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] This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 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
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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 acrosschildhood and adolescence. Familism has been described as a Latino cultural value thatemphasizes obligation, filial piety, family support and obedience, and its effects havebeen documented as primarily protective across childhood and adolescence. Thisreview seeks to organize and critique existing research using a developmental scienceframework. Key tenets of this perspective that are highlighted in the review are closeconsideration of how familism develops within an individual across time, manifestsitself at different points in development, and impacts child, adolescent, and familyfunctioning. Forty-four articles were examined and categorized with results showingthat the protective influence of familism is most evident during the period of adoles-cence. Consideration of expressions of familism and the impact of familism onoutcomes 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 Latinofamilies.
Keywords: familism, developmental science
Research conducted over the past 40 yearsfinds that familial cultural values, primarilytermed familism, function as one of the corecultural values guiding Latino families in theUnited States (e.g., Knight et al., 2010). Whilethe roles of family and familism have beenfirmly established as impacting the lives of La-tinos (Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, VanOssMarín, & Perez-Stable, 1987), familism wasprimarily conceptualized and researched withinadult populations. More recently, the constructhas been extended downward and applied toresearch with younger populations as research-ers examine the role familism plays in predict-ing psychosocial and educational outcomes inLatino youth. However, despite this increasedresearch activity, the majority of the currentliterature has overlooked the potentially dy-
namic nature of familism and has not consid-ered the construct from a developmental scienceperspective (see Calzada, Tamis-LeMonda, &Yoshikowa, 2013 for an exception).
To fill this critical gap in the literature, thisarticle will apply a developmental scienceframework to the study of familism, with afocus on how familism develops, how it is per-petuated across development stages, and how itrelates to outcomes within these stages. Webegin 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. Tobetter illustrate the relation between develop-mental principles and the emergence offamilism, we review articles within develop-mental stage, and critique the findings accord-ing to an understanding of stage-salient issuesdifferentially impacting children and adoles-cents.
Historical and Definitional Issues
Introduced in 1945 by Burgess and Locke(Burgess & Locke, 1945), the construct offamilism was defined as a value that character-ized the social structure of traditional modernpeasant-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 atGreensboro.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Gabriela L. Stein, Department of Psychology,University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 296 EberhartBuilding, P.O. Box 26170, Greensboro, NC 27402-6170.E-mail: [email protected]
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Journal of Latina/o Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association2014, 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 wasnot specific to Latinos. Although familism wasdiscussed as an important value specific to La-tinos in the 1970s, it was not until the late 1980sthat the first widely used familism scale wasdeveloped 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 (theextent to which family members are reliablesources of support), and family as referents (theuse of relatives as behavioral and attitudinalreferents). In their revision of the familism con-struct, Lugo Steidel and Contreras (2003) ar-gued that past conceptualizations had failed tocapture key aspects of familism (e.g., protectingthe family name, family reciprocity and inter-connectedness, and the subjugation of self forthe family), and incorporated these aspects intheir new measure.
Although all of these conceptualizations wererooted in the experience of adult Latinos, newresearch has examined the definition offamilism in younger populations, thereby estab-lishing its role in earlier in development. Fuligniand colleagues (1999, Fuligni & Pedersen,2002) examined the salience of filial obligationsin Latino youth, taking account the develop-mental tasks of adolescence. Similarly, in focusgroups with Mexican American adolescents andtheir families, participants discussed three dis-tinct aspects of familism: the importance ofclose family relationships, obligations to thefamily, and the family serving as a referent(Knight et al., 2010). In a study with Dominicanand Mexican origin mothers, Calzada and col-leagues (2013) reported that parents discussedthe four factors of attitudinal familism sug-gested by Lugo Steidel and Contreras (2003). Insummary, familism appears to be salient toyounger populations and comprised of the samefactors, but research has yet to consider howfamilism develops within the individual andhow its development predicts psychosocialfunctioning.
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 developmentalprocesses and outcomes. Masten (2006) out-lined six principles that can be applied to thestudy 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 tobehavior to surrounding systems, individualswho are active agents in their own development,normal and abnormal outcomes or behaviorsthat are mutually informative and reveal howdifferent trajectories arise in development, andfinally, longitudinal research best illustrates theinterplay among aspects of development andcontext over time. In our conceptual analysis,we seek to show how individual trajectoriescould be impacted by the cultural familial valueof familism at different developmental stages.Moreover, we argue that examining familismwithout an appreciation of the context in whichit occurs may result in flawed conclusions aboutthe contributions that familism makes to even-tual adaptive or maladaptive outcomes for La-tino youth. Finally, this review highlights theclear need for specific longitudinal work thatcan capture how familism functions differentlyfor 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 onfamilism and the developmental science per-spective, we propose an organizational frame-work to guide future research and our currentreview (see Table 1). We posit that obligations,respect, support or cohesion, and family as ref-erent are four central components of familismthat could be studied across each major stage ofdevelopment. 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 fromfamilism, we place respect along with obedi-ence in our framework for two reasons. Weargue that respeto is a developmentally appro-priate component of familism evident in earlychildhood. The parenting practices designed toinstill respeto serve as a foundation to the valueof familism, primarily because respeto provideschildren with a role within the family and an
225FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le1
Pro
pose
dO
rgan
izat
iona
lF
ram
ewor
kfo
rth
eIm
pact
ofF
amil
ism
onC
hild
ren
and
Par
ents
Thr
ough
out
Dev
elop
men
t
Ear
lych
ildho
od(2
–6)
Mid
dle
child
hood
(7–1
1)A
dole
scen
ce(1
2–18
)
Chi
ldPa
rent
Chi
ldPa
rent
Chi
ldPa
rent
Fam
ilism
Prim
arily
beha
vior
alm
anif
esta
tions
Pare
ntla
ysfo
unda
tion
for
cultu
ral
valu
esan
dex
pect
atio
ns;
prim
arily
focu
sed
onre
spet
oan
dbe
havi
oral
com
plia
nce
Chi
ldst
arts
inte
rnal
izin
gva
lues
that
unde
rgir
dbe
havi
ors
Pare
nts
cont
inue
emph
asiz
eob
edie
nce,
com
plia
nce,
resp
ect;
star
tin
crea
sing
oblig
atio
nsde
man
ds
Val
ues
inte
rnal
ized
and
impa
ctbe
havi
ors
Pare
ntex
pect
sin
tern
aliz
atio
nof
valu
esan
dco
ngru
ent
beha
vior
Obl
igat
ions
Atti
tudi
nal
Em
ergi
ngO
blig
atio
nsto
othe
rfa
mily
;ne
edto
help
othe
rs
Dev
elop
sun
ders
tand
ing
ofth
ings
shou
ldbe
doin
gin
the
hom
e
Con
tinua
tion
ofde
man
dsin
earl
ych
ildho
od;
grea
ter
expe
ctat
ions
ofob
ligat
ions
for
child
ren
Inte
rnal
ized
valu
eof
oblig
atio
ns;
soph
istic
ated
Obl
igat
ions
and
expe
ctat
ions
the
grea
test
Beh
avio
ral
Com
ply
with
pare
ntal
requ
ests
for
assi
stan
ce(e
.g.,
set
the
tabl
e)
Add
ition
alad
ults
inho
me;
time
spen
tw
ithot
her
fam
ilym
embe
rs;
soci
aliz
ing
oblig
atio
nsth
roug
hm
odel
ing
Tim
esp
ent
doin
gch
ores
,he
lpin
gfa
mily
mem
bers
,in
terp
retin
g
Con
tinua
tion
ofde
man
dsin
earl
ych
ildho
od;
requ
ests
ofch
ild’s
oblig
atio
nan
dso
cial
izat
ion
oblig
atio
nsve
rbal
ly
Incr
ease
dob
ligat
ions
inth
eho
me
due
toag
e(c
aret
akin
g,co
okin
g,an
dcl
eani
ng)
Obl
igat
ions
com
mun
icat
edto
child
Res
pect
Atti
tudi
nal
Em
ergi
ngun
ders
tand
ing
ofbe
havi
oral
expe
ctat
ions
inth
eho
me
Gui
deex
pect
atio
nsfo
rch
ildre
n’s
beha
vior
inho
me
Inte
rnal
ized
valu
esof
obed
ienc
eor
resp
ect
Exp
ect
child
ren
tobe
bien
educ
ados
and
have
inte
rnal
ized
resp
eto
Inte
rnal
ized
valu
esof
obed
ienc
eE
xpec
tch
ildre
nto
dem
onst
rate
resp
ect,
not
disa
gree
orar
gue
Beh
avio
ral
Prim
ary
form
fam
ilism
may
beex
pres
sed;
obed
ient
,qu
iet,
resp
ectf
ulto
adul
ts
Pare
ntso
cial
izat
ion
mes
sage
sdi
rect
and
indi
rect
;m
odel
resp
eto
toel
ders
Con
tinue
sto
dem
onst
rate
resp
eto;
beha
vior
alco
mpl
ianc
eex
tend
edto
othe
rco
ntex
ts;
few
erex
tern
aliz
ing
prob
lem
s
Con
tinua
tion
ofea
rly
child
hood
mes
sage
sC
ompl
ianc
ew
ithpa
rent
alru
les,
low
leve
lsof
exte
rnal
izin
gbe
havi
ors,
less
open
disa
gree
men
tw
ithpa
rent
s,lo
wle
vels
ofco
nflic
tw
ithpa
rent
sif
com
ply
but
high
leve
lsif
not
exhi
bite
d
Con
tinue
topr
ovid
eso
cial
izat
ion
onre
spet
oor
obed
ienc
e;lo
wco
nflic
tif
child
conf
orm
sbu
thi
ghco
nflic
tif
pare
ntal
expe
ctat
ions
for
resp
ect
not
bein
gm
etSu
ppor
tor
cohe
sion
Atti
tudi
nal
Em
ergi
ngFe
elsu
ppor
tby
othe
rsas
pare
nt;
need
topr
ovid
esu
ppor
tto
othe
rs;
need
tobe
ago
odpa
rent
Dev
elop
san
unde
rsta
ndin
gof
need
ing
topr
ovid
esu
ppor
tfo
rot
hers
Con
tinua
tion
ofea
rly
child
hood
belie
fsIn
tern
aliz
edva
lues
ofpr
ovis
ion
ofsu
ppor
tPr
ovid
esu
ppor
tto
child
astr
ansi
tion
toad
ulth
ood
226 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le1
(con
tinu
ed)
Ear
lych
ildho
od(2
–6)
Mid
dle
child
hood
(7–1
1)A
dole
scen
ce(1
2–18
)
Chi
ldPa
rent
Chi
ldPa
rent
Chi
ldPa
rent
Beh
avio
ral
Dev
elop
men
tof
atta
chm
ent;
deve
lopm
ent
ofsi
blin
gor
fam
ilycl
osen
ess
(e.g
.,tim
esp
ent
with
sibl
ings
)
Supp
ortin
gat
tach
men
t;se
nsiti
vepa
rent
ing;
prov
ided
with
soci
alsu
ppor
t;m
odel
soci
alsu
ppor
tor
war
mth
Rel
atio
nshi
pm
easu
res
ofpa
rent
-chi
ldre
latio
nshi
p;de
velo
psw
arm
,ca
ring
rela
tions
hip
with
pare
nt
Con
tinue
sto
build
ast
rong
emot
iona
lre
latio
nshi
pw
ithch
ild;
prov
ides
supp
ort
toot
hers
;so
cial
izat
ion
mes
sage
sof
unite
d,st
rong
fam
ily
War
mre
latio
nshi
pw
ithpa
rent
s,si
blin
gs,
fam
ily;
high
leve
lsof
fam
ilyco
hesi
on;
satis
fact
ion
with
pare
nts
Con
tinue
tosh
owpo
sitiv
ere
latio
nshi
pch
arac
teri
stic
s:w
arm
th,
supp
ort
cari
ng
Fam
ilyas
refe
rent
Atti
tudi
nal
Em
ergi
ngV
iew
ing
fam
ilyas
expe
rts
inpa
rent
ing;
view
sch
ildco
mpo
rtm
ent
asre
flect
ion
ofpa
rent
ing
self
Dev
elop
san
unde
rsta
ndin
gth
atpa
rent
sar
eul
timat
eau
thor
ity;
beha
vior
atsc
hool
refle
cts
onfa
mily
Con
tinua
tion
ofea
rly
child
hood
belie
fsIn
tern
aliz
edva
lues
;vi
ewpa
rent
sas
legi
timat
eau
thor
ity
Bel
ieve
ultim
ate
auth
ority
,ex
pect
posi
tive
beha
vior
asre
flect
ion
offa
mily
Beh
avio
ral
Beh
ave
inse
tting
sto
refle
ctw
ell
onth
efa
mily
Tak
ing
advi
cefr
omfa
mily
abou
tpa
rent
ing
deci
sion
s;gi
ves
mes
sage
sth
atbe
havi
orre
flect
sfa
mily
Com
mun
icat
ion
with
pare
nts;
seek
ing
advi
ce;
beha
vior
alco
mpl
ianc
eor
acad
emic
succ
ess
asre
flect
ion
offa
mily
Prov
ide
child
with
dire
ctm
essa
ges
rega
rdin
gbe
havi
orre
flect
ing
fam
ilyan
dpa
rent
alau
thor
ity
Les
sop
endi
sagr
eem
ent
with
pare
nts,
perf
orm
wel
lin
scho
ol,
less
invo
lvem
ent
inne
gativ
ebe
havi
ors
Con
tinue
dm
essa
ges
prov
ided
toch
ildre
n;co
nflic
tif
pare
ntal
expe
ctat
ions
for
beha
vior
not
met
Prim
ary
stag
e-sa
lient
issu
esth
atm
ayre
late
tofa
mili
sm
Atta
chm
ent
Dev
elop
men
tof
peer
rela
tions
Indi
vidu
atio
nan
did
entit
ySe
lf-r
egul
atio
nT
rans
ition
tosc
hool
Dat
ing
and
rela
tions
hips
Indi
vidu
atio
nfr
omca
regi
ver
Aca
dem
icsk
ills
Prep
arat
ion
for
high
ered
ucat
ion
Bur
geon
ing
inde
pend
ence
Val
ues
inte
rnal
izat
ion
Pote
ntia
lri
skPe
ople
inho
me
over
crow
ding
;Se
lect
ion
ofda
ycar
e
Car
ing
for
othe
rfa
mily
mem
bers
(fina
ncia
lly,
emot
iona
lly)
stra
inof
care
taki
ng
Obe
dien
t,re
spec
tful
beha
vior
lead
sto
less
asse
rtiv
enes
sin
setti
ngs;
rece
ive
Uni
ted
Stat
esm
ains
trea
mm
essa
ges
pote
ntia
lco
nflic
tw
ithpa
rent
s
Car
ing
for
othe
rfa
mily
mem
bers
(fina
ncia
lly,
emot
iona
lly);
stra
inof
care
taki
ng;
mes
sage
sdi
ffer
ent
from
Uni
ted
Stat
esm
ains
trea
mcu
lture
Inte
rnal
izin
gpa
thol
ogy;
high
leve
lsof
guilt
orsh
ame;
extr
eme
leve
lsof
oblig
atio
ns;
cultu
ral
valu
esga
p
Car
ing
for
othe
rfa
mily
mem
bers
(fina
ncia
lly,
emot
iona
lly);
stra
inof
care
taki
ng;
mes
sage
sdi
ffer
ent
from
Uni
ted
Stat
esm
ains
trea
mcu
lture
;cu
ltura
lva
lues
gap
Pote
ntia
lpr
otec
tion
Foun
datio
nof
pros
ocia
lbe
havi
or;
com
plia
nce;
foun
datio
nof
posi
tive
pare
nt–c
hild
rela
tions
hips
secu
reat
tach
men
tle
ads
toem
otio
nre
gula
tion
Soci
alsu
ppor
tpr
ovid
edto
pare
nts;
finan
cial
supp
ort
prov
ided
topa
rent
s
Obe
dien
tan
dpr
osoc
ial
skill
sfa
cilit
ate
inte
ract
ions
outs
ide
the
hom
e(e
.g.,
with
peer
san
dte
ache
rs)
Supp
ort
prov
ided
byot
hers
;ch
ildex
hibi
tsco
mpl
ianc
ean
dre
spet
oan
din
tern
aliz
esva
lues
Sens
eof
purp
ose,
posi
tive
ethn
icid
entit
y,m
otiv
ate
scho
olen
gage
men
t;an
dac
adem
icpe
rfor
man
ce
Hig
hle
vels
ofm
onito
ring
,w
arm
rela
tions
hips
with
child
,co
ngru
ent
valu
esat
neig
hbor
hood
orsc
hool
227FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
expected behavior to which to conform, thatalso serves to promote family cohesion duringthe early childhood years (Calzada, Fernandez,& Cortes, 2010). Second, adolescent familismresearch suggests that there may be a theoreticaloverlap among the constructs as obedience, def-erence and respect for adults, and family asreferent are included in their definitions (e.g.,Fuligni et al., 1999; Lugo Steidel & Contreras,2003). In adolescent studies examiningfamilism and respeto separately, there are highcorrelations 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 toguide longitudinal studies that are necessary tocharacterize how the emergence of these aspectsof familism relates to one across development,and to important stage salient outcomes. How-ever, we acknowledge that the relationship ofrespeto and familism across time needs to bestudied longitudinally to ascertain whether theyindeed operate as one construct across develop-ment.
Our framework also organizes existing re-search by a closer consideration of attitudinaland behavioral aspects of familism as theyemerge in development (e.g., Sabogal et al.,1987; Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994). Attitu-dinal familism refers to the actual beliefs andvalues, whereas behavioral familism refers tothe behavioral expression of those beliefs. Thisdistinction is particularly useful as many haveused behavioral and attitudinal measures inter-changeably leading to confusion in the litera-ture. We argue that it is important consider theinterplay of behavioral and attitudinal familismthroughout development. It is possible that be-havioral manifestations of familism would bemore predictive of functioning in a preschoolerbut that attitudinal familism becomes more rel-evant in adolescence as children become morecognitively advanced and develop greaterawareness of the values that undergird theirbehavior. The behavioral expression offamilism likely results from attitudinal beliefsinteracting with contextual factors (Calzada etal., 2013), and these need to be consideredcarefully. Within each stage, we considerwhether research has examined the impact offamilism on important stage salient issues as
well the contextual factors that may influence itseffects as outlined below.
Method
We identified qualitative and quantitative ar-ticles by using Google Scholar and PsycInfodatabases for all years up to 2013. We used thefollowing search terms: familism, familial cul-tural values, familismo, family, family values,affiliative obedience, respeto, filial obligation,and family obligation, and located 55 articleswithin our age range. Given that our focus wason the development of familism, we selected 44articles that fell into early childhood (birth to 7),middle childhood (8–12), and adolescence (12–18) and measured an aspect of familism with aLatino sample (the majority of studies had100% Latino participants; only four studies hadmultiethnic 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 ofchild population, familism measure, reporter,and main findings. The majority of studies wereconducted in adolescence (73%) and involvedattitudinal measures of familism (84%).
Studies examining familism have been con-ducted with Latinos from different countries oforigin demonstrating that this value cuts acrosssubethnicity. However, much of this work hasbeen conducted with Mexican origin samples asseen in Table 2 (43% of samples MexicanAmerican). 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 onunderstanding the parenting practices and goalsof Latino parents, and only two articles werelocated examining familism in particular, andthus, we include articles examining respeto.This reflects our conceptualization of the role ofrespeto, as we argue that it is an early manifes-tation of familism and that parenting aimed atinstilling respeto lays the foundation for theinternalization of familism later in develop-
228 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
Rev
iew
Art
icle
s
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Ear
lych
ildho
odC
alza
da,
Fern
ande
z,an
dC
orte
s(2
010)
Imm
igra
ntM
exic
an,
Imm
igra
ntD
omin
ican
and
U.S
.-bo
rnD
omin
ican
mot
hers
ofpr
esch
oole
rs(a
ges
3–6)
Chi
ldge
nera
tion
stat
usno
tpr
ovid
ed.
48Im
mig
.M
ex�
31.4
7ye
ars
(5.6
6)Im
mig
.D
om.
�35
.26
year
s(9
.47)
U.S
.-bo
rnD
om.
�28
.71
(4.8
2)
Mot
her
Focu
sgr
oups
with
open
ende
dqu
estio
nsab
out
cultu
ral
valu
es.
Acr
oss
grou
ps,
afo
cus
onfa
mily
desc
ribe
das
both
supp
ort
and
clos
enes
sto
fam
ilym
embe
rs(“
exte
nded
fam
ilyse
rvin
ga
prim
ary
role
inpr
ovid
ing
soci
alan
dem
otio
nal
supp
ort”
)an
din
prox
imity
(“B
eyon
dfa
mily
asa
supp
ort
syst
em,
mot
hers
talk
edab
out
fam
ilyliv
ing
and
spen
ding
time
toge
ther
”).
Cal
zada
,T
amis
-LeM
onda
,an
dY
oshi
kaw
a(2
013)
11M
exic
anan
d12
Dom
inic
anfa
mili
esC
hild
gene
rati
onst
atus
not
prov
ided
.
23dy
ads
Chi
ldag
era
nged
from
3–36
mon
ths
or10
–12
year
s
Obs
erva
tion
byfie
ldw
orke
rC
areg
iver
Beh
avio
ral
Res
ults
also
show
edth
atfr
eque
ntan
dre
gula
rin
terp
erso
nal
cont
act,
incl
udin
gliv
ing
with
exte
nded
kin,
isno
rmat
ive
inL
atin
ofa
mili
es.
Res
ults
iden
tified
five
area
sin
whi
chbe
havi
oral
fam
ilism
om
anif
ests
,in
clud
ing
finan
cial
supp
ort,
shar
edda
ilyac
tiviti
es,
shar
edliv
ing,
shar
edch
ildre
arin
g,an
dim
mig
ratio
n.
Gam
ble
and
Mod
rey-
Man
dell
(200
8)Fa
mili
esof
Mex
ican
desc
ent
(86%
ofm
othe
rsw
ere
first
gene
ratio
nM
exic
anA
mer
ican
)
55dy
ads
Mag
e�
57.5
mon
ths
(SD
�4.
94)
You
nger
sibl
ing
�36
mon
ths
(13.
09)
Old
ersi
blin
g�
72m
onth
s(3
8.04
)
Mot
her
12-i
tem
subs
cale
from
the
fam
ilyre
latio
nshi
psva
lues
Q-s
ort
mea
sure
ofcu
ltura
lco
nstr
ucts
amon
gM
exic
an-A
mer
ican
s(W
ozni
ak,
Sung
,C
rum
p,E
dgar
-Sm
ith,
&L
itzin
ger,
1996
).It
ems
wer
eco
nver
ted
toa
Lik
ert
scal
e.(a
ttitu
dina
l)
Fam
ilism
was
foun
dto
act
asa
mod
erat
or,
whe
rew
arm
than
dcl
osen
ess
infa
mily
rela
tions
hips
coup
led
with
the
endo
rsem
ent
offa
mili
smw
asas
soci
ated
with
mor
eop
timal
func
tioni
ngin
pres
choo
lcl
assr
oom
s(e
mot
iona
lad
just
men
t,pe
erac
cept
ance
,lo
wer
inte
rnal
izin
gpr
oble
ms)
.
(tab
leco
ntin
ues)
229FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Val
dés
(199
6)M
exic
anA
mer
ican
pare
nts
10N
otre
port
edM
othe
rQ
ualit
ativ
eda
taab
out
how
pare
nts
use
stra
tegi
esto
teac
hch
ildre
nab
out
appr
opri
ate
inte
ract
ions
with
adul
ts,
repr
esen
ting
the
valu
eof
resp
eto.
Mot
hers
repo
rted
that
they
pref
erre
dto
leav
ech
ildre
nw
ithre
lativ
esin
stea
dof
nonr
elat
ive
care
,w
hich
was
upse
tting
,th
ough
acce
ptab
le.
Chi
ldca
reus
eK
arol
yan
dG
onza
lez
(201
1)Fa
mili
esw
itha
child
oron
epa
rent
born
inan
yco
untr
you
tsid
eth
eU
.S.
(im
mig
rant
)Fa
mili
esw
ithch
ildre
nan
dpa
rent
sbo
rnin
the
U.S
.(n
ativ
e)
NA
Use
islo
oked
atfo
rch
ildre
nag
e0–
2ye
as,
3–ye
ars,
and
4–ye
ars
NA
The
surv
eys
exam
ined
child
care
usag
e(b
oth
nonp
aren
tal
hom
e-ba
sed
care
and
cent
er-
base
dch
ildca
re)
Imm
igra
ntch
ildre
nof
all
ages
wer
ele
sslik
ely
tobe
ince
nter
-bas
edca
reor
nonp
aren
tal
hom
e-ba
sed
care
(bot
hre
lativ
ean
dno
nrel
ativ
e).
Mul
ligan
,B
rim
hall,
and
Wes
t(2
005)
Chi
ldre
nun
der
6in
the
U.S
.(g
roup
edby
Whi
te(6
1%),
Bla
ck(1
5%),
His
pani
c(1
8%),
and
Oth
er(6
%))
Cou
ntry
ofor
igin
not
prov
ided
NA
Bir
th–6
NA
Chi
ldca
reus
age
His
pani
cch
ildre
nw
ere
less
likel
yto
part
icip
ate
inno
npar
enta
lca
reat
leas
t1
time
per
wee
k,co
mpa
red
with
Whi
tean
dB
lack
child
ren.
Of
thos
eH
ispa
nic
child
ren
who
did
part
icip
ate
inch
ildca
re,
rate
sfo
rre
lativ
eba
sed
care
and
cent
erba
sed
care
wer
eco
mpa
rabl
e.
Yes
il-D
agli
(201
1)H
ispa
nic
pres
choo
lag
ech
ildre
nC
ount
ryof
orig
inno
tpr
ovid
ed
657
36–5
9m
onth
sN
AD
emog
raph
icva
riab
les
and
child
care
usag
eT
heda
tasu
gges
ted
that
use
ofce
nter
-bas
edch
ildca
reis
mor
efr
eque
ntth
anus
eof
pare
ntal
care
,re
lativ
eca
re,
orno
nrel
ativ
eca
re.
Inge
nera
l,fa
mily
pove
rty
stat
us,
mot
her’
sed
ucat
ion,
hous
ehol
dco
mpo
sitio
n,m
othe
r’s
wor
kst
atus
,an
dac
cultu
ratio
nar
eal
lsi
gnifi
cant
pred
icto
rsof
cent
er-b
ased
child
care
use.
230 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Mid
dle
child
hood
Cal
deró
n-T
ena,
Kni
ght,
and
Car
lo(2
011)
Mex
ican
Am
eric
an;
29%
ofyo
uth
U.S
.bo
rn(5
4%of
thei
rpa
rent
sfo
reig
nbo
rn);
51%
fem
ale
yout
h;A
rizo
na
204
Mag
e�
10.9
(SD
�0.
84)
(9–1
3)C
hild
-rep
ort;
Pare
nt-r
epor
tFa
mili
smsu
bsca
le(M
AC
VS;
Kni
ght
etal
.,20
10;
attit
udin
al)
Mot
hers
’fa
mili
smva
lues
pred
icte
dpr
osco
cial
pare
ntin
gw
hich
intu
rnpr
edic
ted
pros
ocia
lbe
havi
oral
tend
enci
esin
adol
esce
nce,
Chi
ldfa
mili
smva
lues
part
ially
med
iate
dth
ere
latio
nbe
twee
nad
oles
cent
s’pe
rcep
tion
ofpr
osoc
ial
pare
ntin
gpr
actic
esan
dpr
osoc
ial
beha
vior
alte
nden
cies
.
Mor
cillo
,D
uart
e,Sh
en,
Bla
nco,
Can
ino,
and
Bir
d(2
011)
Puer
toR
ican
child
ren
age
5to
13liv
ing
inth
eB
ronx
,N
Yan
dSa
nJu
anan
dC
agua
s,Pu
erto
Ric
oan
dth
eir
care
give
r
NY
�1,
138
dyad
sPR
�1,
353
dyad
s
Mag
e�
9.2
(SD
�0.
1)Pa
rent
alA
bbre
viat
edad
apte
dve
rsio
nof
the
Sabo
gal
Fam
ilism
Scal
e(1
0ite
ms
ona
4-po
int
Lik
ert
scal
e;at
titud
inal
)ch
ildfa
mili
smdi
dno
tha
vego
odin
tern
alco
nsis
tenc
y(�
0.30
)
Pare
ntal
fam
ilism
was
prot
ectiv
eag
ains
tan
tisoc
ial
beha
vior
sin
girl
sat
each
stag
e.Fo
rbo
ys,
pare
ntal
fam
ilism
was
only
prot
ectiv
ein
5-to
9-ye
ar-o
lds.
The
prot
ectiv
eef
fect
ofpa
rent
alfa
mili
smon
antis
ocia
lbe
havi
ors
was
med
iate
dby
care
give
rst
ruct
urin
gan
dw
arm
th.
Rom
ero,
Rob
inso
n,H
ayde
l,M
endo
za,
and
Kill
en(2
004)
4th
grad
est
uden
tsan
dth
eir
mot
hers
who
iden
tified
asM
exic
an
219
dyad
sM
age
�9.
5(S
D�
0.37
)M
othe
rC
hild
Mot
her
fam
ilism
:A
scal
ede
velo
ped
for
colle
ctiv
istic
grou
ps(M
arku
s&
Kita
yam
a,19
91)
child
fam
ilism
:Fa
mily
Impa
ctSc
ale
(11
item
sas
sess
ing
valu
esan
dbe
havi
ors
(Col
on,
1998
;at
titud
inal
and
beha
vior
al)
Hig
her
pare
nted
ucat
ion
was
asso
ciat
edw
ithhi
gher
mat
erna
lfa
mili
sm.
Chi
ldpr
efer
ence
for
Eng
lish
orbi
lingu
alis
mw
asre
late
dto
high
erch
ildfa
mili
sm.
Tay
lor,
Lar
sen-
Rif
e,C
onge
r,an
dW
idam
in(2
012)
Mex
ican
orig
in;
30%
ofyo
uth
Mex
ico-
born
;51
%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
Cal
ifor
nia
549
tria
dsM
age
�10
.85;
age
rang
e10
–12
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;Pa
rent
-rep
ort
16-i
tem
fam
ilism
scal
e(M
AC
VS;
Kni
ght
etal
.,20
10;
attit
udin
al)
Pare
nts’
fam
ilist
icva
lues
wer
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
edw
ithin
terp
aren
tal
confl
ict
for
both
mot
hers
and
fath
ers.
Pare
nts’
fam
ilist
icva
lues
wer
eal
soin
dire
ctly
asso
ciat
edw
ithpa
rent
ing
thro
ugh
the
mar
ital
rela
tions
hip. (t
able
cont
inue
s)
231FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Whi
te,
Zei
ders
,G
onza
les,
Tei
n,an
dR
oosa
(201
3)
Mex
ican
orig
infa
mili
es;
78.6
%m
othe
rsan
d79
.9%
fath
ers
born
inM
exic
o;48
.1%
fem
ale
yout
h;So
uthw
est
462
mot
her,
fath
er,
yout
htr
iads
Mag
e�
10.4
(SD
�.5
5)C
hild
-rep
ort;
Pare
nt-r
epor
t(b
oth
mot
her
and
fath
er)
Mex
ican
Am
eric
anC
ultu
ral
Val
ues
Scal
e(K
nigh
tet
al.,
2010
;at
titud
inal
)
Pare
nts’
cultu
ral
valu
esw
ere
asso
ciat
edw
ithth
elik
elih
ood
ofus
ing
are
spon
sive
and
dem
andi
ngpa
rent
ing
styl
eco
mpa
red
with
othe
rle
ssin
volv
edpa
rent
ing
styl
es.
Ado
lesc
ence
Ayó
n,M
arsi
glia
,an
dB
erm
udez
-Par
sai
(201
0)
Mex
ican
and
Cen
tral
Am
eric
ande
scen
tpa
rent
-chi
lddy
ads;
pare
nts:
94%
mot
hers
;87
.3%
imm
igra
ntpa
rent
s;ad
oles
cent
s:60
%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
55%
U.S
.-bo
rn;
Sout
hwes
t
150
dyad
sM
age
�15
.50
(SD
�1.
25)
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;Pa
rent
-rep
ort
6ite
ms
from
the
fam
ilism
scal
eus
edby
Gil,
Wag
ner,
and
Veg
a(2
000)
and
deve
lope
dby
Ols
onan
dco
lleag
ues
(198
3).
Item
sas
sess
attit
udes
ofre
spec
tan
dlo
yalty
tow
ards
one’
sfa
mily
(atti
tudi
nal)
Fam
ilism
was
asso
ciat
edw
ithde
crea
sed
men
tal
heal
thsy
mpt
omat
olog
yam
ong
fam
ilies
,an
dfa
mili
smdi
dno
tre
duce
the
nega
tive
effe
cts
ofdi
scri
min
atio
n.
Bám
aca-
Col
bert
,U
mañ
a-T
aylo
r,an
dG
ayle
s(2
012)
Mex
ican
orig
in;
7th
grad
ers:
62.1
%U
.S.-
born
;10
thgr
ader
s60
.6%
U.S
.-bo
rn;
100%
fem
ale
yout
h;So
uthw
est
271
dyad
s7t
hgr
ader
s:M
age
12.2
6(S
D�
0.46
);10
thgr
ader
s:M
age
15.2
0(S
D�
0.43
)
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;M
othe
r-re
port
Beh
avio
ral
auto
nom
yex
pect
atio
nsT
een
Tim
etab
leQ
uest
ionn
aire
(Fel
dman
&Q
uatm
an,
1988
;at
titud
inal
)
Mot
her–
daug
hter
auto
nom
yex
pect
atio
ndi
scre
panc
ies
wer
epo
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
edw
ithm
othe
r–da
ught
erco
nflic
t,bu
tth
isas
soci
atio
nw
asfo
und
only
amon
gea
rly
adol
esce
nts.
Bau
man
n,K
uhlb
erg,
and
Zay
as(2
010)
Lat
ina
(73%
U.S
.bo
rn;
32%
Puer
toR
ican
,28
%D
omin
ican
,15
%M
exic
an,
11%
Col
ombi
an);
100%
fem
ale
yout
h;51
%ha
dat
tem
pted
suic
ide;
Nor
thea
st
169
dyad
sM
age
�15
.19
(SD
�1.
87)
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;M
othe
r-re
port
Fam
ilism
Scal
e(L
ugo-
Stei
del
and
Con
trer
as,
2003
;at
titud
inal
)
Fam
ilism
gaps
pred
icte
dle
ssm
othe
r–da
ught
erm
utua
lity
and
mor
eex
tern
aliz
ing
beha
vior
sin
the
adol
esce
nts.
Ber
kel
etal
.(2
010)
Mex
ican
Am
eric
an(7
4.3%
ofm
othe
rsan
d79
.9%
fath
ers
fore
ign
born
);49
%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
Ari
zona
711
Mag
e�
10.4
2(S
D�
0.55
)at
Tim
e1
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;Pa
rent
-rep
ort
The
Mex
ican
Am
eric
anC
ultu
ral
Val
ues
Scal
e(K
nigh
tet
al.,
2010
;at
titud
inal
)
Dis
crim
inat
ion
pred
icte
dgr
eate
rM
exic
anA
mer
ican
valu
esw
hich
then
pred
icte
dle
ssin
tern
aliz
ing
sym
ptom
san
dbe
tter
acad
emic
outc
omes
.
232 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Bus
h,Su
pple
,an
dL
ash
(200
4)M
exic
anyo
uth
livin
gin
Mex
ico;
55%
fem
ale
yout
h
534
Mag
e�
13.4
3(S
D�
1.31
)C
hild
-rep
ort
The
Bar
dis
Fam
ilism
Scal
e(B
ardi
s,19
59;
attit
udin
al)
Age
and
pare
ntal
educ
atio
nne
gativ
ely
rela
ted
tofa
mili
sm.
Em
otio
nal
conn
ectio
nto
pare
nts
rela
ted
tofa
mili
smin
girl
sbu
tno
tbo
ys.
Pare
ntal
mon
itori
ngas
soci
ated
with
fam
ilism
but
not
afte
rta
king
into
acco
unt
pare
ntal
auth
ority
.Pa
rent
alle
gitim
ate
auth
ority
was
asso
ciat
edw
ithfa
mili
sm.
Del
gado
,U
pdeg
raff
,R
oosa
,an
dU
mañ
a-T
aylo
r(2
011)
Mex
ican
orig
in(6
6an
d67
%of
pare
nts
fore
ign
born
;62
%of
targ
etyo
uth
U.S
.bo
rn);
targ
etyo
uth
(7th
grad
ers)
51%
fem
ale;
olde
rsi
blin
gs:
50%
fem
ale;
Ari
zona
246
tria
dsT
arge
tch
ildre
n:M
age
�12
.8(S
D�
.57)
;ol
der
sibl
ings
Mag
e�
15.7
0(S
D�
1.50
)
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;Pa
rent
-rep
ort
16-i
tem
fam
ilism
scal
e(M
AC
VS:
Kni
ght
etal
.,20
10;
attit
udin
al)
Pate
rnal
attit
udin
alfa
mili
smpr
edic
ted
few
erde
vian
tpe
eras
soci
atio
ns,
adol
esce
ntfa
mili
smas
soci
ated
biva
riat
ely
with
less
depr
essi
vesy
mpt
oms,
risk
ybe
havi
ors,
and
devi
ant
peer
s.
Eas
tan
dW
eisn
er(2
009)
Mex
ican
Am
eric
an;
85%
ofyo
uth
U.S
.bo
rn;
60%
fem
ale
yout
h;ol
der
sibl
ings
insa
mpl
eha
dte
enag
epr
egna
ncy;
sout
hern
Cal
ifor
nia
110
dyad
sM
age
�13
.9(S
D�
1.83
)C
hild
-rep
ort
5ite
ms
onfa
mili
alob
ligat
ions
scal
eby
Sabo
gal,
Mar
ín,
Ote
ro-S
abog
al,
Van
Oss
Mar
ín,
and
Pere
z-St
able
(198
7;at
titud
inal
)ca
regi
ving
hour
sto
baby
(beh
avio
ral)
Car
egiv
ing
pred
icte
dan
incr
ease
insc
hool
abse
nces
and
disc
iplin
ary
prob
lem
s.Fa
mily
oblig
atio
nsw
ere
not
prot
ectiv
eag
ains
tca
regi
ving
stre
ssbu
t,ra
ther
,fu
rthe
rco
mpr
omis
edyo
uths
’w
ell-
bein
gfo
rth
ose
who
wer
ehi
ghly
invo
lved
inth
eir
fam
ily’s
care
.
Esp
arza
and
Sánc
hez
(200
8)42
%;
Mex
ican
orig
in39
%Pu
erto
Ric
anor
igin
;16
%ot
her
Lat
ino;
3%bi
raci
al;
32%
1st
gene
ratio
n;51
%2n
dge
nera
tion;
52%
fem
ale
yout
h;ur
ban
area
s
143
17.8
7ye
ars
(SD
�0.
66)
Chi
ld-r
epor
tT
heFa
mili
smSc
ale
(Lug
o-St
eide
l&
Con
trer
as,
2003
;at
titud
inal
)
Hig
hat
titud
inal
fam
ilism
pred
icte
dgr
eate
rac
adem
icef
fort
.A
lso,
whe
nm
othe
rs’
educ
atio
nal
leve
lw
aslo
w,
attit
udin
alfa
mili
smw
aspo
sitiv
ely
asso
ciat
edto
stud
ents
’G
PA.
(tab
leco
ntin
ues)
233FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Fulig
nian
dPe
ders
on(2
002)
34%
Filip
ino,
15%
Eas
tA
sian
,26
%L
atin
Am
eric
an,
25%
Eur
opea
nA
mer
ican
;53
%fe
mal
e
745
Mag
e�
20.1
Chi
ld-r
epor
tFa
mily
oblig
atio
nsc
ales
:fa
mily
resp
ect,
curr
ent
assi
stan
ce,
and
futu
resu
ppor
t(F
ulig
ni,
Tse
ng,
&L
am,
1999
;at
titud
inal
)
Fam
ilyob
ligat
ions
incr
ease
din
late
adol
esce
nce
and
wer
ere
late
dto
bette
rem
otio
nal
wel
l-be
ing
and
educ
atio
nal
pers
iste
nce
for
adol
esce
nts
rece
ivin
glo
wto
mod
erat
egr
ades
in12
thgr
ade.
Fulig
ni,
Tse
ng,
and
Lam
(199
9)38
%Fi
lipin
oor
igin
,13
%C
hine
seor
igin
,15
%M
exic
anor
igin
,12
%C
entr
al/S
outh
Am
eric
anor
igin
,23
%E
urop
ean
orig
in;
29%
1st
gene
ratio
n;44
%se
cond
gene
ratio
n;27
%3�
gene
ratio
n;54
%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
sout
hern
Cal
ifor
nia
820
10th
grad
ers
(Mag
e�
15.7
year
s);
12th
grad
ers
(M�
17.7
)
Chi
ld-r
epor
tFa
mily
oblig
atio
nsc
ales
:fa
mily
resp
ect,
curr
ent
assi
stan
ce,
and
futu
resu
ppor
t(F
ulig
ni,
Tse
ng,
&L
am,
1999
;at
titud
inal
)
All
thre
esc
ales
asso
ciat
edgr
eate
rpa
tern
alan
dm
ater
ial
cohe
sion
and
bette
rco
mm
unic
atio
nw
ithfa
mily
.A
llth
ree
scal
esas
soci
ated
with
grea
ter
stud
ytim
e,an
dre
spec
tan
dcu
rren
tas
sist
ance
asso
ciat
edw
ithed
ucat
iona
las
pira
tions
and
expe
ctat
ions
.C
urvi
linea
ras
soci
atio
nw
ithgr
ades
such
that
the
mod
erat
een
dors
emen
tof
curr
ent
assi
stan
cem
ost
prot
ectiv
e.
Ger
mán
,G
onza
lez,
and
Dum
ka(2
009)
Mex
ican
orig
infa
mili
es;
did
not
repo
rt%
fore
ign
born
;50
.6%
fem
ale
yout
h;79
.1%
U.S
.-B
orn
adol
esce
nts
Phoe
nix,
Ari
zona
598 ad
oles
cent
s,57
3m
othe
rs,
331
fath
ers
Mag
e�
12.3
;(a
gera
nge
�11
–14)
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;Pa
rent
-rep
ort
16ite
ms
wer
eta
ken
from
thre
efa
mili
smsu
bsca
les
from
the
Mex
ican
Am
eric
anC
ultu
ral
Val
ues
Scal
e(K
nigh
tet
al.,
2010
;at
titud
inal
)
Ado
lesc
ent,
mat
erna
l,an
dpa
tern
alfa
mili
smva
lues
inte
ract
edpr
otec
tivel
yw
ithde
vian
tpe
eraf
filia
tions
topr
edic
tlo
wer
leve
lsof
teac
her
repo
rted
exte
rnal
izin
gpr
oble
ms.
The
sere
latio
nsw
ere
not
foun
dw
ithpa
rent
repo
rts
ofad
oles
cent
exte
rnal
izin
gpr
oble
ms
alth
ough
thes
em
odel
ssh
owed
adi
rect
,pr
otec
tive
effe
ctof
mat
erna
lfa
mili
smva
lues
.
234 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Gil,
Wag
ner,
and
Veg
a(2
000)
40%
Cub
ans;
13%
Nic
arag
uans
;47
%ot
her
Lat
ino;
All
mal
esa
mpl
e;52
%fo
reig
nbo
rn;
Sout
hFl
orid
a
2,01
96t
han
d7t
hgr
ader
sfo
llow
ed3
year
sC
hild
-rep
ort
7-ite
mfa
mili
smm
easu
re(O
lson
and
colle
ague
s,19
83;
attit
udin
al)
Acc
ultu
ratio
nan
dac
cultu
rativ
est
ress
asso
ciat
edw
ithin
crea
sed
alco
hol
use
thro
ugh
the
dete
rior
atio
nof
Lat
ino
fam
ilyva
lues
,at
titud
es,
and
fam
ilist
icbe
havi
ors.
The
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
accu
ltura
tive
stre
ssan
dal
coho
lus
ew
asin
fluen
ced
byna
tivity
.
Gui
lam
o-R
amos
etal
.(2
007)
70%
Dom
inic
anan
d30
%Pu
erto
Ric
an;
80%
mot
hers
fore
ign
born
;50
%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
Bro
nx,
NY
63m
othe
r-ad
oles
cent
dyad
s
11–1
4ye
ars
old
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;M
othe
r-re
port
Focu
sgr
oups
(atti
tudi
nal
and
beha
vior
al)
Con
tent
anal
ysis
ofpa
rent
s’fo
cus
grou
psre
veal
edfiv
ees
sent
ial
Lat
ino
pare
ntin
gpr
actic
esde
scri
bed
bybo
thyo
uth
and
thei
rm
othe
rs.
Kia
ngan
dFu
ligni
(200
9)41
%L
atin
Am
eric
an38
%A
sian
,an
d21
%E
urop
ean;
50%
fem
ale
yout
h;L
osA
ngel
esar
ea
679
Mag
e�
14.8
7(S
D�
0.40
)C
hild
-rep
ort
Fam
ilyre
spec
t(F
ulig
niet
al.
1999
);fa
mily
oblig
atio
nssc
ale
(Ful
igni
etal
.19
99;
attit
udin
al)
Eth
nic
iden
tity
was
mor
est
rong
lyre
late
dto
fam
ilyre
spec
tan
dob
ligat
ions
than
cohe
sion
.A
dole
scen
tsfr
omL
atin
Am
eric
anan
dA
sian
back
grou
nds
repo
rted
sign
ifica
ntly
high
erle
vels
ofob
ligat
ion
and
assi
stan
ceas
com
pare
dw
ithad
oles
cent
sw
ithE
urop
ean
back
grou
nds,
and
thes
eet
hnic
diff
eren
ces
wer
em
edia
ted
byet
hnic
iden
tity.
Dai
lydi
ary
data
for
com
plet
ion
of8
filia
lob
ligat
ion
task
s(b
ehav
iora
l)
Kni
ght
etal
.(2
011)
Mex
ican
Am
eric
an(7
4.3%
ofm
othe
rsan
d79
.9%
fath
ers
fore
ign
born
);49
%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
Ari
zona
750 ad
oles
cent
san
dm
othe
rs,
467
fath
ers
Mag
e�
10.4
2qa
(SD
�0.
55)
atT
ime
1
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;Pa
rent
-rep
ort
Mex
ican
Am
eric
anC
ultu
ral
Val
ues
Scal
e(M
AC
VS;
Kni
ght
etal
.,20
10;
attit
udin
al)
The
soci
aliz
atio
nof
Mex
ican
Am
eric
anva
lues
was
prim
arily
afu
nctio
nof
mot
hers
’M
exic
anA
mer
ican
valu
esan
det
hnic
soci
aliz
atio
n.Fa
ther
sva
lues
orso
cial
izat
ion
not
rela
ted
toyo
uth
endo
rsem
ent.
(tab
leco
ntin
ues)
235FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Kuh
lber
g,Pe
ña,
and
Zay
as(2
010)
Lat
ina
(72%
U.S
.bo
rn;
35%
Puer
toR
ican
,28
%D
omin
can,
12%
Mex
ican
,10
%C
olom
bian
;15
%ot
her)
100%
fem
ale
yout
h;53
.54%
suic
ide
atte
mpt
ers;
Nor
thea
st
226
Mag
e�
15.4
7(S
D�
2.01
)C
hild
-rep
ort
Fam
ilism
Scal
e(L
ugo
Stei
del
&C
ontr
eras
,20
03;
attit
udin
al)
Fam
ilism
was
asso
ciat
edw
ithlo
wer
leve
lsof
pare
nt–a
dole
scen
tco
nflic
t,bu
thi
gher
leve
lsof
inte
rnal
izin
gbe
havi
ors.
Not
asso
ciat
edw
ithsu
icid
eat
tem
pthi
stor
y.
Kup
erm
inc,
Jurk
ovic
,an
dC
asey
(200
9)L
atin
o(6
5.3%
Mex
ican
orig
in;
16.3
%C
entr
alA
mer
ican
12.2
%C
arib
bean
;6.
1%So
uth
Am
eric
an)
74%
yout
hfo
reig
nbo
rn;
64%
fem
ale
yout
h;So
uthe
ast
129
Mag
e�
16.8
(SD
�1.
15)
Chi
ld-r
epor
tFi
lial
Res
pons
ibili
tySc
ale-
You
th(F
RS-
Y;
Jurk
ovic
,K
uper
min
c,Sa
rac,
&W
eiss
haar
,20
05;
beha
vior
al)
Filia
lob
ligat
ions
rela
ted
tole
ssps
ycho
logi
cal
dist
ress
,m
ore
soci
alco
mpe
tenc
e,an
dgr
eate
rse
lf-e
ffica
cy;
Perc
eive
dfa
irne
ssof
oblig
atio
nsal
soa
pred
icto
rof
psyc
holo
gica
ldi
stre
ss.
Lor
enzo
-Bla
nco
etal
.(2
012)
His
pani
c(8
4%U
.S.
Bor
n;84
%ha
dM
exic
anpa
rent
s;9%
El
Salv
ador
ian
pare
nts,
6%G
uate
mal
anpa
rent
s);
53%
fem
ale
yout
h;So
uthe
rnC
alif
orni
a
1,92
29–
11th
grad
est
uden
ts;
86%
ofsa
mpl
ew
as14
Chi
ld-r
epor
tT
hree
ofth
eite
ms
from
the
fam
ilism
scal
eSa
boga
let
al.
(198
7),
and
one
item
cam
efr
omth
efa
mili
smsc
ale
desc
ribe
dby
Cue
llar,
Arn
old,
and
Gon
zale
z(1
995)
and
Cue
llar,
Arn
old,
and
Mal
dona
do(1
995)
.Fo
urite
ms
asse
ssed
the
cultu
ral
valu
eof
resp
eto
(Ung
eret
al.,
2002
;at
titud
inal
)
Fam
ilism
and
resp
eto
wer
eas
soci
ated
with
high
erfa
mily
cohe
sion
and
low
erfa
mily
confl
ict,
and
this
effe
ctw
asst
rong
erfo
rgi
rls
than
boys
.B
oth
accu
ltura
tion
and
encu
ltura
tion
wer
ere
late
dto
grea
ter
fam
ilism
and
resp
eto.
Mar
sigl
ia,
Pars
ai,
and
Kul
is(2
009)
Mex
ican
desc
ent;
56%
born
inth
eU
.S.;
60%
fem
ale;
Ari
zona
and
Nor
thC
arol
ina
151
Mag
e�
15.5
3(S
D�
1.25
)C
hild
-rep
ort
The
Fam
ilism
Scal
e(G
il,W
agne
r,&
Veg
a,20
00;
attit
udin
al)
Fam
ilism
ispr
edic
ted
less
aggr
essi
vebe
havi
or,
cond
uct
prob
lem
s,an
dru
lebr
eaki
ng.
Fam
ilism
and
cohe
sion
did
not
inte
ract
topr
edic
tfu
nctio
ning
.
Nol
le,
Gul
bas,
Kuh
lber
g,an
dZ
ayas
(201
2)Su
b-sa
mpl
eof
Kuh
lber
get
al.
(201
0);
88%
bon
inth
eU
.S.
orPu
erto
Ric
o;50
%at
tem
pted
suic
ide;
Nor
thea
st
24tr
iads
(you
th,
mot
her,
fath
er)
Mag
e�
15C
hild
-rep
ort;
Pare
nt-r
epor
tQ
ualit
ativ
ein
terv
iew
s.(a
ttitu
dina
lan
dbe
havi
oral
)Fa
mili
smem
erge
das
ath
eme
for
both
atte
mpt
ers
and
non-
atte
mpt
ers.
For
atte
mpt
ers
who
expr
esse
da
desi
reto
kill
them
selv
esin
thei
rat
tem
ptre
port
edw
antin
gto
mak
eth
ings
bette
rfo
rth
eir
fam
ilies
.
236 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Peña
etal
.(2
011)
35.7
%Pu
erto
Ric
an,
29.6
%D
omin
ican
,10
.2%
Mex
ican
,10
.2%
Col
ombi
an,
14.4
%ot
her
His
pani
c;50
%su
icid
eat
tem
pter
s;10
0%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
New
Yor
kC
ity
216
Mag
e�
15.5
(SD
�2.
0)C
hild
-rep
ort
Fam
ilism
Scal
e(L
ugo
Stei
del
&C
ontr
eras
,20
03;
attit
udin
al)
Fam
ilism
posi
tivel
yas
soci
ated
with
adol
esce
nts
bein
gpa
rtof
tight
-kni
tfa
mili
es,
and
adol
esce
nts
inth
ese
fam
ilies
wer
esi
gnifi
cant
lyle
sslik
ely
toat
tem
ptsu
icid
eco
mpa
red
with
less
tight
lykn
itfa
mili
es.
Polo
and
Lop
ez(2
009)
Mex
ican
orig
in(5
2%of
yout
hU
.S.
born
);50
%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
Los
Ang
eles
area
159
dyad
sM
age
�13
.2C
hild
-rep
ort;
Pare
nt-r
epor
tT
heA
ffilia
tive
Obe
dien
ceve
rsus
Act
ive
Self
-Affi
rmat
ion
mea
sure
(Día
z-G
uerr
ero,
1994
;at
titud
inal
)
Gre
ater
child
-rep
orte
daf
filia
tive
obed
ienc
epr
edic
ted
few
erde
pres
sive
sym
ptom
san
din
tern
aliz
ing
prob
lem
sco
ntro
lling
for
dem
ogra
phic
char
acte
rist
ics.
Smok
owsk
ian
dB
acal
lao
(200
7)13
%M
exic
o,21
%C
entr
alA
mer
ica,
21%
Sout
hA
mer
ica;
97%
born
outs
ide
the
U.S
.;51
%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
Nor
thC
arol
ina
323
Mag
e�
15(S
D�
1.8)
Chi
ld-r
epor
tFa
mili
smM
easu
re(G
il,W
agne
r,&
Veg
a;20
00;
base
don
Ols
onet
al,
1983
;at
titud
inal
)
Fam
ilism
asso
ciat
edw
ithfe
wer
inte
rnal
izin
gpr
oble
ms
and
high
erse
lf-e
stee
m.
The
prot
ectiv
eef
fect
offa
mili
smon
inte
rnal
izin
gpr
oble
ms
was
med
iate
dby
pare
nt-
adol
esce
ntco
nflic
t.
Smok
owsk
i,R
ose,
and
Bac
alla
o(2
010)
Lat
ino
(66%
ofad
oles
cent
sfo
reig
nbo
rn);
asu
bsam
ple
ofSm
okow
ski
etal
.(2
010)
349
dyad
sM
edia
ngr
ade:
10th
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;Pa
rent
-rep
ort
(90%
mot
hers
)
Fam
ilism
mea
sure
(Gil,
Wag
ner,
&V
ega,
2000
;ba
sed
onO
lson
etal
,19
83;
attit
udin
al)
Atti
tudi
nal
fam
ilism
asso
ciat
edw
ithfe
wer
inte
rnal
izin
gsy
mpt
oms
and
high
erse
lf-
este
emac
ross
time
and
effe
cts
med
iate
dby
pare
nt–
child
confl
ict.
Stei
n,G
onza
lez,
Cup
ito,
Kia
ng,
and
Supp
le(2
013)
Lat
ino
yout
h:78
%M
exic
an-o
rigi
n,2%
Nic
arag
uan,
2%D
omin
ican
,2%
Salv
ador
ian,
and
8%L
atin
om
ixed
;53
%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
Nor
thC
arol
ina
173
Mag
e�
14.0
8C
hild
-rep
ort
18-i
tem
Atti
tudi
nal
Fam
ilism
Scal
e(L
ugo
Stei
del
&C
ontr
eras
,20
03)
Fam
ilism
asso
ciat
edw
ithpo
sitiv
eps
ycho
soci
alan
ded
ucat
iona
lou
tcom
es,
but
itdi
dno
tm
oder
ate
the
nega
tive
effe
cts
ofpe
rcei
ved
peer
disc
rim
inat
ion
onth
ese
outc
omes
. (tab
leco
ntin
ues)
237FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Stei
nan
dPo
lo(2
013)
Mex
ican
orig
in(5
2%of
yout
hU
.S.
born
);50
%fe
mal
eyo
uth;
Los
Ang
eles
area
159
dyad
sM
age
�13
.1(S
D�
.73)
Chi
ld-r
epor
t;M
othe
r-re
port
The
Affi
liativ
eO
bedi
ence
vers
usA
ctiv
eSe
lf-A
ffirm
atio
nm
easu
re(D
íaz-
Gue
rrer
o,19
94;
attit
udin
al)
Cul
tura
lva
lue
gaps
onob
edie
nce
rela
ted
toad
oles
cent
depr
essi
vesy
mpt
oms,
and
this
rela
tions
hip
was
mos
tpr
onou
nced
for
olde
rad
oles
cent
s.
Tel
zer,
Fulig
ni,
Lie
berm
an,
and
Gal
van
(201
3)
Mex
ican
back
grou
nds;
56%
fem
ale
yout
h(n
oot
her
info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
);so
uthe
rnC
alif
orni
a
4814
to16
.5ye
ars
(Mag
e�
15.2
3)C
hild
-rep
ort
12-i
tem
Fam
ilyO
blig
atio
nsSc
ale
(cur
rent
assi
stan
ce;
Fulig
niet
al.,
1999
;at
titud
inal
)
Fam
ilyob
ligat
ion
was
asso
ciat
edw
ithde
crea
ses
inne
urol
ogic
ally
evid
ence
dre
war
dse
nsiti
vity
and
enha
ncem
ents
inco
gniti
veco
ntro
l,th
ereb
yre
duci
ngri
sk-t
akin
gbe
havi
ors.
Um
aña-
Tay
lor,
Alf
aro,
Bam
aca,
and
Gui
mon
d(2
009)
Lat
ino
(77%
Mex
ican
orig
in,
15%
Lat
ino/
His
pani
c;6%
Puer
toR
ican
);49
.9%
fem
ale
yout
h;M
idw
est
323
Mag
e�
15.2
1(S
D�
0.73
)C
hild
-rep
ort
The
Cul
tura
lV
alue
sSc
ale
(Ung
eret
al.,
2002
;at
titud
inal
)
Gen
erat
iona
lst
atus
was
not
dire
ctly
asso
ciat
edw
ithad
oles
cent
s’re
port
sof
fam
ilist
icva
lues
,bu
tits
effe
ctw
asfu
llym
edia
ted
byfa
mili
es’
ethn
icso
cial
izat
ion
prac
tices
.A
rgue
dth
atfa
mili
smm
easu
red
supp
ort
not
oblig
atio
ns.
Upd
egra
ff,
McH
ale,
Whi
tem
an,
Tha
yer,
and
Del
gado
(200
5)
Mex
ican
Am
eric
an(7
0%of
pare
nts
born
outs
ide
the
U.S
.);
51%
fem
ale
yout
h;A
rizo
na
234
sibl
ing
dyad
sO
lder
sibl
ings
Mag
e�
15.7
(SD
�1.
6);
youn
ger
sibl
ings
Mag
e�
12.8
(SD
�0.
58)
Chi
ld-r
epor
t17
-ite
mfa
mili
smsc
ale
(MA
CV
S;K
nigh
tet
al.,
2010
;at
titud
inal
)an
dtim
esp
ent
with
adul
t-ki
n,si
blin
gs(b
ehav
iora
l)
Atti
tudi
nal
fam
ilism
asso
ciat
edw
ithbe
tter
sibl
ing
rela
tions
hip
qual
ity(g
reat
erin
timac
yan
dle
ssne
gativ
ity)
but
not
with
time
spen
tto
geth
er.
Upd
egra
ff,
Um
aña-
Tay
lor,
Pere
z-B
reña
,an
dPfl
iege
r(2
012)
Dat
aus
edis
from
Upd
egra
ffet
al.
(200
5);
Mex
ican
orig
infa
mili
es;
62%
ofad
oles
cent
sU
.S.-
born
;51
%fe
mal
eyo
uth
Sout
hwes
t
240
fam
ilies
Mag
e�
12.8
(SD
�05
8)C
hild
-rep
ort;
Pare
nt-r
epor
tFa
mili
smva
lues
and
trad
ition
alpa
tria
rcha
lge
nder
role
attit
udes
mea
sure
dus
ing
subs
cale
sof
the
Mex
ican
Am
eric
anC
ultu
ral
Val
ues
Scal
e(K
nigh
tet
al.,
2010
;at
titud
inal
)
Fam
ilies
endo
rsin
gtr
aditi
onal
gend
ered
pare
ntin
gro
leat
titud
esdi
spla
yed
the
high
est
leve
lsof
fam
ilism
.M
ore
accu
ltura
ted
fam
ilies
disp
layi
ngco
ngru
ent
pare
ntin
gro
leat
titud
esre
port
edsi
gnifi
cant
lylo
wer
leve
lsof
fam
ilism
.
238 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Cita
tion
Dem
ogra
phic
sSa
mpl
esi
zeC
hild
age
Rep
orte
rM
easu
reus
ed(a
ttitu
dina
lvs
.be
havi
oral
)M
ain
findi
ngs
Upd
egra
ff,
Um
aña-
Tay
lor,
McH
ale,
Whe
eler
,an
dPe
rez-
Bre
na(2
012)
Dat
aus
edis
from
Upd
egra
ffet
al.
(200
5);
Mex
ican
orig
infa
mili
es;
62%
ofad
oles
cent
sU
.S.-
born
;51
%fe
mal
eyo
uth
Sout
hwes
t
Phas
e1
�24
6fa
mili
esPh
ase
2�
184
fam
ilies
Phas
e1
(Mag
e�
12.8
)Ph
ase
2(M
age
�17
.75
Chi
ld-r
epor
tFa
mili
smva
lues
and
trad
ition
alpa
tria
rcha
lge
nder
role
attit
udes
mea
sure
dus
ing
subs
cale
sof
the
Mex
ican
Am
eric
anC
ultu
ral
Val
ues
Scal
e(K
nigh
tet
al.,
2010
;at
titud
inal
)
Fem
ales
show
edst
eepe
rde
clin
esin
trad
ition
alge
nder
role
attit
udes
than
did
mal
es.
Ove
rall,
all
adol
esce
nts
decl
ined
infa
mili
smva
lues
,tim
esp
ent
with
fam
ily,
and
invo
lvem
ent
inM
exic
ancu
lture
.Fo
und
bidi
rect
iona
lre
latio
nshi
psbe
twee
ncu
ltura
lor
ient
atio
nsan
dad
just
men
tso
me
ofw
hich
wer
em
oder
ated
byad
oles
cent
nativ
ityan
dge
nder
.
Val
enzu
ela
and
Dor
nbus
ch(1
994)
84%
Ang
loan
d16
%M
exic
anor
igin
;pr
imar
ilyad
oles
cent
sw
ithU
Sbo
rnpa
rent
s52
%M
exic
an-o
rigi
nfe
mal
eyo
uth;
San
Fran
cisc
oar
ea
3,15
8H
igh
scho
olst
uden
ts;
spec
ific
age
ofth
esa
mpl
eno
tre
port
ed
Chi
ld-r
epor
t1-
item
beha
vior
alfa
mili
sm(t
alk
tono
npar
enta
lki
n);
1-ite
mst
ruct
ural
fam
ilism
(rel
ativ
esin
prox
imity
);14
-ite
mat
titud
inal
fam
ilism
scal
e(4
item
sfr
omK
eefe
,19
84;
attit
udin
alan
dbe
havi
oral
)
Whe
nhi
ghle
vels
ofat
titud
inal
fam
ilism
wer
eco
uple
dw
ithhi
ghle
vels
ofpa
rent
aled
ucat
ion,
the
inte
ract
ion
was
asso
ciat
edw
ithse
lf-
repo
rted
high
ergr
ades
.T
his
resu
ltw
ason
lyfo
und
for
the
Mex
ican
-ori
gin
part
icip
ants
.
239FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
ment. For example, in her study of respeto,Valdés (1996) found that parents used verbaland nonverbal strategies to teach children aboutappropriate interactions with adults, such asgreeting 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 specificallyteaches children about how they should defer toadults 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 thecentrality of family, religious beliefs, and res-peto (Calzada et al., 2010). Finally, research onsocial behavior for Mexican American childrenat home and school points to the role of respetoin fostering “bien educado” in Latino children,which is defined as appropriate social compe-tencies such as comportment and obediencewithin the family and other settings. Indeed,researchers studying the transmission of cul-tural values during early childhood point torespeto as creating cooperation and cohesionamong members of the family, which is closelylinked to the development of attitudinalfamilism (Bridges et al., 2012).
While instilling cultural values are a centralparenting goal for Latino parents, familism mayalso serve to foster positive parent–child inter-action and promote adaptive social behavior.Because these values emphasize familial inter-connectedness, support, and cohesion, parentsmay demonstrate high levels of warmth, fosterpositive attachment, and spend time with theirchildren (see Table 1). One study directly ex-amined this question in early childhood andestablished that mothers who report high levelsof 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 significantlylower when mothers reported low levels offamilism, despite higher levels of mother—child closeness. Maternal familism also pre-dicted emotional and peer adjustment in thecontext of high levels of sibling warmth. Thus,maternal familism related to behavioral adjust-ment of children at school, thereby illustratingthe saliency of examining two important social-ization contexts of home and school.
Empirical literature examining familism inearly childhood across key contexts is limited(only two studies located). For example, studieshave examined how familism may relate to pa-rental decision-making about childcare usageand relative care. National studies have sug-gested that Latino parents utilize out of homechildcare, including center based care, at alower rate than non-Hispanic White and Blackfamilies (Karoly & Gonzalez, 2011), but otherstudies have found comparable rates of centerbased care among Latinos (Mulligan, Brimhall, &West, 2005; Yesil-Dagli, 2011). Limited dataare available to inform whether Valdés’ (1996)observation that mothers preferred to leave chil-dren in the care of relatives because of familismvalues remains accurate today, as other factorsare likely involved in childcare access, such asfinancial and language barriers and awarenessof resources (Karoly & Gonzalez, 2011; Mulli-gan et al., 2005). In the domain of neighborhoodand community factors and familism, a qualita-tive study by Calzada and colleagues (2013)observed that frequent and regular interpersonalcontact is normative for Latino families. Partic-ipants in her study spent extended periods ofshared living arrangements with extended kin.However, they also found examples of the be-havioral expression of familism that may eitherinfluence families positively (e.g., child rearingsupport, financial support) or negatively (e.g.,overcrowding, financial strain of other rela-tives). Taken together, these studies suggest thatparental familism attitudes may impact day-careselection, living arrangements, and contact withextended kin, which in turn likely predicts psy-chosocial outcomes. Greater exploration ofthese 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, primarilyvia the messages involving respect for adultswithin the family; however, we contend that theroots of familism as expressed within familieswith young children is less well understood.Studies have not precisely examined how pa-rental attitudinal familism influences parentalsocialization at this stage, and the only studythat examined familism impact on parentingbehaviors relied solely on self-report. More re-search is necessary to understand how familism
240 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
values influences parental behaviors using ob-servational methodology to rule out single-method bias. The research on the selection ofchild-care is flawed in that the large-scale stud-ies assume that familism may influence selec-tion but no large-scale studies have specificallymeasured this question. More research needs toexamine how parental attitudinal familism pre-dicts behavioral manifestations (e.g., selectionof childcare, parenting practices) especiallywithin 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 understandinghow a range of community characteristics couldplay a role in the expression of behavioralfamilism among families with young children isnecessary especially as it relates to housing,childcare selection, and the transition to school.
Middle Childhood (Ages 7–11)
Literature review. During the period ofmiddle childhood, children may start internaliz-ing the values and beliefs that underpin theconstruct of familism and their behavior may beinfluenced by their own beliefs in addition toparental directives. However, only five studieswere located examining familism solely at thisstage. Four studies focused on parental attitudi-nal familism predicting parent behaviors, suchthat parental attitudinal familism was associatedwith less interparental conflict (Taylor, Larsen-Rife, Conger, & Widaman, 2012), more respon-sive, warm, and structured parenting (Morcilloet al., 2011; White et al., 2013), and parentingpractices aimed at promoting prosocial behav-iors (Calderón-Tena, Knight, & Carlo, 2011),confirming that these values shape the familialcontext at this stage in development. Two ofthese studies linked these values and practicesto outcomes. In a longitudinal examinationacross childhood, parental attitudinal familismwas associated with lower levels of parent re-ported antisocial behavior over the two yearlyfollow-ups, controlling for other environmentaland child risk factors, parental warmth andstructure were found to mediate these relation-ships (Morcillo et al., 2011). However, only oneof these studies examined the impact of theseparenting practices on child behaviors via childfamilism values such that maternal attitudinalfamilism was directly and indirectly associated
with child prosocial behavior partially throughchild familism values (Calderón-Tena et al.,2011). One other article at this stage examinedfamily contextual predictors finding that higherlevels of parental education were associatedwith higher maternal familism, and also surpris-ingly, preference for English or bilingualismwas 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 forfamilism research relative to adolescence. Ingeneral, the majority of studies focused on pa-rental familism values, despite the fact thatyouth at this stage of development (particularlythe latter period of middle childhood) have be-gun to internalize these values. Although it isclear that parental attitudinal familism impactsparental behavior, it is less clear how parentalfamilism impacts the internalization of childfamilism. The only study linking parental andchild attitudinal familism at this stage (Calde-rón-Tena et al., 2011) was limited in that theprosocial parenting scale appeared to includeitems directly associated with familism expec-tations (e.g., “My mother expects me to takecare of younger siblings”) and was cross-sectional. In a rare longitudinal investigation,consistent with a developmental science per-spective, Morcillo et al. (2011) was innovativein its design, but unfortunately, it did not mea-sure child attitudinal familism to link whetherthe internalization of these values also contrib-utes to its positive effects.
Moreover, the manifestation of attitudinalversus behavioral familism at this stage may beparticularly important to clarify. In addition topredicting parental behaviors, attitudinal paren-tal familism may also predict child manifesta-tions of behavioral familism (e.g., compliantbehavior), which has not been examined at thisstage in development. Additionally, studieshave intermixed both behavioral and attitudinalcomponents 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 thatcan guide these questions at this stage, and to
241FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
critically examine the interplay of these twoaspects of familism throughout development(e.g., their alignment vs. misalignment). Addi-tionally, contextual factors need to be consid-ered more fully. For example, the behavioralmanifestation of familism may also pose a riskin school contexts if the child shows overlydeferential behavior toward adults. Thus, re-search at this stage should be mindful of howattitudinal and behavioral child familism influ-ences the development of relationships outsideof the home context (e.g., peer, teachers).
Adolescence (12–18)
Literature review. We located 32 studiesexamining familism values in adolescence thatwill 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 adolescentperspective. Across studies, Latino mothersdemonstrate parenting strategies that are consis-tent with familism: closely monitoring theirchildren, controlling their activities, having ex-pectations of obedience, and maintaining warmand supportive relationships that foster inter-connectedness (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007;Updegraff, Umaña-Taylor, Perez-Brena, &Pflieger, 2012). Adolescents often interpretthese parental behaviors as the manifestation offamilism; for example, they report feeling thatparents should closely monitor them and spendtime with them, viewing this behavior as beingdriven by parental love and concern (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007). Latino adolescents alsodemonstrate many behaviors consistent withfamilism as evident with studies documentingtime 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 familymembers (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 greaterfeelings of connectedness and cohesion with thefamily 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 lowlevels of parent-adolescent conflict (e.g.,Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallao, 2010), and con-flict served to mediate the positive effects ofattitudinal familism. However, consistent withtenets of developmental science regarding theindividual’s transaction with the surroundingcontext, research has found that family conflictin the presence of high levels of attitudinalfamilism may be more detrimental as it violatesthe expectations of family harmony (Hernán-dez, Ramírez Garcia, & Flynn, 2010; Kuhlberg,Peña, & Zayas, 2010).
During midlate adolescence, the increaseddesire for autonomy and individuation from thefamily may impact how familism is expressedwithin the family context, particularly how ad-olescents perceive their parents’ behavior. Atti-tudinal adolescent familism has been associatedwith the perception of parents serving as legit-imate sources of guidance and authority (Bush,Supple, & Lash, 2004), such as for makingdecisions about dating (Guilamo-Ramos et al.,2007). This perception of parents’ legitimateauthority leads to improved family functioningas well as positive adolescent outcomes, includ-ing less distress and more prosocial behaviors(e.g., Kuperminc et al., 2009). However, whenLatino adolescents do not align with their par-ents on autonomy expectations, there is in-creased risk for parent– child conflict andgreater psychopathology (e.g., Bámaca-Colbert,Umaña-Taylor, & Gayles, 2012). One longitu-dinal study has examined the natural trajectoryof familism values across adolescence, and con-sistent with the notion that familism maychange in adolescence because of autonomy,attitudinal familism across 7th and 12th gradedecreases (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 distinctaspects 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.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
function and predicts better psychosocial func-tioning (i.e., fewer depressive symptoms, lesssubstance 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 asfulfilling familial obligations, has also beenshown to predict the development of compe-tence and maturity in Latino adolescents (Ku-perminc, Jurkovic, & Casey, 2009). However,although attitudinal and behavioral familismcan often be protective, it can also result indetrimental outcomes in stressful contexts act-ing as a potentiating factor. East and Weisner(2009) found that extensive family responsibil-ities predicted adolescent stress, internalizingsymptoms, and worse school outcomes, andfamilism did not buffer against the detrimentaleffects of extensive caregiving in the context ofsibling teenage parenting. Similarly, in theirstudy of suicidal adolescents (Nolle, Gulbas,Kuhlberg, & Zayas, 2012), participants sacri-ficed their material needs or subjugated theiremotions to avoid unduly burdening their fam-ilies, and when they failed to fulfill their obli-gations, they felt that sacrificing themselvesthrough suicide would serve as an appropriatesolution.
Fewer studies have examined paternal andmaternal 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 familismwas associated with fewer depressive symp-toms, risk engagement, and peer association,but maternal reports were only correlated withfewer depressive symptoms in older adolescents(Delgado et al., 2011). In another study, mater-nal, paternal, and adolescent attitudinalfamilism protected adolescents from deviantpeer association in the prediction of externaliz-ing symptoms, but only maternal familismshowed direct effects (Germán, Gonzales, &Dumka, 2009). Finally, other studies have con-sidered discrepancies in parent and child reportsof attitudinal familism. Parent-child alignmenton attitudinal familism was protective againstboth 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 toLatino adolescents’ academic motivation be-cause of the fact that students desire to helptheir families in the future (Fuligni et al., 1999;Sánchez, Esparza, Colón, & Davis, 2010).However, other research documents potentialrisk as family obligation attitudes influencedstudents to forego attending college to supporttheir families (Sánchez et al., 2010). These con-tradictory findings suggest that contextualforces 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 lowlevels of education and the other finding lessrisk at high levels of education (Esparza &Sánchez, 2008; Valenzuela & Dornbusch,1994). Furthermore, a curvilinear effect existsbetween attitudinal family obligations andgrades, such that students reporting the greatestobligations had school grades just as low oreven lower than those reporting the weakestfamily obligations (Fuligni et al., 1999). We canconclude from these studies that attitudinal andbehavioral familism may differentially impactacademic outcomes, and further, these relation-ships are likely impacted by contextual factorssuch as SES and generational status, but pres-ently mechanisms are less clear.
Attitudinal familism has also been associatedwith a greater sense of school belonging (Stein,Gonzalez, Cupito, Kiang, & Supple, 2013), anda strong sense of school belonging has beenpredictive of higher grade point average (GPA)among Latino students (Sánchez, Colón, & Es-parza, 2005). Attitudinal familism may help ad-olescents develop psychosocial competenciesallowing them to successfully create feelings ofconnectedness and solidarity in the school set-ting (Knight & Carlo, 2012). Consistent withthis idea, attitudinal and behavioral familismhave also been found to promote prosocial be-havior tendencies (i.e., actions that are intendedto 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
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
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 toshow a neural pattern consistent with greaterrisk aversion, lower sensitivity to rewards, andmore mature cognitive control. Of interest to theauthors, family cohesion and support did notshow similar neural responses, indicating thatonly specific types of family relationships areassociated with these protective effects. Thiswork 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 thesevalues changes how adolescents may respond totheir 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 offamilism by examining the role of neighbor-hood level familism (Gonzales et al., 2010),calculated by averaging mothers’ and fathers’familism in a census block. Neighborhoodfamilism conferred the most robust protectiveeffects of all contextual predictors (e.g., familyincome, subjective economic hardship, andneighborhood disadvantage). Thus, having acommunity with shared values about the impor-tance of family may allow for collective super-vision of youth, more resources for youth topursue goals, positive opportunities, more safeplaces, and may validate and support parents’commitment to family (Gonzales et al., 2010).
Work has also examined how attitudinalfamilism operates in the context of experiencesof discrimination. Although adolescent attitudi-nal familism was protective against the negativeeffects of discrimination on risk-taking behav-iors at low levels of discrimination, it was notprotective at high levels of discrimination(Umaña-Taylor, Updegraff, & Gonzales-Backen, 2011). Similarly, attitudinal familismfailed to buffer against peer discrimination inpredicting depressive symptoms and psycholog-ical distress (Ayón et al., 2010; Delgado et al.,2011; Stein et al., 2013). Moreover, daughtersof 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 etal. (2010), familism may not operate as a bufferbut instead a risk reducer in the context of stressand in conjunction with ethnic identity, butmore 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, butstudies at this period suggest that parents andyouth do not universally align on attitudinalfamilism. 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 possibleinterpretations. First, consistent with accultura-tion gap models, it is likely that there are fam-ilies that align on these values and those who donot align equally on these values. Second, andperhaps more importantly for the field, little isknown about how families come to align onthese values and, more specifically, how ado-lescents come to internalize these values(Knight et al., 2011). Recent research suggeststhat 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 ethnicsocialization is likely to be one of the manypathways fostering the internalization of attitu-dinal familism, but socialization measures usedin the literature have not been specific tofamilism. This makes it unclear whether parentsexplicitly socialize around these values, or assuggested by Valdés (1996), this is done moreindirectly. Additionally, research should disen-tangle whether the messages parents provide aremore directly related to the behavioral manifes-tation of familism (i.e., completing chores) oralso 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 inLatino families and how these values are in-stilled both in the family context and extrafa-
244 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
milial contexts (e.g., school, neighborhoods) assuggested in Table 1.
Attitudinal versus behavioral familism.It is evident that attitudinal familism is associ-ated with family functioning, but how theseconstructs relate to one another in the predictionof psychological functioning is less clear inadolescence. Clarification is needed as towhether positive family functioning (e.g.,warmth, cohesion) constitutes a behavioralmanifestation of attitudinal familism, orwhether they are distinct constructs. Medita-tional models finding that attitudinal familisminfluences family functioning leading to posi-tive psychological outcomes support this no-tion. However, moderational models wouldsuggest that these are indeed separate constructsand that attitudinal familism functions as thecultural framework that influences how individ-uals interpret each other’s behavior. Althoughboth models can be true in that these values mayguide behavior but then also serve as cognitiveframes to understand that behavior, researchersshould be mindful as to what construct theirmeasure captures and which model is guidingtheir research questions as suggested by Table1. Again, longitudinal studies will be particu-larly useful in disentangling the familial andindividual mediating mechanisms.
Similarly, the literature continues to beplagued by a lack of clear theoretical and mea-surement clarity concerning adolescent attitudi-nal versus behavioral familism as predictingoutcomes. More work needs to examine thedifferential impact of both aspects of familism,with a specific focus on the intersection of thetwo as the review finds that both attitudinal andbehavioral familism can pose a threat to psy-chological and academic functioning (East &Weisner, 2009; Nolle et al., 2012; Sánchez etal., 2010). Because these studies all utilizeddifferent methodology, it is difficult to drawfirm conclusions, but it is likely that attitudinaland behavioral factors serve as both risk andprotective factors and this relationship dependsboth on the type of familism in question as wellas contextual factors (e.g., Calzada et al., 2013).
Attention to context. The contextual influ-ences that may impact the effects of familismneed to be elucidated more clearly as suggestedin Table 1. Studies demonstrating a detrimentaleffect 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, andbroader SES context in predicting academicoutcomes is not well understood; disparatefindings could be linked to different family orcultural contexts (immigrant vs. United Statesborn parents, Esparza & Sánchez, 2008; Va-lenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994). These findingsalign with a developmental science perspec-tive suggesting that contextual factors need tobe carefully considered to understand howfamilism operates in adolescence.
The relation between acculturation andfamilism is complex and studies in adolescencehave 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 norelation between acculturation variables and en-dorsement of familism values (e.g., Updegraffet al., 2005), but other studies find that bothacculturation to the United States and culture oforigin are both related to the endorsement offamilism (e.g., Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2012).These differences may be because of measure-ment and sample characteristics as some ofthese have included mostly youth living in im-migrant families, and generation or accultura-tion differences may be found in more diversesamples. However, the majority of research onthe relation of familism and acculturation failsto consider attitudinal versus behavioralfamilism, as there may be differences in theenactment of familism but not the values acrossgenerations or acculturation. Future researchshould continue to explore how attitudinal andbehavioral familism functions across contexts,with special attention paid to elucidating themechanisms that may underlie the protectiveand/or risk mechanisms.
Reporter. Differential findings across re-porter in adolescence are evident in our currentreview, and some of these differences may bebecause 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 particularlysalient (e.g., Knight et al., 2011) because of theprimary role mothers play in structuring familyenvironments and maintaining family values inthe home. Given these findings, there is a need
245FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
for closer consideration of how and why report-ers of familism are selected, and how theseperspectives can be best considered simultane-ously.
Conclusions
Taken together, we can conclude fromthese 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 offamilism. Moreover, attitudinal familism hasalso been associated with multiple positiveoutcomes in Latino youth, primarily in ado-lescence (e.g., fewer internalizing and exter-nalizing symptoms, greater social compe-tence). However, the literature is plaguedwith some significant methodological flaws.Without a gold standard measure of attitudi-nal or behavioral familism, our conclusionsacross studies are hampered. It is unclearwhat aspects of familism are particularly pro-tective and whether the aspect of familismmatters, and this is particularly salient forclarifying the differential role of attitudinalversus behavioral familism. As noted in Table1, researchers should specify the particularaspect of familism being assessed in theirstudy to reduce this confusion in the litera-ture.
Across developmental stages, researchshould more consistently examine how childgender may not only influence the internal-ization and enactment of familism, but alsoinfluence its protective or potentiating effects.Past research suggests that girls may be moreheavily burdened by obligations in adoles-cence compared to boys (Stein et al., 2013;Rafaelli & Ontai, 2004), but few studies havesystematically examined how familism maydifferentially 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 hasnot been a consistent moderator (e.g., Stein &Polo, 2014). Likely, the effects of familismacross gender depends on the aspect offamilism 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 furtherinquiry in the developmental processes asso-ciated with familism, especially longitudinalstudies that can clarify how familism mani-fests itself across development and how thismanifestation depends on transitions acrosschildhood. There is a dearth of research onfamilism in early childhood and middle child-hood to fully describe how familism unfoldsacross development, and how it may differ-entially relate to outcomes. From a parentalperspective, further work should examine thecontinuity in parental attitudinal familismacross childhood and adolescence, and how itis influenced by child directed effects or con-text directed effects. Greater attention to howthe behavioral expression of familism duringan earlier developmental stage (e.g., earlychildhood) may influence both attitudinal andbehavioral familism during later developmentmay help to differentially predict outcomes inadolescence. In the same vein, research needsto explore whether there is a developmentalshift in adolescence such that striving forautonomy leads to lessening of familism val-ues as suggested by Updegraff and colleagues(2012). Likely, there is variability in thesetrajectories during this time of identity forma-tion where some adolescents solidify andstrengthen their familistic orientation whileother adolescents move away from it; we needto understand the familial and contextual pre-dictors of these trajectories. Similarly, riskand protective mechanisms may also differacross development as familism may be pro-tective for a specific psychosocial outcome atone point in development but not at another,and this may also hold true across contextswhere expectations may be incongruent (e.g.,home and school, or home and peers).
Few studies have used longitudinal meth-odology to examine the developmental courseof familism and this work is necessary toidentify causal mediators as well track devel-opmental trajectories associated withfamilism. As we learn more about howfamilism intersects with important stage-salient issues, we will be able to clarify someof the mechanisms that underlie familism’seffects on functioning across contexts. Insummary, future research should consider theattitudinal and behavioral aspects of familismfrom both the parent and child perspective
246 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
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 niñezhasta la adolescencia. El familismo ha sido definidocomo 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 dedesarrollo han sido documentados de manera positivaen 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 laciencia del desarrollo. Los principios claves de estaperspectiva subrayados por esta revisión son la con-sideración detallada de como se desarrolla elfamilismo en un individuo a través del tiempo, comose 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 losresultados del desarrollo anterior y posterior se ofre-cen como recomendaciones para derivar un entendi-miento mas completo del funcionamiento delFamilismo en las familias Latinas.
References
Ayón, C., Marsiglia, F. F., & Bermudez-Parsai, M.(2010). Latino family mental health: Exploring therole of discrimination and familismo. Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 38, 742–756. doi:10.1002/jcop.20392
Bámaca-Colbert, M. Y., & Gayles, J. G. (2010).Variable-centered and person-centered approachesto studying Mexican-origin mother–daughter cul-tural orientation dissonance. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 39, 1274–1292. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9447-3
Bámaca-Colbert, M. Y., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., &Gayles, J. G. (2012). A developmental-contextualmodel of depressive symptoms in Mexican-originfemale 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). BienEducado: 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 & FamilyReview, 36, 35–65. doi:10.1300/J002v36n01_03
Calderón-Tena, C. O., Knight, G. P., & Carlo, G.(2011). The socialization of prosocial behavioraltendencies among Mexican American adolescents:The role of familism values. Cultural Diversityand 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 aframework 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 DominicanFamilies 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 ofcultural constructs in Mexican Americans. Journalof 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 familialinfluence and adolescents’ attitude toward sub-stance use in the theory of planned behavior: Asocial 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 andMexican-origin adolescents’ adjustment: Themoderating roles of adolescents’, mothers’, andfathers’ cultural orientations and values. Journal of
247FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
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 (6thed.) [The psychology of the Mexican: Discovery ofethnopsychology]. 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 ofurban, 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. TheJournal of Early Adolescence, 8, 325–343.
Fuligni, A., & Pedersen, S. (2002). Family obligationand 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). Attitudestoward 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 childrenof Mexican descent: Do family cultural valuesmoderate 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 amongLatino 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 Ricanmothers. Social Work, 52, 17–30. doi:10.1093/sw/52.1.17
Hafford, C. (2010). Sibling caretaking in immigrantfamilies: 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 thepost-war adjustment of Bosnian young adoles-cents. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 219–235.
Keefe, S. E. (1984). Real and ideal extendedfamilism among Mexican Americans and AngloAmericans: On the meaning of close family ties.Human Organization, 43, 65–69.
Karoly, L. A., & Gonzalez, G. C. (2011). Early careand 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 andfamily processes among adolescents from LatinAmerican, 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 relatedvalues in Mexican American families. Journal ofMarriage 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. ChildDevelopment 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 ofEarly 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 attemptsamong adolescent Latinas. Child Psychiatry andHuman 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 adolescentsfrom 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.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
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 newfamilism 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 andthe self: Implications for cognition, emotion, andmotivation. 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 SocialWork, 18, 203–220. doi:10.1080/15313200903070965
Masten, A. S. (2006). Developmental psychopathol-ogy: Pathways to the future. International Journalof Behavioral Development, 30, 47–54. doi:10.1177/0165025406059974
Morcillo, C., Duarte, C. S., Shen, S., Blanco, C.,Canino, G., & Bird, H. R. (2011). Parentalfamilism and antisocial behaviors: Development,gender, and potential mechanisms. Journal of theAmerican 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 ofinfants, toddlers, and preschoolers: 2001. Statisti-cal Analysis Report. NCES 2006–039. NationalCenter 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 thecontext 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, andsuicide attempts among Latina youth. Suicide andLife-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 Americanyouth. Journal of Clinical Child & AdolescentPsychology, 38, 273–285. doi:10.1080/15374410802698370
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). Associationsamong 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., VanOssMarín, B., & Perez-Stable, E. (1987). Hispanicfamilism and acculturation: What changes andwhat doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sci-ences, 9, 397–412.
Sánchez, B., Colón, Y., & Esparza, P. (2005). Therole of sense of school belonging and gender in theacademic 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 fromhigh school: The role of family obligation attitudesand 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 andself-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 onLatino adolescents’ trajectories of self-esteem andinternalizing 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 offamilism 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–childcultural value gaps and depressive symptomsamong Mexican American youth. Journal of Childand Family Studies, 23, 189–199. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9724-3
Sy, S. R. (2006). Family and work influences on thetransition 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, interparentalconflict, 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 risktaking. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25,374–387. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00331
249FAMILISM
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Alfaro, E. C., Bámaca, M. Y.,& Guimond, A. B. (2009). The central role offamilial ethnic socialization in Latino adolescents’cultural orientation. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 71, 46–60. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00579.x
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Updegraff, K., & Gonzales-Backen, M. (2011). Mexican-origin adolescentmothers’ stressors and psychosocial functioning:Examining ethnic identity affirmation andfamilism 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). Culturalvalues and substance use in a multiethnic sampleof 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 Americanfamilies: Exploring the role of familism. Journalof 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 lateadolescence. 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 AdolescentDevelopment, 2012, 59–81. doi:10.1002/cd.20004
Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the dis-tances between culturally diverse families andschools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Valenzuela, A., & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Familismand social capital in the academic achievement ofMexican 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, USneighborhood 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 MawrCollege, Bryn Mawr, PA.
Yesil-Dagli, U. (2011). Predicting ELL students’ be-ginning first grade English oral reading fluencyfrom initial kindergarten vocabulary, letter nam-ing, and phonological awareness skills. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 26, 15–29. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.06.001
Received September 5, 2013Revision 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 beavailable online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ andyou will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
250 STEIN ET AL.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Related Documents
