets of developmental science regarding the individual’s transaction with the surrounding context, research has found that family conflict in the presence of high levels of attitudinal familism may be more detrimental as it violates the expectations of family harmony (Hernán- dez, Ramírez Garcia, & Flynn, 2010; Kuhlberg, Peña, & Zayas, 2010).
During midlate adolescence, the increased desire for autonomy and individuation from the family may impact how familism is expressed within the family context, particularly how ad- olescents perceive their parents’ behavior. Atti- tudinal adolescent familism has been associated with the perception of parents serving as legit- imate sources of guidance and authority (Bush, Supple, & Lash, 2004), such as for making decisions about dating (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007). This perception of parents’ legitimate authority leads to improved family functioning as well as positive adolescent outcomes, includ- ing less distress and more prosocial behaviors (e.g., Kuperminc et al., 2009). However, when Latino adolescents do not align with their par- ents on autonomy expectations, there is in- creased risk for parent– child conflict and greater psychopathology (e.g., Bámaca-Colbert, Umaña-Taylor, & Gayles, 2012). One longitu- dinal study has examined the natural trajectory of familism values across adolescence, and con- sistent with the notion that familism may change in adolescence because of autonomy, attitudinal familism across 7th and 12th grade decreases (Updegraff, Umaña-Taylor, McHale, Wheeler, & Perez-Brena, 2012), whereas an- other study documented increases in filial obli- gations in the transition out of 12th grade (Fu- ligni & Pedersen, 2002). Likely the distinct aspects of familism (i.e., respect vs. obligations) may demonstrate differential growth across ad- olescence, but more research is needed to clar- ify these trajectories.
Psychosocial and academic outcomes. The majority of research suggests that attitudi- nal adolescent familism serves a compensatory
242 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
function and predicts better psychosocial func- tioning (i.e., fewer depressive symptoms, less substance use, and less behavioral problems) (e.g., Ayón, Marsiglia, & Bermudez-Parsai, 2010; Germán, Gonzales, & Dumka, 2009; Gil, Wagner, & Vega, 2000; Marsiglia, Parsai, & Kulis, 2009; Polo & Lopez, 2009). Addition- ally, behavioral familism, as conceptualized as fulfilling familial obligations, has also been shown to predict the development of compe- tence and maturity in Latino adolescents (Ku- perminc, Jurkovic, & Casey, 2009). However, although attitudinal and behavioral familism can often be protective, it can also result in detrimental outcomes in stressful contexts act- ing as a potentiating factor. East and Weisner (2009) found that extensive family responsibil- ities predicted adolescent stress, internalizing symptoms, and worse school outcomes, and familism did not buffer against the detrimental effects of extensive caregiving in the context of sibling teenage parenting. Similarly, in their study of suicidal adolescents (Nolle, Gulbas, Kuhlberg, & Zayas, 2012), participants sacri- ficed their material needs or subjugated their emotions to avoid unduly burdening their fam- ilies, and when they failed to fulfill their obli- gations, they felt that sacrificing themselves through suicide would serve as an appropriate solution.
Fewer studies have examined paternal and maternal attitudinal familism predicting adoles- cent outcomes and produced mixed findings. Paternal attitudinal familism was negatively as- sociated with adolescent deviant peers associa- tion whereas adolescent attitudinal familism was associated with fewer depressive symp- toms, risk engagement, and peer association, but maternal reports were only correlated with fewer depressive symptoms in older adolescents (Delgado et al., 2011). In another study, mater- nal, paternal, and adolescent attitudinal familism protected adolescents from deviant peer association in the prediction of externaliz- ing symptoms, but only maternal familism showed direct effects (Germán, Gonzales, & Dumka, 2009). Finally, other studies have con- sidered discrepancies in parent and child reports of attitudinal familism. Parent-child alignment on attitudinal familism was protective against both internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Bamaca-Colbert & Gayles, 2010; Baumann,
Kuhlberg, & Zayas, 2010; Kuhlberg, Peña, & Zayas, 2010; Stein & Polo, 2014).
Research examining familism values and ac- ademic outcomes has generally focused on at- titudes about family obligations. Attitudinal fa- milial obligations and respect contribute to Latino adolescents’ academic motivation be- cause of the fact that students desire to help their families in the future (Fuligni et al., 1999; Sánchez, Esparza, Colón, & Davis, 2010). However, other research documents potential risk as family obligation attitudes influenced students to forego attending college to support their families (Sánchez et al., 2010). These con- tradictory findings suggest that contextual forces are likely leading to differential out- comes. In fact, parental education was a signif- icant moderator, but again findings were con- flicting with one study finding less risk at low levels of education and the other finding less risk at high levels of education (Esparza & Sánchez, 2008; Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994). Furthermore, a curvilinear effect exists between attitudinal family obligations and grades, such that students reporting the greatest obligations had school grades just as low or even lower than those reporting the weakest family obligations (Fuligni et al., 1999). We can conclude from these studies that attitudinal and behavioral familism may differentially impact academic outcomes, and further, these relation- ships are likely impacted by contextual factors such as SES and generational status, but pres- ently mechanisms are less clear.
Attitudinal familism has also been associated with a greater sense of school belonging (Stein, Gonzalez, Cupito, Kiang, & Supple, 2013), and a strong sense of school belonging has been predictive of higher grade point average (GPA) among Latino students (Sánchez, Colón, & Es- parza, 2005). Attitudinal familism may help ad- olescents develop psychosocial competencies allowing them to successfully create feelings of connectedness and solidarity in the school set- ting (Knight & Carlo, 2012). Consistent with this idea, attitudinal and behavioral familism have also been found to promote prosocial be- havior tendencies (i.e., actions that are intended to benefit others) (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011) and social competence (Kuperminc et al., 2009). Therefore, familism may lead to adoles- cents being more cognizant of others before
243FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
they act leading to positive outcomes in con- texts outside of the home.
New research has examined the neural mech- anisms underlying the relationship between at- titudinal filial obligations, cognitive control, and risk-taking behavior (Telzer, Fuligni, Lieberman, & Galván, 2013); adolescents re- porting high filial obligations were found to show a neural pattern consistent with greater risk aversion, lower sensitivity to rewards, and more mature cognitive control. Of interest to the authors, family cohesion and support did not show similar neural responses, indicating that only specific types of family relationships are associated with these protective effects. This work exemplifies a developmental science per- spective as it integrates across systems examin- ing the neurological mechanisms that may ex- plain in part the protective function of familism, and suggests that the internalization of these values changes how adolescents may respond to their environments and the neurological path- ways that may be implicated in their behavior.
Work on contextual influences has also ex- tended our current understanding of the role of familism by examining the role of neighbor- hood level familism (Gonzales et al., 2010), calculated by averaging mothers’ and fathers’ familism in a census block. Neighborhood familism conferred the most robust protective effects of all contextual predictors (e.g., family income, subjective economic hardship, and neighborhood disadvantage). Thus, having a community with shared values about the impor- tance of family may allow for collective super- vision of youth, more resources for youth to pursue goals, positive opportunities, more safe places, and may validate and support parents’ commitment to family (Gonzales et al., 2010).
Work has also examined how attitudinal familism operates in the context of experiences of discrimination. Although adolescent attitudi- nal familism was protective against the negative effects of discrimination on risk-taking behav- iors at low levels of discrimination, it was not protective at high levels of discrimination (Umaña-Taylor, Updegraff, & Gonzales- Backen, 2011). Similarly, attitudinal familism failed to buffer against peer discrimination in predicting depressive symptoms and psycholog- ical distress (Ayón et al., 2010; Delgado et al., 2011; Stein et al., 2013). Moreover, daughters of mothers who report high levels of attitudinal
familism perceived greater discrimination (Del- gado et al., 2011), and yet, discrimination re- sults in an increase in Latino cultural values (Berkel et al., 2010). As suggested by Berkel et al. (2010), familism may not operate as a buffer but instead a risk reducer in the context of stress and in conjunction with ethnic identity, but more work is needed to elucidate these pro- cesses.
Critical Synthesis and Future Directions
Socialization. It is clear that familism im- pacts family functioning in adolescence, but studies at this period suggest that parents and youth do not universally align on attitudinal familism. Most studies have documented non- significant correlations between parent and ad- olescent reports of attitudinal familism (e.g., Delgado et al., 2011; Germán et al., 2009; Knight et al., 2011). This suggests two possible interpretations. First, consistent with accultura- tion gap models, it is likely that there are fam- ilies that align on these values and those who do not align equally on these values. Second, and perhaps more importantly for the field, little is known about how families come to align on these values and, more specifically, how ado- lescents come to internalize these values (Knight et al., 2011). Recent research suggests that parental, especially maternal, ethnic social- ization during early adolescence leads to in- creases in adolescent attitudinal familistic val- ues (Knight et al., 2011; Umaña-Taylor, Alfaro, Bámaca, & Guimond, 2009). Thus, direct ethnic socialization is likely to be one of the many pathways fostering the internalization of attitu- dinal familism, but socialization measures used in the literature have not been specific to familism. This makes it unclear whether parents explicitly socialize around these values, or as suggested by Valdés (1996), this is done more indirectly. Additionally, research should disen- tangle whether the messages parents provide are more directly related to the behavioral manifes- tation of familism (i.e., completing chores) or also include messages about the values them- selves (e.g., we should always support our fam- ily). Therefore, more work is needed to under- stand the ethnic socialization of familism in Latino families and how these values are in- stilled both in the family context and extrafa-
244 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
milial contexts (e.g., school, neighborhoods) as suggested in Table 1.
Attitudinal versus behavioral familism. It is evident that attitudinal familism is associ- ated with family functioning, but how these constructs relate to one another in the prediction of psychological functioning is less clear in adolescence. Clarification is needed as to whether positive family functioning (e.g., warmth, cohesion) constitutes a behavioral manifestation of attitudinal familism, or whether they are distinct constructs. Medita- tional models finding that attitudinal familism influences family functioning leading to posi- tive psychological outcomes support this no- tion. However, moderational models would suggest that these are indeed separate constructs and that attitudinal familism functions as the cultural framework that influences how individ- uals interpret each other’s behavior. Although both models can be true in that these values may guide behavior but then also serve as cognitive frames to understand that behavior, researchers should be mindful as to what construct their measure captures and which model is guiding their research questions as suggested by Table 1. Again, longitudinal studies will be particu- larly useful in disentangling the familial and individual mediating mechanisms.
Similarly, the literature continues to be plagued by a lack of clear theoretical and mea- surement clarity concerning adolescent attitudi- nal versus behavioral familism as predicting outcomes. More work needs to examine the differential impact of both aspects of familism, with a specific focus on the intersection of the two as the review finds that both attitudinal and behavioral familism can pose a threat to psy- chological and academic functioning (East & Weisner, 2009; Nolle et al., 2012; Sánchez et al., 2010). Because these studies all utilized different methodology, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions, but it is likely that attitudinal and behavioral factors serve as both risk and protective factors and this relationship depends both on the type of familism in question as well as contextual factors (e.g., Calzada et al., 2013).
Attention to context. The contextual influ- ences that may impact the effects of familism need to be elucidated more clearly as suggested in Table 1. Studies demonstrating a detrimental effect of attitudinal familism have been con- ducted in at risk populations (high levels of
psychopathology, Bauman, Kuhlberg, & Zayas, 2010; teenage pregnancy, East & Weisner, 2009; low SES, Sánchez et al., 2010). Similarly, the role of familism, parental education, and broader SES context in predicting academic outcomes is not well understood; disparate findings could be linked to different family or cultural contexts (immigrant vs. United States born parents, Esparza & Sánchez, 2008; Va- lenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994). These findings align with a developmental science perspec- tive suggesting that contextual factors need to be carefully considered to understand how familism operates in adolescence.
The relation between acculturation and familism is complex and studies in adolescence have found no relation between generation sta- tus and familism (e.g., Delgado et al., 2011; Esparza & Sanchez, 2008; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2009). Similarly, some studies have found no relation between acculturation variables and en- dorsement of familism values (e.g., Updegraff et al., 2005), but other studies find that both acculturation to the United States and culture of origin are both related to the endorsement of familism (e.g., Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2012). These differences may be because of measure- ment and sample characteristics as some of these have included mostly youth living in im- migrant families, and generation or accultura- tion differences may be found in more diverse samples. However, the majority of research on the relation of familism and acculturation fails to consider attitudinal versus behavioral familism, as there may be differences in the enactment of familism but not the values across generations or acculturation. Future research should continue to explore how attitudinal and behavioral familism functions across contexts, with special attention paid to elucidating the mechanisms that may underlie the protective and/or risk mechanisms.
Reporter. Differential findings across re- porter in adolescence are evident in our current review, and some of these differences may be because of age differences in the samples (e.g., Delgado et al., 2011; Germán et al., 2009). There is some convergence of findings suggest- ing that maternal familism may be particularly salient (e.g., Knight et al., 2011) because of the primary role mothers play in structuring family environments and maintaining family values in the home. Given these findings, there is a need
245FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
for closer consideration of how and why report- ers of familism are selected, and how these perspectives can be best considered simultane- ously.
Conclusions
Taken together, we can conclude from these findings that parental and child attitudi- nal familism is associated with positive fam- ily functioning, which we argue can be con- strued as a behavioral manifestation of familism. Moreover, attitudinal familism has also been associated with multiple positive outcomes in Latino youth, primarily in ado- lescence (e.g., fewer internalizing and exter- nalizing symptoms, greater social compe- tence). However, the literature is plagued with some significant methodological flaws. Without a gold standard measure of attitudi- nal or behavioral familism, our conclusions across studies are hampered. It is unclear what aspects of familism are particularly pro- tective and whether the aspect of familism matters, and this is particularly salient for clarifying the differential role of attitudinal versus behavioral familism. As noted in Table 1, researchers should specify the particular aspect of familism being assessed in their study to reduce this confusion in the litera- ture.
Across developmental stages, research should more consistently examine how child gender may not only influence the internal- ization and enactment of familism, but also influence its protective or potentiating effects. Past research suggests that girls may be more heavily burdened by obligations in adoles- cence compared to boys (Stein et al., 2013; Rafaelli & Ontai, 2004), but few studies have systematically examined how familism may differentially impact psychosocial function- ing across gender. Some studies above sug- gest that familism may confer more protec- tion for girls (e.g., Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2012; Morcillo et al., 2011), but gender has not been a consistent moderator (e.g., Stein & Polo, 2014). Likely, the effects of familism across gender depends on the aspect of familism under study as well as other contex- tual factors (e.g., poverty, birth order, or im- migrant status) that need to be better eluci- dated.
Our review highlights the need for further inquiry in the developmental processes asso- ciated with familism, especially longitudinal studies that can clarify how familism mani- fests itself across development and how this manifestation depends on transitions across childhood. There is a dearth of research on familism in early childhood and middle child- hood to fully describe how familism unfolds across development, and how it may differ- entially relate to outcomes. From a parental perspective, further work should examine the continuity in parental attitudinal familism across childhood and adolescence, and how it is influenced by child directed effects or con- text directed effects. Greater attention to how the behavioral expression of familism during an earlier developmental stage (e.g., early childhood) may influence both attitudinal and behavioral familism during later development may help to differentially predict outcomes in adolescence. In the same vein, research needs to explore whether there is a developmental shift in adolescence such that striving for autonomy leads to lessening of familism val- ues as suggested by Updegraff and colleagues (2012). Likely, there is variability in these trajectories during this time of identity forma- tion where some adolescents solidify and strengthen their familistic orientation while other adolescents move away from it; we need to understand the familial and contextual pre- dictors of these trajectories. Similarly, risk and protective mechanisms may also differ across development as familism may be pro- tective for a specific psychosocial outcome at one point in development but not at another, and this may also hold true across contexts where expectations may be incongruent (e.g., home and school, or home and peers).
Few studies have used longitudinal meth- odology to examine the developmental course of familism and this work is necessary to identify causal mediators as well track devel- opmental trajectories associated with familism. As we learn more about how familism intersects with important stage- salient issues, we will be able to clarify some of the mechanisms that underlie familism’s effects on functioning across contexts. In summary, future research should consider the attitudinal and behavioral aspects of familism from both the parent and child perspective
246 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
across development to understand the func- tion of familism for Latino youth.
Abstracto
Este ensayo revisa una literatura emergente que ex- amina los efectos del familismo a través de la niñez hasta la adolescencia. El familismo ha sido definido como un valor cultural Latino que enfatiza obli- gación, lealtad hacia la familia, y el apoyo y obedi- encia familiar, y sus efectos durante estas etapas de desarrollo han sido documentados de manera positiva en general por la literatura. Esta revisión de la litera- tura intenta organizar y criticar lo que se ha investi- gado hasta hoy en día utilizando el esquema de la ciencia del desarrollo. Los principios claves de esta perspectiva subrayados por esta revisión son la con- sideración detallada de como se desarrolla el familismo en un individuo a través del tiempo, como se manifiesta el familismo en diferentes puntos du- rante el desarrollo, y como impacta el funciona- miento del niño, del adolecente, y de la familia. Cuarenta y cuatro ensayos fueron examinados y cat- egorizados, y los resultados demuestran que la influ- encia protectora del familismo es mayormente evi- dente durante el periodo de la adolescencia. Consideraciones sobre los diferentes modos de ex- presar el familismo y el impacto que tiene sobre los resultados del desarrollo anterior y posterior se ofre- cen como recomendaciones para derivar un entendi- miento mas completo del funcionamiento del Familismo en las familias Latinas.
References
Ayón, C., Marsiglia, F. F., & Bermudez-Parsai, M. (2010). Latino family mental health: Exploring the role of discrimination and familismo. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 742–756. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20392
Bámaca-Colbert, M. Y., & Gayles, J. G. (2010). Variable-centered and person-centered approaches to studying Mexican-origin mother– daughter cul- tural orientation dissonance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1274 –1292. doi:10.1007/s10964- 009-9447-3
Bámaca-Colbert, M. Y., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Gayles, J. G. (2012). A developmental-contextual model of depressive symptoms in Mexican-origin female adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 48, 406 – 421. doi:10.1037/a0025666
Bardis, P. D. (1959). A familism scale. Marriage & Family Living, 21, 340 –341.
Baumann, A. A., Kuhlberg, J., & Zayas, L. (2010). Familism, mother-daughter mutuality and sui- cide attempts of adolescent Latinas. Journal of
Family Psychology, 24, 616 – 624. doi:10.1037/ a0020584
Berkel, C., Knight, G. P., Zeiders, K. H., Tein, J. Y., Roosa, M. W., Gonzales, N. A., & Saenz, D. (2010). Discrimination and adjustment for Mexi- can American adolescents: A prospective exami- nation of the benefits of culturally related values. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 893–915. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00668.x
Bridges, M., Cohen, S. R., McGuire, L. W., Yamada, H., Fuller, B., Mireles, L., & Scott, L. (2012). Bien Educado: Measuring the social behaviors of Mex- ican American children. Early Childhood Re- search Quarterly, 27, 555–567.
Burgess, E. W., & Locke, H. S. (1945). The family: From institution to companionship. New York, NY: American.
Bush, K. R., Supple, A. J., & Lash, S. B. (2004). Mexican adolescents’ perceptions of parental be- haviors and authority as predictors of their self- esteem and sense of familism. Marriage & Family Review, 36, 35– 65. doi:10.1300/J002v36n01_03
Calderón-Tena, C. O., Knight, G. P., & Carlo, G. (2011). The socialization of prosocial behavioral tendencies among Mexican American adolescents: The role of familism values. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 98 –106. doi: 10.1037/a0021825
Calzada, E. J., Fernandez, Y., & Cortes, D. E. (2010). Incorporating the cultural value of respeto into a framework of Latino parenting. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 77– 86. doi: 10.1037/a0016071
Calzada, E. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Familismo in Mexican and Dominican Families from low-income, urban communities. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1–29. doi:10.1177/ 0192513X12460218
Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Gonzalez, G. (1995). Cog- nitive referents of acculturation: Assessment of cultural constructs in Mexican Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 339 –356.
Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans- II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. His- panic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275– 304.
Colon, R. (1998). Causal relationships of familial influence and adolescents’ attitude toward sub- stance use in the theory of planned behavior: A social impact model. Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national, 59, 2482. (UMI No. AAM9835729).
Delgado, M. Y., Updegraff, K. A., Roosa, M. W., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2011). Discrimination and Mexican-origin adolescents’ adjustment: The moderating roles of adolescents’, mothers’, and fathers’ cultural orientations and values. Journal of
247FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
Youth and Adolescence, 40, 125–139. doi:10.1007/ s10964-009-9467-z
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1994). La psicología del Mexi- cano: Descubrimiento de la etnopsicología (6th ed.) [The psychology of the Mexican: Discovery of ethnopsychology]. Mexico City: Trillas.
East, P. L., & Weisner, T. S. (2009). Mexican Amer- ican adolescents’ family caregiving: Selection ef- fects and longitudinal associations with adjust- ment. Family Relations, 58, 562–577. doi:10.1111/ j.1741-3729.2009.00575.x
Esparza, P., & Sánchez, B. (2008). The role of atti- tudinal familism in academic outcomes: A study of urban, Latino high school seniors. Cultural Diver- sity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 193–200. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.14.3.193
Feldman, S. S., & Quatman, T. (1988). Factors in- fluencing age expectations for adolescent auton- omy: A study of early adolescents and parents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 325–343.
Fuligni, A., & Pedersen, S. (2002). Family obligation and the transition to young adulthood. Develop- mental Psychology, 38, 856 – 868. doi:10.1037/ 0012-1649.38.5.856
Fuligni, A., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American Ado- lescents with Asian, Latin American, and Euro- pean Backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1030 – 1044. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00075
Gamble, W. C., & Modry-Mandell, K. (2008). Fam- ily relations and the adjustment of young children of Mexican descent: Do family cultural values moderate these associations? Social Development, 17, 358 –379. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007 .00429.x
Germán, M., Gonzales, N., & Dumka, L. (2009). Familism values as a protective factor for Mexi- can-origin adolescents exposed to deviant peers. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 16 – 42. doi:10.1177/0272431608324475
Gil, A. G., Wagner, E. F., & Vega, W. A. (2000). Acculturation, familism, and alcohol use among Latino adolescent males: Longitudinal relations. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 443– 458. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(200007)28:4�443::AID- JCOP6�3.0.CO;2-A
Gonzales, N. A., Coxe, S., Roosa, M. W., White, R. M. B., Knight, G. P., Zeiders, K. H., & Saenz, D. (2010). Economic hardship, neighborhood context, and par- enting: Prospective effects on Mexican-American ad- olescents mental health. American Journal of Com- munity Psychology, 47, 98 –113. doi:10.1007/ s10464-010-9366-1
Guilamo-Ramos, V., Dittus, P., Jaccard, J., Johans- son, M., Bouris, A., & Acosta, N. (2007). Parent- ing practices among Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers. Social Work, 52, 17–30. doi:10.1093/sw/ 52.1.17
Hafford, C. (2010). Sibling caretaking in immigrant families: Understanding cultural practices to in- form child welfare practice and evaluation. Eval- uation and Program Planning, 33, 294 –302. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.05.003
Hernández, B., Ramírez García, J. I., & Flynn, M. (2010). The role of familism in the relation be- tween parent– child discord and psychological dis- tress among emerging adults of Mexican descent. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 105–114. doi: 10.1037/a0019140
Jurkovic, G. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Sarac, T., & Weis- shaar, D. (2005). Role of filial responsibility in the post-war adjustment of Bosnian young adoles- cents. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 219 –235.
Keefe, S. E. (1984). Real and ideal extended familism among Mexican Americans and Anglo Americans: On the meaning of close family ties. Human Organization, 43, 65– 69.
Karoly, L. A., & Gonzalez, G. C. (2011). Early care and education for children in immigrant families. The Future of Children, 21, 71–101. doi:10.1353/ foc.2011.0005
Kiang, L., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Ethnic identity and family processes among adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 228 –241. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9353-0
Knight, G. P., Berkel, C., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Gonza- les, N. A., Ettekal, I., Jaconis, M., & Boyd, B. M. (2011). The familial socialization of culturally related values in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 913–925. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00856.x
Knight, G. P., & Carlo, G. (2012). Prosocial devel- opment among Mexican American youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 258 –263. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00233.x
Knight, G. P., Gonzales, N. A., Saenz, D. S., Bonds, D. D., Germán, M., Deardorff, J., . . . Updegraff, K. A. (2010). The Mexican American cultural val- ues scale for adolescents and adults. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 444 – 481. doi:10.1177/ 0272431609338178
Kuhlberg, J. A., Peña, J. B., & Zayas, L. H. (2010). Familism, parent-adolescent conflict, self-esteem, internalizing behaviors and suicide attempts among adolescent Latinas. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41, 425– 440. doi:10.1007/ s10578-010-0179-0
Kuperminc, G. P., Jurkovic, C. J., & Casey, S. (2009). Relation of filial responsibility to the per- sonal and social adjustment of Latino adolescents from immigrant families. Journal of Family Psy- chology, 23, 14 –22. doi:10.1037/a0014064
Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Unger, J. B., Baezconde- Garbanati, L., Ritt-Olson, A., & Soto, D. (2012). Acculturation, enculturation, and symptoms of de-
248 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
pression in Hispanic youth: The roles of gender, Hispanic cultural values, and family functioning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1350 – 1365. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9774-7
Lugo Steidel, A., & Contreras, J. M. (2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 312– 330. doi:10.1177/0739986303256912
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, 98, 224 –253.
Marsiglia, F. F., Parsai, M., & Kulis, S. (2009). Effects of familism and family cohesion on prob- lem behaviors among adolescents in Mexican im- migrant families in the southwest United States. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 18, 203–220. doi:10.1080/15313200 903070965
Masten, A. S. (2006). Developmental psychopathol- ogy: Pathways to the future. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 47–54. doi: 10.1177/0165025406059974
Morcillo, C., Duarte, C. S., Shen, S., Blanco, C., Canino, G., & Bird, H. R. (2011). Parental familism and antisocial behaviors: Development, gender, and potential mechanisms. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychi- atry, 50, 471– 479. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2011.01.014
Mulligan, G. M., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (2005). Child care and early education arrangements of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers: 2001. Statisti- cal Analysis Report. NCES 2006 – 039. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
Nolle, A. P., Gulbas, L., Kuhlberg, J. A., & Zayas, L. H. (2012). Sacrifice for the sake of the family: Expressions of familism by Latina teens in the context of suicide. American Journal of Orthopsy- chiatry 82, 3, 319 –327. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025 .2012.01166.x
Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H., Barnes, H., Larsen, A. S., Muxen, M. J., & Wilson, M. A. (1983). Families: What makes them work. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Peña, J. B., Kuhlberg, J. A., Zayas, L. H., Baumann, A. A., Gulbas, L., Hausmann-Stabile, C., & Nolle, A. P. (2011). Familism, family environment, and suicide attempts among Latina youth. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 41, 330 –341. doi: 10.1111/j.1943-278X.2011.00032.x
Polo, A. J., & Lopez, S. R. (2009). Culture, context, and the internalizing distress of Mexican American youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38, 273–285. doi:10.1080/1537 4410802698370
Raffaelli, M., & Ontai, L. L. (2004). Gender social- ization in Latino/a families: Results from two ret- rospective studies. Sex Roles, 50, 287–299. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000018886.58945.06
Romero, A. J., Robinson, T. N., Haydel, K. F., Men- doza, F., & Killen, J. D. (2004). Associations among familism, language preference, and educa- tion in Mexican- American mothers and their chil- dren. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pe- diatrics, 25, 34 – 40.
Sabogal, F., Marín, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., VanOss Marín, B., & Perez-Stable, E. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sci- ences, 9, 397– 412.
Sánchez, B., Colón, Y., & Esparza, P. (2005). The role of sense of school belonging and gender in the academic adjustment of Latino adolescents. Jour- nal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 619 – 628. doi: 10.1007/s10964-005-8950-4
Sánchez, B., Esparza, P., Colón, Y., & Davis, K. E. (2010). Tryin’ to make it during the transition from high school: The role of family obligation attitudes and economic context for Latino emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 858 – 884.
Smokowski, P. R., & Bacallao, M. (2007). Accultur- ation, internalizing mental health symptoms and self-esteem: Cultural experiences of Latino adoles- cents in North Carolina. Child Psychiatry and Hu- man Development, 37, 273–292. doi:10.1007/ s10578-006-0035-4
Smokowski, P., Rose, R., & Bacallao, M. (2010). Influence of risk factors and cultural assets on Latino adolescents’ trajectories of self-esteem and internalizing symptoms. Child Psychiatry and Hu- man Development, 41, 133–155. doi:10.1007/ s10578-009-0157-6
Stein, G. L., Gonzalez, L. M., Cupito, A. M., Kiang, L., & Supple, A. J. (2013). The protective role of familism in the lives of Latino adolescents. Jour- nal of Family Issues. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0192513X13502480
Stein, G. L., & Polo, A. J. (2014). Parent– child cultural value gaps and depressive symptoms among Mexican American youth. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 189 –199. doi:10.1007/ s10826-013-9724-3
Sy, S. R. (2006). Family and work influences on the transition to college among Latina adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 368 – 386.
Taylor, Z. E., Larsen-Rife, D., Conger, R. D., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Familism, interparental conflict, and parenting in Mexican-origin Families: A cultural– contextual framework. Journal of Mar- riage and Family, 74, 312–327. doi:10.1111/j .1741-3737.2012.00958.x
Telzer, E. H., Fuligni, A. J., Lieberman, M. D., & Galván, A. (2013). Meaningful family relation- ships: Neurocognitive buffers of adolescent risk taking. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 374 –387. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00331
249FAMILISM
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Alfaro, E. C., Bámaca, M. Y., & Guimond, A. B. (2009). The central role of familial ethnic socialization in Latino adolescents’ cultural orientation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 46 – 60. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008 .00579.x
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Updegraff, K., & Gonzales- Backen, M. (2011). Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychosocial functioning: Examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moderators. Journal of Youth and Ad- olescence, 40, 140 –157. doi:10.1007/s10964-010- 9511-z
Unger, J. B., Ritt-Olson, A., Teran, L., Huang, T., Hoffman, B. R., & Palmer, P. (2002). Cultural values and substance use in a multiethnic sample of California adolescents. Addiction Research The- ory, 10, 257–279.
Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Whiteman, S. D., Thayer, S. M., & Delgado, M. Y. (2005). Adoles- cent sibling relationships in Mexican American families: Exploring the role of familism. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 512–522. doi:10.1037/ 0893-3200.19.4.512
Updegraff, K. A., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., McHale, S. M., Wheeler, L. A., & Perez-Brena, N. J. (2012). Mexican-origin youth’s cultural orienta- tions and adjustment: Changes from early to late adolescence. Child Development, 83, 1655–1671. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01800.x
Updegraff, K. A., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Perez-Brena, N. J., & Pflieger, J. (2012). Mother– daughter con-
flict and adjustment in Mexican-origin families: Exploring the role of family and sociocultural con- text. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2012, 59 – 81. doi:10.1002/cd.20004
Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the dis- tances between culturally diverse families and schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Valenzuela, A., & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Familism and social capital in the academic achievement of Mexican origin and Anglo adolescents. Social Sci- ence Quarterly, 75, 18 –36.
White, R. M., Zeiders, K. H., Gonzales, N. A., Tein, J. Y., & Roosa, M. W. (2013). Cultural values, US neighborhood danger, and Mexican American par- ents’ parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 365–375. doi:10.1037/a0032888
Wozniak, R., Sung, S., Crump, T., Edgar-Smith, S., & Litzinger, S. (1996). The relational family val- ues Q-sort. Unpublished manuscript, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA.
Yesil-Dagli, U. (2011). Predicting ELL students’ be- ginning first grade English oral reading fluency from initial kindergarten vocabulary, letter nam- ing, and phonological awareness skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 15–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.06.001
Received September 5, 2013 Revision received June 16, 2014
Accepted June 20, 2014 �
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
250 STEIN ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
- Familism Through a Developmental Lens
- Historical and Definitional Issues
- Developmental Science
- Method
- Results
- Early Childhood (Birth to 7)
- Literature review
- Critical synthesis and future directions
- Middle Childhood (Ages 7–11)
- Literature review
- Critical synthesis and future directions
- Adolescence (12–18)
- Literature review
- Family functioning
- Psychosocial and academic outcomes
- Critical Synthesis and Future Directions
- Socialization
- Attitudinal versus behavioral familism
- Attention to context
- Reporter
- Conclusions
- ReferencesTitle of Periodical, xx, pp–pp. doi:xx.XXXXXXXXX. Please note the changes to th ...
