Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2023 Apr 13;37(4):443–452. doi: 10.1037/fam0001094

Parents’ Adaptation from Conflict: Bicultural Socialization Beliefs and Acculturative Family Conflict in Chinese American Families

Albert Y H Lo 1, Su Yeong Kim 2, Harold D Grotevant 1
PMCID: PMC10239337  NIHMSID: NIHMS1884372  PMID: 37053417

Abstract

Many Chinese American parents desire for their children to take on both Chinese heritage and mainstream American values and behaviors, referred to as their bicultural socialization beliefs. Parents’ development of such beliefs appears linked with parent-adolescent conflict concerning cultural values, yet the direction and temporal ordering of this relation is unclear. The current study aimed to resolve discrepancies in the literature through examining the bidirectional relations between Chinese American parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs and the acculturative family conflict they experience with their children. Relations were examined across two developmental periods of the children: adolescence and emerging adulthood. Data came from a longitudinal study of 444 Chinese American families from the west coast of the United States. Mothers and fathers reported on their own bicultural socialization beliefs for their children. Mothers, fathers, and adolescents/emerging adults each reported on levels of acculturative family conflict within mother-adolescent and father-adolescent dyads. Higher levels of family conflict in adolescence consistently predicted greater increases in parents’ desires for their children to be bicultural in emerging adulthood. Results have implications for interventions with Chinese American families and demonstrate Chinese American parents as capable of adapting and growing from challenging, culturally-based interactions with their children.

Keywords: bicultural socialization, parent-adolescent conflict, parenting, Chinese American, parenting cognitions

Parents’ approaches to raising their children, such as their socialization beliefs and parenting behaviors, are influenced by their cultural and social contexts (Bornstein & Lansford, 2010; Harkness & Super, 2006; Okagaki & Bingham, 2005). Such a process is complex for Chinese American parents, as their contextual experiences are often culturally pluralistic. For example, Chinese American parents with recent immigration histories retain to a degree the parenting approaches and cultural values from their heritage cultures while simultaneously being exposed to one or more new cultures in their destination country (Bornstein & Cote, 2010; Cheah et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 2010). Even Chinese American parents born within the United States value their ethnic heritage culture when socializing their children (Juang et al., 2018b). Thus, in socializing their children to be successful, Chinese American parents navigate Chinese heritage and mainstream American values that may at times reflect different philosophies to parenting (Bornstein & Cote, 2010; Cheah et al., 2013; Lieber et al., 2004).

Many Chinese American parents hope their children will adopt aspects of both Chinese heritage culture and “mainstream” American culture, referred to as parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs (Kim & Hou, 2016). As such beliefs involve simultaneous emphasis of heritage and destination cultures, they reflect models that view acculturation as bidimensional (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2010). To illustrate, one value often associated with Chinese culture is the importance of respecting and listening to adults (Cheah et al., 2013; Uttal & Han, 2011). A parent may wish their child to display this value at home, and at the same time, believe their child must learn social behaviors that are rewarded in United States society, such as negotiation skills (Uttal & Han, 2011). Few existing studies have quantitatively examined relations between bicultural socialization beliefs and family processes among Chinese American families. Instead, work has examined Asian American parents’ socialization beliefs associated with their ethnic heritage culture separately from their socialization beliefs associated with mainstream western (e.g., European American) culture (e.g., Padmawidjaja & Chao, 2010). Determining how uniquely bicultural socialization beliefs fit within family processes would increase understanding of Chinese American family experiences in ways that reflect parents’ bicultural realities. To this end, the current study examined bidirectional influences between Chinese American parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs and acculturative family conflict with their children.

Parenting Cognitions and Transactional Processes

Bicultural socialization beliefs reflect how parents think about their child’s values and behaviors. They are thus categorized under parenting cognitions, which include parents’ beliefs, goals, knowledge, and other cognitive processes (Bornstein et al., 2018; Okagaki & Bingham, 2005). Parenting cognitions have significant implications for parenting behaviors and parent-child interactions (Bornstein et al., 2018; Johnston et al., 2018; Okagaki & Bingham, 2005). In the case of bicultural socialization beliefs, such cognitions are reflected through parents’ exposing their children to environments (e.g., schools/daycare) where they can be socialized to mainstream American attitudes and behaviors, while also ensuring that their children adopt the attitudes and behaviors of their Chinese heritage culture (e.g., teaching them the Chinese language; Uttal & Han, 2011). Thus, bicultural socialization beliefs play a role in the intergenerational transmission of biculturalism (Kim & Hou, 2016). Bicultural identity appears beneficial for ethnic-minority and immigrant persons, such as for their psychological adjustment (Choi et al., 2018; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013). Thus, it is important to understand how parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs function within Chinese American families.

Although tests of parenting cognition theory often emphasize the implications of cognitions for family outcomes (Bornstein et al., 2018), parents’ thought processes are also influenced by their child’s qualities and/or their relationships with their child (Kiang et al., 2017; Schofield & Weaver, 2016; Van Eldik et al., 2017). Similarly, among western families, children have been found to play important roles in changing their parents’ values and approaches to parenting through their interactions (e.g., Dillon, 2002; Kuczynski et al., 2016). Such findings are consistent with transactional theories of child development, wherein the socialization of the child occurs in the context of continuous bidirectional influences between parent and child (Bornstein, 2009; Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015; Sameroff & Mackenzie, 2003). They are also consistent with family systems perspectives in which parents’ values can both inform family interactions and change in response to them (Minuchin, 1985). Application of transactional and family systems models to parents’ desires for their children to be bicultural would further our knowledge of how Chinese American parents socialize their children. Consistent with bidimensional models of acculturation, bicultural socialization beliefs would presumably relate to family processes involving navigation of multiple sets of cultural attitudes and behaviors. One such process in Chinese American families could be acculturative family conflict.

Significance of Acculturative Family Conflict

Literature on western families indicate that many parents and their adolescent children engage in conflict over common issues as part of an ongoing negotiation over the adolescent’s autonomy (Branje, 2018; Collins & Steinberg, 2008; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Efforts to expand this literature across cultural contexts have identified how parents and adolescents with ethnic-minority backgrounds may also conflict over topics that reflect discrepancies in cultural values (Lee et al., 2000; Lui, 2015; Ying, 1999). For example, interviews with Asian American family members have identified discrepant parent-adolescent views in areas of filial piety, academic expectations, and parent’s level of control as sources of disagreements (e.g., Lee et al., 2000). In such disagreements, many parents report emphasizing attitudes consistent with their more collectivistic heritage culture (e.g., higher expectations and stricter control), whereas their children often emphasize values attributed to mainstream western culture (e.g., greater individuality for themselves; Lee et al., 2000; Lieber et al., 2004; Qin, 2008). Of note, many topics of disagreements also appear to reflect generational differences in values (Zhou et al., 2017). Lastly, acculturative family conflict in Asian American families and conflict in western families appear to differ in their developmental timings. Within western families, conflict over everyday topics is typically greater in early adolescence, as issues of autonomy become salient, and then decreases through adolescence and young adulthood (Laursen et al., 1998; Laursen & Collins, 2009). In contrast, acculturative family conflict for Asian American families appears to increase in mid adolescence and remain significant (or even increase) in emerging adulthood (Juang et al., 2018a; Nelson et al., 2015). Such a difference may be due to cultural values of interdependence in many Asian American families leading expectations of autonomy to present later than what is seen in western families (Fuligni, 1998; Padmawidjaja & Chao, 2010).

Overall, ethnic minority parents and their children are exposed to multiple sets of cultural values, including both heritage and mainstream western cultural values, and disagreements in the importance of different values for the adolescent’s life can be sources of conflict within the family (Lee et al., 2000; Zhou et al., 2017). Acculturative family conflict has remained of focus in the ethnic minority literature due to its association with negative outcomes for adolescents and young adults, such as poorer psychological adjustment and academic outcomes (Lui, 2015). Determining how acculturative family conflict relates to parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs would thus provide more clarity on paths to adjustment for Chinese American youth.

Existing Discrepancies in Bidirectional Relations

Extant literature presents differing hypotheses on the direction and temporal ordering of the relation between bicultural socialization beliefs and acculturative family conflict. To begin, interviews with Chinese American parents suggest their appreciation of bicultural values in their child could be protective against later conflict. Such literature has involved parents’ adopting more bicultural approaches to parenting and incorporating more mainstream American values into their socialization goals. For example, Qin (2008) described one Chinese immigrant mother who supported her child’s own decision-making as opposed to insisting on an approach of strict control that is often ascribed to Chinese parenting. This adaptation reportedly reduced the possibility of parent-child conflict. In addition, Cheah and colleagues (2013) reported that Chinese immigrant parents expressed their bicultural socialization beliefs through being less restrictive in their parenting, placing less emphasis on academic achievement, and adopting more approaches to parenting that they associate with United States culture. Such behaviors contrast with cited sources of conflict among Asian American families (Lee et al., 2000). The potential protective role of bicultural socialization beliefs is further supported by literature on an intervention for family conflict within Chinese American families. Evaluation of the Strengthening Intergenerational/Intercultural Ties in Immigrant Families intervention found evidence of improvement in parent-child relationships for Chinese American families, in part through helping parents understand differences between mainstream European American and heritage cultures, differences between their own and their child’s values, and how mainstream European American culture influences the development of their child (Ying, 1999; 2009).

A second line of evidence suggests that acculturative family conflict could affect parents’ desires for their children to be bicultural. Acculturative family conflict does appear to influence Asian American parents. For example, higher levels of conflict are related to higher levels of depressive symptoms and lower perceptions of overall parenting competence in Asian American parents (Kiang et al., 2017; Kim, 2011). Such findings raise the question of whether conflict is solely detrimental to Chinese American parents, or whether parents could potentially grow from these interactions (e.g., through the development of more bicultural values for their children). Evidence for the latter can be found in interviews with Chinese American parents about their cultural experiences. Conflicts between Chinese immigrant parents and their adolescent children over cultural values have led some parents to try exploring and evaluating both U.S. culture and their own heritage-culture values when managing their parental approaches (Lieber et al., 2004). Lieber and colleagues (2004) found that parents balanced their Chinese heritage beliefs of strict compliance with mainstream American views of independence when compromising with their children around obedience. Qin (2008) described Chinese immigrant parents altering their more traditional Chinese parenting practices following conflict because they realized such strategies were no longer effective in a new cultural context. Specifically, parents adapted their parenting beliefs and behaviors by becoming more democratic (e.g., allowing their child to make more of their own decisions) and treating their child’s more acculturated values and choices with respect. Parents described by Qin (2008) still retained Confucian aspects in their expectations for their children, suggesting an overall bicultural parenting approach. These examples suggest parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs could develop in response to conflict between themselves and their children. Such an idea aligns with theories of children being important agents in the development of their parents (Dillon, 2002; Kuczynski et al., 2016).

The relation between Chinese American parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs and acculturative family conflict requires further examination. In clarifying the direction and temporal ordering of the relation, it would be important to focus on the periods of mid/late-adolescence and emerging adulthood, as these stages are significant for acculturative conflict within Asian American families (Juang et al., 2018a; Zhou et al., 2017). Within ethnic and racial minority families, parent’s cultural socialization practices also continue to be influential throughout adolescence and into adulthood, suggesting connections between the constructs would be most identifiable around these time periods (Hughes et al., 2006; Kim & Hou, 2016).

Parent Gender Differences

Examinations of heterosexual, two-parent families benefit from accounting for both mother-child and father-child dyads, as mothers and fathers may differ in their parenting based on gender roles (Palkovitz et al., 2014). This point is particularly true for studies of Chinese American families, as the immigration process (and resulting adaptation to the new country) may alter pre-existing gender roles in parenting (Lamb & Bougher, 2009). For example, in some Chinese immigrant families, economic difficulties post-immigration may contribute to mothers working more outside of the home and spending less time with their children than they did in their heritage country, thus changing the gender role dynamic within the family (Qin, 2009).

Among ethnic Chinese parents living in western countries, mothers appear to play a larger role than fathers in the transmission of bicultural values and the development of ethnic identity in children (Kim & Hou, 2016; Su & Costigan, 2009). However, Chinese American fathers may still have a significant role in the development of their child’s Chinese and American cultural orientations (Kim & Hou, 2016). In addition, Chinese American fathers’ socialization practices around racial stigma (e.g., speaking with their children about racial discrimination) more strongly predicted adolescents’ perceptions of estrangement from American culture than did mothers’, indicating that fathers’ ethnic-racial socialization processes could exert more influence on their children under certain circumstances (Benner & Kim, 2009). Lastly, among Chinese American father-adolescent dyads but not mother-adolescent dyads, higher levels of parental stress around navigating bicultural contexts was related to higher levels of acculturative parent-adolescent conflict, suggesting there may be gender differences in parents’ approaches to conflict in Chinese American families (Hou et al., 2016).

The Current Study

The current study aimed to determine the concurrent and predictive relations between Chinese American mothers’ and fathers’ bicultural socialization beliefs and their acculturative family conflict with their children. Focus was placed on mid/late-adolescence and emerging adulthood. Drawing from theories on acculturation, parenting, and the transactional nature of development, three questions were of interest: 1) Do parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs in adolescence predict changes in levels of acculturative conflict in emerging adulthood, 2) Does such conflict in adolescence predict changes in parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs in emerging adulthood; and 3) Are the two constructs related within the two developmental periods? It was hypothesized the two constructs would be related both concurrently and over time due to their shared focus on bicultural parent-child processes and the acculturated values of youth. No hypotheses were made about the direction (i.e., positive or negative) or temporal ordering (i.e., conflict preceding beliefs or beliefs preceding conflict) of the effects, as the extant literature presents differing possibilities.

Studies involving acculturative family conflict have often utilized adolescents’ and/or young adults’ reports of conflict as opposed to reports from parents (e.g., Juang et al., 2018a; Lee et al., 2000; Lui, 2015). However, interviews with Chinese American parents suggest the importance of capturing parents’ own perceptions of conflict with their child in understanding parents’ socialization beliefs (Lieber et al., 2004; Qin, 2008). Thus, the current study examined the proposed research questions first using parents’ reports of bicultural socialization beliefs and parents’ reports of family conflict. The questions were then examined using parents’ reports of bicultural socialization beliefs and adolescents’/emerging adults’ reports of family conflict, resulting in cross-reporter effects. Lastly, to account for the heterogeneity seen in Chinese American families, the study examined whether relations between the two constructs over time were moderated by adolescent immigration status, adolescent gender, or family income.

Method

Participants

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study. Participants included mothers, fathers, and adolescents/emerging adults from a three-wave longitudinal study of 444 Chinese American families (Kim et al., 2017). For the current study, data came from Wave 2 (W2; adolescence; n = 350 families; collected in 2006) and Wave 3 (W3; emerging adulthood; n = 330 families; collected in 2010). Adolescents at W2 were between the ages of 16 and 19 (M=17.04, SD=0.73), with W3 data collection occurring approximately 4 years later. Approximately half of the adolescents were female (58% at W2) and the rest identified as male. For both waves, median family income was $45001-$60000, and mothers and fathers had median levels of education of completion of high school. Ninety percent of mothers and 87% of fathers were born outside of the US, and 75% of children were U.S.-born. Of the parents who immigrated, most were from southern China or Hong Kong. Among parents in the sample, a variety of occupations were present, ranging from unskilled to professional jobs.

Procedure

At Wave 1 (W1), recruitment of adolescents and parents occurred through seven middle schools in metropolitan Northern California. Chinese American students in the schools were first identified with the help of school administrators. Parent consent and adolescent assent procedures were then conducted through sending letters to the families of the students. Letters sent to eligible families contained descriptions of the research study written in both Chinese and English. Upon completion of consent and assent procedures, families were given packets containing questionnaires for the mother, father, and adolescent to be completed independently.

Questionnaires were available in Chinese and English, and participants chose which version to complete. Preparation of the two versions involved translation of the English version of the questionnaire into Chinese followed by translation back into English. Bilingual/bicultural research assistants addressed any inconsistencies between the back-translated versions and the initial English versions of the questionnaires. Research personnel went to the schools two to three weeks after packets were initially sent to collect completed questionnaires. Of the families identified across the seven schools, 47% completed consent and assent procedures; of these families, 76% returned questionnaires. Families who participated at W1 of the study were contacted again to participate in the study four years later for W2 and four years after that for W3. Families were financially compensated for returning questionnaires at each wave in which they participated, with $30 given at W1, $50 at W2, and $130 at W3. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the three-wave longitudinal study was received at the University of California Davis for W1, Arizona State University for W2, and University of Texas at Austin for W3.

Measures

Bicultural Socialization Beliefs

The current study used a 3-item self-report scale to measure Bicultural Socialization Beliefs in Chinese American mothers and fathers. The scale was created for the three-wave study and was administered at W2 and W3 (Kim & Hou, 2016). The three items in the scale are: 1) “To be successful in America, my child needs to pick up some American values and behaviors”, 2) “I want my child to be ‘American’ but still retain parts of his/her Chinese culture”; and 3) “Even though I would like my child to follow the Chinese way of doing things, I know s/he should follow some American ways to ensure a good future in America”. Items were developed from qualitative studies on bicultural socialization beliefs in Chinese immigrant families (Kim & Hou, 2016; Lieber et al., 2004). Specifically, the first two items capture parents’ goals for their child to be bicultural, whereas the third reflects parents’ acknowledgement of the value of both Chinese heritage culture and mainstream western culture for their child. Mothers and fathers rated each item on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and scores on items were averaged together. During its creation, the scale demonstrated good psychometric properties at W2. Specifically, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in which single-factor solutions were tested for mother-report, father-report, and adolescent-report versions of the measure simultaneously in the same model. Model fit was as follows: χ2(23) = 32.42, p = .09; RMSEA = .03 [.00, .06]; CFI = .99, SRMR = .03 (Kim & Hou, 2016). In that same study, the mother-report and father-report versions of the measure displayed convergent validity through significant correlations with measures of parents’ Chinese, American, and Chinese American cultural orientations (r’s = .13 - .35; Kim & Hou, 2016), thus demonstrating the construct’s bicultural nature. At W2, internal consistencies were α = .77 for mothers and α = .82 for fathers. At W3, internal consistencies were α = .79 for mothers and α = .80 for fathers.

Acculturative Family Conflict

Acculturative family conflict was measured at W2 and W3 using the Asian American Family Conflict Scale (FCS; Lee et al., 2000). The FCS is a ten-item self-report scale completed by adolescents and young adults regarding their relationships with their parents. Each item describes a situation reflecting acculturative family conflict within Asian American families. Respondents are asked to indicate how likely each situation was to occur between themselves and their parents on a scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Items on the scale consist of two parts in order to emphasize differences between parent and child on certain attitudes and behaviors (e.g., “Your parent always compares you to others, but you want them to accept you for being yourself”). In the context of the FCS, conflict is conceptualized as disagreements between parent and child around behaviors and values, and the way items are scored reflects likelihood of such disagreements as opposed to intensity (Lee et al., 2000). The current study also utilized a version of the FCS adapted to be completed by mothers and fathers. Items were changed to reflect likelihood of acculturative family conflict from the parent’s point of view (e.g., “I tell my child what to do with her/his life, but s/he wants to make her/his own decisions”). For both versions of the scale, conflict was measured at the parent-child dyad level. That is, an adolescent/emerging adult responded to items regarding conflict with their mother and father separately, and mothers and fathers responded to items regarding conflict between herself/himself and her/his child. Responses on items within each scale were averaged together, resulting in four scales at each of the two waves: adolescent’s reports on the mother-adolescent dyad, adolescent’s reports on the father-adolescent dyad, mother’s reports on the mother-adolescent dyad, and father’s reports on the father-adolescent dyad. Higher average scores indicated higher reported likelihood of acculturative family conflict. The FCS has previously displayed excellent reliability and validity in Asian Americans samples, including convergence with measures of cultural orientation, acculturative family stress, and family functioning (Lee et al., 2000). In addition, the FCS has been used widely in studies of acculturative family conflict in Asian American samples (see Lui, 2015 for review). Internal consistencies for the eight total scales in the current study ranged from α = .84 to α = .91.

Analysis Plan

Missing data were addressed using full-information maximum likelihood estimation in MPlus 8 software (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). This method resulted in 382 families for models with parent-reports of conflict and 388 families for models with adolescent-reports of conflict. Examination of the relation between parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs and acculturative family conflict involved creation of dyadic cross-lagged panel models (Figure 1). Cross-lagged panel models for mother-adolescent and father-adolescent dyads were modeled simultaneously, and residual variances of identical variables across mothers and fathers were correlated to account for mother-father dependency. Residual variances of variables within each time-point were also correlated within each dyad.

Figure 1. Conceptual dyadic cross-lag model.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Note. S indicates stability paths; C indicates cross-lagged paths; R indicates residual variance correlations. Family Conflict refers to acculturative family conflict. Measures of bicultural socialization beliefs were parent-report for all models. Measures of acculturative family conflict were either parent-report or adolescent-report depending on the model.

Participants at W3 included emerging adults who varied in their living situations and consequently their levels of contact with their parents. Emerging adults with less contact would presumably have fewer opportunities to engage in acculturative family conflict and/or be exposed to their parents’ socialization influences. To account for this factor, emerging adult living situation at W3 was included as a covariate in all analyses. The covariate was a binary variable (yes/no) that asked whether emerging adults lived with at least one of their birth parents (10.6% endorsed ‘no’ at W3). No other covariates were included, given that some confounding variables for any cross-lagged effects would be controlled by the nature of there being autoregressive paths (Zyphur et al., 2020). In other words, study variables at W2 would presumably include variability from confounding factors and thus control for them in cross-lagged paths. Furthermore, there were concerns around introducing more variables given the already complicated nature of the dyadic cross-lagged models.

First, stability paths from W2 variables to W3 variables were specified; then, all cross-lagged paths were introduced. Directions of effect were determined through examining significance of the regression coefficients for the cross-lagged paths. To test significance of differences between mother-adolescent and father-adolescent dyads, the cross-lagged panel models were compared to models in which appropriate paths were constrained to the same magnitude using chi-square difference tests. This was done for models in which cross-lagged paths differed in significance between mother-adolescent and father-adolescent dyads. Significant increases in chi-square from the base cross-lag model to a constrained model would indicate that the paths were not equal. Finally, moderation of cross-lag effects by adolescent immigration status (US-born vs not US-born), adolescent gender (male vs female), and family income (median split) were individually examined through multi-group analyses. Using chi-square difference tests, unconstrained models were compared to models in which all cross-lag paths were constrained to be equal across moderator categories. Significant chi-square differences would suggest significant differences in one or more cross-lag paths across categories that would then need to be examined individually. This study was not preregistered. The data, study materials, and analysis code are not available due to the initial criteria for IRB approval.

Results

Results from bivariate correlations (Table 1) indicated there were generally positive relations between mothers’ or fathers’ bicultural socialization beliefs and respective acculturative family conflict with the adolescent or emerging adult child. Full results from cross-lag and constrained models are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 1.

Bivariate correlations for primary study variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. W2 M. BSB -
2. W2 F. BSB .38** -
3. W3 M. BSB .40** .24** -
4. W3 F. BSB .30** .47** .40** -
5. W2 M-A Conflict (P) .32** .18** .33** .20** -
6. W2 F-A Conflict (P) .20** .19** .16* .21** .51** -
7. W3 M-A Conflict (P) .17* .06 .30** .15* .46** .35** -
8. W3 F-A Conflict (P) .24** .18** .22** .24** .39** .49** .61** -
9. W2 M-A Conflict (A) .11* .09 .20** .18** .26** .20** .37** .30** -
10. W2 F-A Conflict (A) .12* .12 .12 .09 .28** .25** .35** .33** .81** -
11. W3 M-A Conflict (A) .09 .12 .15* .20** .19** .25** .37** .34** .53** .41** -
12. W3 F-A Conflict (A) .11 .13* .02 .17** .19** .19** .28** .35** .39** .50** .80** -
M 3.78 3.85 3.85 3.88 2.44 2.49 2.34 2.34 2.81 2.67 2.46 2.34
SD .69 .70 .72 .67 .72 .69 .71 .76 .90 .90 .89 .89
Open in a new tab

Note. (P) indicates a parent-report variable whereas (A) indicates an adolescent/emerging adult-report variable. BSB = Bicultural Socialization Beliefs; M. = Mothers; F. = Fathers; M-A = Mother-Adolescent; F-A = Father-Adolescent; Conflict = Acculturative Family Conflict

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01

Table 2.

Results from models with parents’ reports of bicultural socialization beliefs and parents’ reports of acculturative family conflict

Model and Path Unst. SE St.
Cross-Lag Model
S1: W2 M. BSB → W3 M. BSB .30* .06 .30
S2: W2 M-A Conflict → W3 M-A Conflict .41* .06 .43
C1: W2 M. BSB → W3 M-A Conflict −.05 .06 −.04
C2: W2 M-A Conflict → W3 M. BSB .20* .06 .20
S3: W2 F. BSB → W3 F. BSB .39* .05 .41
S4: W2 F-A Conflict → W3 F-A Conflict .42* .06 .40
C3: W2 F. BSB → W3 F-A Conflict .10† .06 .09
C4: W2 F-A Conflict → W3 F. BSB .17* .06 .18
R1: W2 M. BSB w. W2 M-A Conflict .16* .03 .32
R2: W3 M. BSB w. W3 M-A Conflict .08* .03 .21
R3: W2 F. BSB w. W2 F-A Conflict .09* .03 .18
R4: W3 F. BSB w. W3 F-A Conflict .04† .03 .11
R5: W3 M. BSB w. W3 F. BSB .12* .03 .31
R6: W3 M-A Conflict w. W3 F-A Conflict .23* .03 .55
Open in a new tab

Note. BSB = Bicultural Socialization Beliefs; M. = Mothers; F. = Fathers; M-A = Mother-Adolescent; F-A = Father-Adolescent; Unst. = Unstandardized; St. = Standardized

*

p < .05;

†

p < .10

Table 3.

Results from models with parents’ reports of bicultural socialization beliefs and adolescents’ reports of acculturative family conflict

Model and Path Unst. SE St.
Cross-Lag Model
S1: W2 M. BSB → W3 M. BSB .36* .06 .35
S2: W2 M-A Conflict → W3 M-A Conflict .57* .04 .56
C1: W2 M. BSB → W3 M-A Conflict −.02 .04 −.01
C2: W2 M-A Conflict → W3 M. BSB .10* .05 .13
S3: W2 F. BSB → W3 F. BSB .40* .06 .42
S4: W2 F-A Conflict → W3 F-A Conflict .52* .04 .51
C3: W2 F. BSB → W3 F-A Conflict .04 .05 .03
C4: W2 F-A Conflict → W3 F. BSB .05 .04 .06
R1: W2 M. BSB w. W2 M-A Conflict .06† .04 .10
R2: W3 M. BSB w. W3 M-A Conflict .03 .03 .06
R3: W2 F. BSB w. W2 F-A Conflict .06 .04 .10
R4: W3 F. BSB w. W3 F-A Conflict .05 .03 .11
R5: W3 M. BSB w. W3 F. BSB .12* .03 .30
R6: W3 M-A Conflict w. W3 F-A Conflict .47* .04 .82
Conflict → BSB Constrained Model
S1: W2 M. BSB → W3 M. BSB .36* .06 .36
S2: W2 M-A Conflict → W3 M-A Conflict .57* .04 .56
C1: W2 M. BSB → W3 M-A Conflict −.02 .04 −.01
C2: W2 M-A Conflict → W3 M. BSB .07* .03 .09
S3: W2 F. BSB → W3 F. BSB .40* .05 .42
S4: W2 F-A Conflict → W3 F-A Conflict .52* .04 .51
C3: W2 F. BSB → W3 F-A Conflict .04 .05 .03
C4: W2 F-A Conflict → W3 F. BSB .07* .03 .10
R1: W2 M. BSB w. W2 M-A Conflict .06† .04 .10
R2: W3 M. BSB w. W3 M-A Conflict .03 .03 .06
R3: W2 F. BSB w. W2 F-A Conflict .06 .04 .10
R4: W3 F. BSB w. W3 F-A Conflict .05 .03 .11
R5: W3 M. BSB w. W3 F. BSB .12* .03 .30
R6: W3 M-A Conflict w. W3 F-A Conflict .47* .04 .82
Open in a new tab

Note. BSB = Bicultural Socialization Beliefs; M. = Mothers; F. = Fathers; M-A = Mother-Adolescent; F-A = Father-Adolescent; Unst. = Unstandardized; St. = Standardized

*

p < .05;

†

p < .10

Paired-samples t-tests were conducted to examine significance of differences in study variables over time, between mothers and fathers, between mother-adolescent and father-adolescent dyads, or across reporters. Levels of bicultural socialization beliefs did not significantly differ between mothers and fathers or change from W2 to W3. Parents’ reports of family conflict significantly decreased from W2 to W3 in both mother-adolescent [t(231) = 3.32, p = .001] and father-adolescent dyads [t(211) = 4.08, p < .001]. Similarly, adolescents’ reports of conflict decreased from W2 to W3 for both mother-adolescent [t(272) = 6.10, p < .001] and father-adolescent dyads [t(253) = 5.58, p < .001]. Adolescents/emerging adults reported higher levels of conflict with mothers than with fathers at both W2 [t(313) = −4.58, p < .001] and W3 [t(289) = −3.64, p < .001]. At W2, adolescents reported higher levels of mother-adolescent family conflict than did mothers [t(293) = −5.86, p < .001] as well as higher levels of father-adolescent family conflict than did fathers [t(263) = −2.06, p = .041]. At W3, emerging adults reported higher levels of mother-adolescent conflict than did mothers [t(283) = −2.06, p = .040].

Model with Parents’ Reports of Acculturative Family Conflict

A cross-lag model was first created using parents’ reports of bicultural socialization beliefs and parents’ reports of acculturative conflict (Table 2). Model fit statistics were as follows: χ2(8) = 22.70, p = .004; RMSEA = .07 [.04, .10]; CFI = .96, SRMR = .05. Within the cross-lag model, there was stability from W2 to W3 for all variables. Mothers’ reports of family conflict at W2 positively and significantly predicted mothers’ bicultural socialization beliefs at W3 (b = .20, SE = .06, p = .001). Mothers’ bicultural socialization beliefs at W2 were not significantly related to mothers’ reports of family conflict at W3 (b = −.05, SE = .06, p = .414). Within father-adolescent dyads, fathers’ reports of family conflict at W2 positively and significantly predicted fathers’ bicultural socialization beliefs at W3 (b = .17, SE = .06, p = .002). The path from fathers’ bicultural socialization beliefs at W2 to fathers’ reports of family conflict at W3 was marginal (b = .10, SE = .06, p = .083). All associations between bicultural socialization beliefs and family conflict within waves were positive and significant, except for the association between father’s bicultural socialization beliefs and father’s reports of family conflict at W3, which was marginal (b = .04, SE = .03, p = .085).

Model with Adolescents’ Reports of Acculturative Family Conflict

A cross-lag model was then created using parents’ reports of bicultural socialization beliefs and adolescents’ reports of acculturative family conflict (Table 3). Model fit statistics were as follows: χ2(8) = 21.62, p = .006; RMSEA = .07 [.03, .10]; CFI = .98, SRMR = .04. Adolescents’ reports of conflict with their mother at W2 significantly and positively predicted mothers’ bicultural socialization beliefs at W3 (b = .10, SE = .05, p = .022). No other cross-lag paths were significant. Autoregressive paths for mothers’ and fathers’ bicultural socialization beliefs and adolescents’ reports of family conflict with their mother and father were stable from W2 to W3. There were no significant concurrent relations between mothers’ or fathers’ bicultural socialization beliefs and adolescents’ reports of conflict with their mother or father within waves.

Parent Gender Differences and Multi-group Moderation

As the path from adolescents’ reports of family conflict at W2 to parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs at W3 in the adolescent-report model was significant within mother-adolescent dyads but nonsignificant within father-adolescent dyads, the two paths were constrained to be equal (Table 3). Model fit statistics were as follows: χ2(9) = 22.75, p = .007; RMSEA = .06 [.03, .10]; CFI = .98, SRMR = .04. The constrained model was not significantly different from the freely estimated cross-lag model, Δχ2(1) = 1.13, p = .287. Thus, there was no evidence to suggest that the paths were different between parents, and the simpler constrained model was retained. In the constrained model, adolescents’ reports of conflict at W2 positively and significantly predicted bicultural socialization beliefs at W3 across both mother-adolescent and father-adolescent dyads (b = .07, SE = .03, p = .036). Multi-group analyses conducted for the three moderation variables (adolescent immigration status, adolescent gender, family income) across both parent-report and adolescent-report models resulted in no significant chi-square differences. Full results of moderation analyses are available upon request.

Discussion

Higher levels of conflict during adolescence consistently predicted greater increases in parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs for their children during emerging adulthood. When using adolescents’ reports of conflict, the path from conflict to beliefs was initially significant for mother-adolescent dyads but not father-adolescent dyads; however, the paths ultimately did not statistically differ. This limited the interpretability of the initial parent gender difference while contributing to the consistency of the findings. Within waves, bicultural socialization beliefs were related to family conflict only when using parents’ reports of conflict. Thus, the significant concurrent relations in the current study may have been driven by shared method variance (i.e., parent reports). Instead, the positive link from conflict to beliefs over time proved to be the most consistent, and the link did not appear to vary by the proposed moderating variables.

Findings directly addressed the differing hypotheses presented in the literature. Specifically, results quantitatively validated Chinese American parents who described evaluating both heritage and destination cultural values and adapting in their socialization goals following conflict (Lieber et al., 2004; Qin, 2008). In fact, item three of the bicultural socialization beliefs scale (“Even though I would like my child to follow the Chinese way of doing things, I know s/he should follow some American ways to ensure a good future in America”) directly reflects this adaptive process. Scholars within the parenting cognitions field have called for movement beyond mere identification of outcomes and instead towards examinations of child effects on parenting cognitions, the development of parents’ cognitions, and how parents’ cognitions relate to their cultural experiences (Bornstein et al., 2018; Johnston et al., 2018; Okagaki & Bingham, 2005). Results address all three points through demonstrating how parents’ socialization beliefs develop over time in response to culturally relevant parent-child interactions.

Both bicultural socialization beliefs and acculturative family conflict appeared to be stable from adolescence to emerging adulthood, indicating that families were largely unchanged in their rank order across time. Such findings were not surprising, given how both ethnic socialization and acculturative family conflict continue to be significant across those developmental periods (Hughes et al., 2006; Kim & Hou, 2016; Zhou et al., 2017). In fact, the significance of acculturative family conflict may be even more pronounced in emerging adulthood than in adolescence for some youth (Lui, 2015; Nelson et al., 2015). Although there was a marginally positive effect of bicultural socialization beliefs predicting increased conflict within fathers-adolescent dyads, this finding was present only in the parent-report model. Thus, the effect appeared more related to the saliency of conflict for fathers as opposed to objective levels of conflict. Overall, Chinese American mothers and fathers were found to be resilient and adaptive in their roles as parents within a challenging, culturally pluralistic society.

Implications for Practice

Acculturative family conflict has consistently been found to have negative implications for adjustment in youth (Lui, 2015). Thus, both family and individual interventions focused on reducing family conflict and its negative effects are essential (Ying, 1999; Zhou et al., 2017). However, family conflict around cultural values is present in many ethnic-minority and immigrant families, and scholars have wondered whether some levels of acculturative conflict may even be normative (Juang et al., 2012). Within such a framework, results paint an optimistic picture in which parents are capable of processing acculturative family conflict they encounter and channeling it into the development of beliefs that promote multicultural identity in their children (Kim & Hou, 2016). In line with previous findings (e.g., Qin, 2008), a parent may realize that ongoing conflicts are hurting their relationship with their child, and, in pursuit of mending this relationship, strive to understand the different cultural values that are driving the conflict. As part of parent-focused interventions for addressing conflict, practitioners could nurture such a capability in parents. For example, family practitioners could help parents identify the domains in which there is conflict, explore why adolescents may have differing views, and re-evaluate both parents’ own views and adolescents’ views for their well-being. Such practices would be in line with existing culturally grounded interventions for conflict that target parents’ increased understanding of different cultural values (e.g., Szapocznik et al., 1986; Ying, 2009).

Findings indicate that many Chinese American parents have the capacity to be adaptive to challenging intergenerational and acculturative interactions with their children. In the context of individual and family-level interventions, providers could frame this adaptation as a strength Chinese American parents possess for overcoming difficult parent-adolescent conflicts (Flückiger & Grosse Holtforth, 2008; Scheel et al., 2012). Through emphasizing and building upon parents’ strengths, practitioners may be more successful in engaging Chinese American families in treatment (Conoley et al., 1994). In addition, Chinese American parents who respond to conflict through more strongly valuing bicultural values may already be trying to understand and respect the different cultural (e.g., western) pressures and influences that their child encounters outside of the family, such as at school and with friends. Such perspective-taking and understanding by parents could be emphasized by practitioners to foster more positive parent-youth interactions (Lundell et al., 2008; Qin, 2008; Szapocznik et al., 1986).

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

Strengths of the current study included the use of reports from three members within Chinese American families. This design allowed for the examination of potential mother-father differences based on gender role, the modeling of dependency between family relationships, and the acknowledgement that mothers and fathers parent within couple and family sub-systems (Lamb & Bougher, 2009; Minuchin, 1985). Furthermore, inclusion of adolescents’ reports reduced the influence of shared method variance on the relations between study variables. The current study was also strengthened by its longitudinal design that allowed for examination of temporal precedence in effects. Acculturative family conflict in adolescence predicted increases in parents’ bicultural socialization beliefs both four years later and across respondents, emphasizing the significance of the relations. Lastly, bicultural socialization beliefs were examined in a large, socio-economically diverse sample of Chinese American parents that differed from the highly educated, middle-class samples often seen in Asian American parenting cognitions literature (e.g., Cheah et al., 2013; Kiang et al., 2017). Thus, findings pertained to a segment of the Chinese American population whose voices are underrepresented.

The current study was limited by its reliance on self-report measures. Thus, shared method variance potentially still overestimated some relations (Okagaki & Bingham, 2005). In addition, the three-item measure of bicultural socialization beliefs spoke generally about Chinese values and American values as opposed to inquiring what specific values parents would like their children to adopt. This approach allowed for each parent to use their own interpretation of biculturalism. However, it prevented determination of what specific beliefs in which certain domains were influenced by acculturative family conflict. Lastly, the measure of acculturative family conflict was limited in its focus on frequency as opposed to seriousness of the disagreements (Lee et al., 2000). Thus, the current study could not differentiate between acculturative family conflicts that were more minor differences in opinion and conflicts that more severely disrupted family functioning (e.g., through emotionally laden arguments). Future examinations would be necessary to determine how intensity of conflicts may relate to parents’ bicultural beliefs and goals for their children.

Future studies could further clarify the relation between family conflict and parents’ later bicultural socialization beliefs by examining situations in which these relations may occur. For example, parents’ socioeconomic stress or difficulties navigating bicultural contexts might impede their abilities to reflect on conflict in ways that promote bicultural beliefs. Such stress could even interfere with their abilities to acknowledge that family conflict with their child is occurring. Other factors include the ethnic balance within families’ neighborhoods and parents’ work environments. In the current sample, most emerging adults continued to live at home at W3. It would be important to determine whether results are replicated among emerging adults with more varied living situations and more varied contact with the cultural influences of their parents and home environment. Lastly, future studies could focus on how parents’ increases in bicultural socialization beliefs influence their subsequent behaviors and interactions with their child. Of interest would be whether parents’ adaptations in their bicultural beliefs serve a protective function against further conflict. Determination of these outcomes would further facilitate the current study’s application to clinical practice with Chinese American families.

Acknowledgments

Support for this research was provided through awards to Su Yeong Kim from (1) Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 5R03HD051629-02 (2) Office of the Vice President for Research Grant/Special Research Grant from the University of Texas at Austin (3) Jacobs Foundation Young Investigator Grant (4) American Psychological Association Office of Ethnic Minority Affairs, Promoting Psychological Research and Training on Health Disparities Issues at Ethnic Minority Serving Institutions Grant (5) American Psychological Foundation/Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology, Ruth G. and Joseph D. Matarazzo Grant (6) California Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, Extended Education Fund (7) American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, Massachusetts Avenue Building Assets Fund, and (8) Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 3P2C HD042849-20 grant awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin. Support was also provided to Albert Y. H. Lo from the Rudd Family Foundation Chair in Psychology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Chinese American families who participated in the longitudinal study. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Maria Galano, Dr. Holly Laws, and Dr. Evelyn Mercado for their valued input on this manuscript.

Footnotes

This study was not preregistered. The data, study materials, and analysis code are not available due to the initial criteria for IRB approval. Aspects of the ideas and data in the current manuscript were initially presented in the dissertation work of Albert Y. H. Lo.

References

  1. Benner AD, & Kim SY (2009). Intergenerational experiences of discrimination in Chinese American families: Influences of socialization and stress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(4), 862–877. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00640.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bornstein MH (2009). Toward a model of cultur↔parent↔child transactions. In Sameroff A (Ed.), The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other (pp. 139–161). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/11877-008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bornstein MH, & Cote LR (2010). Immigration and acculturation. In Bornstein MH (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 531–552). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bornstein MH, & Lansford JE (2010). Parenting. In Bornstein MH (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 259–277). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, & Suwalsky JT (2018). Parenting cognitions→parenting practices→ child adjustment?: The standard model. Development and psychopathology, 30(2), 399–416. 10.1017/S095457941700Q931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Branje S. (2018). Development of parent–adolescent relationships: Conflict interactions as a mechanism of change. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 171–176. 10.1111/cdep.12278 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheah CSL, Leung CYY, & Zhou N (2013). Understanding “tiger parenting” through the perceptions of Chinese immigrant mothers: Can Chinese and U.S. parenting coexist? Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4(1), 30–40. 10.1037/a0031217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Choi Y, Park M, Lee JP, Yasui M, & Kim TY (2018). Explicating acculturation strategies among Asian American youth: Subtypes and correlates across Filipino and Korean Americans. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(10), 2181–2205. 10.1007/slQ964-018-0862-l [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins WA, & Steinberg L (2008). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In Damon W & Lerner RM (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp. 551–590). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  10. Conoley CW, Padula MA, Payton DS, & Daniels JA (1994). Predictors of client implementation of counselor recommendations: Match with problem, difficulty level, and building on client strengths. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(1), 3–7. 10.1037/0022-0167.41.1.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dillon JJ (2002). The role of the child in adult development. Journal of Adult Development, 9(4), 267–275. 10.1023/A:1020286910678 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Flückiger C, & Grosse Holtforth M (2008). Focusing the therapist’s attention on the patient’s strengths: A preliminary study to foster a mechanism of change in outpatient psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(7), 876–890. 10.1002/jclp.20493 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fuligni AJ (1998). Authority, autonomy, and parent–adolescent conflict and cohesion: A study of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 782–792. 10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.782 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Harkness S, & Super CM (2006). Themes and variations: Parental ethnotheories in Western cultures. In Rubin K (Ed.), Parental beliefs, parenting, and child development in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 61–79). New York: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hou Y, Kim SY, & Wang Y (2016). Parental acculturative stressors and adolescent adjustment through interparental and parent–child relationships in Chinese American families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1466–1481. 10.1007/slQ964-016-0441-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hughes D, Rodriguez J, Smith EP, Johnson DJ, Stevenson HC, & Spicer P (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: a review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747–770. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnston C, Park JL, & Miller NV (2018). Parental cognitions: Relations to parenting and child behavior. In Sanders M & Morawska A (Eds.), Handbook of parenting and child development across the lifespan (pp. 395–414). Springer, Cham. [Google Scholar]
  18. Juang LP, Hou Y, Bayless SD, & Kim SY (2018a). Time-varying associations of parent–adolescent cultural conflict and youth adjustment among Chinese American families. Developmental Psychology, 54(5), 938–949. 10.1037/dev0000475 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Juang LP, Park I, Kim SY, Lee RM, Qin D, Okazaki S, Swartz TT, & Lau A (2018b). Reactive and proactive ethnic–racial socialization practices of second-generation Asian American parents. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 4–16. 10.1037/aap000Q101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Juang LP, Syed M, Cookston JT, Wang Y, & Kim SY (2012). Acculturation-based and everyday family conflict in Chinese American families. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2012(135), 13–34. 10.1002/cd.20002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kiang L, Glatz T, & Buchanan CM (2017). Acculturation conflict, cultural parenting self-efficacy, and perceived parenting competence in Asian American and Latino/a families. Family Process, 56(4), 943–961. 10.1111/famp,12266 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim E. (2011). Intergenerational acculturation conflict and Korean American parents’ depression symptoms. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 32(11), 687–695. 10.3109/01612840.2011.597017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kim SY, Chen S, Sim L, & Hou Y (2017). Stability and change in parenting and adjustment profiles across early, middle, and late adolescence in Chinese American families. In Choi Y & Hahm HC (Eds.), Asian American Parenting (pp. 69–88). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-63136-3_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kim SY, & Hou Y (2016). Intergenerational transmission of tridimensional cultural orientations in Chinese American families: The role of bicultural socialization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1452–1465. 10.1007/s10964-016-0423-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kuczynski L, & De Mol J (2015). Dialectical models of socialization. In Overton WF, Molenaar PCM, & Lerner RM (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and method (pp. 323–368). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy109 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuczynski L, Pitman R, Ta-Young L, & Harach L (2016). Children’s influence on their parent’s adult development: Mothers’ and fathers’ receptivity to children’s requests for change. Journal of Adult Development, 23(4), 193–203. 10.1007/s10804-016-9235-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lamb ME, & Bougher LD (2009). How does migration affect mothers’ and fathers’ roles within their families? Reflections on some recent research. Sex Roles, 60(7-8), 611–614. 10.1007/s11199-009-9600-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Laursen B, & Collins WA (2009). Parent-child relationships during adolescence. In Lerner RM & Steinberg L (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 3–42). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  29. Laursen B, Coy KC, & Collins WA (1998). Reconsidering changes in parent-child conflict across adolescence: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 69(3), 817–832. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.00817.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee RM, Choe J, Kim G, & Ngo V (2000). Construction of the Asian American family conflicts scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(2), 211–222. 10.1037/0022-0167.47.2.211 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lieber E, Nihira K, & Mink IT (2004). Filial piety, modernization, and the challenges of raising children for Chinese immigrants: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Ethos, 32(3), 324–347. 10.1525/eth.2004.32.3.324 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lui PP (2015). Intergenerational cultural conflict, mental health, and educational outcomes among Asian and Latino/a Americans: Qualitative and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 404–446. 10.1037/a0038449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lundell LJ, Grusec JE, McShane KE, & Davidov M (2008). Mother–adolescent conflict: Adolescent goals, maternal perspective-taking, and conflict intensity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(3), 555–571. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00571.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Minuchin P (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56(2), 289–302. 10.2307/1129720 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Muthén LK and Muthén BO (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén [Google Scholar]
  36. Nelson SC, Bahrassa NF, Syed M, & Lee RM (2015). Transitions in young adulthood: Exploring trajectories of parent–child conflict during college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(3), 545–551. 10.1037/cou0000078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Nguyen AMD, & Benet-Martínez V (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 122–159. 10.1177/0022022111435097 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Okagaki L, & Bingham GE (2005). Parents’ social cognitions and their parenting behaviors. In Luster T & Okagaki L (Eds.), Monographs in parenting. Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 3–33). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  39. Padmawidjaja IA, & Chao RK (2010). Parental beliefs and their relation to the parental practices of immigrant Chinese Americans and European Americans. In Russell ST, Crockett LJ, & Chao RK (Eds.), Asian American parenting and parent-adolescent relationships (pp. 37–60). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  40. Palkovitz R, Trask BS, & Adamsons K (2014). Essential differences in the meaning and processes of mothering and fathering: Family systems, feminist and qualitative perspectives. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 406–420. 10.1111/jftr.12048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Qin DB (2008). Doing well vs. feeling well: Understanding family dynamics and the psychological adjustment of Chinese immigrant adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(1), 22–35. 10.1007/s10964-007-9220-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Qin DB (2009). Gendered processes of adaptation: Understanding parent–child relations in Chinese immigrant families. Sex Roles, 60(7-8), 467–481. 10.1007/s11199-008-9485-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Sameroff AJ, & Mackenzie MJ (2003). Research strategies for capturing transactional models of development: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology, 15(3), 613–640. 10.1017/S0954579403000312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Scheel MJ, Davis CK, & Henderson JD (2012). Therapist use of client strengths: A qualitative study of positive processes. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(3), 392–427. 10.1177/0011000012439427 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schofield TJ, & Weaver JM (2016). Democratic parenting beliefs and observed parental sensitivity: Reciprocal influences between coparents. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 509–515. 10.1037/fam0000166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Schwartz SJ, Unger JB, Zamboanga BL, & Szapocznik J (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251. 10.1037/a0019330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Steinberg L, & Morris AS (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 83–110. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.83 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Su TF, & Costigan CL (2009). The development of children’s ethnic identity in immigrant Chinese families in Canada: The role of parenting practices and children’s perceptions of parental family obligation expectations. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(5), 638–663. 10.1177/0272431608325418 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Szapocznik J, Rio A, Perez-Vidal A, Kurtines W, Hervis O, & Santisteban D (1986). Bicultural Effectiveness Training (BET): An experimental test of an intervention modality for families experiencing intergenerational/intercultural conflict. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 8(4), 303–330. 10.1177/07399863860084001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Uttal L, & Han C. y. (2011). Taiwanese immigrant mothers’ childcare preferences: Socialization for bicultural competency. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(4), 437–443. 10.1037/a0025435 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Eldik WM, Prinzie P, Deković M, & de Haan AD (2017). Longitudinal associations between marital stress and externalizing behavior: Does parental sense of competence mediate processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(4). 10.1037/fam0000282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ying YW (1999). Strengthening intergenerational/intercultural ties in migrant families: A new intervention for parents. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(1), 89–96. 10.1002/(sici)1520-6629(199901)27:1<89::aid-jcop6>3.0.co;2-o [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Ying YW (2009). Strengthening Intergenerational/Intercultural Ties in Immigrant Families (SITIF): A parenting intervention to bridge the Chinese American intergenerational acculturation gap. In Trinh N, Rho YC, Lu FG, & Sanders KM (Eds.), Handbook of mental health and acculturation in Asian American families (pp. 45–64). Humana Press. 10.1007/978-1-60327-437-1_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhou X, Wu CS, Juan MJD, & Lee RM (2017). Understanding and Addressing Parent-Adolescent Conflict in Asian American Families. In Choi Y & Hahm HC (Eds.), Asian American parenting: Family process and intervention (pp. 143–163). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-63136-3_7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Zyphur MJ, Allison PD, Tay L, Voelkle MC, Preacher KJ, Zhang Z, Hamaker EL, Shamsollah A, Pierides DC, Koval P, & Diener E (2020). From data to causes I: Building a general cross-lagged panel model (GCLM). Organizational Research Methods, 23(4), 651–687. 10.1177/1094428119847278 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES